I got an idea... maybe I will quit supporting them by buying their silly $150 license. Some of us "pros" remember your USAC "chosen" ones... oh, wait they are serving suspensions or "retired" or still doping?! Oh, thanks for all those marathon worlds teams selections and offering to sell me a jersey to wear after I pay all my participation fees and travel to europe. Mr Johnson is just full of laughs isn't he?
Evan Plews
www.evanplews.com
503-949-4879
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 10:10:21 -0800
From: lug.junkie@gmail.com
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] USAC and OBRA
I love the idea of USAC "supporting" elite racers. I happen to remember a certain local 'cross racer having to stage fundraisers and sell stuff to raise the $1000 that USAC charges the elites for the honor of representing the United States at Worlds. USAC is just a for profit business that has a mandate to violate anti-trust laws and does just that. F- those guys.
Matt
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:11 AM, John Wilson wrote:
This is from Mike Murray. I asked him a similar question a few months ago as the OBRA Board was discussing this issue. Here are Mike's comments:
Begin:
Let me try to answer this, although I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.
USAC/UCI can't prohibit someone from entering a race but they can penalize them if they do. What they do is suspend them from further participation in USAC/UCI events. That cuts into the pros ability to make money, actually in both directions; they can't make money in non-USAC events and, if suspended, they can't make money at USAC events. Since USAC has the bigger show it trumps non-USAC races for pro's participation. In Europe this is basically a method of keeping pros out of amateur events, like a prohibition on MLB players participating in City League Softball. In the US pro and amateur races are mixed together in the same bag. In any other business this would be a restraint of trade issue and the entity that penalized someone from doing business with someone else would be subject to antitrust claims (which pay triple damages). In the case of Olympic sports the courts have held that the Ted Stevens Sports Act allows the NGB [National Governing Body] to establish rules that would otherwise be antitrust violations. Basically it would literally take an act of congress to change this. FIAC previously brought an antitrust suit against USAC on this subject and lost.
End:
John Wilson
-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of listbd@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 6:41 PM
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] USAC and OBRA
Is it really legal for UCI/USAC to prevent racers from participating outside their sanctioned events? Do the antitrust laws not apply here? (I know other sports specifically don't have antitrust protections, but is it the same for all sports?)
-Brian List
Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App
-----Original Message-----
From: rondot
To: joec, Scott Jones
Cc: obra, Candi Murray
Sent: 2012-12-28 23:36:34 +0000
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] USAC and OBRA
If USAC (Johnson or whoever) has the ability to not allow or penalize pro's racing our local races as well as not allow dual sanctioned races just let them do it. Let it go. The Pro have some outs as Adam Craig pointed out and if they are good enough to make money racing, can get their USAC and UCI license and follow that route.
It seems to me pretty stupid to not be able to pull something off like the USGP by simply having the people racing in the OBRA sanctioned races sign off on a legal form that stated their insurance was the OBRA insurance and not the USAC. You lawyers should be able to come up with an OBRA waiver that makes that clear! If that is not enough for USAC, let the USGP come to Oregon somewhere and have only 50-100 racers....if that works.
I am a huge supporter of bike racing when it is about giving people who want to try racing. The USAC mentality is based on elitism. They seem to view anyone who is not capable of racing at the highest levels as just another source of funds into USAC bank accounts. Face it USAC....your focus on supporting the very best racers only makes the larger number of racers feel like cattle. USAC should be using more of its funds and energy to encourage more and more people to race bikes and become more healthy instead of culling them out after taking their entry fee.
OBRA encourages people to live healthy caring lives, not trample (except our lovely Clydes) other racers at any cost for the win.
I salute those who took part in the multi-sport race mentioned in the article. I hope all our local pro level racers and the future ones that will enter that level will meet with success in their lives. We all know that having you guys and gals race local races does nothing but encourage the amateur riders. The UCI / USAC non-participation rule is beyond
selfish. It is about a type of greed called "control" of human lives. It
is extremist.
So have a nice day USAC, or in the holiday spirit....Happy New Year. OBRA will do just fine without your presence.
ron strasser
-----Original Message-----
From: joec@aracnet.com
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 2:24 PM
To: Scott Jones
Cc: obra@list.obra.org ; Candi.Murray@providence.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] USAC and OBRA
In laymen's terms it is called CYA Syndrome. He doesnt have a
reasonable
explanation, so it is much easier to pull crap from your behind and
*hope*
people buy it. Politicians do it routinely.
Joe
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:17:41 -0800, Scott Jones
wrote:
> Karl,
>> He says that because there really isn't a good reason to not allow
> dual sanctioning. Also, its called an excuse and a bad one at that.
>> I think Mr. Johnson needs to do some more research and crunch some
> numbers.
>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Karl Choltus wrote:
>> The term "more robust insurance" is vague.
>> Does he mean higher limits, broader language, lower deductibles, etc?
> If its higher limits, then USAC needs to prove that such limits are
> needed based on historical claims or other benchmarks for a one state
> organization.
>> The insurance seems to be USAC's primary argument which I believe we
> can refute by asking for a copy of their policy and proving that our
> policy is adequate for all events, no of riders etc. in Oregon.
>> Finally a contract between OBRA and USAC can easily address the issue
> of whose policy is primary for a " dual sanctioned event" when a claim
> does occur. I don't know why he says there would be confusion.
>> Karl
>> On Dec 28, 2012, at 7:53 PM, "cwherity@juno.com [2]" wrote:
>> Thanks Kenji for being there to respond and explain the OBRA's
> position to those who read the Velonew report. USA Cycling is not
> "really" concerned about those very few pro's competing in local
> events...there is something behind these actions they really don't
> want to say, as it would look greedy and self-serving...."USA
> Cycling’s Johnson counters that adherence to the rule is simply
> about respecting the international structure of the sport."...I guess
> grass roots, locally supported races don't have much to do with
> the "international structure of the sport". I call B*l*s*i*!
> (pardon my language). If it weren't for grass root local race talent
> developent...you wouldn't have the high quality international level
> races with those hometown hero's (oops, I mean pro's).
>> Chris
>> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: "Murray, Candi P"
> To: "obra@list.obra.org [5]"
> Subject: [OBRA Chat] USAC and OBRA
> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:30:24 -0800
>> Interesting reading
>>>> http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/12/news/usac-vs-obra-are-the-feds-growing-grass-roots-or-trampling-them_270056
> [7]
>>> -------------------------
>> This message is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and may
> contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
> disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee you are
> hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute to
> anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you
> have received this message in error, please immediately advise the
> sender by reply email and delete this message.
>> ____________________________________________________________
> WOMAN IS 53 BUT LOOKS 25
> Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
> ConsumerLifestyleMag.com [8]
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org [9]
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra [10]
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org [11]
>> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org [12]
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra [13]
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org [14]
>>>> Links:
> ------
> [1] mailto:choltus@msn.com
> [2] mailto:cwherity@juno.com
> [3] mailto:cwherity@juno.com
> [4] mailto:Candi.Murray@providence.org
> [5] mailto:obra@list.obra.org
> [6] mailto:obra@list.obra.org
> [7]
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/12/news/usac-vs-obra-are-the-feds-growing-grass-roots-or-trampling-them_270056
> [8]
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3132/50ddf903b7fb679031529st04duc
> [9] mailto:obra@list.obra.org
> [10] http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> [11] mailto:obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> [12] mailto:obra@list.obra.org
> [13] http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> [14] mailto: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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org