USAC rule change

I just recieved a copy the the USAC rules changes, most I have no problem with, one really pisses me
off and points out USACs thinking. They talk grass roots, develop your juniors safely, let's bring
in more new riders, etc. They have just changed the eligibility for 15/16 and 17/18 to cats 123. For
17/18 I agree with this. At the national level 17/18s should be at that level and have established
connections. limiting the 15/16s to 123 doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons IMHO.
18. You are forcing younger riders into races with older riders who will abuse and take out kids
just for being there.
19. There are 14 year old 4s who have done well at Nats and planned to continue to gain experience
this year and upgrade during the year. This will force them to race harder earlier to attempt
to upgrade before nats, maybe get some "help" to get enough points to upgrade.
20. There are very few big races, FCCC being a fantastic one, that give young riders the chance to
meet development teams, sponsor people, other racers from around the country and network. Nats
is a big experience for young racers.
21. They site safety. I was there this year, a lot of the problems were caused by a few sprinters
keeping the races together. In the 13/14 men they almost neutralised the race because they
wouldnt race any more than to catch any break attempt then sat down again. The inexperienced or
weaker riders were either shelled out the back almost immediately, or pulled from the crits.
They had a very quick hook. Another factor is the bulletproof teen mentality. Lots of
testosterone fueled agression on display. Keeping cat 4s in the 15/16 would give them more time
to develop, live a real life off the bike, and help avoid overtraining type injuries. Obviously
USAC doesn't consider well rounded development to be an important factor. I am not ranting
because this effects us either. We were, and are not planning on doing nats this year. Robert is
5'8" weighs 118 lbs. and climbs like a scared cat. Last year he wanted to do the Espoir Nats
course, he loves to climb, doesn't help much with on a basically flat course with the
sprinters/crit specialists keeping things together. Bill C.

 

In article <[email protected].aol.com>, TritonRider <[email protected]> wrote:

> I just recieved a copy the the USAC rules changes, most I have no problem with, one really
> pisses me off and points out USACs thinking. They talk grass roots, develop your juniors safely,
> let's bring in more new riders, etc. They have just changed the eligibility for 15/16 and 17/18
> to cats 123. For
> 17/18 I agree with this. At the national level 17/18s should be at that level and have established
> connections. limiting the 15/16s to 123 doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons IMHO.

From looking at the Jr. Natz results from last year I think the rule change was put in plce to help
limit the field sizes. The 15-16 TT had 90 riders listed in the results. There were 71 riders listed
in the results for the RR and 36 listed in the Crit results ( clearly riders were pulled in the Crit
and not listed in the results). If there is an up trend in the number of juniors showing up at
nationals then you reach the upperlimt of safe field size at some point. The question then comes up
of how you limit the fields at Jr. Nationals to keep things safe? We use to have a system that
limited entries at nationals by having riders qualify for nationals at the district level. Currently
the only way that USCF has for limiting field sizes is by putting on category restrictions.

It shouldn't be that hard for most juniors to upgrade to Cat 3. For juniors the min field size to
have a race qualify for upgrade points is 10 riders. This means that a junior can earn upgrade
points by placing 6th in a field of 10 riders. Most of the better juniors that I have seen are also
very compteitive in the senior ranks.

I don't see the Nationals as being part of the grass roots program. Riders going to nationals should
have a certain level of experience and skill. Going to nationals sohuld be something you earn not a
right granted everyone who has a license.

Casey

 

Now I will also rant, what makes you think the uscf was ever for grass roots, they say that but the
actions have never been that way. The most recent example is in the increase in the cost of the
license to $50. I have held a uscf license for 23 years and never received a dime from the uscf
except for the magazine, and car rental slips. At the most anymore I race between 10-15 races per
year, maybe this year I will just spend the $5 license fee at every race.

Bob "TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I just recieved a copy the the USAC rules changes, most I have no
problem
> with, one really pisses me off and points out USACs thinking. They talk
grass
> roots, develop your juniors safely, let's bring in more new riders, etc. They have just changed
> the eligibility for 15/16 and 17/18 to cats 123.
For
> 17/18 I agree with this. At the national level 17/18s should be at that
level
> and have established connections. limiting the 15/16s to 123 doesn't make
sense
> for a couple of reasons IMHO.
> 1. You are forcing younger riders into races with older riders who will
abuse
> and take out kids just for being there.
> 2. There are 14 year old 4s who have done well at Nats and planned to continue to gain
> experience this year and upgrade during the year. This
will
> force them to race harder earlier to attempt to upgrade before nats, maybe
get
> some "help" to get enough points to upgrade.
> 3. There are very few big races, FCCC being a fantastic one, that give
young
> riders the chance to meet development teams, sponsor people, other racers
from
> around the country and network. Nats is a big experience for young racers.
> 4. They site safety. I was there this year, a lot of the problems were
caused
> by a few sprinters keeping the races together. In the 13/14 men they
almost
> neutralised the race because they wouldnt race any more than to catch any
break
> attempt then sat down again. The inexperienced or weaker riders were either shelled out the back
almost
> immediately, or pulled from the crits. They had a very quick hook. Another factor is the
> bulletproof teen mentality. Lots of testosterone
fueled
> agression on display. Keeping cat 4s in the 15/16 would give them more time to develop, live
a
> real life off the bike, and help avoid overtraining type injuries.
Obviously
> USAC doesn't consider well rounded development to be an important factor. I am not ranting because
> this effects us either. We were, and are not planning on doing nats this year. Robert is 5'8"
> weighs 118 lbs. and
climbs
> like a scared cat. Last year he wanted to do the Espoir Nats course, he
loves
> to climb, doesn't help much with on a basically flat course with the sprinters/crit specialists
> keeping things together. Bill C.

 

Casey Kerrigan wrote in message <160120031054090592%[email protected]>...
>In article <[email protected]>, Shultz
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Now I will also rant, what makes you think the uscf was ever for grass roots, they say that but
>> the actions have never been that way. The most recent example is in the increase in the cost of
>> the license to $50. I
have
>> held a uscf license for 23 years and never received a dime from the uscf except for the magazine,
>> and car rental slips. At the most anymore I race between 10-15 races per year, maybe this year I
>> will just spend the $5 license fee at every race.
>>
>> Bob
>
>The USCF never has been and never will be in a position to run grass roots programs at the local
>level. The USCF/USAC can and should offer support to the people at the local level who are in the
>best position to run grass roots type programs.
>
>since you have had a license for 23 years you should remember the old Weekend Cycling College
>program that USCF supported for a few years. That was a great grass roots program. Of course USCF
>botched up the program and killed it but it was a program that still helped to bring new riders
>into the sport. I also remember when USCF had a program to supply national team coaches for weekend
>coaching clinics promoted by local clubs. My club took advantage of this program 3 ro 4 times. To
>bad they aren't doing a program like this now.
>
>I think the program between USAC and NCNCA is a good method for USAC to help support grass roots
>program. NCNCA gets $10 for each adult annual USCF license sold in our region. We take that money
>and use it to support our grass roots programs like our junior programs, our Cat 4 women programs,
>buy new and better race equipment used by all our race promoters etc.
>
>Casey

And we here in New England have done the same, forming NEBRA last year when things looked rocky. Now
the organization is in place to take advantage of the USAC $10 per license "kick-back".

Wade

 

Ahh, the good old days

"Casey Kerrigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:160120031054090592%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Shultz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Now I will also rant, what makes you think the uscf was ever for grass roots, they say that but
> > the actions have never been that way. The most recent example is in the increase in the cost of
> > the license to $50. I
have
> > held a uscf license for 23 years and never received a dime from the uscf except for the
> > magazine, and car rental slips. At the most anymore I
race
> > between 10-15 races per year, maybe this year I will just spend the $5 license fee at
> > every race.
> >
> > Bob
>
> The USCF never has been and never will be in a position to run grass roots programs at the local
> level. The USCF/USAC can and should offer support to the people at the local level who are in the
> best position to run grass roots type programs.
>
> since you have had a license for 23 years you should remember the old Weekend Cycling College
> program that USCF supported for a few years. That was a great grass roots program. Of course USCF
> botched up the program and killed it but it was a program that still helped to bring new riders
> into the sport. I also remember when USCF had a program to supply national team coaches for
> weekend coaching clinics promoted by local clubs. My club took advantage of this program 3 ro 4
> times. To bad they aren't doing a program like this now.
>
> I think the program between USAC and NCNCA is a good method for USAC to help support grass roots
> program. NCNCA gets $10 for each adult annual USCF license sold in our region. We take that money
> and use it to support our grass roots programs like our junior programs, our Cat 4 women programs,
> buy new and better race equipment used by all our race promoters etc.
>
> Casey

 

>From: Casey Kerrigan

>It shouldn't be that hard for most juniors to upgrade to Cat 3. For juniors the min field size to
>have a race qualify for upgrade points is 10 riders. This means that a junior can earn upgrade
>points by placing 6th in a field of 10 riders.

Racing in a field of 10 prepares them how for say Fitchburg or Nats? That stops 40 year old cat 3
masters from swearing at them and leaning on them? Don't say better, say those who have hit puberty
younger. Where else do they go to meet people and make contacts? How do you get big race experience
without riding in big races? Give you two examples of the problems with forcing 15/16s into races
with the older types.
1. Crit last year, combined field, this idiot swearing at all the juniors for most of the race to
get the hell out of the way for the first two laps or so. Didn't have much to say when most of
the juniors lapped him later. Did swear at the officials about having to ride with the little
bastards after the race.
2. Not to knock one of our major development teams but, they have had several riders in the last
couple of years who have purposely crashed younger juniors while swearing at them on the way by.
Nobody will do anything about it because they are too important. How many 15 year olds are there
that are real cat 3s? Bill C

 

National Championships are NOT for cat 5 & cat 4 riders.They are for the BEST juniors.You should be
glad that u DO NOT have to qualify to go to junior nationals. I can remember some years where some
VERY GOOD juniors DID NOT qualify for junior nationals.

Danny

 

> It would be interesting to see the numbers of Cat1-3 racers in the 15-16 year old Nationals in
> recent years. If it has been a relatively small number (<40?) than perhaps a better cut-off for
> _that_ age category is cat1-4.
>
> I agree completely that requiring a minimum of Cat 3 for 17-18 RR & Crit nationals makes sense.

For complete start lists for the 2002 Junior Nationals in Clemson go to:
http://www.veloresults.com/results02/jr_road/entrylists/entries_m_aug1.htm

As someone who has worked/officiated/promoted at the last three Junior Nats (as well as other
Nationals) I can tell you that there were kids out there racing who had no business in a field that
size. I received several calls from parents who wanted to put kids in who had around 3-4 mass start
races under their belt - don't ask how they became Cat. 4s. I can't understand the philosophy behind
putting your child at risk like that.

The fact of the matter is that this is a NATIONAL Championship and if a field can be filled with
Cat. 1-2-3 riders then why not limit it to those categories?

Chuck Hodge Race Director - 2002 Junior/Espoir Road Nationals

 

I just realized the link to the start list I put in does not have the categories and the link to the
Excel data is no longer viable. If anyone is really interested I can probably dig up the data....

Chuck

 

I expect nothing from the uscf, I just feel it is getting a little out of hand to raise the license
fee to these type of amounts. This also includes the fees to race anymore, if you don't have at
least $50 in you pocket you can't race. Travel, gas, food ,entries. With very little prize list. I
though am not that interested in the prize list, I would and do race for the fun of it and have been
know to sprint full out for a dozen bagels or a bag of homemade cookies, but when I have to pay $50
to race in my catagory and pay a normal $20 entry fee for such don't you think this is a little
much. I am glad the uscf is giving you our money so you can send in results.

Bob "Jonathan Babiak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Shultz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Now I will also rant, what makes you think the uscf was ever for grass roots, they say that but
> > the actions have never been that way. The most recent example is in the increase in the cost of
> > the license to $50. I
have
> > held a uscf license for 23 years and never received a dime from the uscf except for the
> > magazine, and car rental slips. At the most anymore I
race
> > between 10-15 races per year, maybe this year I will just spend the $5 license fee at
> > every race.
>
> You never recieved a dime from the USCF? That's too bad. In 2001, they sent me around $1,000.
> Honest. It was the rebate from the insurance surcharge for sending results electronically after
> events to post on the USA Cycling website. It was simple. I hope you don't expect them to send you
> $55 (or more) for riding your bike around in exchange for buying a $50 license. Not even any of
> the last six presidents of the US could do math like that.
>
> If you do nothing, you get nothing.
>
> Jonathan Babiak "Rhetoric Ain't Racing"

 

"Shultz" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I expect nothing from the uscf, I just feel it is getting a little out of hand to raise the
> license fee to these type of amounts. This also includes the fees to race anymore, if you don't
> have at least $50 in you pocket you can't race. Travel, gas, food ,entries. With very little prize
> list. I though am not that interested in the prize list, I would and do race for the fun of it and
> have been know to sprint full out for a dozen bagels or a bag of homemade cookies, but when I have
> to pay $50 to race in my catagory and pay a normal $20 entry fee for such don't you think this is
> a little much. I am glad the uscf is giving you our money so you can send in results.
>
> Bob

Gee Bob, if you think it's a good idea to have races with $5 entry fees, $10,000 prize lists,
cookies, TV coverage, etc., then I encourage you to organize events like that. Let us all know the
date of your race, because everyone wants to race at an event like that. Of course you just won't.
You just enjoy whining about those mean people up in Colorado stealing your $50. Do you have a plan?
Do you have anything at all but your own private complaints? No.

Once you pay an entry fee, it's no longer your money. If it's not worth it to you to pay the entry
fee for the opportunity race, then don't pay. The fact that the world changed and left you behind
when entry fees increased isn't the fault of USA Cycling. Entry fees are set by each promoter for
each event. Have you really held a license for as long as you say? How is it possible that you know
so little about your own sport?

 

Lots of good comments in this thread!

The 15-16 field at Clemson WAS way too big. Something had to be done. I don't know how many boys
started, but 71 are listed in the results. After the first rider finished 20 seconds in front, 54
(FIFTY-FOUR) riders were given the same time. I talked to a Adam Switters, a Norcal Jr, right after
the race. He said it was the most insanely jammed up sprint he'd ever been in, with riders pressing
arms and shoulders on both sides.

But an interesting thing is that nearly all of the kids were great riders. Maybe 10 or so shouldn't
been there, but obviously the 54 riders in the field could ride pretty well to be there at the end.
Requring the 15-16's to be Cat 3's would for sure lead to a smaller field, but not necessarily a
much better one.

One thing that was obvious is that the race should be held some place where there wouldn't need to
be a center line rule. My son Bob in was in the 13-14 field, which had 'only' 35 riders, and said
there was zero opportunity to move up until the sprint, when you were allowed to use the whole road.

The crits didn't seem to have a field size problem, probably because the course was much tougher
than the RR course, and quickly broke up the field.

Casy's words about how to get a kid to quit racing are very true: just take the fun out it. Get
pushy. Though Bob hasn't been bike racing very long, he hasn't missed a single summer league swim
meet in 9 years--possibly because we've let HIM choose how hard to train (usually it's about 4 x 1.5
hour sessions per week). He also gets to pick when he want to do the more serious USA swimming.

Maybe relevant to this, he competed at the national level when he was 10 (actually USA Swimming
chops the country up into four regions). For that he had to first qualify to even compete in the
zone championships, then the district championships, then finally be selected to compete on the
district team, in our case, Pacific Swimming, which covers about the same area as the NCNCA
district. So it did seem incredible that we could just sign up and go to USCF Nationals.

Anyway, I guess I come down on the side of using District Championships to qualify for Nationals.
You could very tightly control field size this way, whereas the arbitrary Cat requirement might get
you too many (or too few) riders. If some district doesn't have a Jr. Championship race, then a
rider would be able to petition to race Nats. Just being able to compete would mean a lot, and maybe
the kids that didn't do so well at Nationals could have an easier time building on the experience.

- Pete

 

[email protected] (Pete Harris) wrote:
> <cut>
>
> One thing that was obvious is that the race should be held some place where there wouldn't need to
> be a center line rule. <cut>

Easier said than done, but I encourage you to do it.

> <cut> For that he had to first qualify to even compete in the zone championships, then the
> district championships, then finally be selected to compete on the district team, in our case,
> Pacific Swimming, which covers about the same area as the NCNCA district. So it did seem
> incredible that we could just sign up and go to USCF Nationals.
>
> Anyway, I guess I come down on the side of using District Championships to qualify for
> Nationals. <cut>
>
> - Pete

In addition, why not reserve Nationals for team entries only in the RR and Crit? Let each region
field a team, with team selections made at the regional level. I already know this won't be a
popular idea, but the RR and Crit are team disciplines. It would also reduce the problem with
narrow, one lane venues. In a team setting with riders assigned duties like breaking up the field
early to establish a breakaway, you won't have every rider riding for himself and sitting in to wait
for the sprint lottery. Fortunately, this won't happen anytime soon because it's just too radical of
an idea. None of this will change as long as the team aspect of this sport is subordinated to other
less important interests.

 

>I can remember some years where some VERY GOOD juniors DID NOT qualify for junior nationals.
>
>Danny
>

Qualifying would be good it would give kids a big regional event. Bet your attitude has convinced
lots of kids that soccer is for them. Nats titles don't mean much in the long run until the 17/18s.
I will agree with you on cat5s. I see no reason to exclude 4s from the 15/16s. The 17/18 should be
123. I'm not the only one saying it either. I'm hearing feedback from coaches and teams that think
4s belong in the 15/16s.

Bill C.

 

>I will agree with you on cat5s. I see no reason to exclude 4s from the 15/16s

Last year's 15/16 field had some amazing riders in it: Chris Stockburger, Zach Bolian, and
Spencer Beemer are the ones I know. Spencer, for one, is as strong as any 2 (I mean, ANY 2) in
the South. He is
15. He and the other elite 15-16's are in another class from the recreational kids whose parents
got em treks so they could be like Lance. He shouldn't have to dodge 4's to win another jersey
next year, and if he somehow keeps his head in the sport for another few years, you will all
know his name. My point is, don't discount the prowess of the 15-16's, they are deep and
strong. Greg

 

>From: [email protected]

>He shouldn't have to dodge 4's to win another jersey next year, and if he somehow keeps his head in
>the sport for another few years, you will all know his name. My point is, don't discount the
>prowess of the 15-16's, they are deep and strong. Greg

I'm not discounting them at all. We have a few here too. The things that I am most concerned with
are keeping kids in the sport, not turning it into HS football where there are estimates that 30%
of the kids are using steroids etc., and keeping it safe. I doubt that I'm going to come up with
the answer but at least people are talking. One of the more experienced racers I know has
suggested that maybe a regional points system for juniors qualification done through the LAJORS
races to qualify for nats. This would allow the really fast racers to qualify quickly, and those
that were really determined to go could do all the races, picking up a few points at each and
gaining enough experience to be safe. Thanks for the good talk. Bill C

 

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

> >From: [email protected]
>
> >He shouldn't have to dodge 4's to win another jersey next year, and if he somehow keeps his head
> >in the sport for another few years, you will all know his name. My point is, don't discount the
> >prowess of the 15-16's, they are deep and strong. Greg
>
> I'm not discounting them at all. We have a few here too. The things that I am most concerned
> with are keeping kids in the sport, not turning it into HS football where there are estimates
> that 30% of the kids are using steroids etc., and keeping it safe.

It has always been my observation that people ( even kids) appreciate things more when they have to
work for it and earn it. I think making kids earn their way to nationals ( be it through qualifing
races or beng a certain category level) isn't going too discourage kids from racing. In fact it
sohuld help keep kids in the sport since we are giving them a goal which should be fairly abtainable
for most riders. By giving young riders the instant gratification of going to nationals just because
they have a license doesn't that help lead to the type of junior most peopel don't like ( the ones
who expect a full ride sponsorship just because they know how to ride a bike)?

Casey

 

How much more difficult is qualifying for Cat 3 than going through a regional points system? If the
difficulty is about the same then why have two separate systems to accomplish what can be
accomplished by one?

Ralph Dilts

"TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >From: [email protected]
>
> >He shouldn't have to dodge 4's to win another jersey next year, and if he somehow keeps his head
> >in the sport for another few years, you will all
know
> >his name. My point is, don't discount the prowess of the 15-16's, they
are
> >deep and strong. Greg
>
> I'm not discounting them at all. We have a few here too. The things that
I am
> most concerned with are keeping kids in the sport, not turning it into HS football where there are
> estimates that 30% of the kids are using
steroids
> etc., and keeping it safe. I doubt that I'm going to come up with the answer but at least people
are
> talking. One of the more experienced racers I know has suggested that
maybe a
> regional points system for juniors qualification done through the LAJORS
races
> to qualify for nats. This would allow the really fast racers to qualify quickly, and those that
> were really determined to go could do all the
races,
> picking up a few points at each and gaining enough experience to be safe. Thanks for the good
> talk. Bill C

 

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

> >From: Casey Kerrigan [email protected]
>
> >It has always been my observation that people ( even kids) appreciate things more when they have
> >to work for it and earn it. I think making kids earn their way to nationals ( be it through
> >qualifing races or beng a certain category level) isn't going too discourage kids from racing. In
> >fact it sohuld help keep kids in the sport since we are giving them a goal which should be fairly
> >abtainable for most riders.
>
> >Casey
>
> I think that for a lot of kids that cat3 by 15 is a stretch. Don't forget that we want these kids
> to have a healthy balanced life also. Given the level of effort, training, and time needed to get
> to this level without a fully developed body I am not sure that this is the way to go. I am not
> sure of the physiological effects of that amount of time on the developing bone structure. Does
> it have any effect on bone growth plates? Calcium levels etc.. For me at that age football
> practice was about 8 hours a week and a game. To get to Cat 3 you are talking at least that much
> time and most likely a lot more each week.

Remember we are talking about the National Championships, an event intheory where the best riders
from around the nation come to race each other for the title of National champion. Parents and
coaches should not be pushing every rider ( no matter what their age) to go do nationals. Riders
should only do nationals when they are ready and are riding at a high enough level. Not all riders
need to put in X amount of time training to reach the level where they are ready to ride at
nationals. When I was a junior I wold always get upset because on of my best friends cold train
about 100 miles a week ( normally very high intensity miles) and he could ride with the best 1/2
riders in our region. I needed to put in a lot more time and miles just to be 3/4 as good as my
friend. Hopefully the kids going to nationals and doing well are the ones with the natural talent
and love riding enough so they can still have a balanced life. Other kids can probably drop out of
school at 15 and spen all their time on the bike and still never be good enough to do well at
nationals. Hopefuly the parents and coaches ca recognize early on the abilities and limits of their
kids and not push them past these limits. The bottom line is bicycle racing should be about fun
first and not about how many nationals yoou can go to or hom much training you do. If the sport
isn't fun we will not keep kids no matter how easy you make qualifing for nationals.

Casey

 

Lots of good comments in this thread!

The 15-16 field at Clemson WAS way too big. Something had to be done. I don't know how many boys
started, but 71 are listed in the results. After the first rider finished 20 seconds in front, 54
(FIFTY-FOUR) riders were given the same time. I talked to a Adam Switters, a Norcal Jr, right after
the race. He said it was the most insanely jammed up sprint he'd ever been in, with riders pressing
arms and shoulders on both sides.

But an interesting thing is that nearly all of the kids were great riders. Maybe 10 or so shouldn't
been there, but obviously the 54 riders in the field could ride pretty well to be there at the end.
Requring the 15-16's to be Cat 3's would for sure lead to a smaller field, but not necessarily a
much better one.

One thing that was obvious is that the race should be held some place where there wouldn't need to
be a center line rule. My son Bob in was in the 13-14 field, which had 'only' 35 riders, and said
there was zero opportunity to move up until the sprint, when you were allowed to use the whole road.

The crits didn't seem to have a field size problem, probably because the course was much tougher
than the RR course, and quickly broke up the field.

Casy's words about how to get a kid to quit racing are very true: just take the fun out it. Get
pushy. Though Bob hasn't been bike racing very long, he hasn't missed a single summer league swim
meet in 9 years--possibly because we've let HIM choose how hard to train (usually it's about 4 x 1.5
hour sessions per week). He also gets to pick when he want to do the more serious USA swimming.

Maybe relevant to this, he competed at the national level when he was 10 (actually USA Swimming
chops the country up into four regions). For that he had to first qualify to even compete in the
zone championships, then the district championships, then finally be selected to compete on the
district team, in our case, Pacific Swimming, which covers about the same area as the NCNCA
district. So it did seem incredible that we could just sign up and go to USCF Nationals.

Anyway, I guess I come down on the side of using District Championships to qualify for Nationals.
You could very tightly control field size this way, whereas the arbitrary Cat requirement might get
you too many (or too few) riders. If some district doesn't have a Jr. Championship race, then a
rider would be able to petition to race Nats. Just being able to compete would mean a lot, and maybe
the kids that didn't do so well at Nationals could have an easier time building on the experience.

- Pete

[email protected] (TritonRider) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >Hopefuly the parents and coaches ca recognize early on the abilities and limits of their kids and
> >not push them past these limits. The bottom line is bicycle racing should be about fun first and
> >not about how many nationals yoou can go to or hom much training you do. If the sport isn't fun
> >we will not keep kids no matter how easy you make qualifing for nationals.
> >
> >Casey
> >
> Amen! Bill C.