The Demise of USAC

[B Lafferty]

"Casey Kerrigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:310120051306324726%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> CoBikeRacer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ACA has talked to USAC almost every year since they split.
>> Question to ask is why would they go back? What can USAC offer that
>> ACA is currently not doing? Why would the riders want to buy a $60
>> license instead of a $30 license. Doesn't add up...
>
> Last year there were 1171 USCF licensed riders living in CO. I would
> assume that the majority of those riders probably have both an ACA and
> USCF license.

This may well be a flawed assumption. I'd like to know the exact amount of
double license holders.
Assuming arguendo that you are correct, ACA would still lose (hommage to JT)
the revenue it is currently receiving as outlined. There's no reason for
them to join USAC. Also, can you detail the ways in which all those
administrators have been freeded up by USAC affiliation?

Do the math for us. If NorCal did the same as ACA, how much of an icrease
in cash flow would there be?

BTW, I'm still waiting for the UCI to come down on USAC for allowing the
UMCC to sanction RAAM. ;-)

..

 

[Casey Kerrigan]

In article <[email protected]>, B
Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Casey Kerrigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:310120051306324726%[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > CoBikeRacer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> ACA has talked to USAC almost every year since they split.
> >> Question to ask is why would they go back? What can USAC offer that
> >> ACA is currently not doing? Why would the riders want to buy a $60
> >> license instead of a $30 license. Doesn't add up...
> >
> > Last year there were 1171 USCF licensed riders living in CO. I would
> > assume that the majority of those riders probably have both an ACA and
> > USCF license.
>
> This may well be a flawed assumption. I'd like to know the exact amount of
> double license holders.
> Assuming arguendo that you are correct, ACA would still lose (hommage to JT)
> the revenue it is currently receiving as outlined. There's no reason for
> them to join USAC. Also, can you detail the ways in which all those
> administrators have been freeded up by USAC affiliation?
>
> Do the math for us. If NorCal did the same as ACA, how much of an icrease
> in cash flow would there be?

Been there and done that when NCNCA decided to get back together with
USAC. For NCNCA it turned out that there wasn't much difference
between the money we had available for programs when we were running
our own race program and what we had available from getting back with
USAC.

There were several areas that NCNCA reduced expenses by going back with
USAC.

The cost of producing and mailing out licenses

The cost of buying out own championship medals. This was a really big
cost for us since we had nice medals and we also had our own track
championships ( and full track championshiips eat up a lot of medals).

What we paid a person to be our insurance program coordinator ( ie the
person who wa the point person between our insurance agent. This same
person dealt with rider questions about insurance, sent out the claim
forms etc.

What we paid the person who processed license applications, produced
and mailed out the licenses. By the time we caluclated all the expenses
we woudln't have by administering our own racing program vs the smaller
amount of revenue we would get from USAC I think we figured we would
get 3 to 4 thousand less in revenue we would have available for
non-administrative programs by going with USAC.

As far as administrative time saved for other jobs the person who did
our license processing also ran our web page. When we dropped our own
rac program this person had more time to iprove our web page and do
other things. The person who was our insurance coordinator is now
working with our Cat 4 womens mentoring program. I have more free time
now to deal with issues relating to nelwy licensed riders. There are
less questions from riders to deal with like explaining why they needed
two licenses to race all the races in our region, questions from
promoters about the insurance coverage, dealing with suspension issues
on our own, writing out own rulebook and so on and so on...

 

[B Lafferty]

"Casey Kerrigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:310120051354146469%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, B
> Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Casey Kerrigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:310120051306324726%[email protected]...
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > CoBikeRacer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ACA has talked to USAC almost every year since they split.
>> >> Question to ask is why would they go back? What can USAC offer that
>> >> ACA is currently not doing? Why would the riders want to buy a $60
>> >> license instead of a $30 license. Doesn't add up...
>> >
>> > Last year there were 1171 USCF licensed riders living in CO. I would
>> > assume that the majority of those riders probably have both an ACA and
>> > USCF license.
>>
>> This may well be a flawed assumption. I'd like to know the exact amount
>> of
>> double license holders.
>> Assuming arguendo that you are correct, ACA would still lose (hommage to
>> JT)
>> the revenue it is currently receiving as outlined. There's no reason for
>> them to join USAC. Also, can you detail the ways in which all those
>> administrators have been freeded up by USAC affiliation?
>>
>> Do the math for us. If NorCal did the same as ACA, how much of an
>> icrease
>> in cash flow would there be?
>
> Been there and done that when NCNCA decided to get back together with
> USAC. For NCNCA it turned out that there wasn't much difference
> between the money we had available for programs when we were running
> our own race program and what we had available from getting back with
> USAC.
>
> There were several areas that NCNCA reduced expenses by going back with
> USAC.
>
> The cost of producing and mailing out licenses
>
> The cost of buying out own championship medals. This was a really big
> cost for us since we had nice medals and we also had our own track
> championships ( and full track championshiips eat up a lot of medals).
>
> What we paid a person to be our insurance program coordinator ( ie the
> person who wa the point person between our insurance agent. This same
> person dealt with rider questions about insurance, sent out the claim
> forms etc.
>
> What we paid the person who processed license applications, produced
> and mailed out the licenses. By the time we caluclated all the expenses
> we woudln't have by administering our own racing program vs the smaller
> amount of revenue we would get from USAC I think we figured we would
> get 3 to 4 thousand less in revenue we would have available for
> non-administrative programs by going with USAC.
>
> As far as administrative time saved for other jobs the person who did
> our license processing also ran our web page. When we dropped our own
> rac program this person had more time to iprove our web page and do
> other things. The person who was our insurance coordinator is now
> working with our Cat 4 womens mentoring program. I have more free time
> now to deal with issues relating to nelwy licensed riders. There are
> less questions from riders to deal with like explaining why they needed
> two licenses to race all the races in our region, questions from
> promoters about the insurance coverage, dealing with suspension issues
> on our own, writing out own rulebook and so on and so on..

From what you've detailed, it seems there were some hefty costs that
NorCal could have cut. But, if it works for you, that's fine.

 

[CoBikeRacer]

Question. How do racers get flyers in NorCal? I see on the website
that they have to pay ($20) for a subscription to the Monthly
newsletter. Is this how promoters send out flyers or do they buy the
list and mail the flyers themselves?

Before BRAC(now ACA) split from USCF, members had to join the local org
at $20 or $25 (I forget) to recieve the newsletter. Now for $30 we get
the newsletter included with our license. Most racers below 1-2s don't
carry a USCF license unless they race out of state. My guess is that
over 25% of Colorado Racers have never carried a USCF license.

 

[Casey Kerrigan]

In article <[email protected]>,
CoBikeRacer <[email protected]> wrote:

> Question. How do racers get flyers in NorCal? I see on the website
> that they have to pay ($20) for a subscription to the Monthly
> newsletter. Is this how promoters send out flyers or do they buy the
> list and mail the flyers themselves?

Most riders get their race Ad info from the web page. None of our
promoters mail our race Ads ( the one exception being Sea Otter). Some
people who still like to have a printed newsletter subscribe to it but
that is only about 400 people out of 3000 riders
>
> Before BRAC(now ACA) split from USCF, members had to join the local org
> at $20 or $25 (I forget) to recieve the newsletter. Now for $30 we get
> the newsletter included with our license. Most racers below 1-2s don't
> carry a USCF license unless they race out of state. My guess is that
> over 25% of Colorado Racers have never carried a USCF license.
>
As of 12/31/04 the category breakdown of USCF riders was

Cat 5 321
Cat 4 232
Cat 3 299
Cat 2 207
Cat 1 117

Since ACA riders who are Cat 3,4,5 could do the occasional USF event on
one day licenses under an agreememt with USAC I'm alsmot surprised that
many lower category riders have a USCF license in CO.

 

[Mike Murray]

The real question is why do local races need to have any association USAC,
much less one that siphons off a significant amount of cash flow? It is not
that way in other sports. High school basketball is not sanctioned through
the NBA. Running a local or regional program without any connection to USAC
has several benefits and only very few downsides as has been demonstrated by
OBRA, ACA, ABR and others. If Oregon were to go back directly to the USCF
program AND activity stayed the same (I suspect it would go down since
individual costs would go up) USAC would see easily over $200,000 increased
income from membership sales, permit fees and insurance fees. If OBRA were
to be the local association we would see about $30,000 of that back, the
majority would stay with USAC. Given that these are dollars that can be
spent locally it seems we need to see a substantial return before it makes
since to even think about it. Insurance, on-line membership, access to
member databases, State Championship medals, etc. we already have.

I agree that USAC seems to be headed in the right direction but at present
the are still having trouble explaining why, as a racer, I would want to
send them $60/year or as a race organizer several thousand. I race about
60-80 race each year without a USAC membership. I have a single race that I
put on that would cost be about $1500 more if it were USCF sanctioned rather
than running it through the OBRA program only. For that extra expense I
would get ...? Perhaps I should see this money as my donation to
international cycling but the number is really just a bit too high.

--
Mike Murray

"Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> TJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>> They need to forget about keeping up the the Euros and focus at home.
>
> USAC gets more of their budget from sources interested in keeping up
> with the Euros than from sources interested in a home focus. The USOC
> is interested in medals and nothing else. T-Mobile wants an association
> with high profile winners. Other sponsors are similar. It has always
> been that way.
>
> I'm with Casey on this. USAC is not structured to be the organization
> that many think it should be. The local associations are.
>
> If you want to see just how far your membership fee will get you,
> go to http://www.guidestar.org/, search on "USA Cycling". The most
> recent form 990 is from 2003.
>
> Bob Schwartz
> [email protected]

 

[CoBikeRacer]

If all you can find wrong is my Speeling them I am very happie.
Live long TJ

 

[TJ]

High School Athletics is a poor example. Football, Basketball, Baseball,
Etc are all state sponsored sports. There is in every state a highschool
athletics association that regulates the sports. We don't need any
organizations to hold events. There is not even a requirement to have
insurance. But if you host an event without insurance, it would be ill
advised. McKay insurance offers insurance for cycling events. So no
organization needs to be involved.

TJ
www.fatboy.s5.com






"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The real question is why do local races need to have any association USAC,
> much less one that siphons off a significant amount of cash flow? It is
> not that way in other sports. High school basketball is not sanctioned
> through the NBA. Running a local or regional program without any
> connection to USAC has several benefits and only very few downsides as has
> been demonstrated by OBRA, ACA, ABR and others. If Oregon were to go back
> directly to the USCF program AND activity stayed the same (I suspect it
> would go down since individual costs would go up) USAC would see easily
> over $200,000 increased income from membership sales, permit fees and
> insurance fees. If OBRA were to be the local association we would see
> about $30,000 of that back, the majority would stay with USAC. Given that
> these are dollars that can be spent locally it seems we need to see a
> substantial return before it makes since to even think about it.
> Insurance, on-line membership, access to member databases, State
> Championship medals, etc. we already have.
>
> I agree that USAC seems to be headed in the right direction but at present
> the are still having trouble explaining why, as a racer, I would want to
> send them $60/year or as a race organizer several thousand. I race about
> 60-80 race each year without a USAC membership. I have a single race that
> I put on that would cost be about $1500 more if it were USCF sanctioned
> rather than running it through the OBRA program only. For that extra
> expense I would get ...? Perhaps I should see this money as my donation
> to international cycling but the number is really just a bit too high.
>
> --
> Mike Murray
>
> "Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> TJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> They need to forget about keeping up the the Euros and focus at home.
>>
>> USAC gets more of their budget from sources interested in keeping up
>> with the Euros than from sources interested in a home focus. The USOC
>> is interested in medals and nothing else. T-Mobile wants an association
>> with high profile winners. Other sponsors are similar. It has always
>> been that way.
>>
>> I'm with Casey on this. USAC is not structured to be the organization
>> that many think it should be. The local associations are.
>>
>> If you want to see just how far your membership fee will get you,
>> go to http://www.guidestar.org/, search on "USA Cycling". The most
>> recent form 990 is from 2003.
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>> [email protected]
>
>

 

[Les Earnest]

B Lafferty wrote:
> BTW, I'm still waiting for the UCI to come down on USAC for allowing the
> UMCC to sanction RAAM. ;-)

That is likely to be a long wait inasmuch as UCI doesn't really care. In
the 1980s and earlier USCF had a rule against riders entering
"unsanctioned" races. When I was chief enforcer (Chairman Board of
Control) in the early 1980s, I threatened a number of RAAM riders who
had USCF licenses with suspension, which caused UMCC to promptly apply
to USCF for a race permit. However the newly appointed USCF Executive
Director, Dave Prouty, said "That's not our kind of race" and blew them
off, which forced me to back down.

In the 1990s, Casey and I successfully introduced legislation that
pulled the teeth out of the rule against riders entering races that
don't have permits, so that is no longer an issue.

-Les Earnest

 

[B Lafferty]

"Les Earnest" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>B Lafferty wrote:
>> BTW, I'm still waiting for the UCI to come down on USAC for allowing the
>> UMCC to sanction RAAM. ;-)
>
> That is likely to be a long wait inasmuch as UCI doesn't really care. In
> the 1980s and earlier USCF had a rule against riders entering
> "unsanctioned" races. When I was chief enforcer (Chairman Board of
> Control) in the early 1980s, I threatened a number of RAAM riders who had
> USCF licenses with suspension, which caused UMCC to promptly apply to USCF
> for a race permit. However the newly appointed USCF Executive Director,
> Dave Prouty, said "That's not our kind of race" and blew them off, which
> forced me to back down.
>
> In the 1990s, Casey and I successfully introduced legislation that pulled
> the teeth out of the rule against riders entering races that don't have
> permits, so that is no longer an issue.
>
> -Les Earnest

All true, but the UCI Constitution expresses the desire to control all
aspects of buicycle racing, worldwide.
Article 2

The purposes of the UCI are:

a) to direct, develop, regulate, control and discipline cycling under all
forms worldwide;

b) to promote cycling in all the countries of the world and at all levels;

c) to organize, for all cycling sport disciplines, world championships of
which it is the sole holder

and owner;

d) to encourage friendship between all members of the cycling world;

e) to promote sportsmanship and fair play;

f) to represent the sport of cycling and defend its interests before the
International Olympic

Committee and all national and international authorities;

g) to cooperate with the International Olympic Committee, in particular as
regards the participation

of cyclists in the Olympic Games.



The growth of alternative organizations to USAC is the real threat. Good to
know that you're lurking.

 

[Casey Kerrigan]

In article <[email protected]>, Mike Murray
<[email protected]> wrote:

> The real question is why do local races need to have any association USAC,
> much less one that siphons off a significant amount of cash flow? It is not
> that way in other sports. High school basketball is not sanctioned through
> the NBA. Running a local or regional program without any connection to USAC
> has several benefits and only very few downsides as has been demonstrated by
> OBRA, ACA, ABR and others. If Oregon were to go back directly to the USCF
> program AND activity stayed the same (I suspect it would go down since
> individual costs would go up) USAC would see easily over $200,000 increased
> income from membership sales, permit fees and insurance fees. If OBRA were
> to be the local association we would see about $30,000 of that back, the
> majority would stay with USAC. Given that these are dollars that can be
> spent locally it seems we need to see a substantial return before it makes
> since to even think about it. Insurance, on-line membership, access to
> member databases, State Championship medals, etc. we already have.
>
> I agree that USAC seems to be headed in the right direction but at present
> the are still having trouble explaining why, as a racer, I would want to
> send them $60/year or as a race organizer several thousand. I race about
> 60-80 race each year without a USAC membership. I have a single race that I
> put on that would cost be about $1500 more if it were USCF sanctioned rather
> than running it through the OBRA program only. For that extra expense I
> would get ...? Perhaps I should see this money as my donation to
> international cycling but the number is really just a bit too high.

I can think of several reason why a racer might see membership in a
national organization a benefit. Not having to buy mulitple licenses,
knowing that where ever you race a standard set of rules apply, knowing
that all the events you ride will have a certain minimal level of
insurance coverage for medical and liability, knowing that you can't be
suspended without due process, if you get into a dispute with a
promoter or your regional group you have an avenue of appeal and so on.
Now if the aboe items are worth the extra cost of a license with a
national governing body is up to the rider.

I can also think of advantages promoters might realize for being
involved with a national govering body vs a regional one. Again if the
costs are worth the advantages is up to the promoter. I see the extra
costs of being involved with a national body kind of like buying
insurance. Sure when everyhing is going well having only a local group
to deal with is good enough. The question is that when stuff starts
hitting the fan are you better off dealing with a local group that is
mostly run by volunteers or a national group with full time employees
who probably have more experience in dealing with messy issues.

 

[[email protected]]

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > *Educational programs - bringing information about cycling into
school
> > phys. ed. classes to increase participatory interest in the sport.
> > Even just providing a package of material and how-to guide for
clubs to
> > do it in their own area would be useful.
>
> > *Cycling advocacy - working with state governments to protect and
> > increase access to roads for cyclists, maybe even an awareness
program
> > to inform the general public (and police where necessary) of
cyclists'
> > legal right to use the road.
>
> > *Legal counsel - available to riders who have been hit, assaulted,
> > verbally harassed or otherwise abused because of a lack of cycling
> > advocacy (see above).
>
> You're interpreting USAC's mission very broadly. Too broadly.

OK, your point is taken and valid. Can I then get my USCF license for
$10 and send the other $50 to the organizations you list below? I'm
not totally talking out my ass, I've been a member of the League of
American Bicyclists for over a decade.

Maybe the problem is that local and regional amateur racers are an
inappropriate source of revenue for USAC since only a fraction of it's
efforts go towards local and regional races. They just seem to be
taking a big part of the pie and sending the crumbs back.

Janek

>
> There are organizations that are better suited to objectives like the
> ones above. Do you support them? Nationally it would be the Bike
League:
>
> http://www.bikeleague.org/
>
> And there are many state organizations devoted to bicycling advocacy.

> Where I live it would be the Bike Fed of Wisconsin:
>
> http://www.bfw.org/
>
> Trail advocacy happens a places like these. I provide support through
> membership even though I rarely ride off road:
> http://www.imba.com/
> http://www.worba.org/
>
> For example...
>
> Wisconsin law requires communities to author periodic planning
documents.
> The city where I live is currently updating it's comprehensive plan.
> Like most American cities, we have a history of infrastructure
projects
> that make this a more hostile place to ride a bicycle because no one
> involved with the project thought beyond the car.
>
> The transportation chapter of the updated plan will lead to more
input
> from the cycling and pedestrian communities than we have ever had
before.
> The BFW was very helpful in advocating for this. They have this sort
of
> thing as part of their mission. USAC does not and should not.
>
> Bob Schwartz
> [email protected]
>
> Who's butt sometimes feels flatter from sitting in meetings...

 

[Casey Kerrigan]

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Bob Schwartz wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > *Educational programs - bringing information about cycling into
> school
> > > phys. ed. classes to increase participatory interest in the sport.
> > > Even just providing a package of material and how-to guide for
> clubs to
> > > do it in their own area would be useful.
> >
> > > *Cycling advocacy - working with state governments to protect and
> > > increase access to roads for cyclists, maybe even an awareness
> program
> > > to inform the general public (and police where necessary) of
> cyclists'
> > > legal right to use the road.
> >
> > > *Legal counsel - available to riders who have been hit, assaulted,
> > > verbally harassed or otherwise abused because of a lack of cycling
> > > advocacy (see above).
> >
> > You're interpreting USAC's mission very broadly. Too broadly.
>
> OK, your point is taken and valid. Can I then get my USCF license for
> $10 and send the other $50 to the organizations you list below? I'm
> not totally talking out my ass, I've been a member of the League of
> American Bicyclists for over a decade.

did you look at the financial numbers I posted? about 1/3 of your
membership dues went to cover the cost of insurance. In most cases if
you don't have insurance you can't get the local permits needed to hold
a race. With the additional 20% of your license fees that go back to
your lcoal Assoc. that is over 50% of your membership fees accounted
for to support local races.
>
> Maybe the problem is that local and regional amateur racers are an
> inappropriate source of revenue for USAC since only a fraction of it's
> efforts go towards local and regional races. They just seem to be
> taking a big part of the pie and sending the crumbs back.


In looking at the permit numbers listed on the USAC web site it looks
like there were just over 2200 permitted USAC events last year. The
vast majority of these were local and regional races. it takes a fair
amount of staff time to process 2200 event permits, mailout the event
packets to promotersdeal with a panicked promoter because he just found
out he needs his insurance certificates tomorow instead of in 3 weeks
like he thought and so on. I'd say USAC is putting in a lot of time and
effort to support local and regional races. This is a lot more than
sending crumbs back.
>
> Janek
>
> >
> > There are organizations that are better suited to objectives like the
> > ones above. Do you support them? Nationally it would be the Bike
> League:
> >
> > http://www.bikeleague.org/
> >
> > And there are many state organizations devoted to bicycling advocacy.
>
> > Where I live it would be the Bike Fed of Wisconsin:
> >
> > http://www.bfw.org/
> >
> > Trail advocacy happens a places like these. I provide support through
> > membership even though I rarely ride off road:
> > http://www.imba.com/
> > http://www.worba.org/
> >
> > For example...
> >
> > Wisconsin law requires communities to author periodic planning
> documents.
> > The city where I live is currently updating it's comprehensive plan.
> > Like most American cities, we have a history of infrastructure
> projects
> > that make this a more hostile place to ride a bicycle because no one
> > involved with the project thought beyond the car.
> >
> > The transportation chapter of the updated plan will lead to more
> input
> > from the cycling and pedestrian communities than we have ever had
> before.
> > The BFW was very helpful in advocating for this. They have this sort
> of
> > thing as part of their mission. USAC does not and should not.
> >
> > Bob Schwartz
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Who's butt sometimes feels flatter from sitting in meetings...
>

 

[Mike Murray]

OK, so use golf or tennis or bowling or sking, etc. There are lots of other
examples. Bike racing is a bit of an aberration in that one organization
tries to cover all levels of competition. You are correct that the
individual race organizer does not need to be part of any organization.
Insurance is available from several sources and, of course, is not the only
issue. It certainly is possible to hold bike races without insurance,
although generally venue owners/road use authorities will require that the
race organizer be insured. The same is true for high school sports but the
coverage is through the schools general liability policy.

--
Mike Murray
"TJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> High School Athletics is a poor example. Football, Basketball, Baseball,
> Etc are all state sponsored sports. There is in every state a highschool
> athletics association that regulates the sports. We don't need any
> organizations to hold events. There is not even a requirement to have
> insurance. But if you host an event without insurance, it would be ill
> advised. McKay insurance offers insurance for cycling events. So no
> organization needs to be involved.
>
> TJ
> www.fatboy.s5.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The real question is why do local races need to have any association
>> USAC, much less one that siphons off a significant amount of cash flow?
>> It is not that way in other sports. High school basketball is not
>> sanctioned through the NBA. Running a local or regional program without
>> any connection to USAC has several benefits and only very few downsides
>> as has been demonstrated by OBRA, ACA, ABR and others. If Oregon were to
>> go back directly to the USCF program AND activity stayed the same (I
>> suspect it would go down since individual costs would go up) USAC would
>> see easily over $200,000 increased income from membership sales, permit
>> fees and insurance fees. If OBRA were to be the local association we
>> would see about $30,000 of that back, the majority would stay with USAC.
>> Given that these are dollars that can be spent locally it seems we need
>> to see a substantial return before it makes since to even think about it.
>> Insurance, on-line membership, access to member databases, State
>> Championship medals, etc. we already have.
>>
>> I agree that USAC seems to be headed in the right direction but at
>> present the are still having trouble explaining why, as a racer, I would
>> want to send them $60/year or as a race organizer several thousand. I
>> race about 60-80 race each year without a USAC membership. I have a
>> single race that I put on that would cost be about $1500 more if it were
>> USCF sanctioned rather than running it through the OBRA program only.
>> For that extra expense I would get ...? Perhaps I should see this money
>> as my donation to international cycling but the number is really just a
>> bit too high.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Murray
>>
>> "Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> TJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> They need to forget about keeping up the the Euros and focus at home.
>>>
>>> USAC gets more of their budget from sources interested in keeping up
>>> with the Euros than from sources interested in a home focus. The USOC
>>> is interested in medals and nothing else. T-Mobile wants an association
>>> with high profile winners. Other sponsors are similar. It has always
>>> been that way.
>>>
>>> I'm with Casey on this. USAC is not structured to be the organization
>>> that many think it should be. The local associations are.
>>>
>>> If you want to see just how far your membership fee will get you,
>>> go to http://www.guidestar.org/, search on "USA Cycling". The most
>>> recent form 990 is from 2003.
>>>
>>> Bob Schwartz
>>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>
>