CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Champion System

cycling team (2010-2013)

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 6, 2026
Entity authorityQ611425 ↗
Source-derived summary

Champion System Pro Cycling Team (UCI team code: CSS) was a Chinese professional cycling team, that competed between 2010 and 2013. The team was based in China and it participated in UCI Professional Continental and UCI World Tour races. In an interview in October 2013 the team's general manager Ed Beamon announced that the team would disband at the end of the season due to its main sponsor withdrawing their support.

Final team roster

As of 31 December 2013.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Champion System” as cycling team (2010-2013). Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2010, 2013—that can be checked directly. The linked authority record independently contributes the date 2010. The account is most persuasive where Champion, System and cycling can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as cycling team (2010-2013). Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 6, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q611425. 1 of 2 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 2010 and 2013.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Champion System”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Champion System primary sources, Champion System archive and Champion research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Champion System”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Champion System” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.