USA Cycling; Screwing Itself
 

I'm going to spare everyone the details here and say that USA Cycling is totally FoS.

They have pages of rules which do make sense, but, nEver enforce any of them except the ones that empower the fastest riders to go even faster.

The rule they refuse to enforce which I think causes the league to continue to be puny, is the one regarding disallowance of promotional consideration for commercial entities who are not current sponsors of teams registered to race.

In other words, if I organize a team, get some sponsors to pay a s-load of $ to have their name on the team clothing and recognized in competition, make sure everyone on the team is licensed to race for that team, registering with the name of the title sponsor on their team name line;

USA Cycling will allow other a$$(es) to register as whatever team they like and wear any clothing with the name(s) of whatever business happens to have bid the highest to get their name recognized in competeition that day.

They are f-ing themslevs out of tons of licnesures and registraion fees, and, f-ing sponsors out of what they paid for.

Now, yOU may think that the sponsors do not know, understand or care about, this; but I happen to know that they do.

Corporate marketing executives in charge of sponsorships are EX TREMELY sensitive to whether they get their money's worth from advertisement and whether or not their competition is getting the same thing, for free.

If they even think there is a chance that they can get something for free, they will nEver pay for that thing.

ThAt is why there are no major sponsors of cycling in the U.S., and, why the sport of cyclling stays so poor and puny in the U.S.

There have to be a least 100 other rules, designed to give teams an advantage in cycling, which USA Cycling refuses to enforce. Thus, it stays a sport for individuals, not teams.

Welcome to the Road Bike Racing forum.

I'm not even sure I understand what you're talking about. Are you suggesting that USAC should control all sponsor relationships in US Cycling?

He thinks anyone should be able to put on his team jersey and race for his team without having it on their license. I don't agree. Show some loyalty and put your club/team on your license.

It seems that all-out marketing worked for NASCAR & Indy for a while...They've since outgrown their britches, but marketing 101 shows that NASCAR fans are the most loyal fans you can get. If Mark Martin blows his nose with Kleenex, you bet your life Bubba is going to get Bubbette to buy Kleenex if he is a MM fan.

Now, bike racers are quite a bit smaller than a car, but there is still a heap of real estate on those jerseys for promoters... The adage in motor racing was "win on Sunday, sell (cars) on Monday."

I don't get the point of the op.

He's mad that USA Cycling doesn't enforce rules about sponsorship. The lack of enforcement, he says, prevents USA teams from commanding the types of sponsors and amounts of money as do their European counterparts.

Don't ask me what rules, or whether he's right - I have no idea. I just think his rant is interesting enough to warrant straightening out the apparent confusion for those who might know. Or at least have an opinion.

Does the OP mean that
- riders are wearing kits in races for teams that they don't ride for?
or
- that multiple teams shouldn't have the same sponsors?
or what?

What are the rules of sponsorship? What is there to enforce?

Personally if I'm riding unattached I wear plan ole clothing. Never a "hammer" kit or something like that.

OP what sponsors are you referring to? Cycling related (e.g. Zipp) or general business related (i.e. Natural Foods)?

Explain further please 'cause I still don't get it.

From what I gathered the complaint had to do with the fact that although many of us go through the pain of getting sponsors and kits and then when you look at the results of a race you see teams listed that don't exist as a USA Cycling club. Around here we get names like, "Team Beer", "I am Slow". Kind of a big joke.

On the one hand the rules as they are written are way TOO stringent. There needs to be a middle ground and honestly it just comes from verifying team registrations against the USAC Club affiliation. One of the many reasons I am sure that USAC is designing their reg system. Bike Reg does a good job, but even around here we don't seem to validate against registrered clubs.

is this an interpretive writing exercise?

He's saying that officials should enforce the rule that says if you are not part of a team, you have to wear a blank kit, with no sponsor logos. That rule protects the sponsors that go through the trouble of registering a club or forming a team.

:lol:

That's the promoters fault. If they enter the team from a rider's license the way they're supposed to BS stuff wouldn't get reported in the results.

Thanks botto, now I understand. OP, brevity can help clarity!

If you figured out what the heck the OP was saying and it was this. I'd agree to a point.

I think for Pro/1/2 it should be this way but for cat 4/5 Riders should be able to wear what ever they want. Cat 3 I'm not so sure about.

Unless you can just join a club and wear club kit I think that would be ok regardless of cat. But I think at some point you should have to wear the kit of the club team your are attached to or wear blank kit if unattached.

At first I thought he meant USAC is screwing itself by not taking a cut of all the sponsorships by clubs, but on second reading I don't think so.

Now I'm not sure what he's getting at at all.

Around SoCal there's reasonable enforcement of the kit rules-- it's likely to be a little more lax in a cat 5 race at the start of the year, or someone on a 1-day, but the rider will get told "you aren't supposed to wear your 7-eleven jersey if they aren't your sponsor, you can ride today, but next time you have to switch". Later in the year, or if the rider is recognized as doing it again and they'll be changing jerseys. Any higher category and if it gets seen, the rider will be turning their kit inside out at the minimum. But USAC doesn't get any money from team sponsors, anyway-- just the $150/year from the club.

See you and raise you

Call.

Did you see botto's post? He clarifies perfectly.

Please translate to english. I'm a lawyer (albeit an inpatient one with a few glasses of wine in me); I get paid to understand arcane crap, and apply facts to rules. I have no earthly clue what you are complaining about.

they serve wine at the hospital now?

;)

Exactly. And since some racers evidently sport business logos, or even fictitious sponsors without having gone through the stipulated rigmarole, businesses question whether it's really worth that much money to become an official team sponsor. It devalues sponsorship. At least that's the writer's argument, true or not.

Personally I'm skeptical of his reasoning on general principle.

I dont see a lot of people sporting fake teams.. of course I wouldn't know every single team but majority of riders I see, I would guess they are real "teams" I.e., they pay their USAC dues, and they put on at least 1 race a year. Is there something more to this that I'm missing.