345RE: [USAICO] Re: Gloucester USGP dates
- Dec 1, 2005Hi Bruce
I for one am glad you have taken on the USGP. Congratulations on another
That said we do need dates, and places for the USGP next year and we need
them now. Your series is the 400 pound gorilla that affects every other UCI
race in the USA. So far doing it on this list has been and is the best way
to get all the calendars together.
I would hazard a guess that the people in this forum are the only people on
the planet who have any ideal how complicated and difficult scheduling the
USGP is. It won't get any easier next year either because the sport is still
growing in a nice steady way.
Anyhow we don't have to be happy with your dates we just need them ASAP.
Can you get us at least a tentative schedule with alternates by Monday Dec
5th. That gives us 6 days before meeting at Natz to react.
Adam in my view is acting as a neutral broker in asking/begging you for
From: USAICO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:USAICO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 5:23 AM
Subject: [USAICO] Re: Gloucester USGP dates
Thanks for your mail. As the newly appointed US Representative for
Cross to the UCI I think you should remain neutral and supportive to
all here. I do not enjoy hearing you criticize the USGP both
privately and publicly all of the time, instead of directly to us or
me in a reasonable and professional manner. We are trying hard to
provide world class racing in the US. Between Geoff Proctor and
myself we have over 15 years of experience managing and, in Geoff's
case racing, at a World Cup and World Championship level. Not that
we are not above criticism, we are harsher on ourselves than anyone
else could be.
The recent results of Ryan Trebon are proof that what we are doing is
succeeding. He left the US after winning only 2 of the 4 USGPs he
raced and then was able to finish 9th in a UCI Cat 1 in Belgium this
past weekend. The class of US racing is getting better and better,
as you stated in your DVD "Transition," at a USGP last season.
I respect what each and every promoter is undertaking to organize a
race and we can go back in time, even you Adam, and thank guys like
Clark Natwick and Lyle Fulkerson, for paving our way for us. Those
guys really did the hardest work and put thier butts on the line for
What the USGP needs is the support and patience of the cross
community to understand that what we are trying to do is
complicated. We are always playing with fire and there is no way to
do that in a communist open forum. If we do that, the whole thing
will certainly collapse. For instance, it was very hard to make a
decision to go to California and not to Highland Park. Craig
McCallan and Steve Litvin were nothing but professional to work with
and I think we still have a great relationship. They ran a great
race and I would go back there in a heartbeat with a USGP. That
said, from a national perspective we thought it would be a good idea
to try to have races in the Northern California. Now we cannot just
pick one, we have to find a way to get 2. The thinking behind that
when the series was founded in a conversation between myself and
Charles Pelkey at Monopoli, Italy, was that we need to make it
reasonable for riders to travel. Especially the Juniors and U 23,
but also those like Anne Knapp, who besides being the best woman in
US Cross History, works for a living and cannot fly around the
country each week.
So the point there is that we need to deal with peoples feelings and
emotions and this cannot be done in a public forum. Would you like
to get fired from a job in front of all your peers? Even if you were
great at what you do. But the company changed directions. Well
that is how we feel every day. Someone, will always damn us because
we cannot go everywhere and from the start, we thought 6 races over 3
weekends is enough.
So that is just number one on a long list of challenges. We are
taking into account the thought of each and every promoter and trying
to meld them together into a series. A huge challenge that Lyle
Fulkerson can probably attest to. And as a National Series, we are
striving to step up from the status of a great US race to that which
attracts more people to our sport to spectate. Cross is the best
discipline in Cycling for spectators. Maybe track can also be
interesting, I do not really know. But we are taking into account
things outside that might affect us, like other pro sports and other
local activities around each race. I can only say that I think it
is far more complicated than meets the eye.
While I also would like to be organized 2 years in advance it is also
not really reasonable for us with such a short history. Remember,
that the New England Series and the MAC have a head start. We are
growing and learning. And People like Tom Simpson are not going to
commit to a race or a date until they have at least had one year
under thier belt with a USGP. Also, you know yourself from your
experience in Worcester that it is hard to commit to a race so
early. Remember that your Worcester race was on the USGP calender
until you cancelled for lack of funding. To avoid the trials and
tribultations of that, we are doing our best to make sure we have
solid promoters. We do not want to have Super Cup surprises in
Septmeber. We have done everything we can to bend over backwards
with the USGP promoters to not push them until we at least understand
them and their challenges. This includes being patient to see what
they do with their races. After 2 seasons we now think that we can
start to offer each and every promoter more and more in the way of
best practices we have learned from the races around the country as
well as our European experience.
Ok, enough I think, as Myles said, that is my 2 cents. I appreciate
everyones effort to get this done and make it work. We would like to
do our part and we hope that at least some of you have gotten benefit
out of the USGP existing. Such as increased interest, or as Myles
mentioned increased racers at a weekend before or after a USGP in the
--- In USAICO@yahoogroups.com, Adam Hodges Myerson <adam@c...> wrote:
> I think it's important to think back to why this group of US UCI
> organizers exists, and why there's a national cyclo-cross racing
> with healthy, stable, individual races across the country.
> was a reaction to the lack of organization of the national series
> time. The rest of us were organized, had our dates set a year in
> with no problem, and were working together. As late as September,
> of the SuperCup was regularly dropped on us, which left everyone
> to get out of the way to save their own races.
> When the SuperCup went away, what was left? Again, a healthy,
stable, NRC of
> individual race organizers across the country. High level 'cross
> it blossomed with the room it head above its head.
> For the group of US organizers at this point, it's not reasonable
> USGP to operate in a vacuum or to assume that all the other US UCI
> organizers should have to plan around it while it operates on a
> timetable than the rest of us. The USGP only exists because of the
> individual promoters who were already organizing successful events.
> it that we find ourselves once again in the situation where every
> the country has its dates set other than the national series, when
> be the other way around?
> The fact that we need to know our dates more than a year in advance
is not a
> negative; it's a reflection of the kind of organization necessary to
> organize a quality, stable event that's rooted and has support in
> community and the racing scene. Races should have stability,
> tradition, or should be working towards that. Yearly date changes
> that, and have a ripple effect that disrupts the entire calendar.
> USGP is supposed to set the standard, then it should be organized
> and sooner, than all of the other US races.
> If the USGP needs to reconsider its dates, it needs to do so in an
> that involves discussion with ALL the events on the NRC. It can't
> a wrecking ball like the SuperCup did. The scene is much too
unified now to
> allow that to take place.
> We've seen that the NW races have committed to their dates. We
> from California, but we have heard from Bruce that there needs to be
> geographical flow to the GP schedule. At the same time, we hear that
> Gloucester is getting pressured to go earlier.
> Logically, if the NW is set then I would expect the second race to
be in CA,
> and the finals to be in Gloucester. However, since Gloucester has
> early, you'd expect it to perhaps be the first race in the series.
> My expectation would be that the GP would set it's dates, and
> moving it's races around on those dates, so as not to disrupt the
> or operate at the expense of other race organizers who are
> dates in good faith.
> I'm sympathetic to the pressure Gloucester is under right now. But
> they do move forward 2 weeks, to the 14/15 of October. First, that
> possible, and they could swap with New Gloucester, ME for those
> maintain the flow of the calendar. But we've heard no discussion to
> effect yet, and we need to if this is a possible scenario.
> Second, moving forward will not address the risk of damage to the
> wish to avoid. Anyone who was at Maine this year on the weekend
> is talking about moving to remembers it as the muddiest race we've
> season so far. We had a week of rain in New England that didn't end
> Sunday. What would have happened if Gloucester was on that date
> Would you have to move to September?
> Everyone on this list, and every cyclo-cross rider in the US,
> wants to see a successful USGP, myself included. We need BOTH a
> racing calendar of events week in and week out, as well as a
> that brings all the best riders together for a few select races.
> organizer on this list is willing to be flexible, open, and
> the USGP to make sure that it's a success. But it needs to go both
> we all need to be part of that process if it's going to go forward
> successful way.
> Mike's e-mail was reasonable, in my opinion, and reflected what I
> of us are feeling. We're all ready to go, and none of us want to
> seats kicked out from under us.
> So Bruce, what I think we all need to hear is, what exactly are your
> desires, what are your limiters, and what are the possible
> on 11/30/05 3:33 PM, finasport1 at finasport@a... wrote:
> > Dear Mike.
> > I appreciate the situation and we are doing our best to get this
> > clarified. As you read from Paul, Gloucester does have issues
> > the date. We are also having issues, largely due to the fact that
> > the UCI needs dates set before the season even ends. That is
> > challenging to say the least. We would like to have the same
> > every year, but as is the case for 2006 it looks like that might
> > be possible. There are so many different scenarios floating right
> > now that it is not even reasonable to explain them all.
> > Other complaints that we faced this year that may or may not be
> > solvable are that teams such as TIAA CREF and last season, Maxxis
> > not appreciate that we were going coast to coast to coast this
> > season. They want their full support vehicles there and were
> > to have that since it involved that travel.
> > Not that this matters either, but from what I have heard there
> > be a change in the UCI points counting system that may make it
> > reasonable to have UCI races everywhere. Adam will have to fill
> > in. This may impact the decisions of promoters in the future but
> > am not clear as to how yet.
> > Mike, I wish I could be more clear but until it is done, it is not
> > done. I am sorry for that. We will do our best.
> > Bruce
> > --- In USAICO@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hebe" <mhebe@e...> wrote:
> >> Paul, Bruce, Geoff and my fellow UCI promoters
> >> I understand the desire to set a distinct date for an East Coast
> > USGP, that carries on, in case Gloucester may not be the choice at
> > some point. My concern as a promoter and as the Director of the
> > series is that a move in dates for 2006 will make both the New
> > England and the Mid-Atlantic UCI series revert back to the drawing
> > board, as it relates to scheduling.
> >> The impact of a date change from the last weekend in October will
> > directly impact no less than eight-ten other UCI events. As it
> > now there are ZERO date conflicts for the UCI races on the East
> > Coast, sixteen in total. The NECCS & MAC series have worked
> > diligently to ensure this, while keeping dates open for Michigan &
> > NC. As promoters we have all went to great lengths to solidify our
> > dates for 2006, even earlier this year.
> >> Unless there is a date issue with the Gloucester venue, or
> > Gloucester will not be the USGP venue, I respectfully request
> > change in date be made for 2006. Any change in date could be
> > implemented in 2007. We are too close to the NATS promoter's
> > to ask promoters to go back to their respective venues and request
> > date changes.
> >> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
> >> Regards,
> >> Mike Hebe
> >> Race Director Lower Allen Classic UCI C2
> >> Director VERGE Mid-Atlantic Cyclocross series
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>