Les Earnest is Dangerous!!!!(was Re: USCF eliminat...
Andrew Albright
: John Frey writes:
: > I'm tired of the USCF bashers. Here in New England/New York we the riders,
: > promoters, officials, etc. have taken it upon ourselves to step up and call the
: > shots, in large part because of the sensible direction of our Regional
: > nCoordinator, Tom Vinson. He has taught us that we are the USCF. I'm happy to say
: I agree that Tom Vinson seems to do a good job of administering racing programs in
: the Northeast. However, I suspect that the reason that most participants in the
: New York/New England area are not upset by the evident corruption in the higher
: levels of USA Cycling is that they are used to seeing such corruption in their
I think the obvious answer here is that New England has a stable racing
situation that is run very well from within. They don't need any help
from the outside. Therefore, the general populace doesn't really give a
shit about USAC. It is apathy about USAC. It is the same in the
Mid-Atlantic region. To leave USAC would gain us the money for the yearly
license fees and the permit fees. However, the cost would be that someone
would have to do a lot more work than they are already doing.
No one is sufficiently pissed about anything to take the trouble to change
anything. If USAC had not chosen the obviously popular Tom Vinson, and
had instead appointed someone else or no one at all...then something
might be done. But USAC didn't, they appointed Tom.
But whatever, the racing goes on. That is obvious. Now to my main point.
However, what is really telling here is Les Earnest and what is wrong
with him. His main problem is his agenda and how he can't see things
clearly. He attacks John Frey because JF is basically saying the USAC
works fine in New England. And it is. JF knows this because he spends all
of his time racing in New England. (While Les Earnest is busy being a
hippy activist busybody)
Now go back and read what Les Earnest wrote back to JF about New England.
When you do, you will see why Les Earnest is dangerous, why he should be
stopped, and why he should not be supported.
Do not support Les Earnest if you are FOR racing.
Andrew Albright
Paid for by John Frey for president
Tim McNamara
<alb...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
> I think the obvious answer here is that New England has a stable racing
> situation that is run very well from within. They don't need any help
> from the outside. Therefore, the general populace doesn't really give a
> shit about USAC.
Which is much the same situation here in Minnesota, where the Minnesota
Cycling Federation works closely with the District Rep, Dave Hogan, to
keep the racing schedule coordinated. The MCF also offers material
assistance to member clubs such as a lap count sign, PA system, traffic
cones, etc. There is a $1 per rider surcharge which, in my experience
as a promoter, is well worth the money... much more so than the $2 per
rider I send to Colorado.
> However, what is really telling here is Les Earnest and what is wrong
> with him. His main problem is his agenda and how he can't see things
> clearly. He attacks John Frey because JF is basically saying the USAC
> works fine in New England. And it is. JF knows this because he spends all
> of his time racing in New England. (While Les Earnest is busy being a
> hippy activist busybody)
Les is a hippy? The things you learn on r.b.r
> Now go back and read what Les Earnest wrote back to JF about New England.
> When you do, you will see why Les Earnest is dangerous, why he should be
> stopped, and why he should not be supported.
>
> Do not support Les Earnest if you are FOR racing.
How about it you want a national organization that actually pays
attention to grass roots racing and supports it, has a sane and
rational development program rather than creating highly politicized
National Team careers for a few individuals, and actually promotes
professional racing so that the national team has somewhere to go and
earn a living *other* than the USCF? And doesn't break its covenant
with its licensees and probably the law as well?
Les Earnest
> I agree that Tom Vinson seems to do a good job of administering racing programs in the
> Northeast.
Now the perennially wailful Andrew Albright writes:
> <snip>. Now to my main point.
>
> However, what is really telling here is Les Earnest and what is wrong
> with him. His main problem is his agenda and how he can't see things
> clearly. He attacks John Frey because JF is basically saying the USAC
> works fine in New England. And it is. JF knows this because he spends all
> of his time racing in New England. (While Les Earnest is busy being a
> hippy activist busybody)
>
> Now go back and read what Les Earnest wrote back to JF about New England. When you do,
> you will see why Les Earnest is dangerous, why he should be stopped, and why he should
> not be supported.
Given that I did not disagree with John Frey, I wonder why Andrew Aldumb is unable to
follow his own advice and read what I actually said. I assume that he is making another
pathetic attempt at humor, but I'm afraid it will not be understood by his target
readership -- those with less than a third grade education.
-Les Earnest
Jim Flom
"Les Earnest" <lear...@pacbell.net> wrote in message >
> Given that I did not disagree with John Frey, I wonder why Andrew Aldumb
is unable to
> follow his own advice and read what I actually said. I assume that he is
making another
> pathetic attempt at humor,
Andrew is forced to acknowledge that you are higher up the racing-influence
flagpole then he, and as the saying goes, the higher up the flagpole you
climb, the more there are people to shoot you in the a**. The fact that he
disagrees with you gnaws at him all the more when he considers the
opportunity you have (& are exploiting well) for influence, an opportunity
he doesn't have... yet.
That said, I might agree with Andrew too, if I knew as much about racing as
he does. Or I might agree with you. This is just the observation of a
dispassionate (for once) observer.
but I'm afraid it will not be understood by his target
> readership -- those with less than a third grade education.
Not a good tactical move, Les. It's one thing to get personal with Andrew,
but his readership? Where else can you get a free subscription to
racing-related arrogance/perspective/personal-expense humor? Maybe O'Grady
should put in a word for him so AA can write commentary for VN. Of course,
Andrew would probably attempt to fry you in the court of public opinion.
After that, Kunich would likely become famous in the cycling world (like
David Duke).
Jim Flom
"I done gradiated the eighth grade"
-- Jethro Bodine
Andrew Albright
: I earlier concurred with John Frey's assessment, saying:
: > I agree that Tom Vinson seems to do a good job of administering racing programs in the
: > Northeast.
Yes, but then you went on to slam the Northeast for not 'knowing better,
and 'being of such high ethics as yourself'.
However, with your brilliant analysis of the state of racing and having
gotten to the bottom of the most important issue (State Championships), I
have changed my mind and have decided to support your quest to run
bicycle racing in the US. Let me know what I need to do.
Andrew Albright
Jon Isaacs
makes sense and is almost kind.
This thread is not such a case.
Jon Isaacs
Johndfrey
Ah, but in this case Les got everything he deserves. So Les, what is our next
move, you master of all things ethical and righteous?
John Frey
Casey Kerrigan
Andrew Albright wrote:
>
> That may be well and fine, but that doesn't make him a good choice for
> being in charge of anything...does it? Woodward* and Bernstein broke
> Watergate, but that didn't make them good candidates to be president, now
> did it?
>
> Tell me what Les Earnest has done to make him a viable candidate for
> being in charge of US racing?
>
Where has Les given any indication that he wants to be in charge of US racing?
Les has never shown any interest in being in control of Nor Cal racing. Les
served many years on the USCF Board and a couple of years on the USAC Board but
I haven't seen Les running for any position that would give him control of US
racing? Les often voices strong opinions about what he thinks should be done to
make racing better but I haven't seen him waiving a flag saying "follow me I'll
lead you to greatness."
Casey
KBFREY
and political cycling suck-up than anyone still involved in the AMATEUR arm of
cycling in the U.S.
Still stopping clocks out west,
John R. Frey
Albq. New Mexico
Andrew Albright
: Where has Les given any indication that he wants to be in charge of US racing?
If someone doesn't post this, I will do so at the end of the week when I
have access to dejanews.
: racing? Les often voices strong opinions about what he thinks should be done to
: make racing better but I haven't seen him waiving a flag saying "follow me I'll
: lead you to greatness."
I have.
Andrew Albright
Andrew Albright
: Please folks, a little respect for Les Earnest. This guy has seen more graft
: and political cycling suck-up than anyone still involved in the AMATEUR arm of
: cycling in the U.S.
That may be well and fine, but that doesn't make him a good choice for
being in charge of anything...does it? Woodward* and Bernstein broke
Watergate, but that didn't make them good candidates to be president, now
did it?
Tell me what Les Earnest has done to make him a viable candidate for
being in charge of US racing?
Thank you,
Andrew Albright
*I am sure I got these two names wrong.
Tim McNamara
<alb...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
> Tell me what Les Earnest has done to make him a viable candidate for
> being in charge of US racing?
When did Les say that he wanted to be in charge of US cycling?
Tim McNamara
<alb...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
> Casey Kerrigan (Ca...@ccnet.com) wrote:
>
> : Where has Les given any indication that he wants to be in charge of US
> racing?
>
> If someone doesn't post this, I will do so at the end of the week when I
> have access to dejanews.
Why wait? Post away.
Andrew Albright
: > Casey Kerrigan (Ca...@ccnet.com) wrote:
: >
: > : Where has Les given any indication that he wants to be in charge of US
: > racing?
: >
: > If someone doesn't post this, I will do so at the end of the week when I
: > have access to dejanews.
: Why wait? Post away.
Here it is Tim, I appreciate that you may have a hard time reading and
understanding it. You may want to print it out and read it one sentence
at a time:
From 10/28/99 Les Earnest's message entitle "We lost". Notice the royal
'we' and 'our next goal'. And of course, help yourself to my very wise
analysis of the situation.
My response is the straight text. And ironically, Les Earnest's is
notated by a colon.
*************************
Les Earnest (l...@Steam.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: Assuming that there is no reversal, our next goal should be to develop
: a new organization to replace USA Cycling. I propose that one be set
: up along the lines of the confederation model that was developed in
: public internet discussions earlier this year and that was
: incorporated in the reform initiative that USAC members will now not
: have an opportunity to vote on.
You must have been breathing in too many jet fumes Les. Who appointed
you to be in charge of "our" goals? The confederation model was
not "developed in public internet discussions earlier this year". You
simply posted your opinion on the matter.
Don't get me wrong, things are far from ideal with respect to having a
strong national organization that is operating at 100% to accomplish
the things I feel are good for the sport. But you are mistaken if you
think people are going to blindly follow you. For starters you express the
same attitude that you accuse the CO people of having.
: Though regional racing programs can and should proceed much as they
: are now, I'm afraid that it will take about a decade to overthow USA
: Cycling as the national governing body and to sever its connections
: with USOC and UCI. Furthermore, I estimate that it will cost several
Your whole premise has been that USAC doesn't fill the needs of local
racing, so why do you care about ties to USOC and the UCI? That isn't
local racing.
: million dollars to do it. That is because USA Cycling has several
: million dollars in their "war chest," courtesy of the Los Angeles
How about you just leave them alone and do something positive. Because
if you continue on the same course you will waste that million plus
your time and energy and the money you can raise. Just do what you are
going to do and if it is good enough people will follow.
Remember it is all about the racing, and I think you have lost sight of
that.
Andrew Albright
************
reference:
http://x42.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=541429552&search=thread&CONTEXT=949619061.77725753&HIT_CONTEXT=949619061.77725753&HIT_NUM=40&hitnum=2
***********
Brian Lafferty
Andrew Albright wrote in message <87d21h$d0j$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>
>
>From 10/28/99 Les Earnest's message entitle "We lost". Notice the royal
>'we' and 'our next goal'. And of course, help yourself to my very wise
>analysis of the situation.
>
>My response is the straight text. And ironically, Les Earnest's is
>notated by a colon.
Might the "royal we" have simply been a reference to his fellow plaintiffs
in the legal action?
Could "our goal" have been an expression of a consensus amonst the losing
plaintiffs?
Brian Lafferty
Andrew Albright
: Might the "royal we" have simply been a reference to his fellow plaintiffs
: in the legal action?
: Could "our goal" have been an expression of a consensus amonst the losing
: plaintiffs?
Only if you are a lawyer.
Jim Flom
news:87d21h$d0j$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Tim McNamara (tim...@mr.net) wrote:
>
> : > Casey Kerrigan (Ca...@ccnet.com) wrote:
> : >
> : > : Where has Les given any indication that he wants to be in charge of
US
> : > racing?
> : >
> : > If someone doesn't post this, I will do so at the end of the week when
I
> : > have access to dejanews.
>
> : Why wait? Post away.
>
> From 10/28/99 Les Earnest's message entitle "We lost". ...
>
> ... Les Earnest's is
> notated by a colon.
>
> *************************
>
> Les Earnest (l...@Steam.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>
> : Assuming that there is no reversal, our next goal should be to develop
> : a new organization to replace USA Cycling. I propose that one be set
> : up along the lines of the confederation model that was developed in
> : public internet discussions earlier this year and that was
> : incorporated in the reform initiative that USAC members will now not
> : have an opportunity to vote on.
<Andrew's snipes snipped>
> : Though regional racing programs can and should proceed much as they
> : are now, I'm afraid that it will take about a decade to overthow USA
> : Cycling as the national governing body and to sever its connections
> : with USOC and UCI. Furthermore, I estimate that it will cost several
<Andrew's points re Les' presuppositions punted>
> : million dollars to do it. That is because USA Cycling has several
> : million dollars in their "war chest," courtesy of the Los Angeles
<Andrew's exchange expunged, with the exception of the following
constructive criticism...>
> Just do what you are
> going to do and if it is good enough people will follow.
>
> Remember it is all about the racing, and I think you have lost sight of
> that.
Retaining the entire text of Les you cite, you haven't proved your point,
Andrew. Nowhere does Les say he wants to be in charge of US racing. He
does have a pretty clear vision, though. Maybe the two of you...
Jim Flom
Les Earnest
> Please folks, a little respect for Les Earnest. This guy has seen more graft
> and political cycling suck-up than anyone still involved in the AMATEUR arm of cycling in the U.S.
Unfortunately, in one flagrant case in the '80s involving coaching staff misconduct and appeals jury incompetence, John Frey was the victim. I
foolishly tried to get it fixed without going public and by the time I figured out that this would not work it was too late to get the erroneous
decision reversed.
In a forthcoming article I will review some of the lowlights of graft, corruption and incompetence in USCF, NORBA, USPRO and USA Cycling over the
last two decades.
In response to John Frey's comment, Andrew Albright wrote:
> That may be well and fine, but that doesn't make him a good choice for
> being in charge of anything...does it? <snip>
> Tell me what Les Earnest has done to make him a viable candidate for
> being in charge of US racing?
I wondered what was the basis of this bizarre remark. Apparently Casey Kerrigan did too, when he asked:
> Where has Les given any indication that he wants to be in charge of US racing?
After a delay Andrew now responds:
> From 10/28/99 Les Earnest's message entitle "We lost". Notice the royal 'we' and 'our next goal'.
That was a plural "we" that included my two co-plaintiffs, the fifty-some people who have contributed to our Fund for Cycling Reform and the many
others who have expressed a desire to clean up the mess in Colorado Springs. While it should be clear by now that I would like to see that happen
and am willing to do all that I can to bring it about, I have no imperial aspirations beyond that goal.
I'm still waiting for Andrew to tell us where it was that I expressed a desire to be "in charge of US racing." That never happened and never will
-- I have more interesting things to do with the rest of my life.
One thing on my agenda is to win the national ITT championship in my age group in the year 2030, by which time I expect the competition will have
thinned out! I expect that those championships will be run by a new national governing body that will not yet have become as corrupt as the first
three, namely LAW (1880-1898), NCA (1898-1946) and ABL/USCF/USAC (1946-2000?).
-Les Earnest
Casey Kerrigan
Andrew. you haven't offered any evidence to back up your position that Les wants
to be in charge of cycling in the U.S. The statements you have offered so far as
"proof" show no such thing.
Casey
Andrew Albright wrote:
>
> Les Earnest (lear...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>
> : I'm still waiting for Andrew to tell us where it was that I expressed a desire to be "in charge of US racing." That never happened and never will
>
> I have done it twice now. That you can't respond to the specific points I
> have brought up is very telling how weak your position is.
>
> : -- I have more interesting things to do with the rest of my life.
>
> Good, but I doubt we have seen the last of you.
>
> Andrew Albright
David Balfoort
>
> So far the only person I have seen putting forth a "weak" position is you
> Andrew. you haven't offered any evidence to back up your position that Les wants
> to be in charge of cycling in the U.S. The statements you have offered so far as
> "proof" show no such thing.
>
> Casey
The statements do show quite a bit about Andrew don't you think?
David
Andrew Albright
Brian Lafferty
you other than your royal yourself.
Brian Lafferty
Andrew Albright wrote in message <87dc1n$m8b$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
Tom Kunich
>
> So far the only person I have seen putting forth a "weak" position is you
> Andrew. you haven't offered any evidence to back up your position that Les wants
> to be in charge of cycling in the U.S. The statements you have offered so far as
> "proof" show no such thing.
Moreover, the work that Les has performed for racing over the last
several decades has shown that what he is really interested is in MORE
democratic control and not Les. (pun intended.)
Andrew Albright
: So far the only person I have seen putting forth a "weak" position is you
: Andrew. you haven't offered any evidence to back up your position that Les wants
: to be in charge of cycling in the U.S. The statements you have offered so far as
: "proof" show no such thing.
I guess we disagree. About what exactly I have no idea because you aren't
been very forthcoming in what points you disagree with. Oh well.
Andrew Albright
Tom Kunich
enthusiastic for even more attention. Leave the dogs alone!
Andrew Albright wrote:
>
> Les Earnest (lear...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>
> : I'm still waiting for Andrew to tell us where it was that I expressed a desire to be "in charge of US racing." That never happened and never will
EdwinF8936
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
"Damn that race was fast!"
BikeAdman
he, Les, has illuminated shortcomings, failures, and worse of the USAC. Andrew
contends these postings prove Les seeks to lead racing in the U.S. Uh, I don't
think so. I mean, as for the "we" form that Les used, he did have at least one
supporter (and far more than one); therefore the "we" form was appropriate and
gramatically correct.
Andrew also states that Les' criticisms prove Les wishes to lead racing in the
U.S. His point seems to be, the only people who point out flaws and corruption
in, for example, government are those who seek to be president. What an amusing
interpretation of criticism that is. Let's see, on the right you have such
presidential aspirants as Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus, George Will, Novack,
Safire...oh, the list is a long one. And on the left you have such
presidential pretenders as John Hightower, David Corn, Christopher Hitchens,
Alexander Cockburn, and, to be sure, a far shorter list of others.
But lets not stop with journalists, "talking heads," policy wonks, and
foundation flunkies. Let's add novelists, playwrights, poets, and screenwriters
who criticize the government and illuminate its failures in their work. Let's
go back to Jonathon Swift. Hell, let's bring in Shakespeare for his Histories.
Bosh, there are Roman and Greek histories galore by members of the polity.
Oops. My error. They were all presidents-in-waiting disguised as writers and
thinkers and philosophers.
Don't you know all those who sided with the foundling that was the
U.S.-in-waiting against the British weren't revolutionaries; they weren't
believers in a better system. No, each of them really wanted to be president. I
gather from what Andrew has said, in his apparent universe you simply don't
think/work/act to change a system unless you seek to be lord of it. Voting for
anyone out of power is an act of criticism so we must assume that Andrew
doesn't vote other than for incumbents.
In Andrew's apparent universe you certainly don't speak against a system and
offer constructive criticism of it unless your real agenda is to put yourself
forward as the Maximum Leader. For example, when Andrew faults his school for
scheduling or assignments in conversation with a colleague, understand his real
agenda is to be Dean.
Richard
Adam Hodges Myerson
Be careful with your quotes, Les. There is more than one John Frey around here.
One is the former national team rider you're referring to, the other is the
Northampton Cycling Club president and race promoter who, according to you, is
desensitized to graft and corruption because he lives in the Northeast, and who
posts here often.
Adam
Adam Hodges Myerson-<AMye...@REMOVETHISaol.com>
"I am a man more sinned against than sinning."
<http://members.aol.com/amyerson/ >-My homepage
<http://www.noho.com/ncc/ >-The Northampton Cycling Club
Tom Kunich
news:20000204064900...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
> >Earlier John Frey kindly wrote:
>
> Be careful with your quotes, Les. There is more than one John Frey around
here.
> One is the former national team rider you're referring to, the other is
the
> Northampton Cycling Club president and race promoter who, according to
you, is
> desensitized to graft and corruption because he lives in the Northeast,
and who
> posts here often.
Adam, I'll admit that Les's comments regarding corruption sort of took me by
surprise. On the other hand what is it with USA Cycling?
If I understood it correctly, we didn't have a full quota of starting spots
in the World's. What would have prevented them from entering you since you
were there and obviously wouldn't have been an embarrassment to the USA.
If it turns out that a bribe in the right hands in the USA would have given
you that spot I think that some ass kicking and house cleaning is in order.
Adam Hodges Myerson
>in the World's. What would have prevented them from entering you since you
>were there and obviously wouldn't have been an embarrassment to the USA.
Nope, we had a full team of 5 riders. Since I did so badly at the national
championships, I wasn't considered as an alternate, even though, yes, I think I
was going well and could have done decently on the course in Holland. That
said, it's really my responsibility to go faster when it counts. I've got no
one to blame for my ride at nationals but myself.
I obviously have my problems with USAC, particularly in the area of 'cross and
it's support and development. And, I can't really say I agree with Andrew's
accusation that Les wants to run the sport. That said, I can't really figure
out _what_ Les' motivations are or why he cares enough to bring lawsuits
against USAC. And I do intend to hold him responsible for his cavalier and
poorly thought out comments about the racing community in the Northeast.
Casey Kerrigan
Adam Hodges Myerson wrote:
>
> I obviously have my problems with USAC, particularly in the area of 'cross and
> it's support and development. And, I can't really say I agree with Andrew's
> accusation that Les wants to run the sport. That said, I can't really figure
> out _what_ Les' motivations are or why he cares enough to bring lawsuits
> against USAC. And I do intend to hold him responsible for his cavalier and
> poorly thought out comments about the racing community in the Northeast.
> Adam
>
Adam,
If you had a better knowledge of USCF politics you might understand why Les made
the comment re the Northeast. Part of the problem is that most of the corrupt
activities Les was refering to happened many years ago ( back before most of the
people on this board even knew about bicycle racing). for many years the USCF
Board was dominated by people from the Northeast who got elected to the board
through the formation of paper clubs ( ie clubs who's only reason for existing
was to cast votes for the person who formed the clubs. for many years this
controlling group of Board members from the Northeast was known as the East
Coast Mafia. some portion of reform was brought to the USCF Board election
process when a group from the West out played the East coast people at their own
game and created more paper clubs ( and thus more votes). The first step in the
reform process was to maker sure each club had a minimum of 5 members before a
club earned a vote in the Board elections. The requirement for 5 members per
club lead to all sorts of games ( with the aid of a former New York Dist Rep) to
move riders around into some of the paper clubs in order to qualify for the
Board election. In most cases riders were moved into paper clubs against the
knowledge of the rider ( and in some cases the riders had retired and hadn't
renewed their USCF membership).
Les can do a much better job of detailing this dark period in USCF politics and
he has documented the story many times. While things might be better today, the
Northeast still has a dark history re political corruption in USCF Board elections.
Casey
Andrew Albright
: Adam,
: If you had a better knowledge of USCF politics you might understand why Les made
: the comment re the Northeast.
Yeah this is always a good practice. Les can malign current Northeasterns
for things that happened before they were probably even racing.
Care to help us understand John Rocker's comments too?
Casey Kerrigan
Then again there are still a number of people who are involved with cycling
politics and cycling in the Northeast who were involved in the worst of the
problems relating to Board elections ( and lots of other problems beyond the
USCF Board elections). As long as the ridership in the Northeast is willing to
let these people with a checkered past remain in positions of leadership it does
lend an air of truth to Les' comments.
Casey
Jim Flom
"Casey Kerrigan" <Ca...@ccnet.com> wrote in message
news:389B0697...@ccnet.com...
>
> Then again there are still a number of people who are involved with
cycling
> politics and cycling in the Northeast who were involved in the worst of
the
> problems relating to Board elections ( and lots of other problems beyond
the
> USCF Board elections). As long as the ridership in the Northeast is
willing to
> let these people with a checkered past remain in positions of leadership
it does
> lend an air of truth to Les' comments.
And why not? Their proven track record of corruption has no bearing on
their ability to perform the duties of their office. Just ask Mr. Bill.
JF
Adam Hodges Myerson
>politics and cycling in the Northeast who were involved in the worst of
>the
>problems relating to Board elections ( and lots of other problems beyond
>the
>USCF Board elections). As long as the ridership in the Northeast is willing
>to
>let these people with a checkered past remain in positions of leadership
>it does
>lend an air of truth to Les' comments.
Name them then, and tell us why we shouldn't support them. We were talking
specifically about Tom Vinson when Les made his remark. Tell me why I shouldn't
support him, or anyone else in my area. If you can give me good reasons, I will
act accordingly. To lump me and my current community in with some "east coast
mafia" that likely existed, as Andrew said, before I was racing (and before Tom
Vinson was even the Mass/RI district rep) is ridiculous. If anything, the
feeling in the Northeast is that we don't have _enough_ power and
representation in the sport. Everything revolves around Colorado, including the
media, yet all the riders are in New England and California.
Tom Kunich
> >If I understood it correctly, we didn't have a full quota of starting
spots
> >in the World's. What would have prevented them from entering you since
you
> >were there and obviously wouldn't have been an embarrassment to the USA.
>
> Nope, we had a full team of 5 riders.
I thought that you had originally said that we could enter 6 riders in
World's. My mistake.
> Since I did so badly at the national
> championships, I wasn't considered as an alternate, even though, yes, I
think I
> was going well and could have done decently on the course in Holland.
Had we not had a full team there would they have entered you, considering
that you were there and available? If not there is something wrong with the
system.
> That
> said, it's really my responsibility to go faster when it counts. I've got
no
> one to blame for my ride at nationals but myself.
It's your fault not to be chosen for the national team. But if you're over
there, capable and willing to race an international event and USA Cycling
won't allow you then something is wrong.
> I obviously have my problems with USAC, particularly in the area of 'cross
and
> it's support and development. And, I can't really say I agree with
Andrew's
> accusation that Les wants to run the sport. That said, I can't really
figure
> out _what_ Les' motivations are or why he cares enough to bring lawsuits
> against USAC. And I do intend to hold him responsible for his cavalier and
> poorly thought out comments about the racing community in the Northeast.
Haven't you EVER read Les's entries when he was particularly active in USCF?
Most of his suggestions have ALWAYS been to move to a more democratic
system. Isn't that what he's doing now?
Todd Rowell
> Then again there are still a number of people who are involved with cycling
> politics and cycling in the Northeast who were involved in the worst of the
> problems relating to Board elections ( and lots of other problems beyond the
> USCF Board elections). As long as the ridership in the Northeast is willing
> to let these people with a checkered past remain in positions of leadership
> it does lend an air of truth to Les' comments.
Thanks for your comments, Casey. A lot has been clarified for me: not
just Les' comments but also things I have heard but not understood in
the last two years as a new racer in New England. I think I may even
know who some of these tainted leaders are.
I still share Adam's feelings on this to some degree. Les may have a
point, but the way in which he made it still seems like an unnecessary
attack. If he had made the point using Casey's methods a lot of anger
could have been avoided.
I had no idea that this sort of thing happened here in the past. But as
Andrew pointed out, that's history. Why alienate us now? The fact that
the newer members of the racing community aren't familiar with the past
doesn't make us innocent, especially if we unknowingly re-elect those
leaders. We do need to take responsibiity to learn about our regional
history and make sure it's not repeated. And that's why I'm here,
reading this group - to educate myself about the larger sport so I can
help improve it. Les' comment may have been technically correct, but it
didn't make him any friends here.
I cannot speak for the rest of New England, but I think we have it
pretty good here. I know this is partly due to luck: we got a good
district rep (Tom Vinson) promoted to regional rep. We haven't had to
secede from the USCF because Tom makes the USCF work here. But before
Tom was confirmed as regional rep there was a lot of concern here about
the reorg, and there was a letter writing campaign to keep him in
office. Since then it seems people take USAC crisis a little more
seriously, vote more often, and examine the issues a little more
clearly. But we haven't forgotten about the racing, and every year
people try to raise the quality of their events. Since we have it so
good, perhaps we are just complacent enough to try and work within the system.
--
Todd Rowell
Institut für die Studie der Mittellangedinge
Joseph Cipole
Joe Cipale
+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
| jo...@pacifier.com | I bike therefore, I am! |
+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
| I don't try to herd cats any more. All you end up with are |
| scratches, and a bunch of pissed of cats! |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, David Balfoort wrote:
> Casey Kerrigan wrote:
> >
> > So far the only person I have seen putting forth a "weak" position is you
> > Andrew. you haven't offered any evidence to back up your position that Les wants
> > to be in charge of cycling in the U.S. The statements you have offered so far as
> > "proof" show no such thing.
> >
> > Casey
>
> The statements do show quite a bit about Andrew don't you think?
>
> David
>
>
Andrew Albright
: Haven't you EVER read Les's entries when he was particularly active in USCF?
: Most of his suggestions have ALWAYS been to move to a more democratic
: system. Isn't that what he's doing now?
Not with a mandate of 50 + 2 people it isn't. He is trying to accomplish
his goals by bringing a lawsuit. Not via democracy.
Andrew Albright
Andrew Albright
: And why not? Their proven track record of corruption has no bearing on
: their ability to perform the duties of their office. Just ask Mr. Bill.
What proof? At least when I offer proof, I offer what I believe is proof.
All Casey and Les have done is offer some rumors and inneundo. That is lame.
Andrew Albright
Casey Kerrigan
Since I don't know the stories ( and names) well enough I'm not in a position to
name names in public. You might want to contact Les and see if he still has any
copies of his old Newsletter in which he spells things out in lots of details.
Casey
Casey Kerrigan
Les didn't go forward with his lawsuit until it was clear that the USAC Board of
directors made it impossible to bring about reform via democratic action. Les
tried to avoid the lawsuit by working within the system. When that failed there
was only one option for trying to save USAC. Personally I gave up on trying to
save USAC a long time ago and have felt that the only way to improve things is
by working outside the USAC system and creating a new organization.
Casey
Brian Lafferty
club in the NYC area in the late 70s and early 80s, I do know that games
were definitly being played. I recall one really upset rider (I don't
remember his name) who found that he had been "traded' to paper club. He
was told that it was just an "administrative error."
Shit happened, and I have to agree with Adam in that generations move on
and eventually you are judged by what you are doing in the here and now. I
suspect there are some folks on the West Coast in the same boat with their
past.
IMO, what that past does is put one on guard in dealing with some people
in the present.
Anyway, the Colorado Cyclist "Early Spring" catalogue arrived today so
screw the Pennsylvania groundhog. the end of Winter is upon us.
Brian Lafferty
Casey Kerrigan wrote in message <389B3624...@ccnet.com>...
Brian Lafferty
democratic government. Did you skip Civics in high school?
Brian Lafferty
Andrew Albright wrote in message <87fb9p$uul$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>Tom Kunich (tku...@diabloresearch.com) wrote:
>
>: Haven't you EVER read Les's entries when he was particularly active in
USCF?
>: Most of his suggestions have ALWAYS been to move to a more democratic
>: system. Isn't that what he's doing now?
>
>Not with a mandate of 50 + 2 people it isn't. He is trying to accomplish
>his goals by bringing a lawsuit. Not via democracy.
>
>Andrew Albright
>
>
Les Earnest
> Then again there are still a number of people who are involved with cycling
> politics and cycling in the Northeast who were involved in the worst of the
> problems relating to Board elections (and lots of other problems beyond the USCF
> Board elections). As long as the ridership in the Northeast is willing to let
> these people with a checkered past remain in positions of leadership it does lend
> an air of truth to Les' comments.
Adam Hodges Myerson responds:
> Name them then, and tell us why we shouldn't support them. We were talking
> specifically about Tom Vinson when Les made his remark. Tell me why I shouldn't
> support him, or anyone else in my area. If you can give me good reasons, I will
> act accordingly.
Unfortunately Adam seems to have a malfunctioning receiver, almost as bad as
Andrews'. I have consistently praised Tom Vinson for his good work and have never
made a negative remark about him. I have also faulted Massachusetts trustee Bob
Beal for his support of corrupt practices, including the removal of members' voting
rights. I believe that Bob means well but is not smart enough to figure things
out.
Adam continues:
> To lump me and my current community in with some "east coast mafia" that likely
> existed, as Andrew said, before I was racing (and before Tom Vinson was even the
> Mass/RI district rep) is ridiculous. If anything, the feeling in the Northeast is
> that we don't have _enough_ power and representation in the sport. Everything
> revolves around Colorado, including the media, yet all the riders are in New
> England and California.
I don't believe that I lumped Adam in with any mafia group. I merely offered the
suggestion that there is generally greater tolerance of political corruption in the
Northeast, Chicago and Louisiana than in some other parts of the country. I
believe that that is a true statement, having lived in or near those areas, though
I would not wish to defend it on a city-by-city basis. Of course, if you go back
to the 1920s the whole damn country was corrupt.
-Les Earnest
Andrew Albright
: Les didn't go forward with his lawsuit until it was clear that the USAC Board of
: directors made it impossible to bring about reform via democratic action. Les
: tried to avoid the lawsuit by working within the system.
the system worked, just not to Les' choosing. People didn't vote because
they were satisfied by what was going on. If there had been 100% voter
turnout over the last 10 years and people really didn't want USCF to
become part of USAC, then that would have happen. People don't care and
they have expressed this. Les and 50 people are trying to change the
choice that the majority has made.
: When that failed there
: was only one option for trying to save USAC.
Saved from who? from what?
In my view, it has been saved from Les.
Andrew Albright
Brian Lafferty
Les Earnest wrote in message <389B4A9A...@pacbell.net>...
>I don't believe that I lumped Adam in with any mafia group. I merely
offered the
>suggestion that there is generally greater tolerance of political
corruption in the
>Northeast, Chicago and Louisiana than in some other parts of the country.
I
>believe that that is a true statement, having lived in or near those areas,
though
>I would not wish to defend it on a city-by-city basis. Of course, if you
go back
>to the 1920s the whole damn country was corrupt.
>
> -Les Earnest
From first hand experience, Louisiana is a world apart in the systemic
level of its corruption. The Northeast is as pure as the driven snow by
comparison.
Brian Lafferty
Andrew Albright
: After a delay Andrew now responds:
: > From 10/28/99 Les Earnest's message entitle "We lost". Notice the royal 'we' and 'our next goal'.
I find it odd that Les would bother pointing out that I delayed a week in
responding to the a question put to me because I didn't have access to
deja.com, when he delayed 5 months responding to one of many questions
put to him.
I point this out, because it is very telling of Les' character and raises
questions about his motives, which he has kept well-hidden.
Andrew Albright
Andrew Albright
: Last I heard Andrew, the legal system was a co-equal branch of our
: democratic government. Did you skip Civics in high school?
Sure, maybe back in 1776 (although probably not if you were a woman or a
black slave).
Right now, the legal system, especially the one Les is dealing in, is
about money, not democracy.
The racing public has spoken (by not voting) about what they want (to let
USAC do as they want). Les is trying to change this...unsuccessfully I
might add.
Andrew Albright
Casey Kerrigan
Andrew Albright wrote:
>
> Casey Kerrigan (Ca...@ccnet.com) wrote:
>
> : Les didn't go forward with his lawsuit until it was clear that the USAC Board of
> : directors made it impossible to bring about reform via democratic action. Les
> : tried to avoid the lawsuit by working within the system.
>
> the system worked, just not to Les' choosing. People didn't vote because
> they were satisfied by what was going on. If there had been 100% voter
> turnout over the last 10 years and people really didn't want USCF to
> become part of USAC, then that would have happen. People don't care and
> they have expressed this. Les and 50 people are trying to change the
> choice that the majority has made.
Andrew,
If people are so satisfied with the way things are going with USAC/USCF then how
come the programs of BRAC, OBRA and NCNCA are doing so well. Between 85 and 90%
of the races in Nor Cal will be NCNCA events this year. I have talked to more
than 50 people in Nor Cal who are thrilled that they do not have to take out a
USCF license this year to race. Now maybe everyone in New england is perfectly
happy with how USCF/USAC is running things and thus they feel no need to vote. I
would submit that the majority of the people West of the Mississippi are not
happy with how USCF/USAC are doing things and welcome the alternative
organizations as competition to USAC/USCF.
As I have said before if USAC was a lot more proactive in encouraging members to
vote then vote totals would have been much higher. Instead USAC made it as hard
as possible for people to even know about elections ( and to find the ballot).
As for how the structure of USAC came into being when dealing with complicated
political issues most people prefer to stick their heads in the sand and follow
the heard in the voting.
>
> : When that failed there
> : was only one option for trying to save USAC.
>
> Saved from who? from what?
Saved from the power hungry people who want to run USAC for their personal gain
instead of for the benefit of the membership.
Casey
Adam Hodges Myerson
so you don't miss anything this time:
>I don't believe that I lumped Adam in with any mafia group.
Nor did I suggest you did. I was replying to Casey's statements to that
effect. Perhaps you should ask him not to speak on your behalf.
>I merely offered the
>suggestion that there is generally greater tolerance >of political corruption
in the
>Northeast, Chicago and Louisiana than in some other >parts of the country.
And as a member of the Northeast I say fuck you then. I don't tolerate or
support corruption, and I am continually offended by your suggestion that I do.
This goes back to your original comment that the only reason we haven't spoken
out against USAC in the Northeast is because we're accustomed to corruption.
That's bullshit, and a completely ignorant generalization to make, as most
generalizations are. If you want my support, stop insulting me, and be willing
to give USAC credit for the few things it actually does right. If you're not
willing to do that, you're as bad as they are. Right now, you've created as
situation where those in opposition to the status quo are fighting amongst
themselves; exactly what those in power want. Think about what you said, try
and see where it might not be a supportable point of view, and then retract it.
I asked Casey to name names, so far you've given me one. Unfortunately, while
I can't argue with your comments about Bob Beal, he does so much for the sport
in New England that people don't really know or care what he's got going on in
CO. And I think they like him in CO because he'll go along with what they want.
I don't support either position, but right now all we in New England can really
do is wait for Bob to step down. To run against him in New England would be
political suicide. The guard will change soon enough.
David Balfoort
>
> Brian Lafferty (Jav...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : Last I heard Andrew, the legal system was a co-equal branch of our
> : democratic government. Did you skip Civics in high school?
>
> Sure, maybe back in 1776 (although probably not if you were a woman or a
> black slave).
Ah, Andrew. The United States didn't exist in 1776.
> Right now, the legal system, especially the one Les is dealing in, is
> about money, not democracy.
And this is different from your fantasy legal system, how?
David
> Andrew Albright
Andrew Albright
: If people are so satisfied with the way things are going with USAC/USCF then how
: come the programs of BRAC, OBRA and NCNCA are doing so well.
They are doing well because, like many other regions in the U.S., there
is a strong local organization to promote, officiate, and race in quality
races.
What was the highest percentage of voting that these regions had in their
very best voting year?
: Between 85 and 90%
: of the races in Nor Cal will be NCNCA events this year. I have talked to more
: than 50 people in Nor Cal who are thrilled that they do not have to take out a
: USCF license this year to race.
I am thrilled that I only need one license this year too.
Andrew Albright
Andrew Albright
David, don't let us stop you from contributing something to this
discussion. We are all ears.
Andrew Albright
Joseph Cipole
Joe Cipale
+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
| jo...@pacifier.com | I bike therefore, I am! |
+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
| I don't try to herd cats any more. All you end up with are |
| scratches, and a bunch of pissed of cats! |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Andrew Albright
his name correctly...
: Joe Cipale
but then...
: | scratches, and a bunch of pissed of cats! |
..'.pissed of cats' what?
*******************************************
The best part, the very best part, about my position is that I don't
have a bunch of dickweeds like Balfort, Cipoole, Flom, Kunich et al.
chiming in support of me with absolutely nothing to say.
If these are among the 50 guys that are supporting Les, then that is very
scary for racing in the United States (if Les succeeds in taking over US
racing). The only reasonable person to defend Les is Casey. Hopefully,
the rest of Les' faction is like Casey...but I doubt it.
Andrew Albright
David Balfoort
> David, don't let us stop you from contributing something to this
> discussion. We are all ears.
>
> Andrew Albright
Most of the contributor's to this discussion are in fact "all ears."
You, Andrew, on the other hand have done nothing but express opinions,
sans facts. Read the subject line. You don't understand Les's
motivation(s) so you invent your own and ascribe them to Les. You
present no evidence but insist you have. Adam, Casey, Jim, et al. are
contributing to this discussion. You're just attacking the messenger.
I fail to see that as a contribution.
David
Casey Kerrigan
Andrew Albright wrote:
>
> Casey Kerrigan (Ca...@ccnet.com) wrote:
>
> : If people are so satisfied with the way things are going with USAC/USCF then how
> : come the programs of BRAC, OBRA and NCNCA are doing so well.
>
> They are doing well because, like many other regions in the U.S., there
> is a strong local organization to promote, officiate, and race in quality
> races.
>
> What was the highest percentage of voting that these regions had in their
> very best voting year?
I know that one year there was about a 20% turnout in the Western section as a
whole. I believe that the turnout in Nor Cal was higher than that. This was back
when USCF sent out individual ballots to the members.
Now you may say that 20% isn't a great turnout but it sohuld be noted that for
several years the USCF failed to achieve a quorum for the annual house of
delegates meeting ( back when only clubs voted). It wasn't until the USCF stated
paying out travel money to the House of Delegates meeting that the Federation
started getting a regular quorum.
The simple fact is that when individual ballots were being sent out a higher
number of members voted ( at least for USCF. NORBA members have never shown much
interest in voting. Funny how even after the USCF Board of trustees asked the
USAC Board for funds to send out individual ballots the wishes of the USCF board
were ignored.
Casey
David Balfoort
In keeping with your usual inability to follow what others are
saying, you have failed to notice I haven't posted anything in support
of Les or his cause. I've merely pointed out your usual disregard for
facts. Pay attention. You might find what others have to say
interesting. Well, maybe not Tom but certainly Jim and Joe.
David
Jim Flom
"Andrew Albright" <alb...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:87fbiq$uul$2...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Jim Flom (jf...@erols.com) wrote:
>
> : And why not? Their proven track record of corruption has no bearing on
> : their ability to perform the duties of their office. Just ask Mr. Bill.
>
> What proof? At least when I offer proof, I offer what I believe is proof.
> All Casey and Les have done is offer some rumors and inneundo. That is
lame.
My tongue was decidedly in my cheek when I said that.
Jim
Danny Callen
few good points but I think we should be somewhat careful on a few points. I
find it difficult to bash anyone who is fighting a cause that theybelieve
in; however, I have to admit that I'm one of those "New England
is fine so who cares" people. I don't mean that I don't care about the rest
of the country, I mean that there are more issues on my plate that more
immediatley need my attention. We do have a good thing going in New England
not only because of Tom Vinson but because of a lot of hardworking
promoters. New England has a large density of riders (I would guess in the
top 3 in the US). We do not have to travel far to races, etc. No matter how
good the organization is or isn't (ie: USA Cycling), it would not work
without the promoters.
Having said all that, I will admit that I still see problems with USAC and
an organization that just doesn't get it...and seem more concerned with
themselves than the riders and the good of the sport. Case in point:
Cyclocross World's Team Selection. The criteria was announced what ..ONE
week in advance? Whether the criteria is valid or not, more planning needs
to happen so that atheletes can be prepared.
Which brings me to my point. I am not 100% sure how we influence USAC, but
I do believe that we can either sit back and be complacent or try and
organize to the point we can influence the direction. I'm not 100% sure of
this, but I believe that the American Cyclocross Foundation has 'influenced'
USAC into supporting the Team more than ever before. I don't care whether
it's USAC or a private organization that funds the riders just as long as
the sport grows and goes the direction the riders want it to. Les may not
100% be speaking for every last one of us, but if we harness his energy and
initiative we could definately influence the decisions that USAC makes...
Just my opinion..
Danny Callen
Jim Flom
"Brian Lafferty" <Jav...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:FBHm4.1917$Ks4....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Anyway, the Colorado Cyclist "Early Spring" catalogue arrived today so
> screw the Pennsylvania groundhog. the end of Winter is upon us.
Don't screw animals Brian, especially Phil.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>
> The best part, the very best part, about my position is that I don't
> have a bunch of dickweeds like Balfort, Cipoole, Flom, Kunich et al.
> chiming in support of me with absolutely nothing to say.
>
> If these are among the 50 guys that are supporting Les, then that is very
> scary for racing in the United States (if Les succeeds in taking over US
> racing). The only reasonable person to defend Les is Casey. Hopefully,
> the rest of Les' faction is like Casey...but I doubt it.
>
I'm generally unreasonable but I supported Les in his lawsuit
JT
I also think the state of racing in the Northeast is OK and think Les is
wild in his calling the Northeast corrupt. Maybe in the past, as Kerrigan
said, but that's beside the point.
Jim Flom
"Andrew Albright" <alb...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:87fn83$k5k$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> The best part, the very best part, about my position is that I don't
> have a bunch of dickweeds like Balfort, Cipoole, Flom, Kunich et al.
> chiming in support of me with absolutely nothing to say.
I am flattered to be in such august company. But alas, O ye who pulled
ahead of Hillary and Ken because of your (probably more than fifty)
supporters, I don't need Deja News to prove (there's that word again) your
error lumping me in as a supporter of Les. Consider the following of my
posts, from active posts within this here newsgroup even as we speak:
From Les Earnest is Dangerous (1/29, 7:21 AM)
"That said, I might agree with Andrew too, if I knew as much about racing as
he does. Or I might agree with you. This is just the observation of a
dispassionate (for once) observer."
Or the same thread, (2/3, 8:21 PM) quoting you from a positive perspective:
<Andrew's exchange expunged, with the exception of the following
constructive criticism...>
> Just do what you are
> going to do and if it is good enough people will follow.
>
> Remember it is all about the racing, and I think you have lost sight of
> that.
See, you want to cast Les with a broad stroke and dismiss him. Baby out
with the bathwater. I don't need to have raced for ten years to recognize
that the solution isn't that simple, because both of you have constructive
ideas to offer racing, and the passion to do something about it (even as you
have been). If you'd collaborate, instead of doing that thing you do, we'd
channel the brains and energy of both of you toward a viable third solution
that more informed guys than me, like Dan, John V., Adam, John T, etc. would
both shape and applaud. Instead of us spending the winter watching each
other sit around and bitch and change nothing, something positive might
actually happen.
So here's one dickweed that's on your side too, Andrew. C'mon, give us a
hug.
Jim Flom
Jim Flom
"Danny Callen" <dan...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:87fr8o$qqq$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net...
> Les may not
> 100% be speaking for every last one of us, but if we harness his energy
and
> initiative we could definately influence the decisions that USAC makes...
My point exactly. We're all in favor of racing. Collaboration beats name
calling. rec.SUV.bikesquashers laughs at this.
Jim "rock paper scissors" Flom
Danny Callen
do with Bike racing???? ..The bottom line is that New England
has a DAMN good thing going. I think the rest of the country
could learn an awful lot from our promoters, Regional Rep,
courses, attitude, etc, etc. I'm not originally from New England
but I wouldn't live any where else in the US if I wanted to continue
racing. Let's quit making generalizations and learn how to work together
to influence USAC and cut all this crap out.
There's one thing I STRONGLY agree with Andrew Albright on
and that is "IT'S ALL ABOUT RACING" and nothing else, not
LES, Me, you, or any other individual. New England could easily
ignore all of this discussion and be no worse off; however, there
are a few of us who are generally concerned about the state of racing
in the US and actually have the gumption to try and affect and
influence cycling in a positive direction... Adam Myerson is
definately one of these people.
Danny Callen
Dave Bailey <da...@sydney.daveb.net> wrote in message
news:slrn89n1n...@sydney.daveb.net...
> On 04 Feb 2000 22:36:40 GMT, Adam Hodges Myerson
> <amye...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote:
> [Les Earnest wrote:]
> >>I merely offered the suggestion that there is generally greater
tolerance
> >>of political corruption in the Northeast, Chicago and Louisiana than in
> >>some other parts of the country.
>
> > And as a member of the Northeast I say fuck you then. I don't tolerate
or
> >support corruption, and I am continually offended by your suggestion that
I do.
> >This goes back to your original comment that the only reason we haven't
spoken
> >out against USAC in the Northeast is because we're accustomed to
corruption.
> >That's bullshit, and a completely ignorant generalization to make, as
most
> >generalizations are.
>
> Since I've accomplished absolutely nothing useful all week, I figured I'd
> vomit my 2 cents onto the screen. First, I think Adam's reaction here is
> interesting. Yes, Les is making a generalization, but that is precisely
> why it is inappropriate to respond with "well, I don't fit that picture,
> so I'm offended". A remark made on statistical grounds can only be
refuted
> by showing that the basis of the remark (historical facts) is somehow
flawed,
> the person making the remark misinterpreted or misunderstood something, or
> is just plain lying. Now, I would argue that on a surface level history
> sides with Les here. The East coast has a longer and richer [sic] history
> of corruption than the West. And, as is only human, its inhabitants for
> the most part simply acquiesce or don't care. Surely Adam recognizes
that.
> It appears to me that Adam is offended not so much at the statement
itself,
> but at what he takes to be its implied meaning - the "real" message - that
> East coasters are somehow bad, irresponsible, not civic-minded, perhaps
> even jaded, indifferent and generally apathetic and inferior human beings.
> West coasters, by contrast, carry the torch of democracy - always looking
> out for our future, interested in reform, resistant to corruption and
graft,
> pure, virtuous, good-looking, thin, fit, and wrinkle-free. But I don't
> think that is the real message - or, at least, it shouldn't be. I feel
> that people always tend to interpret remarks of this sort as
generalizations
> about /people/, when in fact in this case I would argue that Les'
observation
> can be explained not by some difference in human nature across the coasts,
> but rather by historical circumstance. Political corruption has a longer
> history on the East coast because politics have a longer history there.
> New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington D.C. - all political nerve
> centers of the US for at least two centuries. Where is the West coast
> equivalent? Politics is relatively new out here, along with everything
> else. The same goes for financial corruption - Wall Street is the center
> of the financial world right now and for a much longer time has been the
> US' financial nucleus. These institutions, the institutions of money and
> power in America, were born on the East coast, and as they've matured,
> history has seen their underbellies time and again. That is why the East
> coast has more experience with corruption, in my opinion.
>
> --
> Dave Bailey
> da...@daveb.net
Les Earnest
> Les didn't go forward with his lawsuit until it was clear that the USAC Board of
> directors made it impossible to bring about reform via democratic action. Les tried
> to avoid the lawsuit by working within the system.
Andrew responded:
> the system worked, just not to Les' choosing. People didn't vote because they were
> satisfied by what was going on.
Please tell us, Andrew, when did the members have a chance to consider and vote on
democratic reform? It was on the ballot in 1994, when the USCF clubs got to vote,
but the supporting arguments were somehow omitted from the ballot materials. This
was arranged by a conspiracy between USCF officers and at least one staff member.
A democratic reform initiative was included on the 1995 USA Cycling ballot, which
somehow was totally screwed up. The supporting and opposing arguments were an
editorial mess and were printed in apparently random order on a very large sheet of
paper that was then folded up so that almost nobody could figure it out. The several
thousand members who did manage to vote overwhelmingly approved the reform initiative
but not enough people voted to achieve a quorum.
Besides that, even though the corporate Articles stated that any five members could
put an amendment to those Articles on the ballot, the corporate counsel, Bart Enoch,
announced that there was an obscure Colorado law that required either the prior
approval of the board of directors or signatures of thousands of members, which had
not been done. This meant that the initiative on the ballot would have been declared
invalid even if it was approved by a quorum.
Interestingly, the Colorado law that Enoch cited had been on the books for years. If
he had revealed its existence at the time that the the USCF clubs voted on the
reorganization that created USA Cycling, I believe that they would not have approved
it.
In subsequent years I tried to put reform initiatives on the ballot by collecting
signatures on petitions through Internet harangues and signups at races, but even
though a couple thousand people did send sign and return petitions that was less than
half the number needed.
Because of increasingly arrogant actions by the staff in 1998 that aroused more
members, it appeared that it would be possible to get over the petition barrier in
1999, but as soon as that became apparent to the board of directors and senior staff
members they launched a preemptive strike by removing members' voting rights, which
was why we sued.
In summary, the USCF clubs were hoodwinked when they approved the reorganization in
1994 and the USA Cycling members have never had a real chance to vote on this issue.
> If there had been 100% voter turnout over the last 10 years and people really didn't
> want USCF to become part of USAC, then that would have happen. People don't care and
> they have expressed this. Les and 50 people are trying to change the choice that the
> majority has made.
Licensees were not permitted to vote on the reorganization that brought USAC into
existence. More evidence of Andrew's ignorance of history.
-Les Earnest
Carl Sundquist
> Casey Kerrigan (Ca...@ccnet.com) wrote:
>
> : Adam,
>
> : If you had a better knowledge of USCF politics you might understand why Les made
> : the comment re the Northeast.
>
> Yeah this is always a good practice. Les can malign current Northeasterns
> for things that happened before they were probably even racing.
>
> Care to help us understand John Rocker's comments too?
Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
Dave Bailey
Dave Bailey
<dan...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>No offense Dave but what the F&^K has any of that got to
>do with Bike racing????
None taken. I think my post has about as much to do with bike
racing as most of the rest of the posts in this interminable
thread.
> There's one thing I STRONGLY agree with Andrew Albright on
>and that is "IT'S ALL ABOUT RACING" and nothing else, not
>LES, Me, you, or any other individual.
Actually I somehow got the impression that for Andrew it was
more about him talking, badgering, pestering, needling, and
being a general nuisance than anything else. It seems to me
that Andrew often has things to say, even good things sometimes,
at least as often as I do anyway, but he's built such a bad
reputation that inevitably people either don't take him seriously
or they intentionally take the opposite side, which then leads
to a thread of such Brobdingnagian magnitude as to terrify even
the most battle-hardened helmet warrior.
>...there are a few of us who are generally concerned about the
>state of racing in the US and actually have the gumption to try
>and affect and influence cycling in a positive direction... Adam
>Myerson is definately one of these people.
And I'm glad. But one thing I've noticed consistently for at
least the past year on this newsgroup is that there seems to be
a set of people who don't appreciate Les' contribution to the
sport. For example, in this thread I've noticed a lot of
maundering on by Andrew in particular about how Les is actually
a bad influence. Let me take a moment here to deconstruct
Andrew's point of view. First, I would argue that Andrew
dislikes Les instinctively because Les comes off to him as
a nitpicking bureaucrat, a fellow who wants to be right more
than anything else, a man who knows he's smart and perhaps
sometimes enjoys it. In short, an academic - ironically, just
like Andrew, although of a different generation, and certainly
not unlike many of Andrew's elder colleagues at whatever school
(Penn? I can't remember.). Adam Myerson, in contrast, is a
man of Andrew's generation, a dynamic, interesting, motivated,
educated mover and shaker, a good guy, and a really good rider.
It's easy for Andrew to respect Adam. It's easy for him to
applaud when Adam takes on the task of promoting a race,
coaching a team, or building a club, because those are
unquestionably good things and we can all appreciate that.
But why is it hard for Andrew to respect Les' contributions?
Why does Andrew appear to be predisposed to find ulterior
motives in what Les has done? Only Andrew knows the answer
to that question, but I'd hazard that part of it might have
something to do with the fact that Andrew really hasn't seen
firsthand the amount of time Les has sunk into trying to help
the sport, and, to make matters worse, Les is better than
Andrew at what Andrew wants to be really good at on this
newsgroup - rhetoric and debate. It's not that Andrew's not
a bright guy, but you have to consider the fact that Les
has been a computer science professor for decades and these
people have to think logically for a living. It's just not
a fair match. Ironically, to some extent I've noticed Andrew
almost gleefully sailing into certain defeat, as if somehow
the trouncing makes a martyr of him and proves to the rest of
us that Les is a mean-spirited soul who craves power and all
of the associated accoutrements. As though if Andrew can bait
Les into destroying him, he demonstrates to us that Les is
not only capable of evil, but perhaps is a fundamentally bad
person - i.e. Les has become what he beheld [at USA Cycling],
but are we content that he has done right, to paraphrase
Elliot Ness?
Alas, I tire of this dissertation. I'm going to take a crap
now, and then maybe I'll watch some cable TV. Good night.
--
Dave Bailey
da...@daveb.net
Tom Kunich
>
> Tom Kunich (tku...@diabloresearch.com) wrote:
>
> : Haven't you EVER read Les's entries when he was particularly active in USCF?
> : Most of his suggestions have ALWAYS been to move to a more democratic
> : system. Isn't that what he's doing now?
>
> Not with a mandate of 50 + 2 people it isn't. He is trying to accomplish
> his goals by bringing a lawsuit. Not via democracy.
Excuse me, but apparently you don't remember the history of this little
event. It was the USA Cycling group that originally took the
unprecedented step of removing all democratic control of the
organization. Les was involved in a lawsuit to restore those democratic
controls. In an almost unbelievable ruling by the court that went
against Les and the grass roots racers he lost.
It was USA Cycling that decided to file for their 'legal' expenses. At
that point it was in Les's best interests to appeal the case.
Now don't pretend that this whole thing wouldn't have completely
disappeared without the demand for legal expenses.
As someone that has successfully pursued three suits I can tell you that
the opposition can, and most often does, inflate the legal expenses in a
way that would be considered criminal in any civilized society. But
since judges and lawyers are generally cut from the same bolt of cloth
it is normally overlooked or at most reduced in appeal.
Tom Kunich
>
> Of course, if you go back to the 1920s the whole
> damn country was corrupt.
And you're one of the few people on the group that can speak from
"been-there". :-)
Tom Kunich
>
> The racing public has spoken (by not voting) about what they want (to let
> USAC do as they want). Les is trying to change this...unsuccessfully I
> might add.
You might add that the American public has spoken in a like manner.
Might as well turn the country over to the communist in your book?
Tom Kunich
>
> (Les Earnest wrote)
> >I don't believe that I lumped Adam in with any mafia group.
> >Nor did I suggest you did. I was replying to Casey's statements to that
> >effect.
>
> >greater tolerance of political corruption in the Northeast,
> >Chicago and Louisiana than in some other >parts of the country.
> And as a member of the Northeast I say fuck you then. I don't tolerate or
> support corruption, and I am continually offended by your suggestion that I do.
> I asked Casey to name names, so far you've given me one. Unfortunately, while
> I can't argue with your comments about Bob Beal, he does so much for the sport
> in New England that people don't really know or care what he's got going on in
> CO.
Adam, perhaps you ought to review the definition of corruption, because
you just described it pretty successfully.
Tom Kunich
>
> There's one thing I STRONGLY agree with Andrew Albright on
> and that is "IT'S ALL ABOUT RACING" and nothing else, not
> LES, Me, you, or any other individual.
You have GOT to be shitting me. For Andrew it is his winter argument
pure and simple. He doesn't give a damn if the world falls apart. He has
his priorities and fuck everything else.
It's the racing? Maybe for you.
Adam Hodges Myerson
>you just described it pretty successfully.
I know. I was granting Casey a point made. I wouldn't be in this debate if I
wasn't trying to learn something, as well as teach.
Adam Hodges Myerson
>
>Danny Callen
Yeah, but your opinion isn't worthwhie, Danny, because you live in the
Northeast and have a greater tolerance for corruption, else you'd have turned
your back on Tom Vinson and USAC by now.
Jim Flom
"Dave Bailey" wrote in a great analysis
> Actually I somehow got the impression that for Andrew it was
> more about him talking, badgering, pestering, needling, and
> being a general nuisance than anything else. It seems to me
> that Andrew often has things to say, even good things sometimes,
> at least as often as I do anyway, but he's built such a bad
> reputation that inevitably people either don't take him seriously
> or they intentionally take the opposite side, which then leads
> to a thread of such Brobdingnagian magnitude as to terrify even
> the most battle-hardened helmet warrior.
Andrew has the same problem I do (although I have mellowed slightly, but
only slightly). When it comes to something he's passionate about, he's
quick to get personal. Usually, he doesn't mean it and just does it for
entertainment. The last few days though, his style has caught up with him.
There's been a groundswell of warranted reaction, and Andrew, especially
Thursday and Friday, was back on his heels. He went on the offensive 1) by
trying to change the subject (% fat thread), 2) turning up the personal
attack heat. It stopped being funny, even for Andrew.
When Andrew learns never never never to make it personal (I'm still learning
that one too) he'll be a lot stronger. Again, it's about racing. Issues.
Not personalities. We're all on the same side. When he cares more about
WHAT's right than WHO's right, he'll be more effective. When he learns not
to ejaculate prematurely (verbally anyway, I can't speak for the rest of
him), we'll all be better off, especially Andrew.
Andrew was able to push my buttons all over the place until about six months
ago. I was telling someone in the ng privately that it got to the point
that one day I spent an entire ride trying to think of the nastiest possible
comeback to one of the man's posts. I thought of some great ones. That two
cars almost forced me to crash only fed my fury. But then I realized,
"Andrew would love how PO'd I am right now" (actually I didn't think about
that until right now). What I really thought about was how wrong it all
was, and that I was being drawn out of my own game into the same personal
crap that pisses some people off about Andrew more than it does me anymore.
At the time I apologized for another nasty post I'd made to him, just
because I knew it was wrong to do so, realizing but not caring that I'd lose
face with some people (not that I have that much to begin with). When
someone wanted to elect Andrew for prez I had to admit that he'd always been
helpful privately (although I haven't asked him anything for a while). So
now I just have fun with him. The lion's defanged as far as Jim Flom goes.
So that's my account of the transforming influence Andrew Albright has had
on my life. And I know I'm a better person because of him. I mean, thanks
Andrew, if it weren't for you ... oh shoot,, I'm getting the keyboard wet.
I'm sorry. I have to go now.
Jim "sniff" Flom
Jim Flom
"Tom Kunich" <elizab...@home.com> wrote in message
news:389BBB17...@home.com...
> As someone that has successfully pursued three suits
So that's where your money comes from. :-)
Can you take me to France with you? There's no way we'd get on each other's
nerves.
Jim Flom
Danny Callen
Tom Kunich <elizab...@home.com> wrote in message > > There's
> You have GOT to be shitting me. For Andrew it is his winter argument
> pure and simple. He doesn't give a damn if the world falls apart. He has
> his priorities and fuck everything else.
>
> It's the racing? Maybe for you.
Tom...I would never shit you...
Seriously, I didn't say that I agreed with EVERYTHING Andrew
said just the part about the RACING. Anyway, I think Andrew
is laughing out loud at all this fuss... this is his style.
I missed most of this thread Tom. I was only trying to make the
point that whether I agree or disagree with Les, I respect his efforts.
I am trying to make some things happen myself and influence USAC.
It's not that easy and if we all sit idly by maybe things won't stay
being so great in New England as it is now. I am confident that
the excellent promoters in New England could stay banded together
and survive no matter who the org is.
Danny Callen
"How could it be anything but the racing?"
Danny Callen
> Northeast and have a greater tolerance for corruption, else you'd have
turned
> your back on Tom Vinson and USAC by now.
> Adam
>
>
Oooops...sorry..you're right Adam.
Danny Callen
Tom Kunich
>
> > Just my opinion..
> >
> >Danny Callen
>
> Northeast and have a greater tolerance for corruption, else you'd have turned
> your back on Tom Vinson and USAC by now.
You know Adam, if you are going to complain about something that was
said, the least you could do it treat the subject truthfully.
In both cases where Les mentioned Tom Vinson he was nothing but
complimentary and said directly that Tom was NOT involved in any of that
stuff. Implying that he asid tha opposite is pretty dishonest.
Tom Kunich
>
>(God, Jim, don't you have any pride at all? :-))
>
> Jim "sniff" Flom
Tom Kunich
> > As someone that has successfully pursued three suits
>
> So that's where your money comes from. :-)
>
> Can you take me to France with you? There's no way we'd get on each other's
> nerves.
I'm taking my oldest daughter and you're out of the will.
Tom Kunich
>
Well, it's the racing for the racers. And much to my surprise there is
more politics in the background in this sport than in anything I've ever
seen. Auto and motorcycle racing doesn't have this sort of
penny-grabbing political crap, but bicycle racing does.
We have heard from Les about the paper clubs in the east coast that were
born for no other reason than to make a power grab. We have heard from
others about this also so it isn't as if Les is making it up.
Certainly the politics surrounding putting bicyclists into the Olympics
and international competition is unbelievably corrupt. In most cases the
requirements to get on the teams are very well hidden or else there is a
'coach' factor added where those in charge can do any damned thing they
want to do regardless.
So the racing is good in New England. And so no one there wants to hear
about the problems elsewhere. That's fine and I can understand that. But
the problems are real and they won't go away. In the end my guess is
that the USAC has destroyed itself.
Danny Callen
>
> Certainly the politics surrounding putting bicyclists into the Olympics
> and international competition is unbelievably corrupt. In most cases the
> requirements to get on the teams are very well hidden or else there is a
> 'coach' factor added where those in charge can do any damned thing they
> want to do regardless.
>
In my example, the 'corruption' is exactly the opposite against New England.
Remember a few years ago when USAC put together a
points system as an Olympic Team Qualifier. Fran (and or Mark)
as I can't remember exactly got totally SCREWED. It was
unbelievable! If ever New England wnated to succeed (sp?)
from USAC that was definately the time. It just SUCKED!
More recently, Emily Thorne and Jenn Dial were 'overlooked'
from the World's Team after having successful results all season
in the Supercups. At the last minute, USAC decided that Nats
would be the criteria for selection..what a joke. We ended up
with a few riders that were totally unprepared (in my opinion)
to race in Europe. I do not wnat to bash their efforts but it could have
been better. ( I do understand that all riders were 'in the same boat'
as far as the selection criteria, but I do NOT believe the NATS course
in any way compared to the World's course...)
> So the racing is good in New England. And so no one there wants to hear
> about the problems elsewhere. That's fine and I can understand that. But
> the problems are real and they won't go away. In the end my guess is
> that the USAC has destroyed itself.
Tom, I certainly do not want to have the attitude that New England is
ok so screw the rest of the country.. I think that has been my point all
along. I think we agree very much on your last sentence. It could very
well be a cancerous disease that eventually spreads to New England.
Danny Callen
Andrew Albright
: Now you may say that 20% isn't a great turnout but it sohuld be noted that for
: several years the USCF failed to achieve a quorum for the annual house of
In the very best of times, at 20% this indicates that the majority, even
in the West, wants just to race their bikes and let whoever is running
the show, run the show.
Andrew Albright
Adam Hodges Myerson
>complimentary and said directly that Tom was NOT involved in any of that
>stuff. Implying that he asid tha opposite is pretty dishonest.
OK, here's what Les said that pissed me off:
>> Forum: rec.bicycles.racing
Power Search >> Thread: USCF eliminates some state championships
>> Message 25 of 1435
Subject: Re: USCF eliminates some state championships
Date: 01/28/2000
Author: Adam Hodges Myerson <amye...@aol.comANTISPAM>
Save this thread
In article <388F85F5...@pacbell.net>, Les wrote:
>I agree that Tom Vinson seems to do a good job of administering racing
>programs in
>the Northeast. However, I suspect that the reason that most participants
>in the
>New York/New England area are not upset by the evident corruption in the
>higher
>levels of USA Cycling is that they are used to seeing such corruption in
>their
>governmental officials and a number of businesses there, so they have lower
>expectations. I did too when I lived there for a decade.
So, let's dissect this again for you Tom. First, saying that Tom Vinson
"seems" to do a good job in the Northeast is hardly complimentary. Les is
begrudging him credit here, IMHO. The fact is, Tom IS doing a great job in the
Northeast.
Second, he says that people in the Northeast are not upset by the evident
corruption in the upper levels of USAC. That's plain wrong. We're upset as
anyone else. But because there's no crisis here and racing is good, we can
afford to attempt to work within the current system to get the changes we want.
I've told Tom Vinson multiple times that if he wasn't our regional rep, I'd be
leading the charge out of USAC in New England. But I feel like I can get things
done through him.
Third, he suggests that we accept this corruption (which we don't in the first
place) because we're more accustomed to corruption in our business and
politics. I'm not even going to tire my fingers explaining why this is
offensive.
So, I didn't imply anything. It's right there for you to read. Les has tried
to clarify his position on Tom Vinson since writing the above statement, and
I'll accept that. But the fact remains that turning against USAC in New England
is turning against Tom Vinson, so the spirit of the statement remains. That
said, if Tom can't get us the things we need from Colorado, particularly with
cyclo-cross, then even New England will act.
Lastly, I want to be careful about how interchangably we use Northeast and New
England. There are definitely separate communities in New York and New England,
and in each we have many riders that don't venture past their borders. I race
in New York a lot, and I run a team that's based there. But I'm a New
Englander, and I speak mostly from that perspective.
Andrew Albright
more time than I currently have and I don't want to be accused by Les of
'delaying'. However, I won't let 3 months go by like Les did.
In my responses, I will however not reveal my motivations for this subject
(none of your guesses have been correct) until Les reveals his true
motivations for his lawsuit.
Andrew Albright
Carl Sundquist
> Casey Kerrigan (Ca...@ccnet.com) wrote:
>
> : Les didn't go forward with his lawsuit until it was clear that the USAC Board of
> : directors made it impossible to bring about reform via democratic action. Les
> : tried to avoid the lawsuit by working within the system.
>
> the system worked, just not to Les' choosing. People didn't vote because
> they were satisfied by what was going on. If there had been 100% voter
> turnout over the last 10 years and people really didn't want USCF to
> become part of USAC, then that would have happen. People don't care and
> they have expressed this.
Ambivalence is not the same thing as being satisfied.
Carl Sundquist
> Adam Myerson wrote:> Since I did so badly at the national> championships, I
> wasn't considered as an alternate, even though, yes, I
> think I
> > was going well and could have done decently on the course in Holland.
>
> Had we not had a full team there would they have entered you, considering
> that you were there and available? If not there is something wrong with the
> system.
>
> > That
> > said, it's really my responsibility to go faster when it counts. I've got
> no
> > one to blame for my ride at nationals but myself.
>
> It's your fault not to be chosen for the national team. But if you're over
> there, capable and willing to race an international event and USA Cycling
> won't allow you then something is wrong.
No there isn't. What is happening is entirely appropriate for USAC to do, and
Adam recognizes that. It appears that he realizes that he had his opportunity to
perform and be selected at the national championships and he didn't race well
enough to be selected.
One of the gripes against USAC is riders being selected for events such as
worlds and Olympics by coaches selection rather than by winning (or placing top
3 or whatever) in selection events. Had Adam been given the go-ahead to race
Worlds, he would have been a coaches selection. I don't know the specifics of
qualifying for CX worlds or where Adam placed at Nationals, but chances are that
there may have been some riders who finished higher than Adam who would have
jumped at the opportunity to race at worlds, even at their own expense. If Adam
had been allowed to start the race at worlds without first giving the
opportunity to those riders who finished ahead of Adam in the selection criteria
to race at worlds, that would have been pretty unfair to them .
In a weird way, USAC did it to "protect" the riders who weren't picked to go to
worlds. If riders are allowed to participate in races like worlds primarily
based on their being "in the neighborhood", it would further undermine riders
being selected for events by objective means.
Adam said it perfectly when he said, "...it's really my responsibility to go
faster when it counts."
Carl
Tim McNamara
<dsba...@library.syr.edu> wrote:
> Andrew Albright wrote:
>
> > David, don't let us stop you from contributing something to this
> > discussion. We are all ears.
> >
> > Andrew Albright
>
> Most of the contributor's to this discussion are in fact "all ears."
> You, Andrew, on the other hand have done nothing but express opinions,
> sans facts. Read the subject line. You don't understand Les's
> motivation(s) so you invent your own and ascribe them to Les. You
It's called "attributional bias" in the psychological literature and is
a well-documented phenomenon.
> present no evidence but insist you have. Adam, Casey, Jim, et al. are
> contributing to this discussion. You're just attacking the messenger.
> I fail to see that as a contribution.
Andrew's comments have degenerated to ad hominem, which is a sign of a
weak position and/or poor rhetorical skills.
Tim McNamara
<dan...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Which brings me to my point. I am not 100% sure how we influence USAC, but
> I do believe that we can either sit back and be complacent or try and
> organize to the point we can influence the direction.
At this poit, we don't. USCF members have been stripped of any direct
influence on the operation of the organization or governance of the
sport. It is now in the control of people who frankly don't seem to be
able to find their butts with both hands. Whatever their agenda is, it
is certainly not the agenda of thousands of USCF members around the
country.
IMHO, the *only* option at this point is to replace them with another
organization. We do not have the financial resources to challenge them
in an effective manner in the courts. Voting with our dollars is our
only option.
Tim McNamara
<dan...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> No offense Dave but what the F&^K has any of that got to
> do with Bike racing???? ..The bottom line is that New England
> has a DAMN good thing going. I think the rest of the country
> could learn an awful lot from our promoters, Regional Rep,
> courses, attitude, etc, etc.
More of that famous New England humility, I see. ;-)
Tim McNamara
<alb...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
> Casey Kerrigan (Ca...@ccnet.com) wrote:
>
> : Now you may say that 20% isn't a great turnout but it sohuld be noted that
> for
> : several years the USCF failed to achieve a quorum for the annual house of
>
> In the very best of times, at 20% this indicates that the majority, even
> in the West, wants just to race their bikes and let whoever is running
> the show, run the show.
Or that USAC found grounds to throw out a large portion of the ballots,
by making the ballots easy to disqualify through poorly written voting
instructions and poorly designed ballots. It only means that 20%
managed to figure out *how* to vote.
Casey, is there any way to find out what percentage of ballots sent in
were disqualified in any given year?
Danny Callen
Tim McNamara <tim...@mr.net> wrote in message
news:050220001207510817%tim...@mr.net...
Whatever. I stick with my point.. and I'm honestly not sure what yours
is. Maybe I should have said "Screw everyone, we have it good in New
England so the hell with everyone else".
I found a problem with USAC (in my opinion) and I responded by
helping start the American Cyclocross Foundation. Guess what, it
didn't require voting or whining about voitng. We raised money and
caught notice of USAC..that's what I mean by influence.
Danny Callen
Tom Kunich
news:20000205123710...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
>
> OK, here's what Les said that pissed me off:
>
> "seems" to do a good job in the Northeast is hardly complimentary. Les is
> begrudging him credit here, IMHO. The fact is, Tom IS doing a great job in
the
> Northeast.
That is from your up close and personal viewpoint. People from out of the
area can only say that it SEEMS that way. Especially someone like Les who
has seen a whole lot of people that seem pretty nice people acting in not
very nice ways.
Look, I once worked for a man who had a VERY good stage presence. He was the
CEO of our company and when there was a vote to join a union he stood up
before everyone and told them how great a job they were doing and how the
company was paying as much as it could possibly afford. They then trooped
into the booths and voted the union down. This company had the worst work
conditions and the worst relative pay of any other place I ever worked. That
guy who could stand in front of you and convince you what a super guy he was
had been sending his top executives on trips and then screwing their wives
while they were gone.
You never really know what someone is doing until after they've done it.
Like me, Les has seen enough of that to take everything with a dose of salt.
Read back through Les's previous postings about board actions
> But because there's no crisis here and racing is good, we can
> afford to attempt to work within the current system to get the changes we
want.
> I've told Tom Vinson multiple times that if he wasn't our regional rep,
I'd be
> leading the charge out of USAC in New England. But I feel like I can get
things
> done through him.
Hey, no one is suggesting that you guiys bail as long as you're getting what
you need. But don't pretend that that's the way it is for the rest of the
country.
> Third, he suggests that we accept this corruption (which we don't in the
first
> place) because we're more accustomed to corruption in our business and
> politics. I'm not even going to tire my fingers explaining why this is
> offensive.
I agree that that is offensive. However, I've seen it myself in the USCF
actions.
> So, I didn't imply anything. It's right there for you to read. Les has
tried
> to clarify his position on Tom Vinson since writing the above statement,
and
> I'll accept that.
And I didn't see him really say anything bad about Vinson in the first
place.
Tom Kunich
news:389C629F...@earthlink.net...
We completely disagree on that one Carl. If the USA is allowed a certain
number of riders in an international event and USA Cycling for any reason
cannot fill the quota, they ought to allow anyone that is there AND
QUALIFIED to race. Adam was there and was qualified.
The fact turns out to be that USAC had a complete team and so there were no
empty slots. But had there been an empty slot USAC would have been
irresponsible to its members to deny a qualified individual the chance to
race.
> One of the gripes against USAC is riders being selected for events such as
> worlds and Olympics by coaches selection rather than by winning (or
placing top
> 3 or whatever) in selection events. Had Adam been given the go-ahead to
race
> Worlds, he would have been a coaches selection.
I think that perhaps you misunderstand me. I don't suggest that Adam be
chosen SIMPLY because he's there, but instead to fill any empty slots. I
would also expect him to make any payments expected for entry and whatever
and not USCF.
> In a weird way, USAC did it to "protect" the riders who weren't picked to
go to
> worlds. If riders are allowed to participate in races like worlds
primarily
> based on their being "in the neighborhood", it would further undermine
riders
> being selected for events by objective means.
>
> Adam said it perfectly when he said, "...it's really my responsibility to
go
> faster when it counts."
In order to get on the team. Those chosen for the team were supposed to pay
their own way over. If that is the case it's probable that many of them are
liable to not go. Leaving empty slots because team members had other ideas
belittles the sport.
Casey Kerrigan
Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> Or that USAC found grounds to throw out a large portion of the ballots,
> by making the ballots easy to disqualify through poorly written voting
> instructions and poorly designed ballots. It only means that 20%
> managed to figure out *how* to vote.
>
> Casey, is there any way to find out what percentage of ballots sent in
> were disqualified in any given year?
This is information that was never reported when I was on the Board. I'm sure
someone could ask the USAC accounting firm but you probably will not get an
answer.
In the last couple of years when the vote totals have been so low it has been
interesting to hear a number of complaints from people who know their votes
weren't included. A couple of years ago the vote total for each state was
reported on the free market entry fee issue. In a number of cases there were
states that had only 1 or 2 votes. Since I reported the number that year I head
from a number of people who said they had sent in more moves from their
household than was reported for the whole state. From the reports I have gotten
it does appear that there is a problem with votes being sent i by members but
not showing up in the vote totals. There is no way to know exactly how big this
problem is though.
Casey
BikeAdman
is hardly complimentary, and Les should have written Tom IS doing a a good job.
Wow! Talk about parsing language! Les is 2500 miles from Tom's work so he
necessarly must must rely on what he has heard and read. Since he can't
possibly know Tom's work firsthand, does it seem so wrong for him to write
"seem"?
Les is criticized by his detractors here for, among other things, writing so
summarily and declaratively. That being the case, how is it they can't make the
leap of language to understand if Les intended any criticism of Tom he would
have summarily and declaratively written of him critically?
Richard