I agree that it makes perfect sense for men's and women's payouts at NRC and NCC races to be equal. It costs just as much to run a women's team as it does a men's, and those women work just as hard as the men. (I'll also add that my dentist is sponsoring two women's domestic pro teams and one men's, in additional to several amateur teams.)

At the local level, I think instead of reducing payout for smaller turnout, payout should start low and increase with turnout. As fudgy said, 20 riders at the line, $200 up for grab, 50 riders - $500, or something along those lines.

at the grass root level, it takes the actual promotion of a race for one to appreciate that the constraints make things far from ideal. was initially somewhat surprised to hear a (female) teammate defend the decision for Fitchburg to remove a women's race when most on the team were rightfully (and perhaps righteously) indignant, but this particular teammate was for two years the race coordinator for the crit we hosted and knew about the actual facts on the ground.

everybody comes in with ideals about things, and that really is a good starting point, but most often ideals need to be backed up by actions, and barring some magnanimous donors walk the walk in addition to talk the talk, it becomes an issue of who's left holding the bag, and it's just not pretty.

perhaps it's telling from the above when the RD commented on participation in CX races and ITTs. We have argued ad nauseum why participation for women's racing is low and i won't go into the details, but it behooves everyone to step back and ask just why races of those formats, one where speed is low and the other where speed is high, can draw quite a few participants whereas road races don't.

-----

Then again, all this talk about participation is a side issue (and dare i say a red herring) with respect to the original issue of equal pay at the elite level. Facts are that yeah, there may be only 30-35 women at a NCC crit whereas the men's field have 80+, but that's far different from what we see at the amateur levels. So the issue of "quality of racing" and dearth of participants are really moot points here.

Sometimes i wish there is an actual debate moderator who tells people that they've strayed off of the original topic b/c that's usually when the most contentious (yet non pertinent) of issues are raised.

I'm not getting paid to race. It's a pretty easy solution from my house to cut men's NRC/NCC pursues to raise women's pursues to the same level.

Only because the structure already exists. You could run a cycling program year to year for less than our equal to a football team if you already have bikes etc from last year. If not cheaper than football, certainly cheaper than swimming, and nearly every city has a summer swim team. If you maintain thirty bikes, basic entry level parts, that's what, maybe $100 per 6 months in fees? Charge kids $50, pull another $1500 per city out of bike shop sponsors, city recreation fund, and make whatever race happens there donate some cash. It would certainly take work, but what the hell better does usac have to do with their money than grow the sport massively and develop a cash and talent pipeline for the future?

agreed

It is bad form to use expletives in debates when one's right as that's belittling. It's even worse when one is not correct as it implied you can't form an actual, cogent thought.

Aside from the fact you are conflating maintenance of facilities (which people pay via property taxes, not out of their own pockets) with actual individual cost, it's incorrect to suggest that cycling is not expensive. There is a significant fixed cost in the form of the actual bike, kit, shoes, helmet, etc. which for is way out of their price range. It's no wonder that many who participate in collegiate cycling are grad and professional students as those are the people who actually have had time to save up some discretionary income. Barrier to entry is a real phenomenon, and for most trying out cycling, it requires $1500 to get started.

it's actually not really impossible, particularly when it's on a track. NYC parks runs a kid's program, with bikes they own, and every velodrome project I've looked at has tied in a kids community program as a selling point. It's just not really selling.

those kid's fujis cost less that patch repairing a pot hole.

lol

looking at the economics and reality of a complex situation doesn't make one inherently sexist, sorry to say. from a career perspective I'm fairly comfortable that my social positions are quite liberal and equality minded.

An intro cycling program for juniors doesn't need to have a high barrier for entry anymore than a peewee football program needs to have a high barrier for entry. Equipment costs are intensive for that sport as well. The barrier exists as a consequence of the lack of investment and larger cultural interest in the sport. Which is no small thing to try and fix, so don't get me wrong on that. But the per-child cost of a program that provides equipment for cycling would not compare that badly to a lot of other youth sports programs. More expensive than basketball or soccer. Maybe in the same ballpark as football and rowing, maybe a bit more or less.

Cycling was never a part of the mainstream sports landscape in the USA, but it is true that kids used to ride their bikes everywhere (heck, I remember the end of those days myself!) and they are prohibited now from doing so by a culture that is obsessed with danger. Nevermind that most children who die, die in car wrecks. The same attitude to safety might prevail in the European nations, but if it does, cycling as a sport still has a much bigger cultural presence there and that counts for a lot. Here, now, the only kids who start cycling are the ones whose parents are already cycling.

good points. especially regarding track and perhaps even CX

a CX program would certainly be cheaper than a velodrome.

The club I belong to has an excellent Junior CX development program. They have no such thing for the road. Grants, yes. Elite development, yes.

Track is cheap because the velodrome is a sunk cost. It's not a fair comparison. Think if you wanted to start an indoor soccer development program and had to build the building.

This ties back to womens racing, field sizes, and "promoting" womens racing. It is not the responsibility of the race promoter to promote women's racing. USAC needs to focus on promoting all grassroots racing regardless of gender. So who should grow the women's sport? Who else? The women and the sponsors they bring. Instead of complaining about fields, find a sponsor and promote an all women's race. What I hear too often is the expectation of some kind of affirmative action, which I am dead set against. Equal payouts at the pro and Cat1 national level, fine. Under that, I'd rather see payouts by field size. The situation now is that the only penalty for ridiculously small women's fields is to combine them, pitting beginners with pros. Bad idea. Bad racing. So tie the payouts to field size and set a field size bar that if not exceeded will combine the women with the appropriate men's field. There has to be an incentive to get the women to own their own problem.

This is is shovelhd the rider speaking, not the official or race committee member.

btw I just looked up that Freedom Tour crit that was mentioned in one of the quotes above. Despite the promoter's worry the day before he ended up with 24 women in the women's open race, and 21 in the women's 4s. Which is pretty damn respectable. I skipped the masters race (more than $1 a minute for a 30 minute race) to head up north with my family and ride the mountains.

yeah I hear you. the equipment is cheaper than road stuff, and can be owned by the facility with modest upkeep. That's all I meant, at least. You also probably circumnavigate some of the liability issues with mentoring kids in some official program on open roads. Dunno. That's for the lawyers. For sure, tracks are mad money. We've had that conversation like a 100 times.

+1