Ooops--wasn't quite finished. Part II or Continued.

[Tracy Rankin]

Folks,

I have just opened my upgrade folder and discovered it quite full of an ongoing dialog/exchange about which races should/should not count for upgrades, how combined fields are handled, etc...  I have had some conversations already "off-line" with Mr. Vaughn and Jeff about Greenbelt and my overall philosophy about the race.  But first, I must set the stage with how I approach this process.

I have been racing and riding in this district for some 15 years or so.  I have raced since the mid-80s.  Much like Bill L or Jim P., I've seen just about everything and been in districts (back when those existed) and time periods, where/when it was totally unclear what constituted a legitimate upgrade, to today, where a policy has been fleshed out and works pretty well to ensure overall consistency across the local associations.  I also still compete fairly regularly and officiate and have a familiarity with the events and riders that helps quite a bit--particularly as riders move up on the category scale.

OK.  The most important point I would like to make is that I try and handle every request as an individual request.  Each person's experience is different.  Each rider brings to their request a different set of skills/background that I try to also take into account--particularly on "borderline" requests where the rider is maybe a couple of points/races shy.  As an example, "experience in 10 mass start events" sounds pretty simple to execute for 5 to 4 upgrades--do 10 races, get to be a 4.  Yay.  Well--what if cat 5 road racer is a cat 1 MTB racer and has won 5 straight cat 5 events out of the first 7 he/she has entered.  Would I deny that upgrade request.  Not likely.  MTB riders are incredibly skilled bike handlers--so they can probably ride a straight line.  How does doing another 3 races benefit the rider in terms of experience?  What about everybody else in the cat 5 field being beaten up by this guy/girl?  An another example--what if out of 10 mass starts listed, the rider has DNF'd 7? or 8?  That sort of information gives me pause.  As in most aspects of life, it is usually not as black and white as we would like it to be.

As for points, the current system is one I had been kinda employing anyway for a while--a sliding scale system, so to speak.  The rider cannot control the field size, for instance.  The rider can only control, to a point, how well they do in the field that shows up.  So, previously, if a race was short on field size, but the rider got in the top six, I counted the event for points, but not the full allocation.  The current system formalizes this with the varying field sizes.  Frankly, and I guess we can have a continuing discussion on this, I will do the same for events that don't make the distance, like Lost River for some fields.  If you win, maybe you won't get 10 points for that RR win, but only a portion based on how far short the race distance was from "qualifying distance."   And, keep in mind it isn't any one event that makes or breaks an upgrade request--I do try and consider the whole resume.    Combined fields are more difficult and, frankly, I dislike them.  I dislike them from all angles:  as an official, as a rider, as an upgrade coordinator.  Even as a promoter.  I have no way of verifying for upgrades how many of which category was in a combined field.  Who was the competition?  If you are requesting an upgrade to a 2 with a resume dominated by combined 3/4 races, did you earn your points by beating up on a bunch of 4s or your actual racing peers?   I have no idea and it would be too hard to gather that information.  Sometimes, promoters provide the info to USAC and I can see the breakout in the rider's results or on the race webpage.  Often not.  In any event, a combined field is one field for racing purposes (riders work together, different category riders influence others, etc...) and I consider only your overall placing for upgrade points.  This effects women mostly, as there are a lot of combined 3/4 events.

Now training series.  Greenbelt.  Don't get me wrong--I love Greenbelt.  A great venue, low key, fast training.  Combined fields that are not broken out by category, except roughly (see above).  So--we're dealing with combined fields where 1s and 3s can be "competing" against each other.  Every week the composition is different.  Results are called by the officials and are not as regularly accurate as those called and verified with a camera, or vice-versa.  And it's training.  Generally, I consider Greenbelt/Cold Toes/Tradezone/etc... as great experience to move up from 5.  After that, I would like the rider to compete on the weekend against clearly-defined peers and garner easily-verified results.  The only time I've made any exceptions is if the rider has extenuating circumstances that preclude regular participation on weekends--military service, work demands, etc...  And then we have an e-conversation about the merits of the request.  Feel free to include Greenbelt in the resumes--that helps me get a sense of the overall picture.  There may be other training series in other parts of the country where there is more structure--the rulebook makes accommodation for those types of series. 

Lastly--thank goodness, since it is way past my bedtime and I should have been spending time working through my upgrade cue, since I'm behind, not to mention watching today's Tour stage--the best way to upgrade is to race your bike.  For 4s--you can move up on experience, not just points.  Do 25 mass start events, get at least 10 top ten placings or 20 field finishes (easy to do with the races here) and you will be a 3.  Depending on how often you race, that's a couple of seasons.  It's harder for 3s moving to 2s, but I don't think that is a bad thing.  There should be more discrimination as you move up the food chain. 

It is a balance.  Interests of an individual rider versus interests of the entire community.  As an official/administrator, I see part of my role as ensuring as level a playing field for all the competitors as possible.  That means trying to keep the sandbaggers moving up when they should and not sending someone up before they are really ready.  And also downgrading riders who clearly have been out of touch for a while and are trying to come back, or vice-versa.  There are the rules and there is reality.  And special circumstances.  And exceptions.  And whatever.  My bottom line is to try and keep my eyes on the big picture as well as I can.  It ain't perfect; sometimes not pretty; and sometimes (gasp!), not "by the book." 

Done.  Who won the stage today, anyway???

Flame away,
Tracy

P.S.:  I am getting to my backlog.  I swear.

[Jeff Travis]

It may or may not be legit Italian, but . . . Bravissimo, Tracy!

I added a link to your post in the Greenbelt FAQ.

Thanks for all your work.

Jeff