A WARNING TO CYCLISTS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 856, 27 December 1929, Page 7

A WARNING TO CYCLISTS

AMATEUR racing cyclists in Auckland would do well to consider seriously the warning issued by the New Zealand Amateur Athletic Association against competing at a meeting which is being held under the auspices of the New Zealand Union of Cyclists. The N.Z.A.A.A. is the one and only controlling body for the great mass of amateur athletes and cyclists throughout the Dominion. Unless the new!y-formed New Zealand Union of Cyclists can attract the bulk of the amateur cyclists of New Zealand to its ranks, it will be in no position to dictate terms to the N.Z.A.A.A., in the event of the new movement falling through, as one of its prime movers suggests. On the contrary, it stands a good chance of being refused recognition, and any rider who competes under its auspices renders himself liable to disqualification, perhaps for life. It is no use calling the warning of the N.Z.A.A.A. “only bluff.” It is the controlling body of amateur cycling in New Zealand, and that being so, it was bound to issue such a warning. Furthermore, any disqualification it imposed would be farreaching. Some may have nothing’ to lose by such an event. Others, who are high-class riders, would find themselves barred from New Zealand championships and outside meetings. In the event of overseas tours, they could not be picked in any team under the auspices of the N.Z.A.A.A. And young riders coming on, who hope some day to become champions, would be well advised also to think these things over. Even if they were transferred to another centre, they might find themselves beyond the pale, as far as amateur cycling is concerned. It is little use goiug into the rights and wrongs of cycling grievances in Auckland at the present juncture. They belong to a previous regime, and in any case, they cannot be rectified by flying in the face of organised control. There may be a strong argument in favour of separate control for amateur cycling, but there is a right and a wrong way of going about it. A recent message from Christchurch suggests very strongly that the Canterbury riders, having secured better conditions by properly constituted methods, will remain loyal to the N.Z.A.A.A. The new movement in Auckland exists at present in little more than name only. Even if the Manukau Club goes over en bloc, there is no guarantee that a majority of the amateur cyclists in New Zealand will follow suit. On the contrary, if they do not, and remain loyal to the N.Z.A.A.A., it is only right to say that tlie consequences to the Manukau- Club and each and every individual rider may be very serious. —WHEELMAN.