What is ROAG

[Barend de Arend]

 

They create an environment where there is no motivation to join a club (you can get your licence through ROAG).

 

If the only motivation to join a club is a license' date=' it's a bad club, and it will die.

 

 

In my opinion, this is bad for our club and for cycling in general.

 

If taking away the license motivation is bad for the club, then the club will die.

 It has been shown that where clubs are strong' date=' all sports grow.

[/quote']

 

A club that is based purely on national licensing isn't a strong club, it's a weak club.

 

If people join ONLY to get a license, they will resent is like they do any other tax.  People have to join because of comraderie, or other benefits.  Otherwise you only have resentful members, and your club is weak.

 

If strong clubs grow the sport, it follows that weak clubs shrink the sport.

 

Personally' date=' I find their approach threatening.

[/quote']

 

Good!   You should feel threatened.  You are a weak club.

 

It is a clever bit of marketing. I thought compulsory licencing with CSA would put all the necessary info on one data base (it worked pretty well for the last two seasons in the Classics).

 

It failed miserably.  I'm in multiple databases.

 

a) The club

b) CGC

c) CSA

d) MyRace

e) WinningTime

f) ChampionChip

g) CycleLab online entries

 

It's a MISSION.  A good club would take care of this mess for me.  (oh' date=' wait, ROAG does!)

Instead, we have another data base. And their claim that it costs nothing has to be total garbage (these are businessmen who won?t be putting their own cash into supporting cycling). There has to be a cost, however carefully hidden.

 

Why?  There are plenty of examples where like-minded people get together to form a club that costs nothing.

 

That's how mountain biking (as a whole) got started.

 

I support licencing. I was a licenced athlete from 1965 until about six or seven years ago. It works well and strengthens the clubs' date=' so it helps the sport.

[/quote']

 

Licencing doesn't strengthen the clubs.  It's stupid and silly.

 

CYCLISTS strengthen the clubs.

 

I'm not a ROAG member, but I'm considering it.

 

[Wobbles]

Good!   You should feel threatened.  You are a weak club.

 

What drivel - pse read my posts properly.

[Wobbles]

It is simple - do something that will attract and keep members rather than whine about a concept that is clearly   more popular that whatever you are doing? This is derived from the statement you made.

An idea - use it / don't use it. I care not either way.

 

Mutt

 

Thanks for your most original and valuable insight which you lay out so articularly and politely. It is most appreciated. I will pass it on to all the other KZN clubs.

[Wobbles]

What is ROAG?

As I see it ROAG is everything that CSA and all their affiliates should be but have failed dismally to deliver. 

 

 

Exactly - well said!!

 

In the golf world one cannot play competitions without a handicap. Handicaps are only issued to registered members of clubs.

 

Golfers who did not support clubs did not like this and the Virtual Clubs were born. These Virtual Clubs piggy back on established clubs whose members pay subs to keep their golf courses in good nick. The SA Golf Union, in their greed, sanctioned these VC's and they blossomed because golfers were now paying a pittance to get an official handicap and could not give a damn about who would keep the clubs going.

 

Today these clubs are floundering and I wonder what will happen to these VC's when there are no more courses to  play?

[Aicorner]

In the past clubs organised events on a non profit basis.  That's no longer the case (partly because few cyclists offer their help for free) and the big clubs operate like businesses, so the Roag/club debate should really just be a question of who offers their "customers" more.  The more pertient debate is whether Roag will stifle competition.

 

Roag assists event organisers and cyclists by cutting out the need to duplicate the collection of rider info, and does it in a very user friendly way.  They also allow a mechanism for cheap licencing.  I think seeded starts will soon become essential, as they ar in canoeing. That's all good.  No question, I have registered with Roag [no 3132] (although I still licence through my club, which offers stuff that Roag does not)

 

What may not be all good is the possibility (and I don't know the facts - TimW ???) that organisers have to use the Mr Price timing system, or other profit driven services, to be part of Roag and the possibility that only Roag races will be seeding events for other Roag races.

 

If organisers are forced to use one system/service, or their races excluded as seeding events for the big races, that creates the same position as the Winning Time/Argus/94,7 cartel.

 

Race numbers are important for the profitability of races, making a race a seeding event for other races increases numbers.  Creating a seeding series that forces organisers to use only one timing system or other profit based service provider may take away the profit which smaller races rely on (many run on a shoesting budget & use "Elite Timing" which I understand is cheapr than Mr P).  This could threaten the great situation which we presently have in Kzn, where there is a quality mtb race virtually every weekend.

 

My experience has been that Roag, Mr P timing etc offer excellent service. I don't doubt that Roag has good intentions, but worry that Dr Frankenstien did too.  TimW, you offered to hide nothing: can races get on the Roag seeding system if they don't pay Roag associates ?  If not, how do you think this will affect smaller races ? (Are there any guarantees that Roag will place the interest of mtb-ers ahead of financial gain ?)

Aicorner2009-04-23 22:45:10

[TimW]

Sorry been working and there have been a few posts which I should reply to ... I will start here and go through point by point and try and reply to all.

 

"The more pertient debate is whether Roag will stifle competition."

I personally hope we do not, as competition breeds quality ... all of us in ROAG are competitive race organisers and we compete with each other to produce the best races. A poor race should die, or be organised by somebody better (just my viewpoint).

 

organisers have to use the Mr Price timing system, or other profit driven services

Not true ... one my races, Hill 2 Hill, cannot use Mr Price for timing as it clashes with our sponsor Jeep Apparell. Races have a "shopping" list of services we offer. They can use the timing only, or the entry process only, or etc etc. It is not prescriptive. We are not aiming to control cycling ... only try to contribute to better organised events. Hill 2 Hill will probably be using Elite Timing for Hill 2 Hill, but will use pretty much all the other ROAG services to improve our race. The decision to use MR Price as the "preferred (note, not exclusive) supplier" did not suit us, but suited ROAG (and thus MTB) as a whole, which is why Hill 2 Hill Events voted to go with Mr Price timing.

 

can races get on the Roag seeding system if they don't pay Roag associates ?  

As things stand we are basing our seeding system only on races which use our services. It is an added benefit to "our" races and I am sure you can see the reasoning behind this.

If not, how do you think this will affect smaller races ? 

Tough question and to be honest not too sure. But, our schedule of costs is based largely on numbers of riders (some things are fixed costs where it is a fixed cost to us, like providing a seeding to races), so I think even the smaller races can benefit. Remember, we don't organise their races, we simply supply systems to help organise races more effeciently. For smaller races a seeding system is not that important. If you only have 300 riders you can set them off in one batch.

 

(Are there any guarantees that Roag will place the interest of mtb-ers ahead of financial gain ?)

Anybody want to see our bank statements -- so far ROAG has done nothing but cost money, as well as a lot of time and effort? Seriously, only time will prove if we genuinely have the interests of MTB at heart, but from what I have seen at meetings, I believe everybody involved is doing this for the right reasons.

[TimW]

What is ROAG?

As I see it ROAG is everything that CSA and all their affiliates should be but have failed dismally to deliver. 

 

 

Exactly - well said!!

 

In the golf world one cannot play competitions without a handicap. Handicaps are only issued to registered members of clubs.

 

Golfers who did not support clubs did not like this and the Virtual Clubs were born. These Virtual Clubs piggy back on established clubs whose members pay subs to keep their golf courses in good nick. The SA Golf Union' date=' in their greed, sanctioned these VC's and they blossomed because golfers were now paying a pittance to get an official handicap and could not give a damn about who would keep the clubs going.

 

Today these clubs are floundering and I wonder what will happen to these VC's when there are no more courses to  play?

[/quote']

 

I agree with you about golf, but do not think golf and MTB clubs can be compared. Golf needs a huge infrastructure to survive (golf clubs are incredibly expensive to run) while MTB races can be held with much less cost for basic course infrastructure.

 

The only reason, I can see, for clubs to exist in MTB is to support official structures. In other words to generate money for CSA to operate ... which, I hasten to add, I believe is crucial in the big pictures as much as some of us may be critical of some of their decisions.

[TimW]

Hi Tim

 

Perhaps if you had communicated with the clubs as well it would have helped cast your body in a more favourable light. Here are some concerns from some of our members:-

 

"Do you know what the story is with ROAG?  I have either heard or read in their communications the following about them

They create an environment where there is no motivation to join a club (you can get your licence through ROAG). In my opinion' date=' this is bad for our club and for cycling in general. It has been shown that where clubs are strong, all sports grow.

There are rumours that at least one of the organisers tried something similar in canoeing. The rumour was not complimentary!

Personally, I find their approach threatening. The easy registration at races that they claim was all available to Cyclosport licenced riders at all the Classic MTB races for the last two years. To say ?No registration, no time?, or even worse, ?no registration, no race? is unacceptable."

" I did know most of the info on their ?about? web site. It is a clever bit of marketing. I thought compulsory licencing with CSA would put all the necessary info on one data base (it worked pretty well for the last two seasons in the Classics). Instead, we have another data base. And their claim that it costs nothing has to be total garbage (these are businessmen who won?t be putting their own cash into supporting cycling). There has to be a cost, however carefully hidden.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

I support licencing. I was a licenced athlete from 1965 until about six or seven years ago. It works well and strengthens the clubs, so it helps the sport.

 

At this stage, I intend to avoid ROAG events and to encourage others to do the same. I may have a problem as I want to ride Hill2Hill, but will face that problem when we get closer to the time! (and hope they don?t block me)"

[/quote']

 

Communications: Yes you are right, we could have communicated better with the clubs.

 

The comments on joing clubs I thinkI have answered elsewhere.

 

The canoeing thing. Don't know anything about that ... who was it? I would be pretty surprised because canoeing does not need a database of competitors because their system is very organised and entry system very slick with timing a monopoly organised by the union. There is no need.

 

Personally, I find their approach threatening. The easy registration at races that they claim was all available to Cyclosport licenced riders at all the Classic MTB races for the last two years. To say ?No registration, no time?, or even worse, ?no registration, no race? is unacceptable."

This amazes me. To enter most big races you have to register, whether it be with Cyclelab, or entrytime or with Sani 2 C organisers, or Epic organisers, or any other entry system. You then enter. We are saying, register with our system and then enter. There is noting sinister about us asking you to register to race, we simply want you to verify your details before you try and enter on the day so we can eliminate mistakes; you then arrive at the race and we already have your details, you give us your ROAG number only, and you are entered with all the correct information available to the timekeepers ... you do not have to do it every week before you race, just once. WTF is the problem!!!!!! The reasoning behind this is simple. As race organisers we would all be struggling to input 1 000 late entries before the first rider finished so timkeepers had the information. This led to mistakes and a 13-year-old girl winning the male master prize. Pre-registration on the Roag website has removed this problem and made it better for riders.

 

worked pretty well for the last two seasons in the Classics: I think a few people don't agree.

 

And their claim that it costs nothing has to be total garbage

If it is total garbage, where is the cost. Show me one person paid anything to register on the ROAG website. If they have, please tell me because somebody is ripping you off ... and I am not getting the money which is even more worrying.

 

I support licencing. I was a licenced athlete from 1965 until about six or seven years ago. It works well and strengthens the clubs, so it helps the sport.

Could not agree more, that is why we are actively promoting licencing.

 

At this stage, I intend to avoid ROAG events and to encourage others to do the same. I may have a problem as I want to ride Hill2Hill, but will face that problem when we get closer to the time! (and hope they don?t block me)"

<?: PREFIX = O />

You have every right to avoid Roag events, but I am orry to tell you this, as the Hill 2 Hill organiser you will have to register with Roag to enter. But before that upsets you, can I ask if you have entered Hill 2 Hill before, and did you register with the Entrytime database? When you rode Sani 2 C, did you give them your details (ie register).

[Grantc]

TimW

Think you & youre crew are do a fantastic job with ROAG. You have my 100% support.

[Aicorner]

TimW thanks for the comprehensive & frank response.  You have answered all my concerns.

[Gravity Sux]

I fully support what ROAG is trying to do and hope they get it right. Did the Karkloof classic last year which had batch start based on age category. Started in the last batch because I am in vets. For a race that has so much spectacular single track it was a real pain being stuck behind slower riders just because they started in earlier batches. Hopefully they use the seeding system this year.

[GTfan]

I had my first experience with ROAG on Sunday at the Juicy Lucy classic and I must they're very jacked up with the whole organising thing.

[Gman1834]

I registered my wife with ROAG all she needed to pay was her license fee, she don't want to train with a club she want to do the short races and not pay R30 for every race. I must say their service was outstanding, they even send her license by Courier.

 

They had me thinking what do I get form my club what do I pay for? a club ride were they try to break the bunch as fast as possable or a place were my license can be send to?

 

 

 

[Eldron]

Exactly - well said!!

 

In the golf world one cannot play competitions without a handicap. Handicaps are only issued to registered members of clubs.

 

Golfers who did not support clubs did not like this and the Virtual Clubs were born. These Virtual Clubs piggy back on established clubs whose members pay subs to keep their golf courses in good nick. The SA Golf Union' date=' in their greed, sanctioned these VC's and they blossomed because golfers were now paying a pittance to get an official handicap and could not give a damn about who would keep the clubs going.

 

Today these clubs are floundering and I wonder what will happen to these VC's when there are no more courses to  play?

[/quote']

 

At this point I'm gonna have to score the TimW versus Wobbles debate a clear KO to TimW.

 

Tim has provided clear and open answers to any and all questions whereas Wobbls has only offered up sceptisism based on opinions and rumours.

 

My advice to Wobbles - work with ROAG rather than against it - they seem to have hit on a winner and are garnering support from all corners...can't wait for ROAG to hit JHB!

[Mackie]

Wobblles....cyclists are the lifeblood of the sport you fool, we were cycling long before clubs and will continue long after they gone!!!I propose the FIFO rule for you...Fit In Or F%&$ Off! Jealousy makes you nasty! If clubs offer me value then I am in, if not then its up to you to make me want to join.

[ShaughnK]

hmm...

 

I wonder who was the Mavericks guy who drove out in a huff at the Juicy Lucy classic because there was a delay in starting the race ?

 

(delay caused by ROAG handing out free timing chips to every competitor, theirs to keep and use for timing at every roag organized race .)  

 

Dude, who ever you and your buddy were, bad form I thought. ( the comments around me told me most others thought the same)  Nobody else was unduly stressed. Wouldnt have been fun for the stragglers if they had started the race with guys still trying to get their timing chips loaded and sorted.

 

GMan1834, personally i still believe its best to belong to a cycling/mtb club. let roag organize the races and let clubs do their thing.