Guys,

 

Happy New Year. Everybody on this list deserves tremendous applause. Although we've all done this for different amounts of time, certainly with different degrees of resources, and certainly with variable results, collectively American cyclo-cross has come so far in the past 15 years as a result of so many contributions.

 

Now we are faced with a problem of crowding. And in such a situation, just like in a bike race, the maxim is simple: hold your line. 

 

The job of USA Cycling - and they have done a good one to date - is to take into consideration what is best for the sport as a whole. This means ALL the established and deserving promoters, ALL the regions and markets, and ALL the riders.

 

At present, we have several issues over calendar dates for the 2011 season in America. 

 

Our friends at the US Grand Prix of Cyclocross have undboutedly done a fantastic job. I'm really proud to have been a part of that success and hope to remain a part of that success. 

 

At issue, however, is that despite having three of their four weekends include one Category 1 event, due to the new ruling that requires no conflict with a World Cup and a Category 1, they are hoping to move venues and dates. 

 

The problem arises in that if they move, then upwards of five different events - some of a stellar quality in critical markets - would either be destroyed or forced to move. And this could radiate out into other regional calendar events.

 

So USA Cycling must make a hard decision.

 

I feel the obvious solution would be to have the USGP remain on its date, Oct. 22-23, 2011, as a Cat 2 weekend.  

 

My reasons are as follows:

 

1) They ran the event in 2010 as a C2 and suffered no measurable depletion in either attendance, sponsorship, or prestige.

 

2) They would not suffer any competition whatsoever as they would offer the most UCI points available that day.

 

3) The quality of their series, with its points and prizes and media, will sufficiently draw every major rider to the event that weekend. They would not lose anything whatsoever to another event and/or series.

 

4) They would be free to offer more than the minimum prize money, if the question is prestige. (They also would be welcomed to consider saving some money to apply towards their important operations.)

 

5) They would keep their events in tandem with other powerful events in key markets, thereby creating a calendar with a geographic flow that actually favors riders, sponsors, exhibitors, media, etc.

 

6) With the dissolution of the NACT, there would be no competition to their deserving brand. 

 

While I concede it would be a minor, arbitrary blemish to their prestige, staying on their currrent date as a C2 weekend would cause them no harm. Conversely, moving into their neighbors' dates would cause enormous, and catastrophic hardship on many of the deserving events promoted by our brothers and sisters. 

 

I feel it would be the most neighborly thing to do.

 

The UCI, and USA Cycling, are tightening down the regulations and improving the quality of all the events. We encourage that. And the USGP is making us all better by raising the standards.

 

But we need to consider the welfare of the entire sport. 

 

With that stated, I hereby ask all members of this list to his REPLY ALL and weigh in with their comments.

 

With respect and affection for all,

 

Richard Fries

To All as requested by Richard:

Thank you for all of the comments.  I still find it unusual that most comments
are related to telling us, the USGP, what we should do and not discussing what
you yourselves can do.   Richard, your e-mail lists 6 points all telling us what
the USGP should do - but not a lot about how you can adapt to the rule changes. 
We have ALL been impacted by the rules - and the changes have in NO way favored
us.  That said,  we have been told for the last few years that we are operating
in a free market and thus we have gone quietly about our business to try to run
the best races and series that we can.   We have simply focused on what we are
doing with a clear mission.   The mission with which we launched the USGP was to
create the best events for Elite racing that we can, to try to enable our US
riders to compete at a World Championship level.   We feel we are well on the
way to accomplishing that.   The international successes of our riders who have
consistently raced the USGP - Katie Compton, Katerina Nash, Danny Summerhill,
Yannick Eckmann, Drew Dillmann, Meredith Miller, Tim Johnson - indicate that we
have at least contributed to that positive movement.

The first thing that we feel is being overlooked is that the USGP is a national
series and this means we have additional obligations on us that stand alone
event weekends do not. Changing one piece impacts the whole organism.   We have
national sponsorships and media commitments and media plans  that are all part
and parcel of what we do week in and week out for four months.  Those
commitments come with specific deliverable and expectations that neither you,
Richard,  nor anybody else outside of our business are privy to.

That said, prestige, points and prize money DO go together in our opinion.  Due
to reasons beyond our control we had to shift the USGP Mercer Cup to Fort
Collins last season and forego our Cat 1 status on that weekend even after
lobbying the UCI to keep it a Cat 1.   Further proof that the USGP lives by the
same rules as everyone else including the Belgians, our biggest critics.   It is
our goal to unwaveringly pursue making the best events possible.   That means
making Cat 1 events as part of all of our weekends.  While it is true that we
had a great weekend in Fort Collins this last season, it was done with full
intention to make it a Cat 1/Cat 2 weekend in 2011 and that was made very clear
in our agreements with local organizing crews, sponsors, and City.  It also did
NOT conflict or compete with a World Cup (like Louisville did)  Contrary to what
Mr Romanow has implied in the past, we do not make the rules with the UCI and we
were told flatly that we would have to shift weekends to make this a Cat 1/Cat 2
in 2011 - this after asking for special dispensation to the C1 / World Cup
conflict rule.

While we are flattered that other promoters think we stand to lose nothing if we
have a Cat 2/Cat 2 weekend it simply is untrue.   First, we do lose riders. 
This year we lost Compton, Nash, Dombroski and Butler for the Louisville races
this season to Pilsen.  And riders will opt not to race when there are no C1
points or cash on offer.  When we lose riders, we lose sponsors.  Last year,
Richard you repeatedly asserted that you did not care if the pros went to race
Cincinnati UCI3 because you would still have 700 local racers at your event.  We
do and have always cared about the depth of the pro fields because the fostering
of consistent head to head competition every weekend is central to the core
mission of the USGP series.

Secondly,  we too must constantly be working to develop our relationships with
Cities and Municipal organizations to support our events.  They see the USGP as
a professional organization and they want us to deliver the best events possible
with the most prestige.   Unless something changes that means Cat 1.    Believe
it or not this has come up on multiple occasions and the city of Louisville was
sorely disappointed and reduced their support of our USGP when we were not C1.  
To say that our sponsors and supporters will be satisfied enough with a C2
weekend is a bold assumption for one not operating inside out business or our
business dealings.

To address Richards comments directly we are answering below.

1) They ran the event in 2010 as a C2 and suffered no measurable depletion in
either attendance, sponsorship, or prestige.
			 How were you measuring our events Richard?  When we are working to draw in
sponsors C1 is part of the discussion of course.   For you, Richard, to assume
that we have no measurable depletion is a bold statement of assumption and in no
way is factual.  You have not been privy to our sponsorship meetings and
discussions and thus cannot accurately make that statement.   I can name off the
top of my head one very obvious depletion:  Because of the World Cup conflict we
had a greatly reduced women's pro field in Louisville.  No Compton, Nash, Butler
or Dombroski.  We lost the defending USGP champion to the World Cup.  That is
measurable and it is a diminishment of our core mission statement to field the
deepest, fastest, most competitive fields.  We will only lose more if we do as
Richard would have us do and run C2 / C2 against a World Cup.


2) They would not suffer any competition whatsoever as they would offer the most
UCI points available that day.
To say we do not suffer competition is false.  We face real competition if we
are to lose the best riders in the US to a World Cup.  The UCI rule change was
implemented to draw the US riders to the World CupTo say we will draw every
major rider to our events is also not entirely true.  We are continually trying
to draw new Pros into the sport from Mt Biking and Road racing as well as from
Europe and Canada.   We have a far better potential to draw them in when there
are C1 Points and money and prestige on offer.  And it is not just money, but
riders do also sell their sponsors to support them to do bigger better races.  
C1 is the universal rating that sponsors understand.   There are teams whose own
sponsorship support depends in large part to the exposure and prestige that the
USGP provides them - and to run C2 / C2 against a World Cup hurts them too.


3) The quality of their series, with its points and prizes and media, will
sufficiently draw every major rider to the event that weekend. They would not
lose anything whatsoever to another event and/or series.
That is not a foregone conclusion. We have worked hard to get the best riders we
can to rider the USGP.   We believe that we will have to work hard to maintain
that and build upon it to make it even better.  It is has not been and is not
our policy to be sufficient.   It is our mission to be the best.   Why is that
something to be criticized?  In the run up to the World Championships we have
been making increased efforts to bring european riders to the USGP.  This effort
will be sorely impacted by the World Cup conflict.  Our international
competitiveness/ attractiveness is further reduced if we are only offering C2 /
C2


4) They would be free to offer more than the minimum prize money, if the
question is prestige. (They also would be welcomed to consider saving some money
to apply towards their important operations.)
Thank you for the advice. We will take it into consideration.  That said,
Providence as well as every other event can do the same and offer more prize
money or save money as well.  This point is not a point at all but a decision
every promoter must make with every line item and detail of their event. 
Richard, we could as easily suggest to you that you would offset any sponsorship
loss incurred by changing YOUR dates by not inscribing as C1.  But when we
talked you said clearly that you want to be C1 because you want to be the best. 
Why would we want anything less for ourselves??


5) They would keep their events in tandem with other powerful events in key
markets, thereby creating a calendar with a geographic flow that actually favors
riders, sponsors, exhibitors, media, etc.
We believe after speaking to many riders, sponsors and media that we work with
that the flow of events is not nearly as important as it is being made out to be
here.   There are very very few riders, sponsors or media personnel that can
actually stay in a location such as Boulder/Ft Collins,   Cincy/Louisville or
Gloucester/Providence for 10 or 12 days in a succession in the mid season.  This
is financially difficult for most people and there are so very few people in
this traveling circus that do not need to return to some other work or
responsibility or assignment  on Monday.  Even this season when the USGP
Portland was 5 days from Nationals, Stu Thorne, the Cannondale-Cyclocross World
team manager flew back to the east cost for 4 days of work and family before
returning to Bend.  The working man with day job?  He's got to pick one event or
the other or travel two weekends in a row.  The list of athletes with big travel
budgets is short.


6) With the dissolution of the NACT, there would be no competition to their
deserving brand.
This is totally irrelevant.    We simply want to make the best races we can at
the highest level.   Whether there is an NACT or American Super Prestige or
Super Duper Duper Cup or any other race or series is totally irrelevant to the
current scheduling issue.

Some people who work in and care about Cyclocross think we are anti-competition.
That is blatantly untrue.   We think more great races, within reason, in the US
is great.   There are many races that with sweat, money and great support and
planning have risen to be fantastic races.  StarCrossed, Rad Racing, Boulder,
Gloucester, Providence, Vegas, Cincy UCI3, Granogue, Jingle Cross just to name a
few, have all made great names and we hope they prosper and remain stable and
solvent.  All of these events push us to be better each and every year.   That
to me is healthy and fair competition that is raising the standard and bringing
more riders to our sport.  That is great. It seems that this year, there is a
bit of a shakeout happening.   Believe it or not, we did not want this.  These
changes are making us have to work to change plans also.   Venue changes, city
contracts, hotel contract are not easy when you are working on 1 race much less
8 races.  So the assumption and insinuation on this user group that we are in
the middle of some conspiracy is ludicrous.  If we could have the same calender
as last season and be granted a C1 in Ft Collins on the date that we have had in
2010 we would be very pleased to have no changes or adjustments to the calender.
Sadly that is not the case and we are already moving dates in Portland.

To close this open letter to our fellow promoters, it is extremely presumptuous
to assume that as Richard writes   "it would be a minor, arbitrary blemish to
their prestige, staying on their currrent date as a C2 weekend would cause them
no harm. Conversely, moving into their neighbors' dates would cause enormous,
and catastrophic hardship on many of the deserving events promoted by our
brothers and sisters"

How can you say it would cause us no harm?   What about our sponsors that want
us to be the best?   What about the City of Ft Collins that wants to have a Cat
1 race like Boulder, Louisville and Vegas and Cincinnati?  These are our
relationships that we have spent time and money to foster.   Please do not
assume you know what they want without speaking to us.   We can also say that is
it true that with the growth of the USGP that there has been more money flowing
into the sport in the US and more focus that has allowed all promoters to
benefit from our success.   Richard you are speaking for many when you should
speak only for yourself.  Providence is a great event and a great venue.  I am
sure that Providence can survive very well on the same date as another race that
is 1995.3 miles away - you said so yourself about the date conflict with
Cincinnati many times - and that event was a C1 too.   You have knowingly and
willingly organized your event for the past 2 seasons on the same date as
Cincinnati 3 Day and seemed not to have an issue.   That was only half as far
away.   It would seem to me that having another event that is 1995.3 miles away
in Colorado is ok if you chose to make your event on the same weekend as an
event that is 818.8 miles away in Ohio.

So, here we are - as you said "holding our line."  But our line is to stay true
to the founding mission of the USGP.  We are trying - as we have been since 2004
and as are you all -  to do the best for the riders, our sponsors and the
community in general while maintaining a solvent and successful business.   That
is all we are doing and all we plan to do in the future. We did not make the UCI
rule changes.   They did.  We are impacted by them as much as any other promoter
- 8 times.

Respectfully Yours


Bruce Fina

--- In USAICO@yahoogroups.com, Richard Fries <friesrichard@...> wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> Happy New Year. Everybody on this list deserves tremendous applause. Although
> we've all done this for different amounts of time, certainly with different
> degrees of resources, and certainly with variable results, collectively
American
> cyclo-cross has come so far in the past 15 years as a result of so many
> contributions.
>
>
> Now we are faced with a problem of crowding. And in such a situation, just
like
> in a bike race, the maxim is simple: hold your line. 
>
>
> The job of USA Cycling - and they have done a good one to date - is to take
into
> consideration what is best for the sport as a whole. This means ALL the
> established and deserving promoters, ALL the regions and markets, and ALL the
> riders.
>
>
> At present, we have several issues over calendar dates for the 2011 season in
> America. 
>
>
> Our friends at the US Grand Prix of Cyclocross have undboutedly done a
fantastic
> job. I'm really proud to have been a part of that success and hope to remain a
> part of that success. 
>
>
> At issue, however, is that despite having three of their four weekends include
> one Category 1 event, due to the new ruling that requires no conflict with a
> World Cup and a Category 1, they are hoping to move venues and dates. 
>
>
> The problem arises in that if they move, then upwards of five different events
-
> some of a stellar quality in critical markets - would either be destroyed or
> forced to move. And this could radiate out into other regional calendar
events.
>
>
> So USA Cycling must make a hard decision.
>
> I feel the obvious solution would be to have the USGP remain on its date, Oct.
> 22-23, 2011, as a Cat 2 weekend.  
>
>
> My reasons are as follows:
>
> 1) They ran the event in 2010 as a C2 and suffered no measurable depletion in
> either attendance, sponsorship, or prestige.
>
>
> 2) They would not suffer any competition whatsoever as they would offer the
most
> UCI points available that day.
>
>
> 3) The quality of their series, with its points and prizes and media, will
> sufficiently draw every major rider to the event that weekend. They would not
> lose anything whatsoever to another event and/or series.
>
>
> 4) They would be free to offer more than the minimum prize money, if the
> question is prestige. (They also would be welcomed to consider saving some
money
> to apply towards their important operations.)
>
>
> 5) They would keep their events in tandem with other powerful events in key
> markets, thereby creating a calendar with a geographic flow that actually
favors
> riders, sponsors, exhibitors, media, etc.
>
>
> 6) With the dissolution of the NACT, there would be no competition to their
> deserving brand. 
>
>
> While I concede it would be a minor, arbitrary blemish to their prestige,
> staying on their currrent date as a C2 weekend would cause them no harm.
> Conversely, moving into their neighbors' dates would cause enormous, and
> catastrophic hardship on many of the deserving events promoted by our brothers
> and sisters. 
>
>
> I feel it would be the most neighborly thing to do.
>
> The UCI, and USA Cycling, are tightening down the regulations and improving
the
> quality of all the events. We encourage that. And the USGP is making us all
> better by raising the standards.
>
>
> But we need to consider the welfare of the entire sport. 
>
> With that stated, I hereby ask all members of this list to his REPLY ALL and
> weigh in with their comments.
>
>
> With respect and affection for all,
>
> Richard Fries
>

Sorry Myles I do not know you to call you Myles and I was addressing a group.

You point is correct about not only the C1 Status but also not being on a WC
weekend.

Your point is incorrect that the USGP supersedes the UCI.   Not so.  When you
speak to some bike companies that are on the inside, maybe so.  But when you
speak to cities and non-endemic sponsors it is a different story altogether. 
They look at status by an international governing body.   Otherwise this would
be a non issue.  As for C1/C1, I think it will not be granted again in the US
for a long time.  We had that in Mercer due to a clerical error only.

So, now you are asking us to shrink the USGP to 3 races?   We never said it was
too taxing, simply that it is larger than managing a race weekend.  Nothing
arrogant about that.  It is a fact.

Under the not my problem column is that yes we are neither a public company nor
a socialist organization and so we deal with our problems ourselves.   We do not
seek to publicly criticize those that we work around or with.  We just go about
our business.  We also do help people that ask for help or communication.   
Mostly races that are not UCI races that want to work their way up to being a
national or UCI race.   We do believe a rising tide lifts all boats.    We we
have refrained from is this banter that we now feel we have to engage in.

We can easily also say, it is not my problem that Richard feels he can compete
with the Cincy 3Day but not the USGP twice as far away.   And surely Richard did
not call Mitch Graham to ask if it was ok and Mitch did not raise this huge
stink and tell Richard that "moving into their neighbors' dates would cause
enormous, and catastrophic hardship on many of the deserving events promoted by
our brothers and sisters."

I can recall no bold rhetoric from Mitch.   He just held his line and went about
his business and made 3 great events.   No complaining, no criticizing.

So, just because we have worked our asses off to make great events we are due
criticism here?   Seems unjust to me.

About appearance contracts.  We have not paid any rider any money other than
prize money in the last 2 years.  I am strongly against start money/appearance
money.  You will see that it is ruining the top of the sport in Belgium in my
opinion.   Please feel free to ask the riders if you must.

The Louisville 2013 organization did pay for Tim Johnson's ticket change to come
to Louisville a day early this year to be there for the Mayor's presentation of
the new park.  I guess that is now out of the bag.  Whew.

There is no secret to what we do.   We just operate with feeling the need to
grandstand.  I do not announce at our races.  I rarely speak on the microphone
and try not to be in pictures.  Our events are the picture.   The riders are the
stars.   The staff should be primarily behind the scenes and if we are not seen
or heard we are doing a great job.

We do just like everyone else.  Secure permits, make hotel arrangements, get
volunteers, arrange officials travel and housing, arrange fencing and materials
for the course, get reg and results services coordinated.   What is there to
talk about?   Have we ever created a conflict for which we need to spend time
online posting about?   I cannot recall one.  I prefer to settle my conflicts in
person, not on Twitter and Facebook like teenagers.  That is simply hurtful and
embarrassing.

As for handling this in a private setting.  Yes it should have been and we would
have preferred it to be.  It is upsetting to me personally after the 14 years I
have spent in this sport, 7 as a volunteer to manage the US team, even when
offered to be paid I declined, that now we are being vilified in public for
simply trying to do our best.   We think it is best, our riders (that traveling
circus) thinks it is best, and our sponsors think it is best for us to stay the
course.

As you know from our postings or lack thereof, Joan and I have been trying to
the proper channels at USA Cycing and the UCI as well as with Richard to come to
an ammicable solution.  It is Richard that made the public plea for support from
his brothers and sisters.  We also want your support.  To be proud that everyone
involved in the cross community including Richard has helped to grow this sport
in the US.  We are also part of that community and there are many others across
the US that are quietly working away as well.   People like Dorothy Wong in
SoCal that is totally dedicated.   The Nycross group in the US, that called me
for help to find a site in Saratoga, my hometown, for a race.  I travelled there
to help them and I myself found their site from my childhood ramblings and
google earth.  There are an endless number of people out there silently working.
We all deserve support.

What I think?  This is what I think.

There are already too many UCI races in the US.   There are too many points on
offer.  That said there is never enough prize money.  Points and Money are not
related.  More prize money is great.  That will in fact bring more and better
riders.

There should be races run under USA Cycling and that should not be anything to
be ashamed of.   Races like Cross Crusade and the Chicago series and the OVCX
are fabulous for growing great riders.  There are so many races and series' that
we cannot name them all of course. They do not need to all be UCI races to be
good.  If they are not UCI races they can be more flexible to put money into
other areas to develop better riders, younger riders and bring more riders into
the sport by making events more fun and creative.  They can take the thousands
of dollars that should be spent on proper trusses, fencing and course crossings
etc and put up more prize money to draw in the regional pros to the sport.  
Some of those guys might step up and become full timers.

Cheers
Bruce






--- In USAICO@yahoogroups.com, Myles Romanow <ilovetoracecross@...> wrote:
>
> First,  Mr Romanow is my dad.  Everyone calls me Myles.
>
> I think that I can speak for everyone here, when I say that I think Bruce
> does a fantastic job with the gp.  Really.  But, I do think there are a few
> points that you didn't bring up.
>
> First, the Gp is the GP.  No one wants to do a race the same day as a GP.
>  Thats almost a given.  And, it's the biggest game in town, literally, so I
> think your press coverage would be identical regardless of your status as a
> c1 c2 or c2 c2 weekend.  Is velonews not going to cover it?  Is
> cyclocrossmag not going to send out a photographer?  No, I think that the
> coverage would be identical, simply because you have done and continue to do
> a fabulous job with the races, plain and simple.   And even if it is c2, c2,
> it is still going to be the best damn race on the continent.
>
> Next, I don't think you lost any of those riders because you had c2 status,
> I think you lost them because of a world cup commitment elsewhere.  So
> representing the absence of those riders at your event related solely to the
> events c2 status, I think, is misleading entirely.  To represent the absence
> due to being on the same weekend as a world cup is more relative.  And,
> then, how much media loss occurred?  With the exception of Ms Compton/legg,
> I would say little or none.  And, she is admittedly on another schedule,
> essentially committing a full race season in Europe, with some races in
> america.  Not too many north americans race that schedule.   Does Sue Butler
> get a full page in VN for winning a GP?   Does she get a full page for her
> appearance at Pilsen? I would say likely not.  And if so, I would also point
> out that with the 6 key americans (assuming they all go to the WC) there is
> a tremendous stage for the next generation to shine through, to hone and
> improve THEIR talents, so they too can prepare to compete at that next
> level, which is what the GP is supposed to be for.
>
> As for continuing to lose more as a c2 c2.. Really?  First, we have to
> assume that all the top ranked americans want to go to the world cup.
>  Because, after all, it's 4000 miles away, and travel is tough, both
> financially and physically.  So even if all 5 of them want to go, you are
> only losing the same number of riders that you lost in the past.. (because
> aren't start lists for WC's determined by national rankings etc etc etc?)
>  And again, that assumes that all the TOP riders want to go, and no tier two
> riders get national team nods.  Of course, this also assumes that all of
> those riders were in fact intending to come to the USGP anyway.  If they
> were taking a weekend off to rest, etc, then the point is moot.   But, I
> would venture that to a lot of north american riders, a top quality race in
> north america with a good prize list and fabulous press coverage is a very
> viable alternative to a financially draining expedition to a WC to get
> stomped upon by some Euro's.
>
> I would also wonder how hard the cities and municipalities are in rallying
> for c1 events.  I would hypothesize (again, I'm guessing) that they just
> want to see totally bad ass, awesome cyclocross races with top pro's and
> hoopla, and the GP delivers all that in spades.  But, if they are rallying
> you for c1 events all over the place, well,  aren't why aren't c1 c1's
> aren't being done, I mean, if the towns and municipalities are rallying so
> hard for c1 events in the first place, why not do 2?  Thats a lot of
> prestige and money and what not. I mean, if  they are that  up on what is
> going on and  know about c1 events, and they want their towns to have the
> best events, they must realize that other towns host c1 c2 weekends.. why
> not jump the shark and do c1 c1's?  16 c1 events would be awesome.   Meh.
>  Food for thought.
>
> As a promoter, I realize the importance of the GP series' additional
> obligations, national sponsorships, media plans, specific deliverable
> expectations, etc etc.   But really, all of that fits into a box labeled
> "not my problem".  Because,  we all have own negotiations with our own
> towns, sponsors, municipalities, and organizations, and they are just as
> important, and time sensitive, and time consuming to us as yours are to you.
>  To think that yours are moreso, is a little arrogant or potentially
> condescending.   There is also a very easy solution; if its too taxing to
> promote 8 races, promote 6.  Or 4.  Or 3.  Just sayin.
>
> But, I think what is my problem, as a promoter, is what happens next year if
> the USGP wants what has been historically perceived as "my"date.  Or Terry's
> date?  Or Paul's date?  That, I think is the problem.  And what recourse
> exists to solve it?
>
> I agree whole heartedly that it is easier to attract a new pro to the event
> with c1, or a neo pro, mtb'r, etc etc.  But...I think the part that you
> forget or may not realize, is the USGP supersedes c1..  USGP is way more
> universally understood by Schwinn, or Rocky Mountain, or whomever.  In north
> america, it's the top of the ladder, no questions asked.  I know it is  far
> more universally understood than c1 is, and to say otherwise bruce is to
> define your very very very hard work as an abject failure.  You've done such
> a good job with the events that USGP is now the draw, not UCI.
>
>
> As for geography, I know first hand it's a big influence.  I promoted races
> in an isolated venue, and did much better when other large races were the
> preceding weekends.  While I can only honestly say that a few riders stayed
> "here" for a week, I can honestly say that lots of riders stayed in the area
> and did not return "home" (southwest, west coast, midwest, etc) before and
> after my events because of a cohesive regional/national schedule.  To point
> out stu as an example of otherwise is crazy, he is an absolute maniac, works
> like a dog for the sport and team, and is definitely the exception rather
> than the rule.
>
> As for the other geographical point.. 2000miles is pretty far as far as
> conflicts go.  But how many of  the riders in the "traveling circus" have
> appearance contracts with USGP?  And, of municipalities that want to be the
> best, how many would rather choose a date where there are no realistic
> conflicts in America, vs a very big conflict in what is arguably the heart
> of cyclocross in north america, New England?  Sure, you can go c1, c2, on
> this date, and then roll the dice a bit for riders (unless of course you
> have contracts already), or you can go on this date with no real conflicts?
>  Given those odds, and
> assuming municipalities want top riders to show, and not simply a numerical
> designation, it may make some sense.
>
> The other part of that paragraph, was Richard's desire to compete with a
> race in Ohio, and not compete with one in Colorado.  Again, I refer l to my
> earlier paragraph about USGP superseding UCI.
>
> While I do appreciate your efforts to gain a special exception to the UCI
> rule, and damn them for not giving it to you, I think what richard is
> looking for is the feeling that he, as a fellow cyclocross promoter, is
> being respected and not simply  trampled upon by the USGP.  Could any of
> this been handled between the two of you in a more private setting?  Who
> knows?  Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. All I know is this whole mess works
> better when we are all working together.  But,  the overwhelming sense of
> the GP is not one of an organization that is holding it's ground, it's one
> that operates secretly, and does whatever it want's with little regard for
> others.  Is that true? Is that the image that the Gp wants to present or is
> it misconstrued from rumor and innuendo over the last few years scheduling
> conflicts?  Who knows.   I sure don't.  I'd like to, I really do think Bruce
> and Joan have done a fabulous job.  Next time you are in NY drop me a line,
> we'll grab a chimay. Just not on a thursday or tuesday, I teach my kids to
> cook those nights.
>
> I wish you all a happy new year, nothing but the best in '11.
>
> Myles
>

A couple of additional points, although Myles summed it up well:

This is not a public forum. This is very specifically a private, members-only
forum. To be in this forum you have to be a current UCI race organizer. What you
call banter, we call open communication between interested parties. What you
call quietly taking care of business we call secrecy. And while you may be less
comfortable communicating this way or using social media effectively, it does
not make teenagers of those who use it effectively.

If you communicated and participated more, you'd get vilified less. You'd be
part of the community, instead of the community feeling like you operate above
and outside of it. There's a collaborate planning process that has existed on
this private discussion list for years, and you have typically not been a part
of it. We'd like you to be a part of it.

As a member of the region with the most UCI races, remember that all but one of
our current races existed for many years before they became UCI. The NE points
series existed for a decade before the first UCI race happened here. What kind
of deep scene did the USGP in Louisville develop out of? It didn't. It actually
made the scene happen in Louisville, top down. You very successfully brought the
circus to town and it sparked growth and interest in the sport in that area. I
know people in Louisville who had never heard of 'cross before the USGP who are
now rabid fans, who focus entirely on the 'cross season. The Ohio UCI races have
had a similar effect. Regardless, what you suggest in your final paragraph is
what 90% of the UCI races in NE have done. We have hard fencing, trusses, course
crossings, and regional pros who've come out and focused on 'cross now because
of the money and publicity. And we developed out of a grassroots scene to get to
this level. Our non-UCI local races in New England are better than some UCI
events I've been to, and are even using hard fencing, trusses, and course
crossings. The level is high across the board here.

You list out why C1s are important to your municipalities and how they help you
with sponsors, and that you want to be ambitious. But then you say there are too
many UCI races and suggest they spend there thousands of dollars elsewhere. But
does that mean only the USGP can be ambitious with their races? UCI sanctioning
might cost an event an additional $1000, for the calendar fee and a commissaire.
It's certainly not the biggest line item in my race budget. It's clear, and I
agree, some organizers may have the cart before the horse if they're not meeting
the minimums for infrastructure, production, and promotion. But I go to a lot of
races, and I'm seeing them with my own eyes. At most of the UCI races I went to
this year, I saw people meeting the standards, and I saw people being ambitions
with their races. Not everyone, for sure. But we don't have a plague of poorly
run UCI races in the US like it's being made out to be. We have a couple. And if
UCI status is beneficial for you, for all the reasons you stated, then it's
beneficial for any another ambitious race organizer, too.

I found out yesterday that Ohio is moving to the Northampton date to avoid the
conflict with the USGP. Of course, a few years ago I moved to that date to avoid
the conflict with the Boulder USGP which started in '06, on my date, and have
shuffled up and back a few times trying to accommodate other organizers. So the
ripple effect of moving the USGP at this late date, solely for the reason that
it's allowed to be a C1 next year, has ripple effects that are now effecting
many organizers, me included.

To bring this back, for the good of this group of organizers as a whole, stay on
your date for one more year. Give us time to work these conflicts out, so we can
all contribute to the success of the USGP, without it costing us our own events'
success.

Adam


On Jan 5, 2011, at 4:53 AM, brucefina wrote:

> Sorry Myles I do not know you to call you Myles and I was addressing a group.
>
> You point is correct about not only the C1 Status but also not being on a WC
weekend.
>
> Your point is incorrect that the USGP supersedes the UCI.   Not so.  When you
speak to some bike companies that are on the inside, maybe so.  But when you
speak to cities and non-endemic sponsors it is a different story altogether. 
They look at status by an international governing body.   Otherwise this would
be a non issue.  As for C1/C1, I think it will not be granted again in the US
for a long time.  We had that in Mercer due to a clerical error only.
>
> So, now you are asking us to shrink the USGP to 3 races?   We never said it
was too taxing, simply that it is larger than managing a race weekend.  Nothing
arrogant about that.  It is a fact.
>
> Under the not my problem column is that yes we are neither a public company
nor a socialist organization and so we deal with our problems ourselves.   We do
not seek to publicly criticize those that we work around or with.  We just go
about our business.  We also do help people that ask for help or communication.
Mostly races that are not UCI races that want to work their way up to being a
national or UCI race.   We do believe a rising tide lifts all boats.    We we
have refrained from is this banter that we now feel we have to engage in.
>
> We can easily also say, it is not my problem that Richard feels he can compete
with the Cincy 3Day but not the USGP twice as far away.   And surely Richard did
not call Mitch Graham to ask if it was ok and Mitch did not raise this huge
stink and tell Richard that "moving into their neighbors' dates would cause
enormous, and catastrophic hardship on many of the deserving events promoted by
our brothers and sisters."
>
> I can recall no bold rhetoric from Mitch.   He just held his line and went
about his business and made 3 great events.   No complaining, no criticizing.
>
> So, just because we have worked our asses off to make great events we are due
criticism here?   Seems unjust to me.
>
> About appearance contracts.  We have not paid any rider any money other than
prize money in the last 2 years.  I am strongly against start money/appearance
money.  You will see that it is ruining the top of the sport in Belgium in my
opinion.   Please feel free to ask the riders if you must.
>
> The Louisville 2013 organization did pay for Tim Johnson's ticket change to
come to Louisville a day early this year to be there for the Mayor's
presentation of the new park.  I guess that is now out of the bag.  Whew.
>
> There is no secret to what we do.   We just operate with feeling the need to
grandstand.  I do not announce at our races.  I rarely speak on the microphone
and try not to be in pictures.  Our events are the picture.   The riders are the
stars.   The staff should be primarily behind the scenes and if we are not seen
or heard we are doing a great job.
>
> We do just like everyone else.  Secure permits, make hotel arrangements, get
volunteers, arrange officials travel and housing, arrange fencing and materials
for the course, get reg and results services coordinated.   What is there to
talk about?   Have we ever created a conflict for which we need to spend time
online posting about?   I cannot recall one.  I prefer to settle my conflicts in
person, not on Twitter and Facebook like teenagers.  That is simply hurtful and
embarrassing.
>
> As for handling this in a private setting.  Yes it should have been and we
would have preferred it to be.  It is upsetting to me personally after the 14
years I have spent in this sport, 7 as a volunteer to manage the US team, even
when offered to be paid I declined, that now we are being vilified in public for
simply trying to do our best.   We think it is best, our riders (that traveling
circus) thinks it is best, and our sponsors think it is best for us to stay the
course.
>
> As you know from our postings or lack thereof, Joan and I have been trying to
the proper channels at USA Cycing and the UCI as well as with Richard to come to
an ammicable solution.  It is Richard that made the public plea for support from
his brothers and sisters.  We also want your support.  To be proud that everyone
involved in the cross community including Richard has helped to grow this sport
in the US.  We are also part of that community and there are many others across
the US that are quietly working away as well.   People like Dorothy Wong in
SoCal that is totally dedicated.   The Nycross group in the US, that called me
for help to find a site in Saratoga, my hometown, for a race.  I travelled there
to help them and I myself found their site from my childhood ramblings and
google earth.  There are an endless number of people out there silently working.
We all deserve support.
>
> What I think?  This is what I think.
>
> There are already too many UCI races in the US.   There are too many points on
offer.  That said there is never enough prize money.  Points and Money are not
related.  More prize money is great.  That will in fact bring more and better
riders.
>
> There should be races run under USA Cycling and that should not be anything to
be ashamed of.   Races like Cross Crusade and the Chicago series and the OVCX
are fabulous for growing great riders.  There are so many races and series' that
we cannot name them all of course. They do not need to all be UCI races to be
good.  If they are not UCI races they can be more flexible to put money into
other areas to develop better riders, younger riders and bring more riders into
the sport by making events more fun and creative.  They can take the thousands
of dollars that should be spent on proper trusses, fencing and course crossings
etc and put up more prize money to draw in the regional pros to the sport.  
Some of those guys might step up and become full timers.
>
> Cheers
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In USAICO@yahoogroups.com, Myles Romanow <ilovetoracecross@...> wrote:
>>
>> First,  Mr Romanow is my dad.  Everyone calls me Myles.
>>
>> I think that I can speak for everyone here, when I say that I think Bruce
>> does a fantastic job with the gp.  Really.  But, I do think there are a few
>> points that you didn't bring up.
>>
>> First, the Gp is the GP.  No one wants to do a race the same day as a GP.
>> Thats almost a given.  And, it's the biggest game in town, literally, so I
>> think your press coverage would be identical regardless of your status as a
>> c1 c2 or c2 c2 weekend.  Is velonews not going to cover it?  Is
>> cyclocrossmag not going to send out a photographer?  No, I think that the
>> coverage would be identical, simply because you have done and continue to do
>> a fabulous job with the races, plain and simple.   And even if it is c2, c2,
>> it is still going to be the best damn race on the continent.
>>
>> Next, I don't think you lost any of those riders because you had c2 status,
>> I think you lost them because of a world cup commitment elsewhere.  So
>> representing the absence of those riders at your event related solely to the
>> events c2 status, I think, is misleading entirely.  To represent the absence
>> due to being on the same weekend as a world cup is more relative.  And,
>> then, how much media loss occurred?  With the exception of Ms Compton/legg,
>> I would say little or none.  And, she is admittedly on another schedule,
>> essentially committing a full race season in Europe, with some races in
>> america.  Not too many north americans race that schedule.   Does Sue Butler
>> get a full page in VN for winning a GP?   Does she get a full page for her
>> appearance at Pilsen? I would say likely not.  And if so, I would also point
>> out that with the 6 key americans (assuming they all go to the WC) there is
>> a tremendous stage for the next generation to shine through, to hone and
>> improve THEIR talents, so they too can prepare to compete at that next
>> level, which is what the GP is supposed to be for.
>>
>> As for continuing to lose more as a c2 c2.. Really?  First, we have to
>> assume that all the top ranked americans want to go to the world cup.
>> Because, after all, it's 4000 miles away, and travel is tough, both
>> financially and physically.  So even if all 5 of them want to go, you are
>> only losing the same number of riders that you lost in the past.. (because
>> aren't start lists for WC's determined by national rankings etc etc etc?)
>> And again, that assumes that all the TOP riders want to go, and no tier two
>> riders get national team nods.  Of course, this also assumes that all of
>> those riders were in fact intending to come to the USGP anyway.  If they
>> were taking a weekend off to rest, etc, then the point is moot.   But, I
>> would venture that to a lot of north american riders, a top quality race in
>> north america with a good prize list and fabulous press coverage is a very
>> viable alternative to a financially draining expedition to a WC to get
>> stomped upon by some Euro's.
>>
>> I would also wonder how hard the cities and municipalities are in rallying
>> for c1 events.  I would hypothesize (again, I'm guessing) that they just
>> want to see totally bad ass, awesome cyclocross races with top pro's and
>> hoopla, and the GP delivers all that in spades.  But, if they are rallying
>> you for c1 events all over the place, well,  aren't why aren't c1 c1's
>> aren't being done, I mean, if the towns and municipalities are rallying so
>> hard for c1 events in the first place, why not do 2?  Thats a lot of
>> prestige and money and what not. I mean, if  they are that  up on what is
>> going on and  know about c1 events, and they want their towns to have the
>> best events, they must realize that other towns host c1 c2 weekends.. why
>> not jump the shark and do c1 c1's?  16 c1 events would be awesome.   Meh.
>> Food for thought.
>>
>> As a promoter, I realize the importance of the GP series' additional
>> obligations, national sponsorships, media plans, specific deliverable
>> expectations, etc etc.   But really, all of that fits into a box labeled
>> "not my problem".  Because,  we all have own negotiations with our own
>> towns, sponsors, municipalities, and organizations, and they are just as
>> important, and time sensitive, and time consuming to us as yours are to you.
>> To think that yours are moreso, is a little arrogant or potentially
>> condescending.   There is also a very easy solution; if its too taxing to
>> promote 8 races, promote 6.  Or 4.  Or 3.  Just sayin.
>>
>> But, I think what is my problem, as a promoter, is what happens next year if
>> the USGP wants what has been historically perceived as "my"date.  Or Terry's
>> date?  Or Paul's date?  That, I think is the problem.  And what recourse
>> exists to solve it?
>>
>> I agree whole heartedly that it is easier to attract a new pro to the event
>> with c1, or a neo pro, mtb'r, etc etc.  But...I think the part that you
>> forget or may not realize, is the USGP supersedes c1..  USGP is way more
>> universally understood by Schwinn, or Rocky Mountain, or whomever.  In north
>> america, it's the top of the ladder, no questions asked.  I know it is  far
>> more universally understood than c1 is, and to say otherwise bruce is to
>> define your very very very hard work as an abject failure.  You've done such
>> a good job with the events that USGP is now the draw, not UCI.
>>
>>
>> As for geography, I know first hand it's a big influence.  I promoted races
>> in an isolated venue, and did much better when other large races were the
>> preceding weekends.  While I can only honestly say that a few riders stayed
>> "here" for a week, I can honestly say that lots of riders stayed in the area
>> and did not return "home" (southwest, west coast, midwest, etc) before and
>> after my events because of a cohesive regional/national schedule.  To point
>> out stu as an example of otherwise is crazy, he is an absolute maniac, works
>> like a dog for the sport and team, and is definitely the exception rather
>> than the rule.
>>
>> As for the other geographical point.. 2000miles is pretty far as far as
>> conflicts go.  But how many of  the riders in the "traveling circus" have
>> appearance contracts with USGP?  And, of municipalities that want to be the
>> best, how many would rather choose a date where there are no realistic
>> conflicts in America, vs a very big conflict in what is arguably the heart
>> of cyclocross in north america, New England?  Sure, you can go c1, c2, on
>> this date, and then roll the dice a bit for riders (unless of course you
>> have contracts already), or you can go on this date with no real conflicts?
>> Given those odds, and
>> assuming municipalities want top riders to show, and not simply a numerical
>> designation, it may make some sense.
>>
>> The other part of that paragraph, was Richard's desire to compete with a
>> race in Ohio, and not compete with one in Colorado.  Again, I refer l to my
>> earlier paragraph about USGP superseding UCI.
>>
>> While I do appreciate your efforts to gain a special exception to the UCI
>> rule, and damn them for not giving it to you, I think what richard is
>> looking for is the feeling that he, as a fellow cyclocross promoter, is
>> being respected and not simply  trampled upon by the USGP.  Could any of
>> this been handled between the two of you in a more private setting?  Who
>> knows?  Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. All I know is this whole mess works
>> better when we are all working together.  But,  the overwhelming sense of
>> the GP is not one of an organization that is holding it's ground, it's one
>> that operates secretly, and does whatever it want's with little regard for
>> others.  Is that true? Is that the image that the Gp wants to present or is
>> it misconstrued from rumor and innuendo over the last few years scheduling
>> conflicts?  Who knows.   I sure don't.  I'd like to, I really do think Bruce
>> and Joan have done a fabulous job.  Next time you are in NY drop me a line,
>> we'll grab a chimay. Just not on a thursday or tuesday, I teach my kids to
>> cook those nights.
>>
>> I wish you all a happy new year, nothing but the best in '11.
>>
>> Myles
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Another point that I think is missed.  If the gp had said four years ago that "this is when we want to do races" every other promoter would have stepped aside and given them their due and promoted elsewhere.  But the secrecy that the gp seemed to want to project does I think nothing to serve them, and only breeds animosity with the other promoters.   It would be great to work with them instead of finding out their plans withdays to go on inscription.   Just food for thought