The Kings Valley Payout...

Matt

March 19, 2017 at 5:46 PM

I've put on races with equal payout for men and women. I have gotten zero
complaints for doing so, ever. We actually got so much support from
sponsors that I was giving out swag to people who showed up to watch the
awards handout, I couldn't give out everything.

If I separated out red headed guys into their own race and paid them less
in prize money because there were fewer entries, they'd have my head. I'm
not going to do that to women just because they're women.

This ain't taxes. It's equality.

Dan

I think it is great that you have taken the effort to promote some races. I also think it is great that you have chosen to give equal prize purses to men and women.

I assume in your races that you did separate out the cat 5s (proverbial red headed guys) from the Cat 1/2s and you provided them with less prize money? How do you reconcile that with your definition of "equality". Did you pay the cat 1/2/3 masters less than the open 1/2/3, is that fair and equal?

We (as OBRA) have already decided that men and women should race in separate fields, so we have already agreed that men and women are not equal. Likewise, within genders we have already to group people based on ability and/or age and provide lesser prizes (in most cases for older and lower ability), so in yet another respect we do not treat all the riders equally. It is not a perfect system, but I think it is reasonable and I think the race in question is applying a reasonable standard for prizing that is within the spectrum of what can be considered "fair and equitable". In short, we are already playing on the slippery "separate but equal" slope, which means it is basically going to be impossible to come up with a definition that everyone can agree is fair.

My primary point being is that I think there is a range of reasonable ways to define equality, including as you have chosen to do in your races, to provide absolutely equal payouts. However, I don't think there is any completely objective basis to say that equality has to mean equal payouts and adjusting payout ratios based on being representative of who actually registers is somehow "unequal" and needs legislation (new OBRA rules) to mandate how the prizes are divided up. I think the promoters who take the time to produce these races for us should be provided the opportunity to make reasonable decisions on how to maximize the success of their their event and we need to recognize there is not always one "right" answer. A rule that is not going to help increase ridership or increase the number of events may be taking a tin ear to the most significant issues facing OBRA right now, if anything we are lucky that any races are providing cash prizes to anyone (Kings Valley historically has one of the most generous prize purses on the calendar).

I will also observe that in the past couple of years several races have given extra prizes to certain female categories (Corvallis Cross Classic comes to mind.). I have no issue with this, but if people are advocating for new rules to make sure every promoter uses the same definition of equal, this type of attempt to attract more women would probably have to be disallowed because it isn't fair unless each male and female category gets exactly the same prizes.


Robert

March 19, 2017 at 5:31 PM

Seems the quickest, easiest solution is to eliminate all cash prizes for amateur races. The promoter can take that money and have some nice trophies made. You'll have the trophies a hell of a lot longer than you will any cash....
--
Sent by an Android >^•^<

On March 19, 2017 4:55:25 PM PDT, Mike Murray via OBRA wrote:
>Lisa asks:
>"Is there any way we can make put something about this in the rule
>book?"
>
>A first start would be to read the rulebook. The answer is pretty
>straight
>forward. The first paragraph of the text is:
>
>"Modification of these rules may be made by vote of the club
>representatives, generally at an annual meeting. Proposed
>rule changes shall be presented to OBRA in written form to be
>voted on by the club representatives."
>
>Purposing a rule is really simple. Mustering the votes to get it passed
>is
>not much more difficult.
>
>I would suggest when crafting a rule that significant consideration be
>given
>to the inevitable unintended consequences of that rule. For example a
>rule
>that states simply "Prize list for women's races shall be equal to
>comparable category men's races" could easily have the effect of
>significantly decreasing the number of races that elect to offer a
>women's
>field or to have them offer only lower category women's field races. A
>rule
>requiring there to be a women's field for every men's field could have
>a
>seriously chilling effect on there being any bike races at all, given
>that
>on the most current membership list women represent only 16% of the
>membership. It would, of course be great if the membership numbers were
>more
>50/50 but I doubt that this will occur simply by changing prize lists.
>
>I should also point out that women already have a privileged position
>in
>bike racing. There are functionally no "men's" races because of the
>rule:
>
>"6.6.2 Women
>Women may enter any race for which they are eligible by age,
>category, and any performance requirements and may enter
>categorized races for men that are up to one category lower than
>their women’s category, or in the case of category 1 women, up to
>two categories lower.
>
>Category 1/2 master women can race with master men up to 10
>years older and Category 3/4 master women can race with master
>men up to 20 years older."
>
>The opportunity to compete for prize lists for women exceeds the
>opportunities available to men. It can only seem the other way around
>if one
>buys into the idea that women have no hope when competing against men.
>Given
>the number of women that do successfully compete against men, that idea
>seems specious and, frankly, anti-feminist.
>
>FWIW, I strongly agree with Bryant Howard who said:
>"My question is why do we amateurs expect a "pay out"?"
>
>There is no evidence that prize lists routinely effects participation
>levels. Many race organizers spend a significant amount of their
>inevitably
>limited time and energy on developing a prize list when it might be
>considerably better for the sport if they put that effort towards other
>ways
>to improve their event or (God forbid) make a profit to compensate them
>for
>the work they do.
>
>Mike Murray
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: OBRA [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of Lisa via
>OBRA
>Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 20:15
>To: obra@list.obra.org
>Subject: [OBRA Chat] The Kings Valley Payout...
>
>...disproportionately favors the men's fields.
>
>What should I tell the grandkids? "Sorry girls, you're just not worth
>as
>much?"
>
>I'm thinking OBRAland can do better than reinforcing the inequity
>that's out
>there in the regular world.
>
>Is there any way we can make put something about this in the rule book?
>_______________________________________________
>OBRA mailing list
>obra@list.obra.org
>http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>_______________________________________________
>OBRA mailing list
>obra@list.obra.org
>http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org


Dan Grabski

March 19, 2017 at 4:57 PM

I've put on races with equal payout for men and women. I have gotten zero
complaints for doing so, ever. We actually got so much support from
sponsors that I was giving out swag to people who showed up to watch the
awards handout, I couldn't give out everything.

If I separated out red headed guys into their own race and paid them less
in prize money because there were fewer entries, they'd have my head. I'm
not going to do that to women just because they're women.

This ain't taxes. It's equality.

Dan

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 15:54 Matt via OBRA wrote:

> I have a couple of thoughts on this, but the first one would be that I
> hope you have already privately contacted the promoter, raised your
> concerns and considered their response before resorting to posting
> something on this message board. Promoting a race is a lot of work and I
> think we all owe the promoters our gratitude for putting on races for us
> and we also owe them the respect to contact them privately about concerns
> we may have about their events before we resort to what someone might call
> public shaming. There may be a time and place for that, but it is always
> after trying to work things out one-on-one.
>
> I have an idea. How about the person criticizing the payouts writes a
> check to the promoter to cover any apparent disparity between the mens and
> womens payouts and then they can be equal?
> I have another idea, how about instead of your solution being about how
> you can tell someone else how to spend their money (authoritarian), you
> work on outreach (constructive) and convincing more female racers to show
> up at the race? I can't speak for the promoter, but if half of the
> registered racers were female I don't think there would be any disparity in
> the payouts. I also would think a promoter might be open to a challenge
> (of you can help get 100 woman to register, even if that is less than half
> the field, they would provide equal payouts).
> A third idea would be to promote your own race and enjoy the criticism
> that comes with doing so.
>
> A final observation is that trickle down economics doesn't work. Giving
> tax breaks the wealthy doesn't create jobs. Likewise, I don't believe that
> there is any evidence that giving larger payouts to the women who do show
> up increases the level of female participation in the event (which I would
> hope would be what the real goal is here). Basically, show me the Cat 5
> women who are choosing not to do this race because they think the womens
> Cat 1/2/3 field isn't getting enough cash or show me anyone (male or
> female) who is in a conundrum about whether they should race bikes because
> of the size of the cash payouts.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>


Mike Murray

March 19, 2017 at 4:55 PM

Lisa asks:
"Is there any way we can make put something about this in the rule book?"

A first start would be to read the rulebook. The answer is pretty straight
forward. The first paragraph of the text is:

"Modification of these rules may be made by vote of the club
representatives, generally at an annual meeting. Proposed
rule changes shall be presented to OBRA in written form to be
voted on by the club representatives."

Purposing a rule is really simple. Mustering the votes to get it passed is
not much more difficult.

I would suggest when crafting a rule that significant consideration be given
to the inevitable unintended consequences of that rule. For example a rule
that states simply "Prize list for women's races shall be equal to
comparable category men's races" could easily have the effect of
significantly decreasing the number of races that elect to offer a women's
field or to have them offer only lower category women's field races. A rule
requiring there to be a women's field for every men's field could have a
seriously chilling effect on there being any bike races at all, given that
on the most current membership list women represent only 16% of the
membership. It would, of course be great if the membership numbers were more
50/50 but I doubt that this will occur simply by changing prize lists.

I should also point out that women already have a privileged position in
bike racing. There are functionally no "men's" races because of the rule:

"6.6.2 Women
Women may enter any race for which they are eligible by age,
category, and any performance requirements and may enter
categorized races for men that are up to one category lower than
their women���s category, or in the case of category 1 women, up to
two categories lower.

Category 1/2 master women can race with master men up to 10
years older and Category 3/4 master women can race with master
men up to 20 years older."

The opportunity to compete for prize lists for women exceeds the
opportunities available to men. It can only seem the other way around if one
buys into the idea that women have no hope when competing against men. Given
the number of women that do successfully compete against men, that idea
seems specious and, frankly, anti-feminist.

FWIW, I strongly agree with Bryant Howard who said:
"My question is why do we amateurs expect a "pay out"?"

There is no evidence that prize lists routinely effects participation
levels. Many race organizers spend a significant amount of their inevitably
limited time and energy on developing a prize list when it might be
considerably better for the sport if they put that effort towards other ways
to improve their event or (God forbid) make a profit to compensate them for
the work they do.

Mike Murray

-----Original Message-----
From: OBRA [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of Lisa via OBRA
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 20:15
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: [OBRA Chat] The Kings Valley Payout...

...disproportionately favors the men's fields.

What should I tell the grandkids? "Sorry girls, you're just not worth as
much?"

I'm thinking OBRAland can do better than reinforcing the inequity that's out
there in the regular world.

Is there any way we can make put something about this in the rule book?
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org


Rick Johnson

March 19, 2017 at 4:00 PM

And that's exactly my point - pointing out the absurdity of this entire
debate.

Rick Johnson
Bend, Oregon

On 3/19/2017 3:41 PM, LORI BRAULT wrote:
> That's an absurd question!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 19, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Rick Johnson via OBRA wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes life is not fair.
>>
>> I think the important question here is -
>> In this situation is there any intention to exploit anyone?
>>
>>
>> Rick Johnson
>> Bend, Oregon
>>
>>> On 3/19/2017 3:20 PM, Lisa via OBRA wrote:
>>> So then the question here is: Why do people act in ways that perpetuate inequity?
>>>
>>> If people ideologically like the idea of inequity, then the motivations for their actions are clear - their actions follow their ideology. But if people value equity, yet act in ways that perpetuate inequity, what can be done to change that? How do we create a more equitable cycling culture?
>>>
>>> In the case of an organization with rules, one way is to change the rules. I think we can make rules to promote a more equitable cycling culture without hurting OBRA or promoters. We have so many really great promoters, volunteers, and members. I'm pretty sure we can figure it out.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OBRA mailing list
>>> obra@list.obra.org
>>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org


Matt

March 19, 2017 at 3:50 PM

I have a couple of thoughts on this, but the first one would be that I hope you have already privately contacted the promoter, raised your concerns and considered their response before resorting to posting something on this message board. Promoting a race is a lot of work and I think we all owe the promoters our gratitude for putting on races for us and we also owe them the respect to contact them privately about concerns we may have about their events before we resort to what someone might call public shaming. There may be a time and place for that, but it is always after trying to work things out one-on-one.

I have an idea. How about the person criticizing the payouts writes a check to the promoter to cover any apparent disparity between the mens and womens payouts and then they can be equal?
I have another idea, how about instead of your solution being about how you can tell someone else how to spend their money (authoritarian), you work on outreach (constructive) and convincing more female racers to show up at the race? I can't speak for the promoter, but if half of the registered racers were female I don't think there would be any disparity in the payouts. I also would think a promoter might be open to a challenge (of you can help get 100 woman to register, even if that is less than half the field, they would provide equal payouts).
A third idea would be to promote your own race and enjoy the criticism that comes with doing so.

A final observation is that trickle down economics doesn't work. Giving tax breaks the wealthy doesn't create jobs. Likewise, I don't believe that there is any evidence that giving larger payouts to the women who do show up increases the level of female participation in the event (which I would hope would be what the real goal is here). Basically, show me the Cat 5 women who are choosing not to do this race because they think the womens Cat 1/2/3 field isn't getting enough cash or show me anyone (male or female) who is in a conundrum about whether they should race bikes because of the size of the cash payouts.


LORI BRAULT

March 19, 2017 at 3:41 PM

That's an absurd question!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 19, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Rick Johnson via OBRA wrote:
>
> Sometimes life is not fair.
>
> I think the important question here is -
> In this situation is there any intention to exploit anyone?
>
>
> Rick Johnson
> Bend, Oregon
>
>> On 3/19/2017 3:20 PM, Lisa via OBRA wrote:
>> So then the question here is: Why do people act in ways that perpetuate inequity?
>>
>> If people ideologically like the idea of inequity, then the motivations for their actions are clear - their actions follow their ideology. But if people value equity, yet act in ways that perpetuate inequity, what can be done to change that? How do we create a more equitable cycling culture?
>>
>> In the case of an organization with rules, one way is to change the rules. I think we can make rules to promote a more equitable cycling culture without hurting OBRA or promoters. We have so many really great promoters, volunteers, and members. I'm pretty sure we can figure it out.
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org


Rick Johnson

March 19, 2017 at 3:39 PM

Sometimes life is not fair.

I think the important question here is -
In this situation is there any intention to exploit anyone?

Rick Johnson
Bend, Oregon

On 3/19/2017 3:20 PM, Lisa via OBRA wrote:
> So then the question here is: Why do people act in ways that perpetuate inequity?
>
> If people ideologically like the idea of inequity, then the motivations for their actions are clear - their actions follow their ideology. But if people value equity, yet act in ways that perpetuate inequity, what can be done to change that? How do we create a more equitable cycling culture?
>
> In the case of an organization with rules, one way is to change the rules. I think we can make rules to promote a more equitable cycling culture without hurting OBRA or promoters. We have so many really great promoters, volunteers, and members. I'm pretty sure we can figure it out.
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org


Lisa

March 19, 2017 at 3:20 PM

So then the question here is: Why do people act in ways that perpetuate inequity?

If people ideologically like the idea of inequity, then the motivations for their actions are clear - their actions follow their ideology. But if people value equity, yet act in ways that perpetuate inequity, what can be done to change that? How do we create a more equitable cycling culture?

In the case of an organization with rules, one way is to change the rules. I think we can make rules to promote a more equitable cycling culture without hurting OBRA or promoters. We have so many really great promoters, volunteers, and members. I'm pretty sure we can figure it out.


ben

March 19, 2017 at 1:37 PM

If a promoter wants to do that, and it works for them... fine. I'm all for it. But to make it a requirement is only going to hurt the association.


ben

March 19, 2017 at 1:34 PM

What's the "fault" though? Is the prize payout still more than the entry fee? It's not costing anyone in a smaller category anything more than their entry fee to have a shot at winning a prize... there's no fault here.

Potential prize payout for categories should reflect the amount of money paid in... seems pretty equitable to me. If Men's Master 90 field only brings in $35 in revenue, with obviously substantially increased odds of placing higher and winning that prize money for any given competitor, why should the prize payout be the same as a field of 75+, with 75x the revenue and 1/75th the odds of winning it?

Likewise for the women's cats... many of which literally only have like 3, 5, 10 participants. I'd say if you want the prize money to go up, do your part for the sport and recruit.

We're already having enough problems keeping road racing alive to begin with.. I don't think this is the time or place or social theory/social justice experimentation.


Dan Grabski

March 19, 2017 at 1:21 PM

It's not the fault of the women racing for first place that there isn't the
same field size as the men's race.

Dan

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 09:07 Ben via OBRA wrote:

> What if it's proportionate to participation?
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>


Ben

March 19, 2017 at 8:57 AM

What if it's proportionate to participation?


Lisa

March 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM

...disproportionately favors the men's fields.

What should I tell the grandkids? "Sorry girls, you're just not worth as much?"

I'm thinking OBRAland can do better than reinforcing the inequity that's out there in the regular world.

Is there any way we can make put something about this in the rule book?