"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - ACA votes to re-join USAC

Interesting... did not know this was going on from here in TX.

http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=7210

"USA Cycling is very pleased and honored that the ACA and its member clubs voted to rejoin USA Cycling. While ACA’s name will change to Bicycle Racing Association of Colorado, the leadership will provide the same service and benefits that riders, race directors and officials have come to know in Colorado. We look forward to working together to continue to grow the sport of cycling in this great state"

Splinter groups only hurt the whole.
About time ACA stopped the nonsense.

USAC forced this via ending reciprocity and dual-sanctioned events starting in 2012, and not counting ACA points towards CX nationals call-ups.

Splinter groups only hurt the whole.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Personally I think USAC could use more competition, as could the UCI.

For ACA folks this means a 25% increase in their annual license fee.

USAC shovels some of this money down to Local Associations with virtually no oversight. One of the biggest LA's in the country couldn't get indemnity insurance last year after it was found they hadn't filed tax statements in 4-5 years and a lot of money couldn't be accounted for. That's just the worst example of many USAC downfalls.

So it goes.

And from what it sounds like higher fees for our clubs/teams :(

USAC shovels some of this money down to Local Associations with virtually no oversight. One of the biggest LA's in the country couldn't get indemnity insurance last year after it was found they hadn't filed tax statements in 4-5 years and a lot of money couldn't be accounted for. That's just the worst example of many USAC downfalls.

So it goes.

Care to name the LA in question? Are the board members being held responsible? WTF?

I was VP on the Florida Road Cycling Association (FRCA) board for the first five of it's existence. I can't imagine not accounting for every dime we got from USAC.

Care to name the LA in question? Are the board members being held responsible? WTF?

I was VP on the Florida Road Cycling Association (FRCA) board for the first five of it's existence. I can't imagine not accounting for every dime we got from USAC.

NorCal/Nor NV.

Nothing I've read or seen would lead me to believe there was any reckoning. The sec/treasurer during part of this time was elected President after the guy who oversaw this debacle quit, she resigned along with another newly elected board member who was tight with the old President. Had one board member not balked when the indemnity bond was yanked, who knows if this would have even come to light.

What I've seen there and in other cases is too often there's one or two people wearing 3-5 "hats", and they end up essentially overseeing themselves. I could cite you a lot of examples where conflict of interest, or personal vendettas have diminished or killed programs that had great value, including one youth program.

In another large LA, the voting structure means around 25-30% of all licensees have no voting privileges, as it stands there's no direct democracy in any of the LA's that I have knowledge of; there's nothing in USAC's structure that guarantees you any voice in how your license money is spent, and if you do get a vote there's literally three layers of political structure between you and USAC to over rule your preference.

At $60 a year, I get hit with a surcharge to use USA Cycling's online entry system, while they are kicking back part of this money to the promoter, who BTW are often the same people sitting on the LA board. And talk about conflict...in one case the LA had made a deal with an entry company to get part of the surcharge, the LA was run by those same promoters, who were also USAC reps who were being pressured by USAC to encourage the promoters (themselves) to use the USAC online system.

I'd be foolish not to point out that the word "racer" didn't appear in the above considerations.

At the same time USAC is sitting on $8.7 million in cash and investments and paying out $3 million in direct salaries and benefits (plus nearly $600k on airfare). BTW their employee benefit to salary ratio is around 33%. That's right at the top end of the spectrum and way out of line for a non profit.

Not assigning bad motives here, but for a member driven non-profit, the members paying the fees seem to be the last consideration.

Racer Ex,

Of course, it is not always a problem when vendors/promoters sit on USAC boards and LA's.
Only if the checks/balances are not up to snuff.
As it takes volunteers to do much of the work and so few willing to step up, it is an issue we'll always be dealing with.
I would imagine USAC's staffed regional reps could do a much better policing their various LA's.
But I do have to say, I find most LA's absolutely doing the best they can and always trying to be politically correct in advancing their state's objectives.

And what did you mean about 25-30% of a certain LA's licensees don't have a vote? You are referring to voting for who sits on that LA's board? WHy don't they have the privilege?

maybe Racer Ex could be one of these:


Seeking Qualified Candidates to serve as At-large Directors on the USA Cycling Board of Directors

I didn't open that email but just saw it too.

Of course, it is not always a problem when vendors/promoters sit on USAC boards and LA's.
Only if the checks/balances are not up to snuff.

No problem with vendors/promoters, but they shouldn't constitute the entire board. And if you're going to be an LA board member you shouldn't also hold one or more USAC positions...it simply puts too much authority and power in one individual, USAC should be providing oversight and not be directly involved in the day to day stuff.


And what did you mean about 25-30% of a certain LA's licensees don't have a vote? You are referring to voting for who sits on that LA's board? WHy don't they have the privilege?

If you don't belong to a club that promotes a race in one LA, you have no vote in who gets elected to the board (or how the money is spent). At one point this constituted over a quarter of licensees. There was no shortage of races in this LA, literally you could race year round and have two or more races to choose from on some weekends, so there was no reason to exclude non-promoting clubs or individuals from the process. The voting also became a game...people would promote races under different guises to get more voting privileges. If you do belong to a club BTW, there's nothing in USAC that says they have to let you vote. And that the LA structure is different from place to place without any uniform democratic process is pretty odd.


maybe Racer Ex could be one of these:

It was an interesting concept...but given that the board gets to vote on who gets to be on the board, I'd doubt I'd be considered.

I see a lot of room for improvement in how USAC handles their programs; they'd be able to do a lot at very little or no cost. I've discussed a "long view" with some USAC people...looking at education/retention, building out youth programs (not just pouring money at the next "Lance" kid) but it seems to make eyes roll backwards in people's heads. There's a lot of self fulfilling prophesy at work in some of the thinking; a lot of folks think USAC is doing well because they have a great product, and don't really grasp that they've been feeding off the Lance boom with a lot of middle-agers, even though their own cursory demographic survey is pretty clear. I did a breakdown of one LA on a "race days by category/age" and that makes an even bigger impression about where the money is coming from.

Most of us rode bikes as kids. That's not the case anymore, I helped out a high school program with some bikes and gear because some of those kids didn't even own a bike, and barely knew how to ride. The 35-45 people will be pretty much gone in 10 years, and we constitute the majority of USAC license holders. If it was my call, I wouldn't be hanging around waiting for another Sally Jenkins book to kick start a moribund sport, or a huge number of people learning how to ride in middle age.

If it was my call, I wouldn't be hanging around waiting for another Sally Jenkins book to kick start a moribund sport, or a huge number of people learning how to ride in middle age.

brilliant my man

its an increase in fees for those of us who ONLY raced on ACA licenses, but for anyone who holds both USAC and ACA licenses (i do), its a savings. there were enough good collegiate races (air force, CU, CSU) combined with the occasional out of state race that it was worth it for some.

plus, a BRAC (the new ACA) isnt a mandatory license, but rather an opt in license that will allow participation in points series and the like. non-BRAC affiliated racers will have to pay a surcharge for registration to the tune of 2-4 bucks.

On one hand it will probably add a little overhead for promoters but the hope is it'll also open up a lot of national sponsors who'd love to work with colorado promoters but have been discouraged from doing so.

mixed bag, overall.

heres my writeup from the vote meeting friday night

http://www.yourgroupride.com/road/27-road/1161-reintegration-according-to-chris-johnson

heres my writeup from the vote meeting friday night

http://www.yourgroupride.com/road/27-road/1161-reintegration-according-to-chris-johnson

"but at the end of the day, this community isn’t built to serve the promoters, they’re here to serve racers and racing"

Sadly, this really isn't the way USAC is built out in a lot of cases. Good write up.

yeah i know

the meeting was interesting

but it was so defeatist and i couldnt help but just feel like (and this is sort of a duh thing but still) this really wasnt a fight for the hearts and minds of cyclists, or for the best interests of racing and bike culture.

on both sides it came off as a turf war. and a fairly petty one at that.

I know the financial stakes are pretty big, and thats reason enough for institutional intransigence coming from both sides, but masking it as concern for racing was insulting

i guess thats politics though

dont think its been mentioned but the real final straw, on top of the threat of discontinuing reciprocity and upholding the CX nats call up cpolicy and UCI ban was USAC was gonna give some unnamed boulder area parties a big chunk of change to seed an LA to compete against ACA for promoters.

that was pretty much the end.

interestingly, that board dir at large email came through to my inbox literally right after i hit submit to publish my article calling them lumbering bullies.

guess thats not gonna happen.

i'm probably still gonna apply cuz why not.

I wouldn't make any assumptions. Clearly they are looking for a sort of ombudsman. If everyone who was a likely candidate simply took themselves out of the running because they feared being too unpopular with the board then it would defeat the purpose of an ombudsman in the first place.

so does this mean there's (finally) a Cat5 in Co? (gosh that would be nice)

yes

as of january 1st we're USAC territory and will have cat5s

i didnt ask and am not sure if it is yet determined as to how that will work with current cat4s who have fewer than 10 races.

Will there still be the 45+4/equivalent, or do I now get to take my chances in the Cat 5 thing? I have tried to search the USAC site, but all I see is 1-5, etc.

AG categories are at the discretion of the promoters.

theres no requirement to do any specific cats beyond juniors and men and women 1-5

promoters mainly choose to do the multitude of categories cuz the masters cats are very popular and its the best way to manage field size.

thanks badhat, I found the info here as well: http://www.americancycling.org/sites/default/files/Site_Files/BOD/Annual_Meetings/brac_plan_ver2.pdf

Thanks badhat. I will try to look favorably on this thing. I will be looking closer at my medical coverage, as USAC seems to be a bit lacking in that department, comparatively speaking.

Thanks superdex. It didn't occur to me to look there.

no worries. I know I'm not the only one who looks at this and thinks, "great, now I can hang on for six laps before getting dropped." Har.

Here's to hoping that OBRA will stop acting special and also assimilate..

I wouldn't make any assumptions. Clearly they are looking for a sort of ombudsman. If everyone who was a likely candidate simply took themselves out of the running because they feared being too unpopular with the board then it would defeat the purpose of an ombudsman in the first place.

At least two influential board members wouldn't vote for me. I'm not afraid of being unpopular, but I hate wasting my time.

that's the spirit.

that's the spirit.

A guy named "Grumpy" is more optimistic than I am...

Disturbing and amusing at the same time.