OBRA: OBRA Chat: USAC and the ACA: Local's V...

Mike Murray

2011-11-17

While I agree completely with Evan's suggestion to vote with your wallet I
have to point out that USAC has been granted the right to make rules that
would violate restraint of trade laws in other industries. Basically they
are telling people if you work for someone else you can't work at a USAC
associated venue. If you are a professional bike racer you should have a
right to work as a racer. USAC did not build their field of play. They
depended on local organizers to keep the sport going despite their
inhibitory influence. Regardless of that the best way you can send them a
message is to not send them your money. Do not buy a membership from them.
If you are a race organizer do not sanction races with them. If you are a
racer do not go to races sanctioned by them. If more people in other states
took this tack, as most in Oregon have, they would either have changed their
practices or have been replaced as the NGB for cycling by a more responsive
organization.

Mike Murray

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Evan Plews
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 15:17 PM
To: OBRA
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] USAC and the ACA: Local's View.

Racing one's bicycle is NOT a right. USAC built their field of play and they
have every right to make the rules. I for one have contributed far too many
$$$ and far too many years to their foolishness. However, who do I thank for
that? My own decisions and free will.

If you don't like the rules of engagement, use the powers granted to your by
our wonderful capitalistic system: vote with your wallet. I imagine it is
wonderfully entertaining for "greedy" entities like USAC to watch us all
line up and PAY to complain.

If you want to change the status quo, a simple vote with your hard earned
cash packs a powerful punch. Recent case in point: Netflix.

Ranting on the OBRA list may have be similar to camping in a public space...
take a perfectly legitimate complaint and turns it into a stinky,
destructive mess!

Just a thought...

Evan Plews

www.evanplews.com

503-949-4879

> From: steveandalli@bendcable.com
> To: kenji@obra.org; manunkynd@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:21:25 -0800
> CC: obra@list.obra.org
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] USAC and the ACA: Local's View.
>
> Kenji,
> I've been sitting on this but given this exchange, I have to pile on. As
an
> example of the absurdity, my son booked a flight from Bend to Madison
> (non-refundable of course) for the CX Nats thinking like the last two
years
> he could race in the collegiate category for Central Oregon Community
> College (COCC) where he placed 15th last year. It turns out that the NWCCC

> bike conference had some rule changes this year unbeknownst to us and it
> turns out any collegiate rider in the NW conference needs 2 qualifying
races
> in the conference to be allowed to register for Nats. Well guess what,
> where are all those conference races? Yes, the Inland NW Series was the
one
> chosen for the conference which are all a day's drive from Bend, let alone

> Corvallis or Eugene.
>
> So to even do one race which is all USAC requires versus the NWCCC's new
> rules, he needs to get to Coeur d'Alene this weekend to race against maybe

> the 2 to 3 A riders that show up. That's an 800-mile 16-hour drive for a
> 55-minute race for a young man that chooses to not drive or have a license

> and rides his bike everywhere. The NWCCC and USAC commented to him via
> email that rules are in place to grow the sport and be fair and reasonable

> to all the college teams. They will not grant him a waiver. Right, fair
> and reasonable to whom? Certainly not any Oregon riders that have to
travel
> so far out of state not once but twice to qualify.
>
> Here's the quote from USAC:
>
> "The season participation requirement is in place in every conference with
a
> cyclocross season, and is essential to building a conference cyclocross
> season that is sustainable long term. It ensures that riders going to
> nationals are committed to collegiate cycling and that races offering
> collegiate categories are supported so that in the future, we can have a
> full-fledged collegiate cyclocross season in the NWCCC much like we do for

> the road...I appreciate that it's a long drive for a short race, but the
> rule must be enforced as evenly as possible to ensure fairness to all
riders
> in the conference, as well as nationally."
>
> So yes, a majority of OBRA riders are not penalized by this USAC business
> model, but there are quite a few young riders that are. After 11 years of
> racing, I think my son is pretty "committed" to the sport. Very
> frustrating.
>
> Steve Jorgensen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: T. Kenji Sugahara
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:44 PM
> To: William
> Cc: obra@list.obra.org
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] USAC and the ACA: Local's View.
>
> Simply put- it's not going to happen in the near future.
>
> Why? There are multiple reasons.
>
> For riders-
>
> USAC licenses are $60. If you want to race both Mountain Bike and
> Road the license goes up to $90. Juniors are $30. One day licenses
> are $10.
>
> OBRA annual licenses are $20 if purchased online, $25 if by paper.
> Cyclocross only licenses are $10 online and $15 by paper. There is no
> additional charge to race both mountain bike and road. Junior
> licenses are $5 for annual licenses. Juniors are free for Cyclocross
> only licenses. One day licenses are $5.
>
> We are successful because our barriers to entry are low. We believe
> that the more racers that try the sport and get into it, the better.
> Our focus is on grassroots. I'll tell you straight up- I think their
> business model needs improvement.
>
> USAC charges promoters $3.25 per rider for insurance alone.
>
> OBRA charges promoters $1.25 for insurance. $0.50 per rider for
> equipment. $0.60 per rider as an OBRA surcharge (to cover
> administration, website, etc).
>
> Some complain that entry fees are high. If there were a theoretical
> reintegration you would likely see entry fees go even higher.
>
> We have been nothing but accommodating and have extended a hand to
> USAC. We have been nothing but gracious.
>
> What have we done?
>
> We've paid for officials to become officials with USAC.
> We've helped pay for some key officials to get their A license.
> We've helped put on the NW USAC Development Camps by providing equipment.
> We've provided scholarships to juniors to attend the USAC development
camp.
> We've provided equipment for nationals.
> We provide equipment to collegiate races that are governed by USAC.
>
> I've personally volunteered at the NW USAC development camps in the past.
> I've spoken highly of USAC having national championships in Bend.
> I communicate with the CEO and COO on occasion and have been nothing
> but cordial and complimentary- even complimenting them on what I see
> as improvements.
>
> This is all factual.
>
> We don't need to do any of those things but we chose to, to work with
> USAC. They see us as an enemy. I saw them as a partner. I used to
> see it as- the more successful they were, the more successful we would
> be come and vice versa. I mean, aren't we supposed to be on the same
> side? I thought the mission of USAC was to promote cycling. We have
> the most successful bike racing organization in the United States. We
> have more riders per capita than any other state. If we were to
> become a local association, we would have the first or second largest
> local association by membership in the US.
>
> Yet, USAC leadership has had the gall to blame OBRA for all the
> problems. While I keep an open mind about talking about an eventual
> return, actions like these make a return even less likely.
>
> Our officials are looked down upon with attitudes as if we "don't have
> any rules." Like it's the wild west. Yet we have the some of the
> best and most experienced officials in the US. Period. We have the
> absolute best cyclocross scoring teams in the nation. And I dare
> anyone to say their's is better.
>
> We have been producing some stars. Look at Jake Rathe, look at Ian
> Boswell, look at Decker, look at Mansker, look at Tracy and we have a
> boatload of new juniors coming up through the ranks. This is a
> testament to the quality of our people.
>
> I really enjoy and get along with a lot of the folks at USAC. But
> recent developments have thrown me for a loop. It makes me scratch my
> head and go "really?". Suspending a rider for racing Cherry Blossom?
> C'mon- not counting OBRA races for USAC upgrades? All that does is
> hurt riders. It hurts the developing rider. While it affects only a
> small number of riders, they are still an important part of our
> community.
>
> Not counting races is short sighted. Instead of looking at the big
> picture they are focused on things they shouldn't be.
>
> I will always try to look to create a positive relationship with USA
> Cycling, but I am getting frustrated by this apparent effort to hurt
> us as an organization. I mean- why?
>
> I am proud to be part of such an amazing organization as OBRA. We are
> truly lucky to have such a great community- and that's the main reason
> why we are who we are.
>
> So racers, promoters, officials, volunteers, significant others,
> everyone- thank you for making our little piece of racing the best
> place on earth.
>
> k-
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:28 AM, William wrote:
> > Since OBRA is going through some of the same issues as CO's cycling
> > governing body, thought I would share this article:
> >
> > http://theroadtocat1.com/2011/11/16/local-politics-the-aca-vs-usac/
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kenji Sugahara
> Executive Director
> Oregon Bicycle Racing Association
> Phone: 503-278-5550
> http://www.obra.org
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1872 / Virus Database: 2092/4620 - Release Date: 11/16/11
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_____

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1869 / Virus Database: 2092/4613 - Release Date: 11/12/11

Mike Murray

2011-11-17

OBRA has not upgraded to Cat 1 because OBRA was still functioning under a
reciprocity agreement with USAC that allowed them to review any upgrade to
Cat 1. This agreement also allowed riders to use points at OBRA races for
upgrades. USAC has now unilaterally walked away from this agreement. I
suspect that OBRA will now do upgrades to Cat 1 without USAC review as there
is no point in OBRA honoring an agreement with USAC that USAC has vacated.

The most important point is this is all USAC's decision. There has been no
decision by OBRA to be non-cooperative.

Mike Murray

-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Ryan Carlson
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 15:14 PM
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] USAC and the ACA: Local's View.

This year I scored enough points (32) to upgrade to Cat. 1. When I requested
an upgrade from OBRA, I learned they don't provide upgrades to Cat. 1 (even
though there are criteria on the website) and I needed to contact USAC.
After doing so, I was basically told by USAC that OBRA points don't
count--end of story. My request was run up the USAC flagpole. I emphasized
that I was a USAC member and some of the points were earned at Cascade in
the Cat. 2-only field. No dice. My experience is that the USAC no longer
employs much if any discretion toward OBRA members. I believe their stance
has moved from neutral to active prohibition in hopes of eradication. I am
dismayed that the USAC chooses to discriminate against members who support
it. I have no ambition/ability to take my racing beyond a hobby, but for
those with lofty goals, happy traveling.
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1869 / Virus Database: 2092/4613 - Release Date: 11/12/11

Evan Plews

2011-11-16

Racing one's bicycle is NOT a right. USAC built their field of play and they have every right to make the rules. I for one have contributed far too many $$$ and far too many years to their foolishness. However, who do I thank for that? My own decisions and free will.
If you don't like the rules of engagement, use the powers granted to your by our wonderful capitalistic system: vote with your wallet. I imagine it is wonderfully entertaining for "greedy" entities like USAC to watch us all line up and PAY to complain.
If you want to change the status quo, a simple vote with your hard earned cash packs a powerful punch. Recent case in point: Netflix.
Ranting on the OBRA list may have be similar to camping in a public space... take a perfectly legitimate complaint and turns it into a stinky, destructive mess!
Just a thought...

Evan Plews
www.evanplews.com
503-949-4879

> From: steveandalli@bendcable.com
> To: kenji@obra.org; manunkynd@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:21:25 -0800
> CC: obra@list.obra.org
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] USAC and the ACA: Local's View.
>
> Kenji,
> I've been sitting on this but given this exchange, I have to pile on. As an
> example of the absurdity, my son booked a flight from Bend to Madison
> (non-refundable of course) for the CX Nats thinking like the last two years
> he could race in the collegiate category for Central Oregon Community
> College (COCC) where he placed 15th last year. It turns out that the NWCCC
> bike conference had some rule changes this year unbeknownst to us and it
> turns out any collegiate rider in the NW conference needs 2 qualifying races
> in the conference to be allowed to register for Nats. Well guess what,
> where are all those conference races? Yes, the Inland NW Series was the one
> chosen for the conference which are all a day's drive from Bend, let alone
> Corvallis or Eugene.
>
> So to even do one race which is all USAC requires versus the NWCCC's new
> rules, he needs to get to Coeur d'Alene this weekend to race against maybe
> the 2 to 3 A riders that show up. That's an 800-mile 16-hour drive for a
> 55-minute race for a young man that chooses to not drive or have a license
> and rides his bike everywhere. The NWCCC and USAC commented to him via
> email that rules are in place to grow the sport and be fair and reasonable
> to all the college teams. They will not grant him a waiver. Right, fair
> and reasonable to whom? Certainly not any Oregon riders that have to travel
> so far out of state not once but twice to qualify.
>
> Here's the quote from USAC:
>
> "The season participation requirement is in place in every conference with a
> cyclocross season, and is essential to building a conference cyclocross
> season that is sustainable long term. It ensures that riders going to
> nationals are committed to collegiate cycling and that races offering
> collegiate categories are supported so that in the future, we can have a
> full-fledged collegiate cyclocross season in the NWCCC much like we do for
> the road...I appreciate that it

Ryan Carlson

2011-11-16

This year I scored enough points (32) to upgrade to Cat. 1. When I requested an upgrade from OBRA, I learned they don't provide upgrades to Cat. 1 (even though there are criteria on the website) and I needed to contact USAC. After doing so, I was basically told by USAC that OBRA points don't count--end of story. My request was run up the USAC flagpole. I emphasized that I was a USAC member and some of the points were earned at Cascade in the Cat. 2-only field. No dice. My experience is that the USAC no longer employs much if any discretion toward OBRA members. I believe their stance has moved from neutral to active prohibition in hopes of eradication. I am dismayed that the USAC chooses to discriminate against members who support it. I have no ambition/ability to take my racing beyond a hobby, but for those with lofty goals, happy traveling.

Steve and Alli

2011-11-16

Kenji,
I've been sitting on this but given this exchange, I have to pile on. As an
example of the absurdity, my son booked a flight from Bend to Madison
(non-refundable of course) for the CX Nats thinking like the last two years
he could race in the collegiate category for Central Oregon Community
College (COCC) where he placed 15th last year. It turns out that the NWCCC
bike conference had some rule changes this year unbeknownst to us and it
turns out any collegiate rider in the NW conference needs 2 qualifying races
in the conference to be allowed to register for Nats. Well guess what,
where are all those conference races? Yes, the Inland NW Series was the one
chosen for the conference which are all a day's drive from Bend, let alone
Corvallis or Eugene.

So to even do one race which is all USAC requires versus the NWCCC's new
rules, he needs to get to Coeur d'Alene this weekend to race against maybe
the 2 to 3 A riders that show up. That's an 800-mile 16-hour drive for a
55-minute race for a young man that chooses to not drive or have a license
and rides his bike everywhere. The NWCCC and USAC commented to him via
email that rules are in place to grow the sport and be fair and reasonable
to all the college teams. They will not grant him a waiver. Right, fair
and reasonable to whom? Certainly not any Oregon riders that have to travel
so far out of state not once but twice to qualify.

Here's the quote from USAC:

"The season participation requirement is in place in every conference with a
cyclocross season, and is essential to building a conference cyclocross
season that is sustainable long term. It ensures that riders going to
nationals are committed to collegiate cycling and that races offering
collegiate categories are supported so that in the future, we can have a
full-fledged collegiate cyclocross season in the NWCCC much like we do for
the road...I appreciate that it’s a long drive for a short race, but the
rule must be enforced as evenly as possible to ensure fairness to all riders
in the conference, as well as nationally."

So yes, a majority of OBRA riders are not penalized by this USAC business
model, but there are quite a few young riders that are. After 11 years of
racing, I think my son is pretty "committed" to the sport. Very
frustrating.

Steve Jorgensen

-----Original Message-----
From: T. Kenji Sugahara
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:44 PM
To: William
Cc: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] USAC and the ACA: Local's View.

Simply put- it's not going to happen in the near future.

Why? There are multiple reasons.

For riders-

USAC licenses are $60. If you want to race both Mountain Bike and
Road the license goes up to $90. Juniors are $30. One day licenses
are $10.

OBRA annual licenses are $20 if purchased online, $25 if by paper.
Cyclocross only licenses are $10 online and $15 by paper. There is no
additional charge to race both mountain bike and road. Junior
licenses are $5 for annual licenses. Juniors are free for Cyclocross
only licenses. One day licenses are $5.

We are successful because our barriers to entry are low. We believe
that the more racers that try the sport and get into it, the better.
Our focus is on grassroots. I'll tell you straight up- I think their
business model needs improvement.

USAC charges promoters $3.25 per rider for insurance alone.

OBRA charges promoters $1.25 for insurance. $0.50 per rider for
equipment. $0.60 per rider as an OBRA surcharge (to cover
administration, website, etc).

Some complain that entry fees are high. If there were a theoretical
reintegration you would likely see entry fees go even higher.

We have been nothing but accommodating and have extended a hand to
USAC. We have been nothing but gracious.

What have we done?

We've paid for officials to become officials with USAC.
We've helped pay for some key officials to get their A license.
We've helped put on the NW USAC Development Camps by providing equipment.
We've provided scholarships to juniors to attend the USAC development camp.
We've provided equipment for nationals.
We provide equipment to collegiate races that are governed by USAC.

I've personally volunteered at the NW USAC development camps in the past.
I've spoken highly of USAC having national championships in Bend.
I communicate with the CEO and COO on occasion and have been nothing
but cordial and complimentary- even complimenting them on what I see
as improvements.

This is all factual.

We don't need to do any of those things but we chose to, to work with
USAC. They see us as an enemy. I saw them as a partner. I used to
see it as- the more successful they were, the more successful we would
be come and vice versa. I mean, aren't we supposed to be on the same
side? I thought the mission of USAC was to promote cycling. We have
the most successful bike racing organization in the United States. We
have more riders per capita than any other state. If we were to
become a local association, we would have the first or second largest
local association by membership in the US.

Yet, USAC leadership has had the gall to blame OBRA for all the
problems. While I keep an open mind about talking about an eventual
return, actions like these make a return even less likely.

Our officials are looked down upon with attitudes as if we "don't have
any rules." Like it's the wild west. Yet we have the some of the
best and most experienced officials in the US. Period. We have the
absolute best cyclocross scoring teams in the nation. And I dare
anyone to say their's is better.

We have been producing some stars. Look at Jake Rathe, look at Ian
Boswell, look at Decker, look at Mansker, look at Tracy and we have a
boatload of new juniors coming up through the ranks. This is a
testament to the quality of our people.

I really enjoy and get along with a lot of the folks at USAC. But
recent developments have thrown me for a loop. It makes me scratch my
head and go "really?". Suspending a rider for racing Cherry Blossom?
C'mon- not counting OBRA races for USAC upgrades? All that does is
hurt riders. It hurts the developing rider. While it affects only a
small number of riders, they are still an important part of our
community.

Not counting races is short sighted. Instead of looking at the big
picture they are focused on things they shouldn't be.

I will always try to look to create a positive relationship with USA
Cycling, but I am getting frustrated by this apparent effort to hurt
us as an organization. I mean- why?

I am proud to be part of such an amazing organization as OBRA. We are
truly lucky to have such a great community- and that's the main reason
why we are who we are.

So racers, promoters, officials, volunteers, significant others,
everyone- thank you for making our little piece of racing the best
place on earth.

k-

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:28 AM, William wrote:
> Since OBRA is going through some of the same issues as CO's cycling
> governing body, thought I would share this article:
>
> http://theroadtocat1.com/2011/11/16/local-politics-the-aca-vs-usac/
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>

--
Kenji Sugahara
Executive Director
Oregon Bicycle Racing Association
Phone: 503-278-5550
http://www.obra.org
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1872 / Virus Database: 2092/4620 - Release Date: 11/16/11

Kevin

2011-11-16

Politics, politics. Yuck. I'm throwing my support behind Kenji, I've never seen him have anything but the best interests of cycling at heart.

T. Kenji Sugahara