Cross Nats 'Optional' in 2003 or More Incredible Bullshit from USA Cycling

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Chris Daggs, May 15, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Chris Daggs

    Chris Daggs Guest

    I saw this in the rulebook:

    "5A5. All championships other than optional championships shall be conducted annually. For the year
    2003, Cyclo-cross National Championships may be held."

    http://www.usacycling.org/rulebooks/2003_uscf_rulebook.pdf (go to page 87)

    So quick recap: -Elite Nationals midweek when there are perfectly good weekends for it -No prize
    money for NORBA NCS pros races (and they have 2 races or something) -Cross nats on the bubble
    -Licenses cost more and it takes twice as long to get them -One breakaway federation got sucked back
    in (NCNCA), but the rest are still 'no thanks'

    Awesome; good job Gerard. Glad to see my hard earned money at work in CO Springs.

    CD
     
    Tags:


  2. in article [email protected], Chris Daggs at [email protected]
    wrote on 5/15/03 3:53 PM:

    > I saw this in the rulebook:
    >
    > "5A5. All championships other than optional championships shall be conducted annually. For the
    > year 2003, Cyclo-cross National Championships may be held."
    >
    > http://www.usacycling.org/rulebooks/2003_uscf_rulebook.pdf (go to page 87)
    >
    > So quick recap: -Elite Nationals midweek when there are perfectly good weekends for it -No prize
    > money for NORBA NCS pros races (and they have 2 races or something) -Cross nats on the bubble
    > -Licenses cost more and it takes twice as long to get them -One breakaway federation got sucked
    > back in (NCNCA), but the rest are still 'no thanks'
    >
    > Awesome; good job Gerard. Glad to see my hard earned money at work in CO Springs.
    >
    > CD

    'Cross nats are not on the bubble.

    The rule is there as a transition so that nationals can be moved to January, like the rest of the
    world. In effect, if it happens, there won't be a 2003 'cross nationals, because it'll happen 1
    month later, in 2004.

    The reason they didn't make it firm is because they have to make sure there's a promoter willing to
    put in a bid to host it in January. If no one takes them up and all the bids are for December, then
    they're going to have to be flexible.

    They may be screwing the coaches right now, but this one was well intentioned. Just because Gerard
    has stepped up and tried to fix everything, doesn't mean you should then make him the target for
    everything you still have a problem with. It's going to take him a while to undo the damage he's
    inherited.

    Adam
     
  3. In article <[email protected]>, Chris Daggs
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I saw this in the rulebook:
    >
    > "5A5. All championships other than optional championships shall be conducted annually. For the
    > year 2003, Cyclo-cross National Championships may be held."
    >
    > http://www.usacycling.org/rulebooks/2003_uscf_rulebook.pdf (go to page 87)
    >
    > So quick recap: -Elite Nationals midweek when there are perfectly good weekends for it -No prize
    > money for NORBA NCS pros races (and they have 2 races or something) -Cross nats on the bubble
    > -Licenses cost more and it takes twice as long to get them -One breakaway federation got sucked
    > back in (NCNCA), but the rest are still 'no thanks'
    Not sure what the above means. All the breakaway regions were basically offered the same deal. NCNCA
    took the deal whaile the other regions didn't take the deal. This doesn't mean the other regions
    aren't welcome. NCNCA was always different from the other breakaway regions in that

    1) we never had individual members untill we broke away. The OR and CO regions had individual
    members ( so riders in those regions were use to buying a USCF license and a regional Assoc.
    membership before the breakaway happened.

    2) In Nor Cal we had a high number of large USCF events that riders wanted to do so a greater % of
    our riders were in a position where they had to buy two licenses. Going back with USCF allowed a
    lot of Nor Cal riders to only have to buy 1 license.

    3) We had a growning number of races on state highways that required higher liability limits than
    what was offered through the NCNCA program.

    When the deal was made to kick back a portion of each license to NCNCA a majority of riders ( and
    clubs) wanted to go back with USCF/USAC. The only real question was when to go back, at the start of
    this year ( which passe by 1 vote) or to go back at the start of 2004 ( which would have passed with
    a much larger yes margin).

    For the first quarter of this year NCNCA got almost $16,000 back from USAC to use in our
    local programs.

    Casey
     
  4. "Adam Hodges Myerson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:BAE96F65.66F0%[email protected]...
    >
    > They may be screwing the coaches right now, but this one was well intentioned. Just because Gerard
    > has stepped up and tried to fix
    everything,
    > doesn't mean you should then make him the target for everything you still have a problem with.
    > It's going to take him a while to undo the damage
    he's
    > inherited.


    The opinions of THE FORCE must be taken with a grain of salt. One must consider the source.

    I witnessed THE FORCE bitching out the district rep a few years ago about the suitability of
    Vandenburg Air Force Base for the State Road Championships.

    THE FORCE didn't think it was safe enough.

    There was full road closure. The only danger was from cyclists crossing over the yellow line
    possibly running into other racers coming the other way (it was out and back).

    I tried to get THE FORCE to shut up since most of us didn't have the same opinion as he, but it
    wasn't working.

    THE FORCE has unrealistic expectations of some things.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...