Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [USAICO] Re: Please Reply to All on This Matter

Expand Messages
  • Myles Romanow
    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
    Message 1 of 29 , Jan 5, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      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

      On Jan 5, 2011 9:48 AM, "Adam Myerson" <adam@...> wrote:
      > 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
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
    • Adam Myerson
      To defend the GP for a second, remember that they found out about the C1 rule changes at the same time we did, and are responding to them in the way that best
      Message 2 of 29 , Jan 5, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        To defend the GP for a second, remember that they found out about the C1 rule changes at the same time we did, and are responding to them in the way that best served their races. So while I do always push for more openness and cooperation between the organizers, we were all working in a narrow window here. I don't think the GP was plotting for months to steal people's dates. I think if we knew about the changes in April or something, we would have had time to work things out.

        Right now, I don't actually see a solution that works for anyone. I think consensus and compromise in this case is going to mean no one will get what they want. Not the USGP, not Ohio, not Providence, and now not me, since I have Ohio on my date. Show me a solution where everyone gets what they want. It doesn't exist.

        So while I personally feel the path of least resistance is for the USGP to stay on its date for one year and for us to work together to get them a date that allows them to be a C1, I don't for a minute think that's a good solution for them or anything we should expect them to want to do. I don't think any of us here has the energy to actually be trying to screw each other over intentionally.

        I'm going to put some effort in here to back us away from the rhetoric and focus on the problems. None of us would be here if we didn't care about 'cross, and none of us are getting rich. Some of us are losing money, even the professionals. What I do see here, again, is a situation where there are going to be some winners and some losers. If there's a compromise here where everyone gets what they want, I sure don't see it. I've heard the arguments from every party now, and no one involved has a staff of righteousness they can hold up and say their case is the strongest.

        I like the USGP staying on it's date for a year. I also think we should all be looking for a long term solution that gets them on a date where they can be C1s. I think the USGP _should_ be C1, and if they're going to lay it on the line, we should support it. I just wish it could happen without so much cost. I'm pretty bummed to have Ohio moving to my date, and am now an innocent bystander getting caught in the crossfire, no pun intended.

        Gonna ride my bike now, if you don't mind.

        Adam

        On Jan 5, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Myles Romanow wrote:



        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

        On Jan 5, 2011 9:48 AM, "Adam Myerson" <adam@...> wrote:
        > 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
        >> 
        >> 
        >> 
        > 



      • Mitch Graham
        Adam I told you this earlier in the year - the Cincinnati UCI weekend would not currently exist if it wasn t for your sage advice and assistance in the early
        Message 3 of 29 , Jan 6, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Adam I told you this earlier in the year - the Cincinnati UCI weekend would not currently exist if it wasn't for your sage advice and assistance in the early years while we struggled to figure the UCI process out.  That is a fact.  We are very bummed about this as well.

          Our position on this year's schedule is that the USGP has every right to adjust their event dates the same as any promoter on this list.  The fact that they have held the same dates for quite a few years shows us that this is not something that they wanted to have happen.  We support their series and what they are doing for American cyclocross.
            

          Mitch Graham

          Cincy UCI3

           




          From: Adam Myerson <adam@...>
          To: USAICO@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 12:32:39 PM
          Subject: Re: [USAICO] Re: Please Reply to All on This Matter

           

          To defend the GP for a second, remember that they found out about the C1 rule changes at the same time we did, and are responding to them in the way that best served their races. So while I do always push for more openness and cooperation between the organizers, we were all working in a narrow window here. I don't think the GP was plotting for months to steal people's dates. I think if we knew about the changes in April or something, we would have had time to work things out.


          Right now, I don't actually see a solution that works for anyone. I think consensus and compromise in this case is going to mean no one will get what they want. Not the USGP, not Ohio, not Providence, and now not me, since I have Ohio on my date. Show me a solution where everyone gets what they want. It doesn't exist.

          So while I personally feel the path of least resistance is for the USGP to stay on its date for one year and for us to work together to get them a date that allows them to be a C1, I don't for a minute think that's a good solution for them or anything we should expect them to want to do. I don't think any of us here has the energy to actually be trying to screw each other over intentionally.

          I'm going to put some effort in here to back us away from the rhetoric and focus on the problems. None of us would be here if we didn't care about 'cross, and none of us are getting rich. Some of us are losing money, even the professionals. What I do see here, again, is a situation where there are going to be some winners and some losers. If there's a compromise here where everyone gets what they want, I sure don't see it. I've heard the arguments from every party now, and no one involved has a staff of righteousness they can hold up and say their case is the strongest.

          I like the USGP staying on it's date for a year. I also think we should all be looking for a long term solution that gets them on a date where they can be C1s. I think the USGP _should_ be C1, and if they're going to lay it on the line, we should support it. I just wish it could happen without so much cost. I'm pretty bummed to have Ohio moving to my date, and am now an innocent bystander getting caught in the crossfire, no pun intended.

          Gonna ride my bike now, if you don't mind.

          Adam

          On Jan 5, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Myles Romanow wrote:



          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

          On Jan 5, 2011 9:48 AM, "Adam Myerson" <adam@...> wrote:
          > 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
          >> 
          >> 
          >> 
          > 




        • Adam Myerson
          I m definitely not blaming you, Mitch. And really, I m trying not to blame anyone. I see a bunch of organizers who are reacting to a situation, who all want
          Message 4 of 29 , Jan 6, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm definitely not blaming you, Mitch. And really, I'm trying not to blame anyone. I see a bunch of organizers who are reacting to a situation, who all want what's best for their races, and what they think is best for 'cross. I just don't see how everyone is going to get what they want here, and so I think it's ok for us to pick a path of least resistance.

            So while I may personally want the USGP not to move because I think that's the overall best answer while we look for a better long term solution, I don't blame them for wanting and trying to, and I don't blame you for wanting to get off that date. At this point, it all just "is."

            And of course, thanks for the appreciation. You're one of the examples, in my opinion, of how encouraging more races leads to real growth. So congrats on your success, both with your race and the growth of your regional scene as a result.

            Adam

            On Jan 6, 2011, at 7:00 AM, Mitch Graham wrote:



            Adam I told you this earlier in the year - the Cincinnati UCI weekend would not currently exist if it wasn't for your sage advice and assistance in the early years while we struggled to figure the UCI process out.  That is a fact.  We are very bummed about this as well.

            Our position on this year's schedule is that the USGP has every right to adjust their event dates the same as any promoter on this list.  The fact that they have held the same dates for quite a few years shows us that this is not something that they wanted to have happen.  We support their series and what they are doing for American cyclocross.
               

            Mitch Graham

            Cincy UCI3

             




            From: Adam Myerson <adam@...>
            To: USAICO@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 12:32:39 PM
            Subject: Re: [USAICO] Re: Please Reply to All on This Matter

            To defend the GP for a second, remember that they found out about the C1 rule changes at the same time we did, and are responding to them in the way that best served their races. So while I do always push for more openness and cooperation between the organizers, we were all working in a narrow window here. I don't think the GP was plotting for months to steal people's dates. I think if we knew about the changes in April or something, we would have had time to work things out.


            Right now, I don't actually see a solution that works for anyone. I think consensus and compromise in this case is going to mean no one will get what they want. Not the USGP, not Ohio, not Providence, and now not me, since I have Ohio on my date. Show me a solution where everyone gets what they want. It doesn't exist.

            So while I personally feel the path of least resistance is for the USGP to stay on its date for one year and for us to work together to get them a date that allows them to be a C1, I don't for a minute think that's a good solution for them or anything we should expect them to want to do. I don't think any of us here has the energy to actually be trying to screw each other over intentionally.

            I'm going to put some effort in here to back us away from the rhetoric and focus on the problems. None of us would be here if we didn't care about 'cross, and none of us are getting rich. Some of us are losing money, even the professionals. What I do see here, again, is a situation where there are going to be some winners and some losers. If there's a compromise here where everyone gets what they want, I sure don't see it. I've heard the arguments from every party now, and no one involved has a staff of righteousness they can hold up and say their case is the strongest.

            I like the USGP staying on it's date for a year. I also think we should all be looking for a long term solution that gets them on a date where they can be C1s. I think the USGP _should_ be C1, and if they're going to lay it on the line, we should support it. I just wish it could happen without so much cost. I'm pretty bummed to have Ohio moving to my date, and am now an innocent bystander getting caught in the crossfire, no pun intended.

            Gonna ride my bike now, if you don't mind.

            Adam

            On Jan 5, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Myles Romanow wrote:



            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

            On Jan 5, 2011 9:48 AM, "Adam Myerson" <adam@...> wrote:
            > 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
            >> 
            >> 
            >> 
            > 







          • Bruce Fina
            Thanks for another point Myles. Oddly enough I am not sure people would step aside and promote elsewhere. I just do not feel that there are many in this
            Message 5 of 29 , Jan 10, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks for another point Myles.  Oddly enough I am not sure people would step aside and promote elsewhere.  I just do not feel that there are many in this group that do not have competitive spirit.   I understand your point about secrecy but that has not really been our thing.   Our thing has been, to make announcements based on when we have hard facts and dates to share and not based upon our hopes and wishes. There have been many occasions where we did not announce dates our plans because our plans were not set.   So we waited until they were before making some announcement.   It has concerned me but I hate to cancel events or plans and thus far we never have cancelled anything.  Moved from NJ to CO but not cancelled.

              We also did not announce the Worlds bid before it happened even though we worked on it for 2 years.   The reason was simple.   There had been announcements made and even calender dates held for US World Cups before and each and every time they were cancelled.  Due to that the US had lost a lot of credibility in the eyes of the UCI and other European promoters.  Until we had a pretty solid agreement in place with the city of Louisville we did not feel that we should announce anything.   And we were very correct in doing so in hind sight.   The person that used to run the sports commission there was pretty much on board so our bid looked good.  Then came a changing of the guard there in Louisville and the bid was dead.   Then in the run up to the bidding deadline the new guard there picked up the ball and we were able to get an agreement done.  I think we could have never succeeded had this all been played out in public.   That is why sometimes you might feel like we are quiet.   I for one, do not want to make plans and promises I cannot keep.  To sponsors, athletes and the rest of the community.

              We will try harder to keep everyone informed of our plans.   We are also here for the asking as well, anytime.

              Cheers
              Bruce




              From: Myles Romanow <ilovetoracecross@...>
              To: USAICO@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 6:07:03 PM
              Subject: Re: [USAICO] Re: Please Reply to All on This Matter

               

              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

              On Jan 5, 2011 9:48 AM, "Adam Myerson" <adam@...> wrote:
              > 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
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >

            • CrossSportif@aol.com
              To the Group: I m in the process of working on a report and possible reform proposal for the UCI Cyclocross Commission on behalf of our UCI Women s category.
              Message 6 of 29 , Jan 11, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                To the Group:

                I'm in the process of working on a report and possible reform proposal for the UCI Cyclocross Commission on behalf of our UCI Women's category. At present, there are several interconnected developments providing impetus:
                • the support from several US organizers who've provided equal prize money to x number of top placing women. 
                • the UCI 2011-2012 rule requiring all C1's to have a women's event. 
                • the strong statements our women are making: specifically, Katie Compton's international results and leadership and Georgia Gould's petition (from 2008?) with 3,546 signatures currently. See http://www.petitiononline.com/equalpay/petition.html
                • the natural maturation (depth, breadth, and calendar) of UCI women's racing, thus acting as catalyst for delineation of point values between women's C1 and C2 events
                I suspect the phasing in of any reform might need to be taken in several steps/stages, so I'm working with that process in mind. Fortunately, we already have the above mentioned momentum. 

                To date, my focus has been on various point system models and my sources have been many of the top women as well as team managers and coaches. 

                In addition, I'm interested in hearing from US organizers. So, I will take comments for the next two weeks, up until the world championships on prize money, points, or any other angle. Then, I'll prepare a proposal for our 2011 spring commission meeting and provide a full report at the USAC Cyclocross Summit in April. 

                If you have some constructive thoughts on this, please let me know. 

                Best,
                Geoff Proctor
                Member, UCI Cyclocross Commission
                CrossSportif@...



              • Myles Romanow
                My own thoughts. The current women s prize list is fairly insulting at the C1 level. Promoters have been taking it upon themselves to raise the necessary
                Message 7 of 29 , Jan 11, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  My own thoughts.  The current women's prize list is fairly insulting at the C1 level.  Promoters have been taking it upon themselves to raise the necessary funds to promote a womens race with a rational payout.  The uci has told us that since the women's race is shorter, and less decisive and or less exciting, it's worth less to the athletes that race it. 

                  I think that the amount of time an athlete puts in to complete their athletic goals deserves a reward that is not determined by gender.  A win for a woman at the highest level of the sport is simply as significant as a win for a man at the same level.  

                  I think the failure of the europeans to properly capitalize on women's racing is likely the real story, simply put with half the population of the planet being female, there is both interest and sponsors to promote such endeavors, they may just not have been found yet.  

                  My initial thought when I started paying women out equally was that they needed more than the UCI had proposed in their rules, and that it would be great PR for me.. I was right on both accounts.  7 years later (?) I've revamped my thought process a little bit. 

                  I think that if the girls race is roughly 85% of the men's race, they should get 85% of the payout.  At high ranking events like world cups and or world championships the top three should get equal to the men.  If individual promoters want to kick up so the top 3 get equal money across the board, and the rest get 85%, thats wonderful.  

                  Of course, if women's races were to extend their length for the full hour, then the fractions wouldn't be needed.  I have heard arguments that since the womens field is so unevenly stacked (meaning one woman totally crushes the rest and the extra lap is essentially outcome not inducing and redundant), and while that is true, no one seems to care that Boom or Nys rides away from everyone on lap 4.  So few races are decided in a sprint, I feel that point is insignificant.  I think the larger point, that women should be treated as equals overrides it.  But thats just me.  Best to you all. 

                  M


                  On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:20 PM, <CrossSportif@...> wrote:
                   

                  To the Group:

                  I'm in the process of working on a report and possible reform proposal for the UCI Cyclocross Commission on behalf of our UCI Women's category. At present, there are several interconnected developments providing impetus:
                  • the support from several US organizers who've provided equal prize money to x number of top placing women. 
                  • the UCI 2011-2012 rule requiring all C1's to have a women's event. 
                  • the strong statements our women are making: specifically, Katie Compton's international results and leadership and Georgia Gould's petition (from 2008?) with 3,546 signatures currently. See http://www.petitiononline.com/equalpay/petition.html
                  • the natural maturation (depth, breadth, and calendar) of UCI women's racing, thus acting as catalyst for delineation of point values between women's C1 and C2 events
                  I suspect the phasing in of any reform might need to be taken in several steps/stages, so I'm working with that process in mind. Fortunately, we already have the above mentioned momentum. 

                  To date, my focus has been on various point system models and my sources have been many of the top women as well as team managers and coaches. 

                  In addition, I'm interested in hearing from US organizers. So, I will take comments for the next two weeks, up until the world championships on prize money, points, or any other angle. Then, I'll prepare a proposal for our 2011 spring commission meeting and provide a full report at the USAC Cyclocross Summit in April. 

                  If you have some constructive thoughts on this, please let me know. 

                  Best,
                  Geoff Proctor
                  Member, UCI Cyclocross Commission


                • Mitch Graham
                  I agree with Myles 100%. The European promoters do a lot of things right with cyclocross - this is certainly not one of them. The impetus for establishing a
                  Message 8 of 29 , Jan 11, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I agree with Myles 100%.  The European promoters do a lot of things right with cyclocross - this is certainly not one of them.  The impetus for establishing a more sustainable occupation for our female cyclocross athletes is going to need to come from the U.S. promoters.

                    Perhaps a mid-level category for women is in order (a C2 and C1) - one with twice the current points and five times the prize money of the lower level.  Promoters of C1 mens events can pick between the two.  World Cup points get adjusted appropriately.
                     

                    Mitch Graham - Bio Wheels Workshop

                    (513) 861-2453 Work

                    (513) 476-6805 Mobile

                    6810 Miami Ave

                    Cincinnati, Ohio

                    45243

                     




                    From: Myles Romanow <ilovetoracecross@...>
                    To: USAICO@yahoogroups.com
                    Cc: klusk@...; spetty@...; mgullickson@...
                    Sent: Tue, January 11, 2011 7:56:14 PM
                    Subject: Re: [USAICO] UCI Women

                     

                    My own thoughts.  The current women's prize list is fairly insulting at the C1 level.  Promoters have been taking it upon themselves to raise the necessary funds to promote a womens race with a rational payout.  The uci has told us that since the women's race is shorter, and less decisive and or less exciting, it's worth less to the athletes that race it. 


                    I think that the amount of time an athlete puts in to complete their athletic goals deserves a reward that is not determined by gender.  A win for a woman at the highest level of the sport is simply as significant as a win for a man at the same level.  

                    I think the failure of the europeans to properly capitalize on women's racing is likely the real story, simply put with half the population of the planet being female, there is both interest and sponsors to promote such endeavors, they may just not have been found yet.  

                    My initial thought when I started paying women out equally was that they needed more than the UCI had proposed in their rules, and that it would be great PR for me.. I was right on both accounts.  7 years later (?) I've revamped my thought process a little bit. 

                    I think that if the girls race is roughly 85% of the men's race, they should get 85% of the payout.  At high ranking events like world cups and or world championships the top three should get equal to the men.  If individual promoters want to kick up so the top 3 get equal money across the board, and the rest get 85%, thats wonderful.  

                    Of course, if women's races were to extend their length for the full hour, then the fractions wouldn't be needed.  I have heard arguments that since the womens field is so unevenly stacked (meaning one woman totally crushes the rest and the extra lap is essentially outcome not inducing and redundant), and while that is true, no one seems to care that Boom or Nys rides away from everyone on lap 4.  So few races are decided in a sprint, I feel that point is insignificant.  I think the larger point, that women should be treated as equals overrides it.  But thats just me.  Best to you all. 

                    M


                    On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:20 PM, <CrossSportif@...> wrote:
                     

                    To the Group:

                    I'm in the process of working on a report and possible reform proposal for the UCI Cyclocross Commission on behalf of our UCI Women's category. At present, there are several interconnected developments providing impetus:
                    • the support from several US organizers who've provided equal prize money to x number of top placing women. 
                    • the UCI 2011-2012 rule requiring all C1's to have a women's event. 
                    • the strong statements our women are making: specifically, Katie Compton's international results and leadership and Georgia Gould's petition (from 2008?) with 3,546 signatures currently. See http://www.petitiononline.com/equalpay/petition.html
                    • the natural maturation (depth, breadth, and calendar) of UCI women's racing, thus acting as catalyst for delineation of point values between women's C1 and C2 events
                    I suspect the phasing in of any reform might need to be taken in several steps/stages, so I'm working with that process in mind. Fortunately, we already have the above mentioned momentum. 

                    To date, my focus has been on various point system models and my sources have been many of the top women as well as team managers and coaches. 

                    In addition, I'm interested in hearing from US organizers. So, I will take comments for the next two weeks, up until the world championships on prize money, points, or any other angle. Then, I'll prepare a proposal for our 2011 spring commission meeting and provide a full report at the USAC Cyclocross Summit in April. 

                    If you have some constructive thoughts on this, please let me know. 

                    Best,
                    Geoff Proctor
                    Member, UCI Cyclocross Commission



                  • Myles Romanow
                    Points.. are sort of relative I guess. They are just numbers, I don t think anyone cares if they have 10 points or 4 points or 55 points as it s a relative
                    Message 9 of 29 , Jan 11, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Points.. are sort of relative I guess. They are just numbers,  I don't think anyone cares if they have 10 points or 4 points or 55 points as it's a relative tally, and  I do not think there is a cash prize for total number of points.. Money is sort of universal.  everyone wants some.

                      m


                      On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Mitch Graham <mitch_biowheels@...> wrote:
                       

                      I agree with Myles 100%.  The European promoters do a lot of things right with cyclocross - this is certainly not one of them.  The impetus for establishing a more sustainable occupation for our female cyclocross athletes is going to need to come from the U.S. promoters.

                      Perhaps a mid-level category for women is in order (a C2 and C1) - one with twice the current points and five times the prize money of the lower level.  Promoters of C1 mens events can pick between the two.  World Cup points get adjusted appropriately.
                       

                      Mitch Graham - Bio Wheels Workshop

                      (513) 861-2453 Work

                      (513) 476-6805 Mobile

                      6810 Miami Ave

                      Cincinnati, Ohio

                      45243

                       




                      From: Myles Romanow <ilovetoracecross@...>
                      To: USAICO@yahoogroups.com
                      Cc: klusk@...; spetty@...; mgullickson@...
                      Sent: Tue, January 11, 2011 7:56:14 PM
                      Subject: Re: [USAICO] UCI Women

                       

                      My own thoughts.  The current women's prize list is fairly insulting at the C1 level.  Promoters have been taking it upon themselves to raise the necessary funds to promote a womens race with a rational payout.  The uci has told us that since the women's race is shorter, and less decisive and or less exciting, it's worth less to the athletes that race it. 


                      I think that the amount of time an athlete puts in to complete their athletic goals deserves a reward that is not determined by gender.  A win for a woman at the highest level of the sport is simply as significant as a win for a man at the same level.  

                      I think the failure of the europeans to properly capitalize on women's racing is likely the real story, simply put with half the population of the planet being female, there is both interest and sponsors to promote such endeavors, they may just not have been found yet.  

                      My initial thought when I started paying women out equally was that they needed more than the UCI had proposed in their rules, and that it would be great PR for me.. I was right on both accounts.  7 years later (?) I've revamped my thought process a little bit. 

                      I think that if the girls race is roughly 85% of the men's race, they should get 85% of the payout.  At high ranking events like world cups and or world championships the top three should get equal to the men.  If individual promoters want to kick up so the top 3 get equal money across the board, and the rest get 85%, thats wonderful.  

                      Of course, if women's races were to extend their length for the full hour, then the fractions wouldn't be needed.  I have heard arguments that since the womens field is so unevenly stacked (meaning one woman totally crushes the rest and the extra lap is essentially outcome not inducing and redundant), and while that is true, no one seems to care that Boom or Nys rides away from everyone on lap 4.  So few races are decided in a sprint, I feel that point is insignificant.  I think the larger point, that women should be treated as equals overrides it.  But thats just me.  Best to you all. 

                      M


                      On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:20 PM, <CrossSportif@...> wrote:
                       

                      To the Group:

                      I'm in the process of working on a report and possible reform proposal for the UCI Cyclocross Commission on behalf of our UCI Women's category. At present, there are several interconnected developments providing impetus:
                      • the support from several US organizers who've provided equal prize money to x number of top placing women. 
                      • the UCI 2011-2012 rule requiring all C1's to have a women's event. 
                      • the strong statements our women are making: specifically, Katie Compton's international results and leadership and Georgia Gould's petition (from 2008?) with 3,546 signatures currently. See http://www.petitiononline.com/equalpay/petition.html
                      • the natural maturation (depth, breadth, and calendar) of UCI women's racing, thus acting as catalyst for delineation of point values between women's C1 and C2 events
                      I suspect the phasing in of any reform might need to be taken in several steps/stages, so I'm working with that process in mind. Fortunately, we already have the above mentioned momentum. 

                      To date, my focus has been on various point system models and my sources have been many of the top women as well as team managers and coaches. 

                      In addition, I'm interested in hearing from US organizers. So, I will take comments for the next two weeks, up until the world championships on prize money, points, or any other angle. Then, I'll prepare a proposal for our 2011 spring commission meeting and provide a full report at the USAC Cyclocross Summit in April. 

                      If you have some constructive thoughts on this, please let me know. 

                      Best,
                      Geoff Proctor
                      Member, UCI Cyclocross Commission




                    • brucefina
                      Thanks for writing Geoff As you might know the USGP has paid equally to the men for the Top 3 female riders for the last bunch of years. We have talked about
                      Message 10 of 29 , Jan 12, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks for writing Geoff

                        As you might know the USGP has paid equally to the men for the Top 3 female riders for the last bunch of years. We have talked about increasing that to the Top 5 for next season. That means on a Cat 1 day the top 3 get Cat 1 $$ and on a Cat 2 day they get Cat 2 money. I can tell you that the women have been relatively pleased with that and we have gotten mostly compliments for it. No criticism I can think of. Our rational is simply that the pay really needs to go to those that are professionals and real FT pros. Like in any other sports the Semi pros need to work their way up to that level of course. The professionals racing in the US at least is increasing and I think we would all like to see that continue. Thus we feel that paying equal a little bit deeper is now more and more justified.

                        I do not think we should pay a percentage for the length of the race. No matter what the UCI does we will still pay equal to the men at the top.

                        I do think having more than one Cat for women is a good idea as well.

                        Thanks
                        Bruce


                        --- In USAICO@yahoogroups.com, CrossSportif@... wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > To the Group:
                        >
                        >
                        > I'm in the process of working on a report and possible reform proposal for the UCI Cyclocross Commission on behalf of our UCI Women's category. At present, there are several interconnected developments providing impetus:
                        >
                        > the support from several US organizers who've provided equal prize money to x number of top placing women.
                        > the UCI 2011-2012 rule requiring all C1's to have a women's event.
                        > the strong statements our women are making: specifically, Katie Compton's international results and leadership and Georgia Gould's petition (from 2008?) with 3,546 signatures currently. See http://www.petitiononline.com/equalpay/petition.html
                        > the natural maturation (depth, breadth, and calendar) of UCI women's racing, thus acting as catalyst for delineation of point values between women's C1 and C2 events
                        >
                        > I suspect the phasing in of any reform might need to be taken in several steps/stages, so I'm working with that process in mind. Fortunately, we already have the above mentioned momentum.
                        >
                        >
                        > To date, my focus has been on various point system models and my sources have been many of the top women as well as team managers and coaches.
                        >
                        >
                        > In addition, I'm interested in hearing from US organizers. So, I will take comments for the next two weeks, up until the world championships on prize money, points, or any other angle. Then, I'll prepare a proposal for our 2011 spring commission meeting and provide a full report at the USAC Cyclocross Summit in April.
                        >
                        >
                        > If you have some constructive thoughts on this, please let me know.
                        >
                        >
                        > Best,
                        > Geoff Proctor
                        > Member, UCI Cyclocross Commission
                        > CrossSportif@...
                        >
                      • Alan Atwood
                        Myles touched on it briefly but I ve mentioned this to Geoff before......it s high time that the women be allowed to do 50 minutes. Using New England as an
                        Message 11 of 29 , Jan 12, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Myles touched on it briefly but I've mentioned this to Geoff before......it's high time that the women be allowed to do 50 minutes.  Using New England as an example, the amateur women (who are demanding 40 minutes) do the same race time that the elite women do.  Drives me nuts.  Time to increase the women's race time.

                          Alan Atwood


                          To: USAICO@yahoogroups.com
                          From: brucefina@...
                          Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:56:57 +0000
                          Subject: [USAICO] Re: UCI Women

                           
                          Thanks for writing Geoff

                          As you might know the USGP has paid equally to the men for the Top 3 female riders for the last bunch of years. We have talked about increasing that to the Top 5 for next season. That means on a Cat 1 day the top 3 get Cat 1 $$ and on a Cat 2 day they get Cat 2 money. I can tell you that the women have been relatively pleased with that and we have gotten mostly compliments for it. No criticism I can think of. Our rational is simply that the pay really needs to go to those that are professionals and real FT pros. Like in any other sports the Semi pros need to work their way up to that level of course. The professionals racing in the US at least is increasing and I think we would all like to see that continue. Thus we feel that paying equal a little bit deeper is now more and more justified.

                          I do not think we should pay a percentage for the length of the race. No matter what the UCI does we will still pay equal to the men at the top.

                          I do think having more than one Cat for women is a good idea as well.

                          Thanks
                          Bruce

                          --- In USAICO@yahoogroups.com, CrossSportif@... wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > To the Group:
                          >
                          >
                          > I'm in the process of working on a report and possible reform proposal for the UCI Cyclocross Commission on behalf of our UCI Women's category. At present, there are several interconnected developments providing impetus:
                          >
                          > the support from several US organizers who've provided equal prize money to x number of top placing women.
                          > the UCI 2011-2012 rule requiring all C1's to have a women's event.
                          > the strong statements our women are making: specifically, Katie Compton's international results and leadership and Georgia Gould's petition (from 2008?) with 3,546 signatures currently. See http://www.petitiononline.com/equalpay/petition.html
                          > the natural maturation (depth, breadth, and calendar) of UCI women's racing, thus acting as catalyst for delineation of point values between women's C1 and C2 events
                          >
                          > I suspect the phasing in of any reform might need to be taken in several steps/stages, so I'm working with that process in mind. Fortunately, we already have the above mentioned momentum.
                          >
                          >
                          > To date, my focus has been on various point system models and my sources have been many of the top women as well as team managers and coaches.
                          >
                          >
                          > In addition, I'm interested in hearing from US organizers. So, I will take comments for the next two weeks, up until the world championships on prize money, points, or any other angle. Then, I'll prepare a proposal for our 2011 spring commission meeting and provide a full report at the USAC Cyclocross Summit in April.
                          >
                          >
                          > If you have some constructive thoughts on this, please let me know.
                          >
                          >
                          > Best,
                          > Geoff Proctor
                          > Member, UCI Cyclocross Commission
                          > CrossSportif@...
                          >


                        • Adam Myerson
                          Geoff, Thanks for soliciting input on this. The mandatory women s race for all events C1 and higher was, for me, the most important thing I got done while I
                          Message 12 of 29 , Jan 12, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Geoff,

                            Thanks for soliciting input on this.

                            The mandatory women's race for all events C1 and higher was, for me, the most important thing I got done while I was on the Commission. Of all the proposals I made, it's the one I'm most proud of, and it was met with a lot of resistance from the old guard. It won't affect anything in the US, where we lead the way in the number of women's UCI events, but it will have a huge impact in Europe, where women's racing is still a sideshow, and a step below the U23's in popularity, attention, and priority.

                            As for prize money, the way we've approached it this year with our events is to pay the women full equal prize money, but to fewer places than the men. So in a C2, if the men are 25 places and the women 15, all 15 of those places are equal to the first 15 of the men's prize money. So their overall prize list is lower, but the dollar amounts per person are equal.

                            We think this is good form of parity. We want to develop the women's fields, so we want to pay them more. But it also addresses the economic difficulty of pouring resources into that development. We've seen over and over again that equal prize money does not directly guarantee a bigger turnout, and the sponsors are not always there.

                            I will say, while that's easy enough to do for a C2, that would be very difficult to do financially for a C1. Even if the desire was there, the money may not be.

                            When determining race length, you have to consider the sporting and entertainment value of the event. This isn't simply a workplace issue where there is equal pay for equal work. This is also an entertainment product. At what race duration is the race essentially "over," and gaps between riders simply get bigger and bigger? The duration of the race shouldn't be in relation to the men, it should be based on what duration provides a quality event on sporting and entertainment merits in each class.

                            I do think the old standard of 30, 40 or 45, and 60, is no longer desirable. None of our grassroots racers want to only race for 30 minutes. At 40, they feel like they're getting a good product. But if the 3/4 women are racing for 40, then clearly the Elite women should do another lap, and 50 minutes would be appropriate. On the other hand, if that last lap has no entertainment value and makes the race look worse, then it will do more harm than good to the women, and the sponsorship value of their event. It's a difficult balance to strike. I support the idea of a 50 minute women's race, but only if the fields are deep and competitive. Perhaps, like the men, the World Cups can be 10 minutes longer, at 50 minutes, as a place to start.

                            I do support the idea of 2 classes of women's races, and perhaps the prize money questions can be taken account with that approach.

                            Adam


                            On Jan 11, 2011, at 7:20 PM, crosssportif@... wrote:



                            To the Group:

                            I'm in the process of working on a report and possible reform proposal for the UCI Cyclocross Commission on behalf of our UCI Women's category. At present, there are several interconnected developments providing impetus:
                            • the support from several US organizers who've provided equal prize money to x number of top placing women. 
                            • the UCI 2011-2012 rule requiring all C1's to have a women's event. 
                            • the strong statements our women are making: specifically, Katie Compton's international results and leadership and Georgia Gould's petition (from 2008?) with 3,546 signatures currently. See http://www.petitiononline.com/equalpay/petition.html
                            • the natural maturation (depth, breadth, and calendar) of UCI women's racing, thus acting as catalyst for delineation of point values between women's C1 and C2 events
                            I suspect the phasing in of any reform might need to be taken in several steps/stages, so I'm working with that process in mind. Fortunately, we already have the above mentioned momentum. 

                            To date, my focus has been on various point system models and my sources have been many of the top women as well as team managers and coaches. 

                            In addition, I'm interested in hearing from US organizers. So, I will take comments for the next two weeks, up until the world championships on prize money, points, or any other angle. Then, I'll prepare a proposal for our 2011 spring commission meeting and provide a full report at the USAC Cyclocross Summit in April. 

                            If you have some constructive thoughts on this, please let me know. 

                            Best,
                            Geoff Proctor
                            Member, UCI Cyclocross Commission




                          • Myles Romanow
                            I think perhaps we should pay equal prize money to the women that receive UCI Points, and then drop back to UCI mandated payout for the remainder. I
                            Message 13 of 29 , Jan 12, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I think perhaps we should pay equal prize money to the women that receive UCI Points, and then drop back to UCI mandated payout for the remainder.  I understand bruce's point about needing to be top professional athletes to contest these events, and there may be two sides to that story.  


                              at a smaller race perhaps the fields aren't as stacked, and the difference between a top 5 and top 15 is much more pronounced.  Are these women racers that may not be ready for absolute prime time, or more recreational athletes?  Perhaps.  But, it is also likely that they are newcomers to the fields, working their way up.  

                              Perhaps the solution is to have c1 ladies events that feature equal payouts as deep as their are UCI points granted.  
                              Perhaps also c1 events should get the extra 10 minutes of racing.  I do understand that if Worlds, and WC and nationals and C1's go to a longer format there will be a disparity between them and c2 events.. Personally I do not think it is a large secret that I think the women's races should go to 50 minutes, the thought that there aren't enough truly elite women that posses the same amount of skill and speed that a dutch teenaged boy has to me is a little disheartening.  That needs to change, if not across the board, at large scale events.  (c1's, world cups, nationals, worlds..)  

                              Yes it's true with absolute beginners racing for 40 minutes, or 30 minutes, the truly elite fields need to do "more".  I certainly think it is time for that.  It may even serve to attract more women to the sport, who don't view a 40 minute race as an all out burn and potentially a waste of their time.  Who knows?

                              For the record I will not be in attendance at worlds. Good luck to all, I am anxious to hear how things turn out. 

                              M


                              On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Adam Myerson <adam@...> wrote:
                               

                              Geoff,


                              Thanks for soliciting input on this.

                              The mandatory women's race for all events C1 and higher was, for me, the most important thing I got done while I was on the Commission. Of all the proposals I made, it's the one I'm most proud of, and it was met with a lot of resistance from the old guard. It won't affect anything in the US, where we lead the way in the number of women's UCI events, but it will have a huge impact in Europe, where women's racing is still a sideshow, and a step below the U23's in popularity, attention, and priority.

                              As for prize money, the way we've approached it this year with our events is to pay the women full equal prize money, but to fewer places than the men. So in a C2, if the men are 25 places and the women 15, all 15 of those places are equal to the first 15 of the men's prize money. So their overall prize list is lower, but the dollar amounts per person are equal.

                              We think this is good form of parity. We want to develop the women's fields, so we want to pay them more. But it also addresses the economic difficulty of pouring resources into that development. We've seen over and over again that equal prize money does not directly guarantee a bigger turnout, and the sponsors are not always there.

                              I will say, while that's easy enough to do for a C2, that would be very difficult to do financially for a C1. Even if the desire was there, the money may not be.

                              When determining race length, you have to consider the sporting and entertainment value of the event. This isn't simply a workplace issue where there is equal pay for equal work. This is also an entertainment product. At what race duration is the race essentially "over," and gaps between riders simply get bigger and bigger? The duration of the race shouldn't be in relation to the men, it should be based on what duration provides a quality event on sporting and entertainment merits in each class.

                              I do think the old standard of 30, 40 or 45, and 60, is no longer desirable. None of our grassroots racers want to only race for 30 minutes. At 40, they feel like they're getting a good product. But if the 3/4 women are racing for 40, then clearly the Elite women should do another lap, and 50 minutes would be appropriate. On the other hand, if that last lap has no entertainment value and makes the race look worse, then it will do more harm than good to the women, and the sponsorship value of their event. It's a difficult balance to strike. I support the idea of a 50 minute women's race, but only if the fields are deep and competitive. Perhaps, like the men, the World Cups can be 10 minutes longer, at 50 minutes, as a place to start.

                              I do support the idea of 2 classes of women's races, and perhaps the prize money questions can be taken account with that approach.

                              Adam


                              On Jan 11, 2011, at 7:20 PM, crosssportif@... wrote:



                              To the Group:

                              I'm in the process of working on a report and possible reform proposal for the UCI Cyclocross Commission on behalf of our UCI Women's category. At present, there are several interconnected developments providing impetus:
                              • the support from several US organizers who've provided equal prize money to x number of top placing women. 
                              • the UCI 2011-2012 rule requiring all C1's to have a women's event. 
                              • the strong statements our women are making: specifically, Katie Compton's international results and leadership and Georgia Gould's petition (from 2008?) with 3,546 signatures currently. See http://www.petitiononline.com/equalpay/petition.html
                              • the natural maturation (depth, breadth, and calendar) of UCI women's racing, thus acting as catalyst for delineation of point values between women's C1 and C2 events
                              I suspect the phasing in of any reform might need to be taken in several steps/stages, so I'm working with that process in mind. Fortunately, we already have the above mentioned momentum. 

                              To date, my focus has been on various point system models and my sources have been many of the top women as well as team managers and coaches. 

                              In addition, I'm interested in hearing from US organizers. So, I will take comments for the next two weeks, up until the world championships on prize money, points, or any other angle. Then, I'll prepare a proposal for our 2011 spring commission meeting and provide a full report at the USAC Cyclocross Summit in April. 

                              If you have some constructive thoughts on this, please let me know. 

                              Best,
                              Geoff Proctor
                              Member, UCI Cyclocross Commission





                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.