348Re: Gloucester USGP dates
- Dec 1, 2005First: To Tom.
Thank you for your continued support. You have always been
supportive of cross and everything that anyone has taken on to better
the sport. While, as you say, we are in some way the 400 lb
Gorilla, we are not trying to throw that weight around recklessly.
We are simply trying to come to conclusions in a way that is correct
and sensitive to others feelings and ambitions. We are working
furiously to get our schedule done. We are speaking with 8-10
different promoters about events for next season but are narrowing it
down now. The challenge that I have spoken of is that we just
completed the series season and the folks in California have not even
settled thier books to decide whether they want to undertake another
USGP. Therefore it is tough for us to make that decision without
In any case, we will be done hopefully by the end of the weekend.
To Adam. I appreciate your kind words. We have had our differences
but I would gladly put them behind us. I have simply heard from
various people around the US that you have predicted that we would
not be around much longer. Unless you know something I do not, then
you are mistaken. The USGP is stable and solvent and while some
people would like to see us do more and bigger, we have chosen a
conservative path to grow this that can be counted on for years to
come. Sponsorship is always hard to come by but that said, we do not
make promises we cannot keep and therefore we expect no September
In any case, lets put this crap to and end and get on with it. We
are good to go, races are good, I think and hope US cross is
benefiting and we want to keep it going that way. This season,
every US GP set a record for attendance at thier race. Even as great
as Gloucester was and is, they exceeded expectations even in the snow!
Ok, we will get you everything we have, as soon as we have it.
Thanks again to all!
--- In USAICO@yahoogroups.com, Adam Hodges Myerson <adam@c...> wrote:
> I have never said anything on this list, or to anyone in private
> conversation, that I have not also said to you personally, and in a
> reasonable and professional manner.
> I have also not held you to a different standard than I hold myself
> every other organizer on this list, when it could be argued that
> in fact, be held to a higher standard.
> I stated clearly that I believe in the GP, I support it, and I want
> succeed. You were the one who stepped up and took on the work that
> us had only been talking about, and the work you, Paul, and Geoff
> is appreciated by all of us. You will get support from every
> this list, provided the GP doesn't happen at their expense.
> I think Tom's e-mail summed things up very well, and so I ask again:
> What exactly are your desires, what are your limiters, and what are
> possible scenarios?
> on 12/1/05 5:23 AM, finasport1 at finasport@a... wrote:
> > Dear Adam:
> > Thanks for your mail. As the newly appointed US Representative
> > Cross to the UCI I think you should remain neutral and supportive
> > all here. I do not enjoy hearing you criticize the USGP both
> > privately and publicly all of the time, instead of directly to us
> > 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
> > case racing, at a World Cup and World Championship level. Not
> > we are not above criticism, we are harsher on ourselves than
> > else could be.
> > The recent results of Ryan Trebon are proof that what we are
> > 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
> > past weekend. The class of US racing is getting better and
> > as you stated in your DVD "Transition," at a USGP last season.
> > I respect what each and every promoter is undertaking to organize
> > race and we can go back in time, even you Adam, and thank guys
> > Clark Natwick and Lyle Fulkerson, for paving our way for us.
> > guys really did the hardest work and put thier butts on the line
> > the sport.
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > to try to have races in the Northern California. Now we cannot
> > pick one, we have to find a way to get 2. The thinking behind
> > 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
> > 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
> > emotions and this cannot be done in a public forum. Would you
> > to get fired from a job in front of all your peers? Even if you
> > great at what you do. But the company changed directions. Well
> > that is how we feel every day. Someone, will always damn us
> > we cannot go everywhere and from the start, we thought 6 races
> > 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
> > to meld them together into a series. A huge challenge that Lyle
> > Fulkerson can probably attest to. And as a National Series, we
> > striving to step up from the status of a great US race to that
> > 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
> > local activities around each race. I can only say that I think
> > is far more complicated than meets the eye.
> > While I also would like to be organized 2 years in advance it is
> > not really reasonable for us with such a short history. Remember,
> > that the New England Series and the MAC have a head start. We
> > growing and learning. And People like Tom Simpson are not going
> > 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
> > them and their challenges. This includes being patient to see
> > they do with their races. After 2 seasons we now think that we
> > 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
> > well as our European experience.
> > Ok, enough I think, as Myles said, that is my 2 cents. I
> > everyones effort to get this done and make it work. We would
> > do our part and we hope that at least some of you have gotten
> > out of the USGP existing. Such as increased interest, or as Myles
> > mentioned increased racers at a weekend before or after a USGP in
> > area.
> > Sincerely Your
> > Bruce
> > --- In USAICO@yahoogroups.com, Adam Hodges Myerson <adam@c...>
> >> Organizers,
> >> I think it's important to think back to why this group of US UCI
> > cyclo-cross
> >> organizers exists, and why there's a national cyclo-cross racing
> > calendar
> >> with healthy, stable, individual races across the country.
> > Essentially, it
> >> was a reaction to the lack of organization of the national series
> > at the
> >> time. The rest of us were organized, had our dates set a year in
> > advance
> >> with no problem, and were working together. As late as September,
> > the bomb
> >> of the SuperCup was regularly dropped on us, which left everyone
> > scrambling
> >> 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
> > didn't die,
> >> it blossomed with the room it head above its head.
> >> For the group of US organizers at this point, it's not reasonable
> > for the
> >> USGP to operate in a vacuum or to assume that all the other US
> >> organizers should have to plan around it while it operates on a
> > different
> >> timetable than the rest of us. The USGP only exists because of
> > work of
> >> individual promoters who were already organizing successful
> > How is
> >> it that we find ourselves once again in the situation where every
> > race in
> >> the country has its dates set other than the national series,
> > it should
> >> be the other way around?
> >> The fact that we need to know our dates more than a year in
> > is not a
> >> negative; it's a reflection of the kind of organization
> >> organize a quality, stable event that's rooted and has support in
> > its
> >> community and the racing scene. Races should have stability,
> > history, and
> >> tradition, or should be working towards that. Yearly date changes
> > disrupt
> >> that, and have a ripple effect that disrupts the entire calendar.
> > If the
> >> USGP is supposed to set the standard, then it should be organized
> > better,
> >> and sooner, than all of the other US races.
> >> If the USGP needs to reconsider its dates, it needs to do so in
> > open way
> >> that involves discussion with ALL the events on the NRC. It can't
> > operate as
> >> 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
> > haven't heard
> >> from California, but we have heard from Bruce that there needs
> >> geographical flow to the GP schedule. At the same time, we hear
> >> Gloucester is getting pressured to go earlier.
> >> Logically, if the NW is set then I would expect the second race
> > be in CA,
> >> and the finals to be in Gloucester. However, since Gloucester has
> > to go
> >> early, you'd expect it to perhaps be the first race in the
> >> My expectation would be that the GP would set it's dates, and
> > consider
> >> moving it's races around on those dates, so as not to disrupt the
> > schedule
> >> or operate at the expense of other race organizers who are
> > announcing their
> >> dates in good faith.
> >> I'm sympathetic to the pressure Gloucester is under right now.
> > let's say
> >> they do move forward 2 weeks, to the 14/15 of October. First,
> > could be
> >> possible, and they could swap with New Gloucester, ME for those
> > dates and
> >> maintain the flow of the calendar. But we've heard no discussion
> > that
> >> effect yet, and we need to if this is a possible scenario.
> >> Second, moving forward will not address the risk of damage to the
> > course you
> >> wish to avoid. Anyone who was at Maine this year on the weekend
> > Gloucester
> >> is talking about moving to remembers it as the muddiest race
> > had all
> >> season so far. We had a week of rain in New England that didn't
> > until
> >> Sunday. What would have happened if Gloucester was on that date
> > this year?
> >> Would you have to move to September?
> >> Everyone on this list, and every cyclo-cross rider in the US,
> > supports and
> >> wants to see a successful USGP, myself included. We need BOTH a
> > national
> >> racing calendar of events week in and week out, as well as a
> > national series
> >> that brings all the best riders together for a few select races.
> > Every
> >> organizer on this list is willing to be flexible, open, and
> > cooperative with
> >> the USGP to make sure that it's a success. But it needs to go
> > ways, and
> >> we all need to be part of that process if it's going to go
> > in a
> >> successful way.
> >> Mike's e-mail was reasonable, in my opinion, and reflected what I
> > think many
> >> of us are feeling. We're all ready to go, and none of us want to
> > have our
> >> seats kicked out from under us.
> >> So Bruce, what I think we all need to hear is, what exactly are
> >> desires, what are your limiters, and what are the possible
> > scenarios?
> >> Adam
> >> 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
> > with
> >>> the date. We are also having issues, largely due to the fact
> >>> the UCI needs dates set before the season even ends. That is
> >>> challenging to say the least. We would like to have the same
> > dates
> >>> every year, but as is the case for 2006 it looks like that might
> > not
> >>> be possible. There are so many different scenarios floating
> >>> 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,
> > did
> >>> not appreciate that we were going coast to coast to coast this
> >>> season. They want their full support vehicles there and were
> > unable
> >>> to have that since it involved that travel.
> >>> Not that this matters either, but from what I have heard there
> > will
> >>> be a change in the UCI points counting system that may make it
> > less
> >>> reasonable to have UCI races everywhere. Adam will have to fill
> > us
> >>> in. This may impact the decisions of promoters in the future
> > I
> >>> am not clear as to how yet.
> >>> Mike, I wish I could be more clear but until it is done, it is
> >>> 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
> >>> USGP, that carries on, in case Gloucester may not be the choice
> >>> some point. My concern as a promoter and as the Director of the
> > MAC
> >>> 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
> >>> board, as it relates to scheduling.
> >>>> The impact of a date change from the last weekend in October
> >>> directly impact no less than eight-ten other UCI events. As it
> > stands
> >>> 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
> >>> NC. As promoters we have all went to great lengths to solidify
> >>> 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
> > that NO
> >>> 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
> > meeting
> >>> to ask promoters to go back to their respective venues and
> >>> 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 >>