USCF Board of Directors Election
Casey W Kerrigan
Directors. All USCF, NORBA, and NCCA license holders should receive a
ballot for their section of the country in the mail about May 15th.
Ballots must be mailed in by June 15th in order to be counted in the election.
Running from the Western Section
Susan Bookspan
Eddy Borysewicz
John Farrar
Casey Kerrigan
Craig Kundig
Randy Shafer
Randel Warren
Rene Wenzel
Running from the Central Section
Toni Anthony-Hartwell
Christopher Grealish
David M. Grylis
Greg Meyer
Richard Randleman
Alice Stevenson
Greg Strock
Carl E. Wilkins
Kathy Volski
Clair Young
Running from the Eastern Section
Gregory Avon
Dale Bunns
Michael Fraysse
Mark Hagen
Tracy Lea
Michael Norton
Ken Wallace
Patrick James Werner
Marka Wise
James Young
Robert Zable
Note - One of the following people from the Central section will become a
Board member since they meet the definition of an active athlete and a
third actice athlete has to be elected to the Board to meet the 20% active
athlete representation requirement of the U.S. Olympic Committee.
Toni Anthony-Hartwell
Dave Grylls
Greg Strock
Two people will be elected from each section to the USCF Board of
Directors. The highest vote getter from each section will get a 3 year
term. The second highest vote getter will get a one year term. If one of
the actice athletes running for the Board is not the 1st or 2nd highest
vote getter from the Central Section then the active athlete with the
highest vote total will get the one year term from teh Central Section.
Casey Kerrigan
D.A.
>The following people are running for election to the USCF Board of
>Directors.
>
>Susan Bookspan
>Eddy Borysewicz
>John Farrar
>Casey Kerrigan
>Craig Kundig
>Randy Shafer
>Randel Warren
>Rene Wenzel
I don't see Les Earnest's name. What's the deal?
-------------
Dick Anderson
Dave Hayes
wrote:
> >The following people are running for election to the USCF Board of
> >Directors.
> >
> >Running from the Western Section
> > [list]
>
> I don't see Les Earnest's name. What's the deal?
Perhaps Les "Papa Doc" Earnest has been declared Supreme Director for Life
by a grateful and adoring membership :-).
Aren't there staggered terms in which only some of the seats are up for
election each year?
Dave Hayes
Casey W Kerrigan
again for another two years.
Casey Kerrigan
Roger Marquis
>(Casey W Kerrigan) writes:
>>The following people are running for election to the USCF Board of
>>Directors.
>I don't see Les Earnest's name. What's the deal?
Of that list Susan Bookspan, Eddy Borycewicz, and Casey Kerrigan are
far and away the best choices (IMHO). Maybe Les didn't like the
competition?
Roger Marquis
Kurt F. Sauer
Les was elected last year to a 3-year term. He's still around.
--
Kurt F. Sauer Fight air pollution
Austin, Texas & stay fit:
Ride a bicycle!
ViaCrypt PGP key available on key servers
Kurt F. Sauer
Roger Marquis <mar...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Of that list Susan Bookspan, Eddy Borycewicz, and Casey Kerrigan are
>far and away the best choices (IMHO). Maybe Les didn't like the
>competition?
>
>Roger Marquis
What about Randy Shafer from Oregon. Yes, I know he's not from the "southern
end" of the western section, but he's had a positive influence on cycling as
the First Vice President. I really hope he gets re-elected.
And why is Eddy B. even running? I remember that he said he only wanted one
term. I bet he'll get re-elected just because everyone knows his name. It
sure isn't because of his industriousness as a board member.
As far as Les is concerned, he was re-elected to a 3-year term last year.
Neal Stoughton
>
>The following people are running for election to the USCF Board of
>Directors.
>Casey Kerrigan
If you've gone to the trouble to post this message, obviously you'd like
users of the internet to vote for you. What are your positions and plans
if elected?
........................................................................
Neal Stoughton
Internet address: nmst...@uci.edu
Marc San Soucie
> Roger Marquis <mar...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >Of that list Susan Bookspan, Eddy Borycewicz, and Casey Kerrigan are
> >far and away the best choices (IMHO). Maybe Les didn't like the
> >competition?
> What about Randy Shafer from Oregon. Yes, I know he's not from the "southern
> end" of the western section, but he's had a positive influence on cycling as
> the First Vice President. I really hope he gets re-elected.
Randy is a great guy, and has been very helpful to us here in Oregon.
However, I understand he voted *against* boosting the grass-roots development
programs at the USCF, in favor of the Elite programs. I'm not sure I can
vote for someone with this preference.
Where do the other West candidates stand on this question?
Marc San Soucie
Portland, Oregon
ma...@netcom.com
Kurt F. Sauer
>
>Randy is a great guy, and has been very helpful to us here in Oregon.
>However, I understand he voted *against* boosting the grass-roots development
>programs at the USCF, in favor of the Elite programs. I'm not sure I can
>vote for someone with this preference.
>
>Where do the other West candidates stand on this question?
>
> Marc San Soucie
> Portland, Oregon
> ma...@netcom.com
>
Marc:
I am not sure this is an entirely fair question. It is difficult to
distill the entire business of the Federation down to a single reso-
lution. It sounds very pejorative to say "voted against boosting the
grass-roots development programs," as though he is against grass-roots
programs. I know that Randy is not against grass-roots programs.
But several people are trying to use this single resolution as a pivotal
point. I think it's hogwash. The mission of the Federation is multi-
faceted; elite programs are very important. No, they're not the only
important program, but they shouldn't be denegrated, either.
There was, so I understand, much hucksterism going on with the resolu-
tion to which you refer. I suggest that you call Randy and ask him
about his positions on this and other matters (he's a local call for you,
although he is out of town at the moment).
Casey W Kerrigan
>development programs at the USCF, in favor of the Elite programs. I'm
>not sure I can vote for someone with this preference. Where do the other
>West candidates stand on this question?
motion made by Les Earnest to make grass roots development the number one
priority of the USCF. The role call vote on this motion went as follows.
In favor of the motion Les Earnest, Mike Fraysee, Casey Kerrigan,
Tracy Lea.
Voting against the motion Bunki Bankaitis-Davis, Susan Bookspan, Eddy
Borysewicz, Beth Estes, Richard De Garmo, Randy Shafer, Paul Swift,
Directors not present when the vote was taken Bob Beal, Fred Cappy,
Leslee Schenk, Clair Young, Jim Young.
Casey Kerrigan.
Casey W Kerrigan
>If you've gone to the trouble to post this message, obviously you'd like
>users of the internet to vote for you. What are your positions and plans
>if elected?
Since you asked Neal here are the things I want to achieve if re-elected
to the Board. I want to see the USCF take a greater interest in
developing more and better grass roots programs. As I have said in another
post the first step should be developing a much better coaching network
so that all riders will have access to local coaching help. I feel this
could be done if coaches were trained in the same manner as officials ( ie
local Cat 1 or 2 coaches would be free to teach an approved coaching
clinic when ever enough local people expressed an interest in becoming a
coach).
Once a good coaching network is in place we can take some real steps to
make races safer. For starters I'd like to see all new riders take a pack
riding skills clinic before they are allowed to enter their first mass
start race ( of course we can't do this until we have coaches to teach the
clinics). By giving new riders some basic instruction before they get into
their first race we might prevent some accidents. If we make races safer
we might attract more people into the sport ( or keep more of the people
who take out a racing license).
If we develop a real coaching network I'd also like to see upgrading based
in part on a riders ability to pass a bike handling skills test. This test
would be developed by the national coaching staff and the tests should
reflect the type of skills a rider might need to ride at the category
level being applied for. I'd also like to see upgrade points awarded
based on the field size. The more rider in a race the more points awarded
and the more places awarded upgrade points ( a system like this is being
tried in Nor Cal this year for Cat 3 riders upgrading to Cat 2).
I want the USCF to take better advantage of it's tax status to encourage
riders, bike shops and companies to donate equipment to junior programs,
in return for the tax deductions. Something like this has already been
done with the Panasonic bikes when Panasonic quit it's U.S. operations and
gave the Federation about 1,000 bikes.
I think a greater effort has to be made to recruit new riders into the
sport of racing ( a larger membership of active riders should make our
sport more attractive to sponsors). A greater effort has to be made to
retain the current membership. To many people get fed up with the USCF and
drop out of racing ( somewhere between 26 and 33% of USCF members do not
renew their license each year).
In the up-coming reorganization I think that all groups ( NORBA, NCCA,
USCF and USPro) should be treated fairly with some representation on the
overall Board of Directors.
I'd be happy to answer any questions the readers of this forum might have
about my positions and goals. Feel free to post here or E-mail me.
Casey Kerrigan
Russ Corfman
>developing more and better grass roots programs. As I have said in another
>post the first step should be developing a much better coaching network
>so that all riders will have access to local coaching help. I feel this
>could be done if coaches were trained in the same manner as officials ( ie
>local Cat 1 or 2 coaches would be free to teach an approved coaching
>clinic when ever enough local people expressed an interest in becoming a
>coach).
Casey,
I agree with this premise. In order to get my coaching license, I had
to write a short essay on what I think the USCF should to to promote
cycling at the local, regional and national levels. Developing a basic
grass roots program was my response for all three. I got my coaching
license the spring of 1993, after having attended a coaching clinic
in the fall of 1992. I would have gotten it years before but could not
justify the expense of travelling to Colorodo Springs to attend a clinic.
I did not renew my coaching license this year. In addition to the $32 for
my racing license, I would have to spend $20 to renew the coaching license.
I would also have to spend about $20 more to keep my CPR up to date. The
CPR wouldn't bother me so much if it only had to be renewed every three
years like the first aid. As far as I can see, there is no benefit (for me
anyway) of having a coaching license. I can coach just as well with or
without it.
In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that if the USCF wants to have more
coaches at the local level, it better give those who are qualified to
be coaches, a reason to be a licensed coach. I haven't seen any yet.
I'd be real interested to hear Carmichael's response to this.
Ciao,
Russell Corfman
corf...@agcs.com
Marc San Soucie
> In article <marcsCp...@netcom.com>, Marc San Soucie wrote:
> >Randy is a great guy, and has been very helpful to us here in Oregon.
> >However, I understand he voted *against* boosting the grass-roots development
> >programs at the USCF, in favor of the Elite programs. I'm not sure I can
> >vote for someone with this preference.
> I am not sure this is an entirely fair question. It is difficult to
> distill the entire business of the Federation down to a single reso-
> lution. It sounds very pejorative to say "voted against boosting the
> grass-roots development programs," as though he is against grass-roots
> programs. I know that Randy is not against grass-roots programs.
I'd sure like to know more about what the people voting against grass-roots
believe should be done instead.
But I'll ask Randy about his thoughts before I vote.
PAUL
>I did not renew my coaching license this year. In addition to the $32 for
>my racing license, I would have to spend $20 to renew the coaching license.
>I would also have to spend about $20 more to keep my CPR up to date. The
>CPR wouldn't bother me so much if it only had to be renewed every three
>years like the first aid. As far as I can see, there is no benefit (for me
>anyway) of having a coaching license. I can coach just as well with or
>without it.
>Ciao,
>Russell Corfman
>corf...@agcs.com
These are things that perhaps your club should
pay for as its members supposedly benifit from it.
It can also be a selling point to get people into
your club by saying that they have licenced coaches.
Paul Stek
St...@cmod.pfc.mit.edu
Casey W Kerrigan
>I am not sure this is an entirely fair question. It is difficult to
>distill the entire business of the Federation down to a single reso-
>lution. It sounds very pejorative to say "voted against boosting the
>grass-roots development programs," as though he is against grass-roots
>programs. I know that Randy is not against grass-roots programs.
>But several people are trying to use this single resolution as a pivotal
>point. I think it's hogwash. The mission of the Federation is multi-
>faceted; elite programs are very important. No, they're not the only
>important program, but they shouldn't be denegrated, either.
>There was, so I understand, much hucksterism going on with the
>resolution to which you refer.
Yes the mission of the Federation is multifaceted, the problem is an awful
lot of USCF members feel that development programs have been basically
ignored by the Federation for to long. Many of these people are
frustrated and some are leaving the sport because of this. Non-elite
riders provide almost a million dollars in membership fees to the USCF,
organize clubs and teams, probably promote the majority of races and do
lots of other things that keep the USCF alive. Even the EDS person who did
the analysis of the USCF membership survey questioned the emphasis on
elite riders and issues when so many Federation members are Cat 3 4 and 5s.
Since it isn't fair to judge a person on a single issue I'll throw
something else out for consideration. Last October at the Board meeting
Les Earnest realized that NORBA and NCCA members should be allowed to vote
in the Board election according to the USCF rules. At that meeting there
was talk about this issue and most people agreed that NORBA and NCCA
members should be taking part in the Board elections.
As the Jan 94 Board meeting approached it was clear that no steps were
being taken to include the NORBA and NCCA membership in this year's
election. Les proposed a resolution at the Jan meeting calling for the
USCF to recognize the right of NORBA and NCCA members to participate in
the 94 Board election.
While most of the Board members agreed that NORBA and NCCA members should
be included in the election, and that they would be included in the
future, after the reorganization, only four people voted in favor of Les'
resolution to included them in this election. Those people were Les
Earnest, Chris Grealish, Casey Kerrigan and Tracy Lea.
Luckily Les kept pushing the issues after the Board meeting and the staff
finally agreed that NORBA and NCCA members should be allowed to take part
in the upcoming election.
Casey Kerrigan
Harry Phinney
: As far as I can see, there is no benefit (for me
: anyway) of having a coaching license. I can coach just as well with or
: without it.
My experience closely parallels Russ's. I attended a coaching clinic in
December 1988 and held a Cat 2 coaching license for one year. I didn't
renew my coaching license because there was NO benefit to it. The USCF
did nothing, not even a single mailing, for the coaches.
Harry Phinney ha...@cv.hp.com
Ginny Wilken
Gentlemen: this is a touchy issue for sure. I sympathize strongly with
both of you, yet I feel that holding a USCF credential is important to
me. It gives me a degree of credibility with those unfamiliar with the
program; it guarantees that I have had at least a bit of centerline
education, and it has allowed me to keep in touch with the feds and work
in many programs in the importance of which I believe- for instance, the
junior regional team programs and ID camps. It has also given me a stance
which has permitted me to function as coaching coordinator for the NCNCA;
while the NCNCA is analogous to District 5 although governed
independently, it is unlikely that a non-USCF coach would possess the
necessary perspective for the job. I hold a racing license, and I coach a
team within a USCF member club, and it seems to me appropriate that a
USCF licensed coach supervises USCF riders.
Another very strong consideration is that the feds are the biggest game
in town. If there is something to be done on a national level to promote
developmental racing, I feel I have a better chance of influencing and
taking part in it from within the federation. At the same time, there is
nothing in my coaching license which inhibits my work with local entities
or individuals.
I have no illusions about the tangible benefits of the coaching licensing
program. There have been none for years from the federation, in terms of
ongoing communication, consistent education programs, consistent
licensing programs, and any real job opportunities. One can always hope
that this will change. Perhaps the biggest force for a move toward more
and better coaches within the USCF is the emphasis upon grass-roots and
club level programs which Casey favors. It is undeniable in any case that
the livelihood of coaches depends upon there being people who want to
race and race well, and without support for entry-level and sport
participation all of us, licensed or not, will go begging.
So my license allows me to work on the problems from within and without,
to take advantage of what is available, and to help ensure the future
availability of benefits for coaches and riders alike.
--
All stunts performed without a net! gin...@netcom.com
medium rare
: I want the USCF to take better advantage of it's tax status to encourage
: riders, bike shops and companies to donate equipment to junior programs,
: in return for the tax deductions. Something like this has already been
: done with the Panasonic bikes when Panasonic quit it's U.S. operations and
: gave the Federation about 1,000 bikes.
Yes, it would be great to see the USCF do this on a national
level, as well as for each of us to make an effort on the
local grass-roots level, in terms of eliciting and coordinating
funding and other support, as well as to recruit and encourage
new juniors in the sport. It is essential for the health of the
sprort as a whole.
I've been working on getting bikes and a club structure going
for kids in East Palo Alto through the Rec. Dept. there, but
have run into a bureaucratic standoff in terms of liability
concerns and administrative organizational issues which I
am at a loss to resolve, despite my best efforts. If there
are any experts out there with experience in city or county
recreation dept. experience and bike club organizing experience,
I would encourage you to contact Keith or Meda at (415) 853-3140.
The EPA Rec. Dept. has received a dozen of the Panasonics that
Casey mentions, and they need some assembly... Maybe some
shops can step forward and offer assistance... Originally
Wolfe, head of the mechanics dept. at Wheelsmith in Palo Alto,
turned me on to the info on the bikes being available, as he
used to work for the USCF taking inventory of the bikes remaining..
Casey proved very helpful in appealing to the NCNCA board of
directors to ask for them to pay the postage for the bikes,
~$200, as the rec. dept. had no budget to even pay for shipping
the bikes, and the NCNCA had approved and written out a check. So
Casey's 'for real' when he commits himself to something, rather
than just mouthing the words and backing out when it comes
time to actually do anything.
In attending a Velodrome Association meeting, I met Eric Peterson
and George Mount, Eric offering me use of Pedali Alpini's
corporate charter, as it has survived only on paper for quite
some time now, and George offering any available time for
organizing, fundraising/sponsorship, or coaching. Earlier in
the year I had written a letter to Harmut Esslinger of Frogdesign,
and he has offered to buy bikes and helmets for the group...
The next critical stage is getting together a 'critical mass'
of African-American and Latino youth from the communities of
East Palo Alto, Redwood City and Mountain View who are interested
in racing. (The purpose of my organizing efforts is to open
up the sport to low-income minority youth who are often considered
'at risk', as well as to help build the sport through active
recruitment of junior racers.)
For this I am seeking assistance putting together
a program including a training skills course on bicycle handling
techniques, speakers who are active in racing activities, and
film clips of racing footage, all formatted for presentation
at school assemblies and community centers. Please e-mail or
call me if you have such resources or experience to offer.
: I think a greater effort has to be made to recruit new riders into the
: sport of racing ( a larger membership of active riders should make our
: sport more attractive to sponsors). A greater effort has to be made to
: retain the current membership. To many people get fed up with the USCF and
: drop out of racing ( somewhere between 26 and 33% of USCF members do not
: renew their license each year).
P.S.: Also looking for additional sponsorship by manufacturers
of bikes, helmets, shoes, clothing, etc. You'd get good publicity
from it, 'cause we've got an awfully good story to tell...
George Mount, as the first American to have placed well back in
the 1976 Olympic Games since the 1900's, inherits the legacy of
the last great American cyclist to have merited international
attention - Major Taylor who, by the way, was the second African-
American to achieve a world championship in a major international
sport - the first being George Dixon (1870-1909), who won the
bantam-weight world title in boxing in 1890 and defended it until 1900.
The original title of Major Taylor's autobiography, published
back in 1928 by the Wormly Publishing Co. in Worcester, MA, sums
it up best: "The Fastest Bicycle Rider in the World: The Story
of a Colored Boy's Indomitable Courage and Success Against Great
Odds." Andrew Ritchie's biography entitled "Major Taylor" goes
into his life in depth. I've heard rumors that Spike Lee's
film production company, Forty Acres and a Mule, based in Brooklyn,
is currently bidding for the film rights. Anyway, George was
insistent that I check out cycling history, especially to do
with Major Taylor, as I had not known about him before...
Since that time, I've also had the opportunity to meet members
of the Major Taylor Cycling Club from Colombus, Ohio (They
also have a chapter in NYC) while I was driving an equipment
truck for Imagine Tours for their California Tour North. They
were originally sanctioned by Sydney Taylor Brown, Taylor's
surviving daughter, now 90, who resides currently in Pittsburgh,
PA. Ritchie was trying to get her photo published in Velo News
not long ago, but his request for publication was rejected.
The Oakland Tribune is working on a story about the club and
its history, and interviewed them at length as well as sending
out a photographer, as the history and their local visit is
of general and community interest as well as relating to
sports history. The article has not been published yet for
some reason...
-anne oneill
(415) 329-8134
palo alto, CA
--
********
What do you want from life?
- a Winnebago? -We're givin' 'em away.
- a Mexican divorce?
- or how about a baby's arm holding an apple?
~the tubes~
********
Roger Marquis
>something else out for consideration. Last October at the Board meeting
>Les Earnest realized that NORBA and NCCA members should be allowed to vote
>in the Board election according to the USCF rules. At that meeting there
>was talk about this issue and most people agreed that NORBA and NCCA
>members should be taking part in the Board elections.
What is the reason for giving NORBA and NCCA members a USCF vote?
Aren't we talking about separate organizations with their own budgets,
rulebooks, and membership? Many NORBA and NCCA members also have USCF
licenses and can already vote for a USCF BOD member. Wouldn't these
riders be over represented if the boards were combined?
Also, the USCF just recently reduced the size of the BOD to alleviate
legislative gridlock. Wouldn't a combined board defeat the effort that
went into resizing?
Roger Marquis
Casey W Kerrigan
>What is the reason for giving NORBA and NCCA members a USCF vote?
>Aren't we talking about separate organizations with their own budgets,
>rulebooks, and membership? Many NORBA and NCCA members also >have USCF
licenses and can already vote for a USCF BOD member. >Wouldn't these
riders be over represented if the boards were combined?
Actually NORBA and NCCA are committees of the USCF Board of Directors. The
USCF Board can make decisions that affect the way NORBA and NCCA are run
at any time. Currently the USCF Board takes a hands off approch in
allowing the NORBA and NCCA committees to run those organizations as they
see fit. For example the USCF Board has the right to force NORBA to pass
a rule that says no cross country race can be longer than 10 miles (
although I'm sure the Board isn't about to do anything like this). I would
say that this gives the members of both NORBA and NCCA some concern about
who is on the USCF Board of Directors. Also any profits generated by
NOPRBA and NCCA winds up in the USCF accounts.
>Also, the USCF just recently reduced the size of the BOD to alleviate
>legislative gridlock. Wouldn't a combined board defeat the effort that
>went into resizing?
I'm not sure what you are talking about when you mention a combined Board.
There aren't any plans to expand the current USCF Board beyond the current
size of 11 members ( excpet to possibly add a third athlete Rep to meet
requirments of the USOC).
Casey Kerrigan
D.A.
>
>>What is the reason for giving NORBA and NCCA members a USCF vote?
>Actually NORBA and NCCA are committees of the USCF Board of Directors. The
>USCF Board can make decisions that affect the way NORBA and NCCA are run
>at any time.
I recall a discussion about this topic at the last house of delegates
conference. It seems to me that someone (I think Les Earnest) made the
point that the USCF has a more or less legal responsiblity either by
it's charter or USOC sanctioning to repreprent it's membership
democratically. As a liscenced USCF rider, I periodically receive
ballots for USCF elections. I understand that NORBA liscenced riders
do not.
Is this true? Anybody care to clarify/inform/enlighten?
Also, what ever happened to the USCF's plan to make the USCF the
umbrella organization for NORBA, NCCA, a new road/track association,
USPRO, and whatever other cycling organzations might be added in
the future?
-------------
Dick Anderson
Minneapolis
Casey W Kerrigan
>I recall a discussion about this topic at the last house of delegates
>conference. It seems to me that someone (I think Les Earnest) made the
>point that the USCF has a more or less legal responsiblity either by
>it's charter or USOC sanctioning to repreprent it's membership
>democratically.
Les was the one to point out that according to USCF rules riders from
NORBA and NCCA have the right to vote in Federation Board elections. The
rule in question Bylaw B section 1 Part 2 on page 11 "Ballots shalll be
mailed to each person holding one or more Federation licenses"
Since NCCA is a committee of the USCF any license issued by the NCCA is
technically one issued by the USCF. The same reasoning applies for NORBA
since NORBA is owned by the Federation.
>Also, what ever happened to the USCF's plan to make the USCF the
>umbrella organization for NORBA, NCCA, a new road/track association,
>USPRO, and whatever other cycling organzations might be added in
>the future?
There will be at least one re-organization plan before the House of
Delegates meeting this year. The plan last year was tabled at the House of
Delegates meeting due to some concerns about the plans compliance with the
Amateur Sports Act of 1978. These questions have since been answered. It
sounds like there is another re-organization plan kicking about that
might make NORBA, USPRO and a road and track association equal partners
and leave NCCA a committee of the road and track Assoc.
Casey Kerrigan
James Ross
>At the USCF Board of Directors meeting on Oct. 9 and 10 1993 there was a
>motion made by Les Earnest to make grass roots development the number one
>priority of the USCF. The role call vote on this motion went as follows.
>
>In favor of the motion Les Earnest, Mike Fraysee, Casey Kerrigan,
>Tracy Lea.
>
>Voting against the motion Bunki Bankaitis-Davis, Susan Bookspan, Eddy
>Borysewicz, Beth Estes, Richard De Garmo, Randy Shafer, Paul Swift,
>
>At the USCF Board of Directors meeting on Oct. 9 and 10 1993 there was a
>motion made by Les Earnest to make grass roots development the number one
>priority of the USCF. The role call vote on this motion went as follows.
>
>In favor of the motion Les Earnest, Mike Fraysee, Casey Kerrigan,
>Tracy Lea.
>
>Voting against the motion Bunki Bankaitis-Davis, Susan Bookspan, Eddy
>Borysewicz, Beth Estes, Richard De Garmo, Randy Shafer, Paul Swift,
>
>Directors not present when the vote was taken Bob Beal, Fred Cappy,
>Leslee Schenk, Clair Young, Jim Young.
>
>
>Casey Kerrigan.
I was recently away from my terminal for a vacation and have returned to
find that Casey Kerrigan is already waging a creative campaign for
reelection at my expense. While I think this is closer to ankle
bashing than knee bashing, I thought I'd give my point of view, since
many opinions have been expressed as if people have even bothered to
talk to me.
Somehow the "truth" that I am somehow only for elite USCF programs and
against grassroots development cycling is the prevalent theme. Casey
refers to a vote held on Oct. 10, 1993 where I and the majority of the
other directors voted against making "grass roots development" the
number one priority of the USCF. What Casey does not tell you is,
unfortunately, that during his and my two years on the Board, we
struggled with and developed jointly as a board, the goals and policies
for the Federation under a new and hopefully better system of Board
management. This work was only partially completed in April of 1993,
when the Board completed its first set of goals and policies. By the
time October rolled around, there was a desire by some directors to
change the order of priorities that we listed our Federation goals.
Many of you I'm sure know what it is like to work for a boss that one
day says that you should be doing one thing, only to change his mind,
give new orders and then a week later chastise you for not completing
the first task! That is exactly the type of leadership that I voted
against in October! The vote had nothing to do with whether I think
"grassroots" cycling is important. If Casey can't stand by his work as
a board member and allow the directions we have given the USCF staff
more than 5 months to produce an extensive and balanced agenda of
cycling benefits at all levels (including grass roots), then I don't
think he is the one to provide leadership to you as the USCF
membership.
I have been involved in grass roots cycling since I started racing as a
novice in the mid 70's and as a licensed competitor since 1979. I have
promoted races, given rider clinics, helped organize and run a District
Association, officiated, taught officials and coached club riders.
Getting ahead as a racer, official, coach and promoter in the USCF
takes one thing. Work. No one else does it for you. You are the USCF
and if you believe that someone out there is somehow holding out on
information, dollars, programs and whatever; preventing you from the
same opportunities that were available to Ron Kiefel, Greg LeMond,
Lance Armstrong and Andy Hampsten, you are wrong. All of these people
were the result of grass roots cycling, most without the USCF
implementing "programs".
Finally, how many of you feel the Board of Directors did you a favor by
voting to change your racing category names? I haven't met one of you
yet! I sure didn't vote for it! If you somehow think I am an elitist,
am out of touch with "grass roots" cycling, then take a moment to drop
Casey Kerrigan a line and ask him why he and Les Earnest sponsored this
legislative name change. Ask him why he still thinks this is an
unimportant issue. I understand that when you see this kind of action
from the Board, you lose confidence that anyone there knows what the
heck is going on in the world of cycling whether it be grass roots or
elite.
I believe I provide a very balanced view of cycling to the Board and
would be happy to discuss these issues with you. My E-Mail address is
CompuServe 71024,3017.
Sincerely,
Randy Shafer
--------- posted by Jim Allen for Randy Shafer --------
Casey W Kerrigan
>the other directors voted against making "grass roots development"
>unfortunately, that during his and my two years on the Board, we
>struggled with and developed jointly as a board, the goals and policies
>for the Federation under a new and hopefully better system of Board
>management. This work was only partially completed in April of 1993,
>when the Board completed its first set of goals and policies. By the
>time October rolled around, there was a desire by some directors to
>change the order of priorities that we listed our Federation goals.
> Many of you I'm sure know what it is like to work for a boss that one
>day says that you should be doing one thing, only to change his mind,
>give new orders and then a week later chastise you for not completing
>the first task! That is exactly the type of leadership that I voted
>against in October! The vote had nothing to do with whether I think
>"grassroots" cycling is important. If Casey can't stand by his work as
>a board member and allow the directions we have given the USCF staff
>more than 5 months to produce an extensive and balanced agenda of
>cycling benefits at all levels (including grass roots), then I don't
>think he is the one to provide leadership to you as the USCF
Randy - good to see you on this board and posting about this topic. I was
hoping some of the other candidates would get involved and we could engage
in some good debate so let the debating begin.
I've been involved in the USCF for 17 years as a racer, club officer,
promoter, official and director of the Hellyer Park Velodrome. In all of
those 17 years I can't remember the Federation ever having strong
development programs aimed at brining new riders into the sport and
retaining the people who already have licenses. I can think of a few
programs that have sputtered to life for a short time ( like the Weekend
Cycling College program) but not much more than that.
I first ran for the Board two years ago because a lot of people in my area
are fed up with the USCF throwing a lot of their money and resources at
the elite riders ( who make up about 2% of the USCF membership) while
pretty much ignoring the rest of the membership. My support of grass roots
issues isn't a case of telling the Federation staff to do one thing and
then changing my mind and telling it to do something else again 5 months
later. In my opinion ( and the opinion of a lot of people I know) The USCF
Board and staff have been emphasizing elite programs for several years.
Now it is time to pay some more attention to the majority of the
membership. Heck even the EDS person who analized the membership survey
results from last year questioned the Federation policy of emphasising
elite programs when a large number of USCF members are CAT 3/4/5s.
You imply that I changed my mind between the April 93 Board meeting and
the Oct 93 Board meeting. The fact is I was one of 4 people at the April
meeting who voted to make grass roots the number one priority at the April
meeting. I didn't support making elite programs the number one priority in
April 93, I didn't in Oct 93 and I don't now ( although I could compromise
and say that elite and grass roots are equally important and both should
be treated as such). At the 93 House of Delegates meeting the member clubs
of the USCF overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the Federation
to make grass roots a higher priority. Of course Randy doesn't deal with
the issue of why he didn't vote to make grass roots isues a higher
priority at the April 93 Board meeting when the direction of the USCF was
first being established under the new governance policy.
>Finally, how many of you feel the Board of Directors did you a favor by
>voting to change your racing category names? I haven't met one of you
>yet! I sure didn't vote for it! If you somehow think I am an elitist,
>am out of touch with "grass roots" cycling, then take a moment to drop
>Casey Kerrigan a line and ask him why he and Les Earnest sponsored this
>legislative name change. Ask him why he still thinks this is
>unimportant issue.
Randy - If you are going to post something that is pure fantasy please
lable it as such. I had nothing to do with sponsoring the legislation
involving the category name change. The name change legislation was put on
the agenda by the USCF staff. If you had bothered to review your
legislation package from last year you would have clearly seen where it
says "submitted by staff" after the name change proposal.
Casey Kerrigan
Robert J Schwartz
: Finally, how many of you feel the Board of Directors did you a favor by
: voting to change your racing category names? I haven't met one of you
: yet! I sure didn't vote for it! If you somehow think I am an elitist,
: am out of touch with "grass roots" cycling, then take a moment to drop
: Casey Kerrigan a line and ask him why he and Les Earnest sponsored this
: legislative name change. Ask him why he still thinks this is an
: unimportant issue. I understand that when you see this kind of action
: from the Board, you lose confidence that anyone there knows what the
: heck is going on in the world of cycling whether it be grass roots or
: elite.
Well, I certainly have my opinion on the importance of grassroots programs
to the USCF and who I think is best suited for the BoD, but at this point
its between me and the vote counters, and I think I'll leave it there.
But if Casey Kerrigan feels names instead of numbers is an unimportant issue,
then he and I are in complete agreement. There are problems, and there are
irritants. The list of issues that are of greater importance to the direction
and future of the USCF than this one is not short.
Bob Schwartz
bsch...@cray.com
Roger Marquis
>involving the category name change. The name change legislation was put on
>the agenda by the USCF staff. If you had bothered to review your
>legislation package from last year you would have clearly seen where it
>says "submitted by staff" after the name change proposal.
But you did vote for the name change Casey. What many of us are
wondering is who is going to sponsor (and vote) for returning to the
numeric categories? Given that fully 9 out of 10 riders would support
dropping the current category name scheme, and virtually all race ads
still refer to the numeric categories, the elite/sport naming is only
causing confusion and should be discontinued as soon as possible.
So will you or won't you introduce a bill to return to numeric categories
Casey?
Roger Marquis
William Kellagher
Is this catagory naming thing really that important issue? Yea, we don't like
the new names, but I think there are probably some more important issues that
need to be addressed in the USCF. This is reminicent of the George Bush flag
burning thing.
Bill Kellagher
Boulder Colorado
America's Bicycling Theme Park
******* Speaking for myself, not StorageTek ******
Dave Hayes
Kellagher) wrote:
> In article K...@netcom.com, mar...@netcom.com (Roger Marquis) writes:
> >So will you or won't you introduce a bill to return to numeric categories
> >Casey?
>
> Is this catagory naming thing really that important issue? Yea, we don't like
> the new names, but I think there are probably some more important issues that
> need to be addressed in the USCF. This is reminicent of the George Bush flag
> burning thing.
Is it an "important" issue? Maybe no, maybe yes. The naming convention has
certainly become symbolic of the BODs inattention to the "grass-roots"
level.
Need it take any attention away from more pressing issues? It may be doing
so, but it doesn't have to: simply put a return to numbered categories on
the ballot, vote for it, and get on with other business. The sooner we put
the (admittedly silly, but aggravating nonetheless) issue to rest, the
better.
Dave Hayes
Kurt F. Sauer
>
>At the 93 House of Delegates meeting the member clubs
>of the USCF overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the Federation
>to make grass roots a higher priority.
I was at that meeting, too. This resolution was passed perhaps even viva
voce. There was no discussion or passion about it. Virtually everything
passes or fails "overwhelmingly" at the HoD. It's not clear to me that
the member clubs were trying to redirect the Board of Directors.
If this resolution is a mandate (persondate?), then why don't we also press
the Board to give Cyclocross a huge budget increase? Didn't the Cyclocross
resolution pass too?
There are a lot of competing interests and no one singularly clear correct
answer to the puzzle.
Kurt F. Sauer
>
>Is this catagory naming thing really that important issue? Yea, we don't like
>the new names, but I think there are probably some more important issues that
>need to be addressed in the USCF.
Bill's right that there are more important issues. However, I think that
the "named category" issue is representative of the feeling that members
are not listened-to by the USCF staff or Board of Directors. In that
respect, alone, I think that it is an important issue.
Al MacDonald
--- posted for Randy Shafer by Al MacDonald ---
My apologies to Casey for "accusing" him for "sponsoring" the name
change legislation. The "authors of this legislation were indeed
the Staff "and" the "legislation committee" (perhaps he remembers
who supported it there.) I do recall Casey's unflagging support for
this issue when it was voted on, however.
Casey replies:
> Heck even the EDS person who analized the membership survey
>results from last year questioned the Federation policy of emphasising
>elite programs when a large number of USCF members are CAT 3/4/5s.
I believe the important issue Casey, is not that a relatively
uninformed office manger involved in data management, questioned
this issue. It was simply a piece of information for us to
understand the facts and finances of a multi-million dollar
corporation that we are charged to serve and protect as Directors.
By the way, are you not refering to Sports, Begginers and Novices
anymore? Its so confusing! (Incidentally, do you assume that EDS
asked to be a sponsor of the USCF because they wanted to bring more
racing to Cat 4 and 5's?)
I don't believe that anyone is surprised that the Federation spends
a large amount of money on National team members in International
competition. Cycling is a very expensive sport (ask anyone at the
grass roots level) and the costs can become dramatic at the
international level. Is that a bad investment? Absolutely not!
Does the sport of cycling receive positive media attention (since
the '84 games!) from national and International success? Yes! Do
we provide positive role models; ie pique young people's
imaginations to aspire to something great on a bicycle by seeing
Inga Thompson at the Olympics or Lance Armstrong winning the Worlds?
Yes! Do sponsors want to be involved (in a big $$ way) with
successful athlete programs to help Olympic and International
success? Yes!
I have been involved with the Federation for many years as well. I saw
grass roots cycling take only two riders in this area to Olympic and
International success the first ten years that I raced. In the last four
years, I know of half a dozen "grass roots" riders that have made it to
the top in National and International competition...and that is just in
the Northwest alone! Have things gotten better? Yes! Are people
staying in the sport? Yes, just look at masters racing that is larger
than most of the racing that you and I saw as Senior riders.
Casey Notes:
> At the 93 House of Delegates meeting the member clubs
>of the USCF overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the Federation
>to make grass roots a higher priority. Of course Randy doesn't deal with
>the issue of why he didn't vote to make grass roots isues a higher
>priority at the April 93 Board meeting when the direction of the USCF was
>first being established under the new governance policy.
Having the House of Delegates respond to a resolution making Grass
Roots Cycling a "higher priority" is a little like asking you and I
to support a resolution abolishing taxes! As a member of the House
of Delegates, I voted for that resolution! As a member of the
Board, I felt that making "widespread participation" a priority in
the Federation, behind the priority "Excellence in competition"
(elite athletes), was making it a "high priority". After all, we
are the Olympic Organizing body for the sport. Do we not want
Olympic programs? Do we want to remain anonymous in international
competition? Do we have no desire to give our athletes the
opportunity to achieve their best? How do our athletes achieve this
success without making it a priority?
I see "Excellence in competition" as the obvious priority.
"Widespread participation in fair and safe cycling activities"
supports that priority. They go hand in hand. I think you may even
agree with me.
Casey notes:
>I didn't support making elite programs the number one priority in
>April 93, I didn't in Oct 93 and I don't now ( although I could
>compromise and say that elite and grass roots are equally important and
>both should be treated as such).
As much as we may love the thought that the USCF should just be a
nice big "Club" for all of us, just think how little benefit we
would recieve if we stopped pursuing excellence at the International
level. We could have 27,000 members; all paying a lot more than
$32/year just to cover insurance premiums. The USCF is a business
and deserves to be managed as one.
Randy Shafer
P.S. my address is still Compuserve 71024, 3017 for those that
didn't talk to me last time.
----- Posted for Randy Shafer by Al MacDonald (alm...@netcom.com) -----
Casey W Kerrigan
Several good points to talk about in your last post but I think the final
item in you post is the most important so I'll start there.
Randy wrote :
>As much as we may love the thought that the USCF should just be a
>nice big "Club" for all of us, just think how little benefit we
>would recieve if we stopped pursuing excellence at the International
>level. We could have 27,000 members; all paying a lot more than
>$32/year just to cover insurance premiums. The USCF is a business
>and deserves to be managed as one.
First off who said we should stop pursuing excellence at the International
level? Certainly I have never called called for that. At the House of
Delegates meeting last year I even said I wasn't even looking for a
drastic reduction in the financial support being given to the elite
programs. I can think of several ways that grass roots programs can be
made a higher priority without having to take money away from elite
programs. Throwing money at a problem generally doesn't solve much.
I agree that the USCF needs to be run like a business. I also think we
need to analyze the Federation like any other business would to see if the
company is healthy, and able to survive or are there signs of weakness.
One of the important factors in any business is customer satisfaction. Are
the members of the USCF happy with the product being provided them? Back
in the mid 80s about 1/3 of the Federation membership didn't renew their
racing license each year. 80% of these non-renewals were Cat 4 riders. The
current non-renewal rate is about 27%. This is a slight improvement but it
still way to high.
How much are the customers of the USCF using the product we sell ( ie are
members showing up at races?). Here in Nor. Cal during the last three
years participation in races has dropped about 7,000 rider days. This
isn't a good trend when participation in the USCF's largest district falls
by that much. So far for 94 the downward trend seems to continue. In Nor.
Cal we are down another 15% or more and I've heard in Colorado race
attendance is down about 25%. One result of this reduced participation
is the fact that most promoters in my area are losing money. This will
probably lead to a reduced race schedule next year. In Nor Cal we may see
most of our road races disappear next year since the promoters of those
races can't afford to lose any more money.
A healthy business should have an expanding customer base. Let's see what
the Federation membership has done in the past few years (note this only
looks at road and track racing and doesn't include NORBA and NCCA
membership Info.)
in 1986 membership grew about 20%
in 1987 membership grew about 20%
in 1988 membership grew about 12%
in 1989 membership grew about 4%
in 1990 membership grew about 4%
in 1991 membership fell about 1.5%
in 1992 membership grew about 5%
in 1993 membership fell again about 3%
so far in 94 membership is off about 7.8%
Since 1989 the membership growth rate has been pretty flat and if you
include 94 to date, membership has fallen 3 out of the last 4 years. Last
year the number of clubs fell by 1%, The number of race permits fell 6.6%,
and the number of licensed coaches fell 16%. Without strong membership
growth and participation in races it will be more difficult to attract
media attention and sponsorship.
Another important factor for a business is financial stability. In this
category the Federation is doing pretty good, but in the face of falling
membership, a reduced number of races and reduced race participation a
careful eye needs to be kept on the situation.
Randy said :
>I have been involved with the Federation for many years as well. I saw
>grass roots cycling take only two riders in this area to Olympic and
>International success the first ten years that I raced. In the last four
>years, I know of half a dozen "grass roots" riders that have made it to
>the top in National and International competition...and that is just in
>the Northwest alone! Have things gotten better? Yes! Are people
>staying in the sport? Yes, just look at masters racing that is larger
>than most of the racing that you and I saw as Senior riders.
You talk about the grass roots riders who have gone on to international
success. The question is, how did these grass roots riders get their start
in our sport. My bet is that it was through developmental programs run and
designed by local people and not through a grass roots program run and
developed by the USCF. Here in Nor. Cal many of our top riders during the
80s ( many who were very successful at the national and international
level) came from a high-school ride/race program that had nothing to do
with the USCF. When I say it had nothing to do with the USCF I mean the
Federation didn't provide the outline or structure for this program, it
didn't provide any funding and it probably didn't event give any
encouragement. Think of how many more successful riders at the national
and international level we might have if the USCF had an active and
effective rider recruitment program.
You point out how long people are staying in the sport and how large the
master fields are. This isn't surprising considering that over 50% of the
USCF membership is over the ave of 30. Only about 7% of the membership are
juniors. What does this say for the potential for international success in
the future? The pool of senior riders ( 19-29) is falling. This means the
National Coaching staff have fewer riders to choose from. This will
probably reduce the number of medals we will be winning at the
international level. Look at page 92 of your 94 rulebook. Compare the
junior membership numbers from 93 to 92.
in the 10-12 group we had 4 more riders in 93 compared to 92
in the 13-14 group we had 1 less rider
in the 15-16 group we had 143 less riders
in the 17-18 group we had 326 less riders
also in the 19-14 age group we had 1,053 fewer riders in 93 than 92. These
are the age groups where our future champions will come from. I'm really
bothered when I see figures like this ( and I think many other Federation
members are also). I guess the question is Randy are you bothered by these
figures, and if so what do you think should be done about this? Do you
think the current Junior Olympic race series will really help bring new
juniors into the sport? I think we need programs to encourage race
promoters to hold more races for unlicensed junior riders. The USCF could
offer promoters incentives like a reduced insurance surcharge, provide
medals and award certificates for free ( or at greatly reduced prices).
The USCF should develop a high-school or youth group racing program along
the lines of collegiate racing ( something where the kids race for points
for their organization. At the end of the race the organizations with the
most points could win prizes that could benefit their organization).
Since this is getting long winded I'll stop here and give Randy a chance
to reply.
Casey Kerrigan
Roger Marquis
>to reply.
Before you stop Casey please address the original subject of Randy's
message: will you or won't you sponsor and support legislation
returning numeric categories?
Roger Marquis
Al MacDonald
When I sat on the USCF Board of Directors (4 years, ending last year),
I'm sure the other members eventually got tired of my comparisons of
Cycling with other sports. Nonetheless, there is something to be gained
by admitting that we can learn from "successful" sports in America -
Baseball, Football, Basketball, and also from those that have not done
so well.
No sport has ever achieved "major league" status by pulling itself up by
its' bootstraps. A strong professional / elite presence is the only
factor that has ever given a sport the visibility and public recognition
which has allowed "grassroots" (i.e. local) programs to flourish.
The USCF, as cycling's representative to the USOC, has the obligation to
develop Olympic athletes. The relationship of the USCF to the USOC is
very close, which has resulted in benefits to the USCF (office, staff
support, and grants) which are critical to it's mission. In return,
the USCF is obligated to produce the best athletes at the World level
that it can.
Am I an elitist? When it comes to the role of the Federation, absolutely.
Then why do I donate my time to assist with local time trials and our
District Championships? Because as a "concerned citizen" I do my job
to support local cycling. It's the support of clubs and volunteers
at the local level which keeps the sport alive and eventually produces
athletes who can be further trained for the "major leagues".
The Board, during it's last two years, has adopted a new governance
policy which, simply stated, tells the Executive Director what product
they want, what limits to her authority there are, and lets her run
with it. The days of a Board which interferes with staff duties
on a day-to-day basis are supposed to be over. Unfortunately many
members still don't understand this fundamental change, resulting in
off-the-floor resolutions like the one on grassroots prioritization.
That kind of thing should have been left in the past - it's equivalent
to red-baiting, and the only purpose is to give those with political
objectives ammunition.
Nobody on the Board, or running for the Board, is opposed to
development programs. The question is simply whether the Federation
should spread it's resources thinly around the country, or concentrate
on what should be it's primary mission - developing World Class athletes.
Shane McRoberts
: Roger Marquis
Still no response from Casey on this. Anyone who claims to be interested in
grassroots issues and ignores this particular issue either has his or her
head..uh, in the clouds.. or is lying. The name/number controversy is important
because it affects _every_ USCF racing member. Some do not care, but it is clear
from comments here, and surveys taken at races (by the RNA for example) that
those who do care (and there are a lot of them) overwhelmingly want the
numbers back.
Perhaps it should not be an important issue, but it would be so trivial to
change it back that it should be done at the first opportunity and gotten
over with.
I do not understand how _any_ Board member can say he or she supports the USCF
membership without having attempted to address this issue that has so much
member support behind a return to the numeric system.
===============================================================================
j.shane.mcroberts |
mitek systems, inc.| We are currently experiencing technical difficulties that
| prevent replies to this posting. Please send mail to
j...@miteksys.com | <== this address.
===============================================================================
Roger Marquis
>are the age groups where our future champions will come from. I'm really
>bothered when I see figures like this ( and I think many other Federation
>members are also).
I'm also bothered by these figures. That's why I've been recommending
more reasonable field limits since I was regional coaching coordinator
3 years ago. It seems pretty clear that a large percentage of cat.
3/4/5 dropouts are turned off by the large fields which make placing
difficult and racing on smaller courses far more dangerous than
necessary. Despite requests for reasonable filed limits (50 crit, 75
road) in those categories neither Casey nor Les have proposed any
changes.
Roger Marquis
Casey W Kerrigan
> It seems pretty clear that a large percentage of cat.
>3/4/5 dropouts are turned off by the large fields which make placing
>difficult and racing on smaller courses far more dangerous than
>necessary. Despite requests for reasonable filed limits (50 crit, 75
>road) in those categories neither Casey nor Les have proposed any
>changes.
Roger - I can't remember you or anyone else asking me to sponsor
legislation to reduce field limits in criteriums and road races. Then
again if you felt this was a really important issue you could have brought
your proposal to the House of Delegates at any time over the past 3 years.
During the past three years it has been rare in Nor. Cal. to have races
with more than 50 in a crit and 75 in a road race for the past few years.
I would rather see all new riders be required to take a basic pack riding
skills clinic before they are allowed into a mass start race. Giving new
racers some training in how to ride in a pack safely would do more to
reduce the accident rate than a simple reduction in field size. Over the
past two years I've seen a lot of needless accidents in fields of less
than 50 people.
Shane McRoberts Wrote :
>Still no response from Casey on this. Anyone who claims to be
>interested in grassroots issues and ignores this particular issue either
has >his or her head..uh, in the clouds.. or is lying. The name/number
>controversy is important because it affects _every_ USCF racing >member.
Shane - Actually I have responded to Roger so you can look for that in
another post. This year there are a couple of issues that are more
important than the category name/number issue. The most important in my
mind is the re-organization issue. This issue will affect everyone who
races a bicycle in this country, and it will continue to affect them for
many years.
I have a proposal that could end the whole elite vs grass roots debate (
but I don't like the chances of my proposal passing) that could be easily
adopted in the re-organization. Under the current re-organization plan
road and track racing would be administered by two associations. One would
be for amateur road and track ( along the lines of the current USCF) and
the other association would be for professional road and track racing. It
makes sense to me ( especially since Pros can now ride in the Olympics and
the World Track Championships) to divide the administration of road and
track racing along the following lines, Elite/Pro programs and non-elite
programs. This could be achieved pretty simply in the upcoming
re-organization by moving responsibility for the elite/Cat 1 riders over
into the Pro road and track association. After all the elite riders have
more in common with the Pros than the beginning racers.
Not only will the re-organization have an affect on road and track racers
but also NORBA members and NCCA riders, that's why I think this issue is
the most important one facing the USCF membership this year.
Casey Kerrigan
Shane McRoberts
: >Still no response from Casey on this. Anyone who claims to be
: >interested in grassroots issues and ignores this particular issue either
: has >his or her head..uh, in the clouds.. or is lying. The name/number
: >controversy is important because it affects _every_ USCF racing >member.
: Shane - Actually I have responded to Roger so you can look for that in
: another post. This year there are a couple of issues that are more
: important than the category name/number issue. The most important in my
: mind is the re-organization issue. This issue will affect everyone who
: races a bicycle in this country, and it will continue to affect them for
: many years.
: <stuff about reorg deleted>
: Casey Kerrigan
Casey--
Can't let you off that easy. I saw your earlier post and I still don't consider
that (or this) a proper answer. What I would like to know, specifically, is why
this (names vs. numbers) is considered an unimportant issue. I'll grant you
that the reorganization stuff is important, and your proposal does sound
like it has merit. I'll also grant that it will affect all racers, though I
think it is less clear that reorganization will benefit us (I'm not saying it
won't, it's just that I don't know enough about the problem it is supposed
to fix, nor the solution, to take a stand).
However, the category names affect all racers now--they piss most of them off.
And correcting the error is no more difficult or lengthy an operation than
making it in the first place. This is a *big* issue to membership and only
a *small* amount of the board's valuable time is necessary to fix it. Along
with a small helping of humble pie to help admit that a mistake was made.
I don't really mean to single you out Casey, this really is an issue for every
board member (or candidate), and I applaud your use of the internet to keep
in touch with a subset of your constituents--I wish all board members could
read this. But every quote I've seen from you or any other board members
seems to dance around the issue. If it was important enough to make the
(ill-begotten in my opinion) change in the first place, why is it now suddenly
unimportant?
I'll make it as simple as possible for you to answer by asking direct questions.
Anyone who has contact with BoD candidates is encouraged to relay these questions
to them and post their responses here.
1) Do you consider the category name change a mistake?
2a) If so, why has it not been fixed yet?
2b) If not, why not?
3) What will _you_ personally do to change the situation (if anything).
Answers to 2a that include the phrases "haven't had time" or "not important"
will be considered especially egregious (by me at least).
Les Earnest
[. . .]
The Board, during it's last two years, has adopted a new governance
policy which, simply stated, tells the Executive Director what product
they want, what limits to her authority there are, and lets her run
with it. The days of a Board which interferes with staff duties
on a day-to-day basis are supposed to be over. Unfortunately many
members still don't understand this fundamental change, resulting in
off-the-floor resolutions like the one on grassroots prioritization.
That kind of thing should have been left in the past - it's equivalent
to red-baiting, and the only purpose is to give those with political
objectives ammunition.
If Al thinks that setting priorities for the staff is not an
appropriate function for the board of directors then I wonder just
what he thinks it is that they should do? I believe that resource
allocation priorities are very appropriately board business. Also,
the reference to "red-baiting" is nonsensical.
For the record, I share Casey's belief that grassroots cycling
deserves higher priority consideration by USCF. I believe that
elite cycling programs will be stronger in the long run if we devote
more effort to enlarging participation in the sport, but increased
participation is a valid and important end in itself.
--
Les Earnest (L...@cs.Stanford.edu) Phone: 415 941-3984
Computer Science Dept.; Stanford, CA 94305 Fax: 415 941-3934
Les Earnest
Perhaps it should not be an important issue, but it would be so trivial to
change it back that it should be done at the first opportunity and gotten
over with.
Yes, this is not an important issue compared with many others.
However, I plan to sponsor legislation that will restore category
numbers in addition to names, which is the way it was until a couple
of years ago.
Robert J Schwartz
Most people seem to be ignoring them. Most race announcements ignore
them. Most officials call riders to the line by their old numerical
category. Races results get reported by numerical category.
Most riders are *not* really pissed off over this issue. They're ignoring
it. It's an issue that will go away with the next BoD meeting, probably by
voice vote.
I have one request for all those USCF members that haven't sent in their
ballots, and for whom this is an issue that could sway their vote. Toss
your ballot in the trash. You're clearly not up to the responsibility
of casting an intelligent vote.
Bob Schwartz
bsch...@cray.com
Casey W Kerrigan
>1) Do you consider the category name change a mistake?
>2a) If so, why has it not been fixed yet?
>2b) If not, why not?
>3) What will _you_ personally do to change the situation (if anything).
1) It was a mistake to change the category names with out doing a better
jobs of selling the change to the USCF membership.
2a) The reason the situation hasn't been fixed yet is because legislation
matters are generally taken up at the fall Board meeting. Also
legislation can only take affect after the first of the year ( except in
the case of emergency legislation and I don't think the category names can
really go into the category of an emergency.
2b) See my answere to 2a
3) There isn't a need for me to do anything. As I've siad before it seems
several clubs have put forth legislation for the House of Delegates
meeting to change category nemas back to numbers. Also the reorganization
proposals use numbers for categories instead of names. Since both the
House of Delegates and the re-organization will be dealing with the
category name issue it would be pretty pointless for me to offer yet
another piece of legislation on this smae issue.
Casey Kerrigan
Dave Hayes
Kerrigan) wrote:
> Shane McRoberts wrote :
>
> >1) Do you consider the category name change a mistake?
> >2a) If so, why has it not been fixed yet?
> 1) It was a mistake to change the category names with out doing a better
> jobs of selling the change to the USCF membership.
Now THAT's an irritating statement. I take it to mean "NO."
> 2a) The reason the situation hasn't been fixed yet is because legislation
> matters are generally taken up at the fall Board meeting. Also
> legislation can only take affect after the first of the year ( except in
> the case of emergency legislation and I don't think the category names can
> really go into the category of an emergency.
Funny. I guess that makes the changing of Cat 4 from "Novice" to
"Intermediate" an Emergency. Cool.
Casey has stated before that he considers the Category names to be
unimportant. I guess I have to agree, and I think that it will be behind us
soon (if not, we should just vote them ALL out in next year's elections).
But then he and Randy S. argue back and forth about "elite" vs. "grass
roots" programs...
I think that issue is a crock. What the Federation should be doing--and
what would help ALL riders the most--is _everything_ in their power to make
it easier to put on a race. I'd bet that, in the final analysis, it is the
availabilty of many, high quality events that attracts and retains riders.
Too many empty weekends or too much traveling can sap the enthusiasm of the
even most avid racer. To the point that they look for something a little
more reliable or a little closer to home to pursue.
It seems that promoter's expenses, responsibilities, liabilities, and
just-plain-hassles have increased tremendously in the past decade. To the
point that many promoters are giving up. From my vantage point, race
promotion seems to be a nightmare of red tape and risk--and people who
actually put on races are not only incredibly dedicated, but also either
Courageous or Stupid. We in the Northwest have lost several long-running,
popular races over the past few years--with nothing to to take their place.
Is it the same in your District and Region?
The ultimate purpose of any body like the USCF is to foster participation
in the sport. Well, we can't race if there are no races to ride. A solid
racing schedule would go farther towards attracting newcomers and training
tomorrow's elite than any dumb-ass "programs" that go at the issues
separately. Wake up, Casey, Randy, Les, et al (Foam, gnash, wail...)!
Oops. I got carried away there. Now back to your regularly-scheduled
category names argument...
Dave Hayes
Hayes Harper
I don't know what the percentage of r.b.* posters who are USCF members is. I
used to be one, but that was 6 years ago (if you caught my recent 10-miler post
in r.b.rides, you'd know why that 6 year twilight zone exists). Being the
middle of the year, I won't be applying during the 1994 season (guess I'll wait
til September 30th, or whenever the safe rollover date for '95 is) Back in '88
the breakdown was simply cat 1-4. What is it NOW? All the hubub is a little
unsettling when I have no =clue= what it looks like now. Can someone lay this
out for the rest of us who weren't wise enough/couldn't afford/waited too long
for a USCF license this year?
You don't even have to be a USCF BoD candidate to answer! I can't believe I'm
literally asking you to throw the book at me :)
-Hayes Harper
ha...@bbs.xnet.com
Shane McRoberts
: <a bunch of stuff, almost all of which I agree with>
My point in bringing up the names issue is not to raise a relatively
minor issue to major status. I really just meant to bring up the
fact that we have people shouting "grassroots" without seeming to
care what the real "roots" think. It was one example, but I don't
think it's the only one (though in some ways it's the most obvious).
I certainly did NOT mean to imply that USCF BoD votes should be cast
based on this topic alone--that would be stupid, as Roger M. pointed
out.
The real point I'm trying to make is that arguing "elite" vs.
"grassroots" is meaningless. It's like two men arguing whether
it's the front or the back of a horse that propels it--obviously
both ends of the horse must be healthy to get the horse to go
down the road. Political posturing sometimes seems to get in the
way of intelligent discussion. This is all too obvious when
one candidate says in his official statement that he is not
political, then that same candidate writes a message on the net
saying (something to the effect of) "You must be a democrat,
while I'm a republican." That's intelligent discussion for you.
Is that the kind of information upon which I'm supposed to base
my vote Roger?
So let's here about plans to keep both ends of the USCF "horse"
moving. Dave's points about support of local races were excellent.
We obviously also need to have a sustained elite program to help
draw in new members, but they have to have someplace to come
to (local clubs and races).
Finally, let me again state that I don't mean to single out our
net-aware friends and candidates. There are plenty of examples
of useless drivel in all the candidates official statements (and
counter-examples as well, including some in the statements of
those who also post here). I applaud the candidates' efforts
to communicate with us, especially when those efforts can so
easily result in negative as well as positive reactions (and we
all know there are plenty of both to go around on the net).
Casey W Kerrigan
realize it is comparing apples to oranges, I find it interesting to match
up the figures for tennis and cycling.
The following information about tennis comes from a story in the June 2nd
San Francisco Chronicle Outdoors section by John Yandell.
Number of tennis players ( people who play at least once a year) 22 million
Number of cyclists ( people who ride once a year) 95 million
Number of regular tennis players ( people who play at least 21 times a
year) 6 million
Number of regular cyclists ( people who ride at least once a week) 25 million
The United States Tennis Association has grown 10% or more annually for
more than a decade to 186,000 players last year.
The USCF has had an average increase of 7.6% over the past 8 years, but
only a growth rate of 1.7% over the past 5 years. As of the end of 93 the
USCF had a membership of 34,860.
The United States Tennis Association schools program has given 6 million
students a chance to sample tennis in the last year alone. The USTA is
also testing a new program " Play Tennis America" which is designed to
attract new adult players.
Casey Kerrigan
Dave Hayes
Kerrigan) wrote:
> The United States Tennis Association has grown 10% or more annually for
> more than a decade to 186,000 players last year.
>
> The USCF has had an average increase of 7.6% over the past 8 years, but
> only a growth rate of 1.7% over the past 5 years. As of the end of 93 the
> USCF had a membership of 34,860.
>
> The United States Tennis Association schools program has given 6 million
> students a chance to sample tennis in the last year alone. The USTA is
> also testing a new program " Play Tennis America" which is designed to
> attract new adult players.
Yeah, and there are tennis courts everywhere--while a glance at the
schedule reveals way too many weekends this summer in which there are
absolutely no all-category USCF races within a four (!) hour drive of
Portland, Oregon. I'm sure that this is true in many places throughout the
U.S. The USCF would be foolish to fund programs to encourage new racers
without first making sure that there are races for them to participate in.
It'd be like the USTA running a "Play Tennis America" program in a town
that had no court.
Grass-roots programs, bah! How about spending the same money to compensate
officials directly rather than putting the burden on the promoters of small
races? Or how about using the money to indemnify promoters to remove the
fear of possible liability suits and judgements?
Dave Hayes
GRIFFIN PETER D
>realize it is comparing apples to oranges, I find it interesting to match
>up the figures for tennis and cycling.
>
>The following information about tennis comes from a story in the June 2nd
>San Francisco Chronicle Outdoors section by John Yandell.
>
>more than a decade to 186,000 players last year.
>
>The USCF has had an average increase of 7.6% over the past 8 years, but
>only a growth rate of 1.7% over the past 5 years. As of the end of 93 the
>USCF had a membership of 34,860.
>
>The United States Tennis Association schools program has given 6 million
>students a chance to sample tennis in the last year alone. The USTA is
>also testing a new program " Play Tennis America" which is designed to
>attract new adult players.
i think this is a great point. it's obvious that one can not make
straight comparrisons, but some insight can be gained. why re-invent the
wheel. there are many successful sports programs out there. let's study
them. especially european cycling ones.
i have trouble that other sports have such large associations, while
cycling seems stagnate. no answers from me, only questions. i do know
that i tried to get a uscf coaching license last year and couldn't. they
were not certifiying anyone for a while. even when i was checking into
it, it was difficult to get the info. i'm not saying they should just hand
them, but at least make it simple.
ski resorts here in colorado have the learn to ski program. two and a
half hour lesson, rental, and lift ticket for $40. i imagine many folks
who otherwise would not try skiing, do. maybe we can try something
similar for racing.
pete
Kurt F. Sauer
I agree. It is also interesting to match soccer and cycling, which might
actually be a better comparison because soccer fields are a bit less
ubiquitous than tennis courts. The numbers are similar.
I think that part of the problem is the limited availability of racing
venues. That certainly is a problem here in Texas. Clearly it was a
problem in Moriarty, NM. The problem of "dual-use" roads might not be
solved until the use of public roadways is not so vital to commerce.
The vast majority of the complaining about bike races in this state comes
from farmers.
If only it were easy to get a new sport approved by the State Education
Agency, it might be a little easier to get access to high-school aged
students. But there is an institutional bias toward football and, to
a lesser extent, basketball that will be very difficult to break. It will
only occur in this state as a result of local and statewide pressure. Not
bloody likely.
Casey W Kerrigan
>I hate to admit this, but it looks like the only thing that separates us
is >my l eaning towards republicanism and my bet that you are a democrat!
Sorry Randy but you would lose your bet, I'm a republican.
>You seem to espouse that the USCF, like the Federal Government, should
>somehow be funding or somehow making "free" programs work to make >people
race bicycles .
All the of grass roots programs that I support involve very little money.
Since I realize how tight money is in the Federation I try to develop
plans that get a lot of bang for very little bucks. The best thing the
USCF could do is create a framework and then let local people run with the
program ( like developing coaching clinics that will allow experienced
coaches to train and license club level coaches at the local level).
>Casey your numbers are interesting. Why are there fewer people
>entering the sport? It isn't too hard to figure out. The last
>population boom was the resul t of THE "baby boomer" (1945-1955)
>generation having children, although later in life and at a lower
>rate than their parents. This new population "blip" is already
>receding. Despite our love or concern for Junior age racers,
>there are fewer of them than in the past and the numbers will
>continue to decline. Population demographics are not problems
>the Federation can tackle. Competition for the athletes of the
>future is increasingly difficult for many sports, not just
>cycling. That is why it is vitally important that the U
>involved in a major way in producing champions
I think there is a lot of things the USCF can do to increase membership (
and the number of juniors involved with racing) before we have to blame
population demographics. Lets look at some more numbers.
According to surveys about 25 million Americans ride a bike at least once
a week and out of these 25 million only 34,000 or so have a USCF license.
According to a 1987 Gallup survey on the sporting activities of Americans
31% of the people responded that they had ridden a bicycle within the past
12 months. The more interesting figure was the fact that 15% of the people
said they had taken part in a bicycle race within the past 12 months (
bicycle racing was tied for 15th on the list of activities). Think about
these numbers, if 15% of the people surveyed said they had been in a bike
race but the USCF only has 34,000 riders ( actually more like 28,000 when
this poll was taken) what does this tell you? To me it says the gallup
people had a poor sampling and got a lot of USCF members, or a lot of
people who do not belong to the Federation feel they are participating in
bicycle racing.
Also according to a 1987 gallup survey bicycling was the number one teen
participation sport in this country. Think about that among teens
bicycling was more popular than basketball, baseball and football. If so
many teens like to ride bikes how come we have so few junior aged riders
racing. To me these numbers indicate that the Federation has a long way
to go before we can blame demographics for declining membership and
limited junior participation.
>I think the decrease in numbers is also attributable to the last
>recession. Bike racing is expensive. More than a few racers in
>the Silicon Valley have lost their jobs and hence an expensive
>hobby. (And moved to Oregon.)
The recession might help explain the decrease in race participation last
year but what about this year. The economy is suppose to be improving.
Also the decreased participation extends much farther than Silicon Valley.
As I've said before in Colorado racing is down about 20-25% and k just
heard that numbers are well down in the midwest region this year.
Casey Kerrigan
Casey W Kerrigan
>Yeah, and there are tennis courts everywhere--while a glance at the
>schedule reveals way too many weekends this summer in which there are
>absolutely no all-category USCF races within a four (!) hour drive of
>Portland, Oregon. I'm sure that this is true in many places throughout
>the U.S. The USCF would be foolish to fund programs to encourage new
>racers without first making sure that there are races for them to
>participate in.
Just having lots of local races for people to ride in isn't the answer.
Here in Nor Cal you can ride in a USCF race every weekend year round ( and
that has been the case for the past several years). Heck from May through
Aug. you can race your self silly if you live in the S.F. Bay Area. Here
is a typical schedule
Monday - No races scheduled ( after all people do need a rest day)
Tuesday - Twilight races in Oakland/Alameda, Walnut Creek San Jose Club
Races and Santa Rosa ( there are also races in Reno I believe)
Wed - Track racing at the Velodrome in San Jose or twilight racing in
Sacramento
Thurs - Twilight racing in Fremont ( and Reno I think)
Friday - Track racing
Saturday and Sunday at least one race and sometimes two races each day. In
the spring there are sometimes three races per day ( with one of the
events generally being a collegiate race).
This year with race participation way down very few clubs are breaking
even, most are losing money on their races. It doesn't do any good to have
races if riders do not show up. There is a good chance our area will lose
a number of road races next year because the promoters this year has
simply lost to much money.
>How about spending the same money to compensate officials directly
>rather than putting the burden on the promoters of races? Or how >about
using the money to indemnify promoters to remove the fear of >possible
liability suits and judgements?
While this might be nice the question is where would the money come from?
According to the 94 USCF budget sponsorship is expected to bring in about
$917,500. Now if all the cash sponsorship the USCF received this year was
divided among all the races to help pay expenses each race would get about
$446 ( using the number of race permits that were issued last year). Of
course many race permits cover several days of racing ( like stage races
or series events so promoters would have a lot less than $446 per day to
help cover their expenses. There is also the problem of what would happen
to our national team if we took all the sponsorship money and spent it on
race support.
Actually clubs promoting races can greatly reduce their official's bills
by encouraging people in their club to take out an officials license. I
know several officials in my area who work their own club's races for free
( which can greatly reduce the expense of putting on a race).
In this area one of the biggest problems facing a race promoter is trying
to come up with a race course. At the rate things are going soon we may be
reduced to crits and track races. I hear there is a chance Nor Cal may
lose it's long time TT course because the local residents don't like the
race ( the residents complain about being inconvenienced and argue that
the riders don't spend enough money to help the local economy).
It is a little like the chicken and the egg question. Without races it is
pointless to become a racer. Without racers it is pointless to put on a
race. I tend to think that if you have the racers the races will follow.
Afterall it is pretty easy ( and cheap) to organize a local club race.
Who said that races have to be these big weekend affaires with events for
all categories and prize money. Club and twilight races can be a lot of
fun for very little or no entry.
Casey Kerrigan
Roger Marquis
>saying (something to the effect of) "You must be a democrat,
>while I'm a republican." That's intelligent discussion for you.
>Is that the kind of information upon which I'm supposed to base
>my vote Roger?
Hey wait a minute, which Roger.M are we talking about here J.Shane? I
don't remember commenting on this.
Roger Marquis
PS. For the record I'm a fiscal conservative, anti-deficit,
pro-environment, pro-education, anti-entitlement, moderate.
Robert J Schwartz
: Hey wait a minute, which Roger.M are we talking about here J.Shane? I
: don't remember commenting on this.
Nope, Shane probably meant me. In the past I've been pretty good about
not immediately following up on posts. I think a little reflection is
valuable, and I've always admired the people that can consistently make
their point in a positive fashion, when snotty replies are so much easier.
Unfortunately, I don't always have the sense to stick to my own rules. Let
me try this again.
My understanding is that the change to named categories came about as a
result of confusion in the media about which category is highest, which
has lead to inaccurate newspaper accounts. When this came out, I was not
particularly bothered. When my club put on a race this spring, we
discovered that named categories did not work as well as numbers when
listing races in column format on the flyer. So rather than try to squeeze
"elite/expert/sport" in a wide column, we used "1/2/3". That is the
extent of the personal anguish and grief this issue has caused me. I
can live with it.
I don't expect the BoD to run stuff like this past the membership. If
I were on the Board, I probably would have voted for named categories,
and I would be flattered to be considered part of cycling's elite. I
am genuinely surprised that this has turned into the issue that it has.
I don't think it's an indication of contact with the USCF membership or
lack thereof. I think you've got an excellent chance of running into
either Randy or Casey at races in their areas on any given weekend.
I found enough substance in Randy and Casey's exchange that, if I lived
in the West I could easily decide between the two. I would hope people
would give named categories the consideration it deserves before casting
their vote. In my oh-so-humble opinion, this is not much.
Shane does have a point in that the statements we get to aid our decision
are not much help. I think one of the reasons named categories has
assumed the prominence it has is because unlike most issues facing the
USCF, a position on that issue can be expressed in a small space. About
half a line, if you're clever.
So let me pose this query to our current and future BoD members. What
are your positions on publishing minutes from Board meetings in Cycling
USA? That would be much more help in making an informed choice than
the "I've been involved in cycling for X years. I've filled X,Y,and Z
roles in the sport. I'm your friend." stuff that we get currently.
Race bike,
Bob Schwartz
bsch...@cray.com
Casey W Kerrigan
>So let me pose this query to our current and future BoD members. What
>are your positions on publishing minutes from Board meetings in Cycling
>USA? That would be much more help in making an informed choice than
>the "I've been involved in cycling for X years. I've filled X,Y,and Z
>roles in the sport. I'm your friend." stuff that we get currently.
I wouldn't have a problem with publishing the minutes of Board meetings in
Cycling USA. I don't know how much good they would do in helping voters
select who to vote for. The minutes are pretty dull and most of the time
have littel more than who made and seconded each motion and who gave what
report.
The interesting part of the Board minutes are the copies of the staff
reports that are given to Board members at the meetings. It wouldn't be
practical to include all the staff reports in Cycling USA since they would
take up a lot of room. The staff is suppose to be developing an idea that
would let interested USCF members subscribe to the Board minutes. I
assume that anyone subscribing to the Board minutes would get the full
report with the copies of the staff reports ( including budget information).
Casey Kerrigan
Shane McRoberts
Cycling seems to have a problem of reputation. Somebody (I think it's
Jobst) has an article in the FAQ about the perception in the US of
cycling as a kid's activity. This was highlighted to me in two ways
recently.
A recent issue of Outside magazine (I don't know which one, I was reading
it at a friend's house) had a small article on the relative benefits of
various athletic pursuits. Running was on top (sorted by calories
burned per hour), and cycling was midway through the list of about
twenty things. The interesting point was that the "running" statistic
was based on 7min30sec miles--a brisk pace for most non-competitive
runners, while the "cycling" statistic was based on 9mph. Nine miles
per hour! Even once-a-year cyclists probably go faster than that
on the flats (roads, not tires). Kids go faster. My point is that
the author didn't consider real cycling, just toy bike riding.
Note that running 7:30 miles translates to 8mph, only one mph slower
than the "cyclist."
The second recent event was a statistic that a friend quoted to me
from CNN. The report said something to the effect that an adult male
who gets two hours or more of aerobic exercise per week has a 60 percent
lower risk of heart disease [ride bike!]. The report went on to say,
however, that riding one's bike to work wasn't good enough (it also
discussed other activities that weren't aerobic, such as walking
around the office). Again, the automatic assumption is that anybody
on a bike is just noodling along because it's easier than walking.
With health in the news all the time, it seems like a good time to
inform people that cycling can be a healthy (healthier!) alternative
to other forms of exercise and that it is a serious endeavor,
whether the cyclist is racing, touring, or just riding for health
or fun.
Shane
P.S. Casey posted some stats earlier that showed the number of racing
cyclists going down or stagnating over the past few years. Anybody
know how much of that can be attributed to MTB riders/racers? Were
MTB racers included, Casey? My thought is that many of the people
who might previously have been candidates for road racing might
be choosing dirt instead.
Marc San Soucie
> The interesting part of the Board minutes are the copies of the staff
> reports that are given to Board members at the meetings. It wouldn't be
> practical to include all the staff reports in Cycling USA since they would
> take up a lot of room. The staff is suppose to be developing an idea that
> would let interested USCF members subscribe to the Board minutes.
Most excellent. I subscribe to the agendas and minutes for my local Board
of County Commissioners. Would that I could subscribe to the staff reports,
which are numerous and huge, but very significant.
I would eagerly subscribe to USCF staff reports.
Marc San Soucie
Portland, Oregon
ma...@netcom.com
Casey W Kerrigan
>Casey posted some stats earlier that showed the number of racing
>cyclists going down or stagnating over the past few years. Anybody
>know how much of that can be attributed to MTB riders/racers? Were
>MTB racers included, Casey? My thought is that many of the people
>who might previously have been candidates for road racing might
>be choosing dirt instead.
Ask and you shall receive.
As of 4/30/94 the combined membership of USCF,NORBA, and NCCA was 49,407
this is 2,211 fewer riders than last year at the same date. The combined
membership for the end of 93 was 61,967 so this indicates a number of
people will be taking out licenses before the end of the year.
The combined membership number of 49,407 represents 45,501 individuals.
The difference in the two numbers accounts for people who have two or more
licenses ( ie a USCF and a NORBA license or a NORBA and a NCCA license)
The membership figures for the individual organizations breaks down like this.
Date Licenses Clubs Event permits
USCF
4/30/94 27,286 1,224 899
4/30/93 29,579 1,273 1,032
Difference -2,295 -49 -133
NORBA
4/30/94 19,422 648 328
4/30/93 18,794 405 343
Difference +628 +243 -15
NCCA
4/30/94 2,699 172 73
4/30/93 3,245 211 43
Difference -546 -39 +30
Casey Kerrigan
Shane McRoberts
: Roger Marquis (mar...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Hey wait a minute, which Roger.M are we talking about here J.Shane? I
: : don't remember commenting on this.
: Nope, Shane probably meant me. In the past I've been pretty good about
: not immediately following up on posts. I think a little reflection is
: valuable, and I've always admired the people that can consistently make
: their point in a positive fashion, when snotty replies are so much easier.
: Unfortunately, I don't always have the sense to stick to my own rules. Let
: me try this again.
Thanks Bob for clearing up my misattribution.
: My understanding is that the change to named categories came about as a
: ...
: I don't expect the BoD to run stuff like this past the membership. If
: I were on the Board, I probably would have voted for named categories,
Well and good. But once the decision is handed down, the board should
listen to the membership's reaction.
: and I would be flattered to be considered part of cycling's elite. I
I take it from this that you are a Cat 1 racer. "Elite" is indeed
a flattering name, as is Expert. Those of us who are striving to be
Novices err, Intermediates [between what?] and hope to someday be
"Sports" (whatever those are) are not so flattered.
: am genuinely surprised that this has turned into the issue that it has.
: I don't think it's an indication of contact with the USCF membership or
: lack thereof. I think you've got an excellent chance of running into
: either Randy or Casey at races in their areas on any given weekend.
: I found enough substance in Randy and Casey's exchange that, if I lived
: in the West I could easily decide between the two. I would hope people
: would give named categories the consideration it deserves before casting
: their vote. In my oh-so-humble opinion, this is not much.
I agree on both counts. Unfortunately, Randy and Casey are not our only
choices. It would be nice to see the other candidates join this forum
next time around.
: Shane does have a point in that the statements we get to aid our decision
: are not much help. I think one of the reasons named categories has
: assumed the prominence it has is because unlike most issues facing the
: USCF, a position on that issue can be expressed in a small space. About
: half a line, if you're clever.
They suck. Let's see... 9 letters. If half a line is Clever, then
nine letters must be Genius. Or is that Elite. :-)
: So let me pose this query to our current and future BoD members. What
: are your positions on publishing minutes from Board meetings in Cycling
: USA? That would be much more help in making an informed choice than
: the "I've been involved in cycling for X years. I've filled X,Y,and Z
: roles in the sport. I'm your friend." stuff that we get currently.
Excellent suggestion. I'd like to take it one step further and
suggest that
1) The above subscription be available by e-mail or ftp, and
2a) All board members have e-mail accounts, or
2b) At least have a USCF board account for queries, suggestions, etc.
: Race bike,
:
: Bob Schwartz
: bsch...@cray.com
Shane
john.d.unruh
>Or how about using the money to indemnify promoters to remove the
>fear of possible liability suits and judgements?
>
This insurance is paid for from license fees, probably some of the money
from event permits, and from the $2 per licensed rider and $5 per
unlicensed rider insurance surcharges. There is nothing the USCF can
do to prevent an event organizer from being sued. You can name
anyone in a lawsuit. The Federation could agree to pay any damages and
attorney fees generated in such a lawsuit, barring gross problems like
the organizer becoming angry at someone and assulting that person.
Reducing the permit fee wouldn't help small events - it is pretty low
unless you have a large prize list. Reducing the insurance surcharge
would help. While it is a separate item on the fee structure, if you
are in a free market district, the market has set a price for races, and
increases in costs don't change the rider's willingness to pay. Therefore,
the organizer may have to eat the extra money. This is what I see happening
with the $5 insurance surcharge for public racers in IL.
John Unruh
john.d.unruh
>I think that issue is a crock. What the Federation should be doing--and
>what would help ALL riders the most--is _everything_ in their power to make
>it easier to put on a race. I'd bet that, in the final analysis, it is the
>availabilty of many, high quality events that attracts and retains riders.
>Too many empty weekends or too much traveling can sap the enthusiasm of the
>even most avid racer. To the point that they look for something a little
>more reliable or a little closer to home to pursue.
>
within a 3 hour drive, usually within 2 hours, and often within 1.5 hours.
The easy access to races really helps encourage people. 2 summers ago
a business trip to St. Louis turned into a 6 month stay. It was amazing
to note the difference. In St. Louis there were races, and the local
races were closer than those in the Chicago area. The problem was that
there were a lot of weekends where the nearest race that I knew about
was at least 4 hours away. That means that I didn't race much that
summer - at least not much outside of the Wednesday night training crits.
Since nearly all IL races and most WI races are advertised in Midwest Flyers,
information is easily available to Chicago area racers. In MO, it seemed
like information on many races was available only from word of mouth at
club meetings.
>
>It seems that promoter's expenses, responsibilities, liabilities, and
>just-plain-hassles have increased tremendously in the past decade. To the
>point that many promoters are giving up. From my vantage point, race
>promotion seems to be a nightmare of red tape and risk--and people who
>actually put on races are not only incredibly dedicated, but also either
>Courageous or Stupid. We in the Northwest have lost several long-running,
>popular races over the past few years--with nothing to to take their place.
>Is it the same in your District and Region?
>
I have either organized or been heavily involved with organizing about 5
races. It is a hassle, especially since the total financial position for
the 5 races is about -$500. The actual paperwork is not too bad. The
lead time for the paperwork can be a problem. It can be diffficult to get
permission for use of courses, and that can delay the federation paperwork.
The new rules about course inspection add about 1 month to lead time.
On the other hand, the federation's insurance is the only reason that
bicycle races exist. They would be impossible without insurance, and
I don't think that insurance for individual races would be affordable
without an umbrella organization doing a bulk purchase.
The big problems that I have had are the financial risk - it is VERY
easy to lose money, especially if the weather turns out to be nasty on
race day, getting permission to use the course because the local
residents don't like the inconvenience, and liability risk.
Most riders don't have the faintest idea that the organizer has to put
out thousands of dollars before the prize list. Say $1k for finish line
services/announcer, a few hundred for officials (including mileage),
several hundred for latrines, perhaps $50 for an event permit, etc, etc.
If you have to pay for police, etc it would be incredibly expensive.
If 350 riders come, then it is possible to make money. With 100 riders,
you lose money.
John Unruh
Robert J Schwartz
: I wouldn't have a problem with publishing the minutes of Board meetings in
: Cycling USA. I don't know how much good they would do in helping voters
: select who to vote for. The minutes are pretty dull and most of the time
: report.
I still think they would be valuable. They include voting records, don't they?
Let me raise a (purely hypothetical) situation. Director X from the Central
section is up for re-election to the board. He lives a good distance away from
me. I have never heard Director X's name associated with the sport in any
way shape or form other than his position on the BoD. My suspicion is that
Director X's role on the Board has been to keep a seat warm and grunt
occasionally when asked to vote. But it's just a suspicion, I don't know
for sure. Does the BoD have full attendance at every meeting? I'd like to
know if Director X is showing up. I'd like to know his voting record, and
what issues, if any, he's involved with. At a broader level, it gives me
an idea of exactly what the Board *does*, and I bet if you asked a few USCF
members what the role of the the BoD was in the Federation, you'd get a pretty
wide array of answers.
I wouldn't claim publishing minutes would result in the ultimate in informed
membership, but I would claim that it's better than what we have now and it
would be pretty painless. The BoD is a black box to the vast majority of
members, who are asked to vote based on a couple of paragraphs of happy
talk. Ignorance is not bliss.
Bob Schwartz
bsch...@cray.com
Kurt F. Sauer
>would let interested USCF members subscribe to the Board minutes.
It seems that I have seen this advertised already in a prior issue of CUSA.
Kurt F. Sauer
>
>Does the BoD have full attendance at every meeting? I'd like to
>know if Director X is showing up.
A few weeks ago, I asked for the attendance record for Directors to meetings
of the Board of Directors, but have not yet received a response. I wish that
I had had that information prior to the mailing of ballots.
Les Earnest
A few weeks ago, I asked for the attendance record for Directors to meetings
of the Board of Directors, but have not yet received a response. I wish that
I had had that information prior to the mailing of ballots.
While there are usually a couple of directors missing from each
meeting, as can be determined from the minutes, there are a number of
others who attend physically but not mentally. (I admit that I lose
it occasionally.) You have to be there to figure out who's brains are
functioning and what is their duty cycle. Some are always absent, even
when physically present.
Casey W Kerrigan
involved with tennis vs cycling. Someone ( Kurt Sauer I believe) thought
that comparing soccer and cycling would provide better information.
While I don't have the numbers for the entire country I did run across the
following information about soccer in northern Calif.
The following comes from a story in the 6/10 S.F. Cronicle in a story by
Dan Giesin
20 years ago there were 2,250 adults playing soccer in five different
leagues
In 1984 the number of adults playing organized soccer was up to 6,680 in
10 leagues.
Today there are 11,376 adluts playing in 24 leagues according to the
Calif. Soccer Assoc. North For 1994 it looks like Northern Calif ( the
largest USCF district in terms of numbers) will have slightly less than
3,000 licensed riders.
The numbers for youth soccer are even bigger.
In 1969 there were 2,771 kids playing organized soccer
In 1979 there were 95,391 kids registered and playing organized soccer
Today there are 160,000 kids playing organized soccer in Northern Calif.
alone. All of these number come from Calif Youth Soccer Assoc. North
Casey Kerrigan
Casey W Kerrigan
>Does the BoD have full attendance at every meeting? I'd like to
>know if Director X is showing up. I'd like to know his voting record, and
>what issues, if any, he's involved with.
Currently the USCF minutes doesn't include a voting record, unless one of
the Board members asks for a roll call vote. Most votes on the Board level
are just a show of hands with no record of who voted which way.
For the Board meetings I've been to the vast majority of cirectors show
up. At the most I've seen two directors absent ( out of a total of 17).
Casey Kerrigan