# What has to happen for the US to be more competitive in track?



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

Sarah Hammer had a pretty good WC. Maddie Godby and Cristin Walker are young and learning. The men's side seems to need something to bring it up to British levels. 

What steps would you take?


----------



## JustTooBig (Aug 11, 2005)

any steps would require a decent influx of money. There's no real identification/development program, no incentive for juniors to stay involved in track racing, and little incentive for -- even successful -- trackies to stay put and improve on the track. Sarah Hammer is a good example; how many people outside of the few that follow track racing have even heard of her name? A roadie with her palmares would be making nice bank. 

heck, any of the team members of a conti team makes a helluva lot more $ than a nat or even world champ (from the US) on the track.

the brits put a LOT of $$ into developing their track cyclists. Until the US follows suit, we'll always be trying -- not too successfully -- to stay on their wheel.


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

_i would like to preface by saying i know little to nothing about track cycling._
like JTB said, follow the money. this also means not just develoment, but pay. you get more money from sponsors for road and mtb than track, mostly because they can take those shows on the road.

not to mention those teams are more international than track. look at the big track events: dominated by teams based on nationality.


----------



## GearDaddy (Apr 1, 2004)

Yes, money. Really, there are similarities to cyclocross here as well, i.e. the only help for those interested in international competition comes from USAC, which is a pittance. It's worse for track because there are so few facilities for training. So again, money.

The American cycling pie is small. Talented riders will go towards the events that pay off, and that's road cycling for the most part. Heck, there is talent out there that isn't going into cycling at all as we all know. I know some of the serious trackies around here, and they work hard, but it's all them.

We've got a good track here in Minnesota, which we were lucky to get 25 years ago as part of building the National Sports Center (mostly hockey rinks and soccer fields). Well, it's an outdoor track and it's aging. Some think we may not have it anymore in 10 years. Lots of brainstorms of putting a building around it, or even moving it somewhere else, but noone's got the $$$. If it was indoors, I am certain it would get more use.


----------



## shomyoface (Nov 24, 2007)

Track cycling used to be the #2 sport (after baseball) in the country - then fell apart. It's correct about the money, USA (and other countries) excel in sports where there is a large amount of public and private money - USA swimming, track and field etc. Look at GB's athletics program, money was reduced and the program fell apart, and the sports that received the finding (swimming and cycling) exploded. Canada have been suffering over recent years, the money dried up and their performances deteriorated.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

More local tracks would help. There would need to be more televised track events, too.

Hell, I didn't really even know there was such a thing as track cycling until after I started road racing.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

I think track racing actually has a lot more obtainable potential here than road or even crit. Simply because it's a small venue, spectators can see the whole race, fields are small so individuals are easier to track, and the races are short and fast to suit American attention spans.

The problem is, IMO, there are very few smart marketers / empresario's in US cycling. I mean, if you have the mind and abilities to promote a big high-profile event, you will be much better rewarded in some other sport than cycling. Follow the money applies to promoters, too.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

#1 Indoor tracks. Almost all tracks in the country are outdoor and it goes against the typical international schedule. Most US athletes are winding down their schedule when the world cups start.

#2 Better talent identification and development. Any good track racer can usually make more money on the road, which is why you see Wiggins, Cav, Bos, Stuey, etc make the switch. GB and Aus have shown that developing talent young yields benefits on the track and on the road. 

#3 A national series similar to the USGP of CX. I don't think you need to target TV or world cups right out of the gate. Track racing is FUN to watch, similar to CX, and people need to know the basics of racing before its plastered all over the television. The built in edge track cycling has is a fully built TV program once every 4 years at the Olympics. If there were enough grassroots support, NBC would love to push a few hours of TV time, especially if there were a US face to cheer on. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was decent Olympic coverage back when Marty Nothstein was winning.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

kbiker3111 said:


> there was decent Olympic coverage back when Marty Nothstein was winning.


Sure, same with Armstrong, even Lemond. TV loves the individual story. But, that gets us back to the chicken and egg of how to grow more talent... and anyway it's not a sound basis for a biz model, by itself. 

It's often said that NASCAR is a good comparison to bike racing. Similar financial / org structures etc. 

NASCAR uses tracks. Spectators pay admission. Stories about personalities drive the drama. Sponsors pay the big bills. 

Cycling could learn a lot from that.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Creakyknees said:


> Sure, same with Armstrong, even Lemond. TV loves the individual story. But, that gets us back to the chicken and egg of how to grow more talent... and anyway it's not a sound basis for a biz model, by itself.
> 
> It's often said that NASCAR is a good comparison to bike racing. Similar financial / org structures etc.
> 
> ...


I completely agree. Why does the US try to force the stage racer/GT role when there is little to no interest in hosting or watching those races stateside? 

GB is a good example: no big races, a country enamored with other sports (football), so they used public money in the most effective way, the relatively low fruit of the Olympic track program. In addition to a boatload of medals, the British Academy has also produced a GC rider (Wiggins), a world class sprinter (Cav), and a couple potential classics riders (Thomas and apparently Andy Fenn).


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

OK. So we've got more money. 

Build more tracks. What kind - specifically? Do we build more "neighborhood" outdoor tracks like Australia and get a larger number of kids involved, or do we build bigger more elite/exclusive indoor facilities like ADT in big cities across the nation? 

My guess is that the indoor facilities are more desirable given that the UCI has placed Track competitions in the winter months. The pros can race road in the summer and track in the winter. 

What about allowing betting like Japan does on the Keirin? 

Although competition is in the summer, one place that seems to do it right is T-Town. Friday night races with the pros and the stands are packed with people eating hot dogs and drinking beer. There are VIP tents and infield passes.


----------



## GearDaddy (Apr 1, 2004)

kbiker3111 said:


> I completely agree. Why does the US try to force the stage racer/GT role when there is little to no interest in hosting or watching those races stateside?
> 
> GB is a good example: no big races, a country enamored with other sports (football), so they used public money in the most effective way, the relatively low fruit of the Olympic track program. In addition to a boatload of medals, the British Academy has also produced a GC rider (Wiggins), a world class sprinter (Cav), and a couple potential classics riders (Thomas and apparently Andy Fenn).


The US of A is not GB. America is about free enterprise baby. Athletes getting support for the Olympics? Plpphhhht! Maybe they will spring for an airplane ticket, but the rest is on you. Do it the American way, i.e. get thee some sponsors.

Road cycling is more attractive because it leads to getting on a team that will go race in Europe, and then you will actually have a chance at making a living. Track gets a small USAC stipend because it's an Olympic sport. Cyclocross isn't an Olympic sport, so they are SOL.

What track cycling (or any cycling in the U.S.) needs is a business model. Unfortunately, USAC in many ways works against cycling "development", but don't get me started ...


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

In the US even most serious cycling is driven by middle aged folks looking to get or stay in shape. That's the "growth" portion of the USCF membership pool. In that environment track cycling really has no hook for the consumer, so the chances of attracting any significant money or interest are slim.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

How many high schools in the US have any sort of competitive cycling program, road, mountain or track? How many high school students want to bike when they can drive?
We've got a lot more potential NASCAR athletes than we do cycling.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

GearDaddy said:


> The US of A is not GB. America is about free enterprise baby. Athletes getting support for the Olympics? Plpphhhht! Maybe they will spring for an airplane ticket, but the rest is on you. Do it the American way, i.e. get thee some sponsors.



Right, cuz there isn't any money in the US Olympic program.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

I asked this question to a pro rider I was riding with recently, a guy who goes back and forth from road to track, and he said the changes to the 2012 Olympic track program (eliminating individual pursuit and scratch) make track basically out of reach for a pro US rider. They need to support themselves by racing on the road, but the remaining track events all require full commitment to the track (e.g., omnium). He said you can't part time it and expect to be competitive with the likes of the UK and Australia, who seriously invest in their program and riders. Both those programs receive a lot of funding from government (UK sport and Australian Sports Commission).


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

Is the lack of money related to the lack of interest in track cycling? If the public doesn't care for it, sponsors wont invest. I know a lot of big fans of cycling, I don't know anyone who actually cares about track cycling (apart from the end of Paris-Roubaix), it's very boring to watch to most and the significant others don't have the nice scenery to watch. I compare it to Nascar but not for it's buisness plan, for the boring aspect of turning in a circle and the crappy settings. Some pointed that, like in Nascar, it's only worth watching in the hope that there are crashes... Not saying it's 100% like that or that it should be... but a lot of people, even people who know cycling a lot, think so.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Dan Gerous said:


> it's very boring to watch to most and the significant others don't have the nice scenery to watch.


I don't know if this is true. I took my 60yo mother to a track race and its the most fun she's had. She doesn't know a thing about bicycles and has begrudgingly come to races with me in the past but this was the first time she asked when we could go back.


----------



## shomyoface (Nov 24, 2007)

GearDaddy said:


> The US of A is not GB. America is about free enterprise baby. Athletes getting support for the Olympics? Plpphhhht! Maybe they will spring for an airplane ticket, but the rest is on you. Do it the American way, i.e. get thee some sponsors.


There is more public/governmental money in US sports than anywhere else in the world. There just isn't much being spent on cycling........but for swimming, athletics, football, baseball, etc there are millions, if not billions.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

shomyoface said:


> There is more public/governmental money in US sports than anywhere else in the world. There just isn't much being spent on cycling........but for swimming, athletics, football, baseball, etc there are millions, if not billions.


reality check. US Olympic athletes and 2 other countries are the only ones in the world that do not receive ANY government funding. They must generate financial support from private sources (sponsorships and compete with pro sports for it). The USOC receives 0 financial support from government.

The US mens water polo team is training near where I live to prepare for the Olympics. Many are living with host families, they train at a nearby high school, people from the area make meals for them, etc. They scrape together whatever they can to train.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*except*



AdamM said:


> In the US even most serious cycling is driven by middle aged folks looking to get or stay in shape. That's the "growth" portion of the USCF membership pool. In that environment track cycling really has no hook for the consumer, so the chances of attracting any significant money or interest are slim.


some of those middle agers have kids

my daughter is 8, she will start taking track classes this spring at our local 'drome

this is where it can possibly change

another girl who came up through our local program is Jr World Champion Jen Valente

Sarah Hammer races at our track often (or at least she used to)


----------



## pigpen (Sep 28, 2005)

I have been in competitive cycling since I was 10 starting with BMX, road, MTB and Cross for over 30 years.
I have yet to see a velodrome in person. 
Would love to introduce some structured racing to my children as well as participate myself. NO tracks anywhere close. Well there is an old track 2 1/2 hours away.

To make it work we need local smaller tracks to allow children to have a chance to get intrested.
There has been discussions with the local shops trying to get one built but it seems more like a pipe dream when I listen to them.


----------



## GearDaddy (Apr 1, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> some of those middle agers have kids
> 
> my daughter is 8, she will start taking track classes this spring at our local 'drome
> 
> ...


Good for you. It seems like this is the only successful model for development that I ever see. Of the local riders that I've seen excel, the story is usually the same, i.e. their success in large part is due to the overwhelming support from their parents. No doubt these kids have talent, but without their parents passion, knowledge, and experience in cycling and the financial resources to make it happen, they would have never made it as far as they did.


----------



## Zipp0 (Aug 19, 2008)

Track cycling is boring? Really? I disagree.

Maybe we need to do what they do in Japan - bet on it. If you set up wagering windows at Trexlertown, track would quickly go from fringe to mainstream. And you would be able to have pretty nice purses from the racers as well.

Why should horses get all the glory?


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

USOC alone has an Olympic cycle budget over $600 million. Thats in addition to the Subway Sandwiches Apollo Ohno sells. You're right most of it is sponsor money, but its still a ton of cash.


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

GearDaddy said:


> Good for you. It seems like this is the only successful model for development that I ever see. Of the local riders that I've seen excel, the story is usually the same, i.e. their success in large part is due to the overwhelming support from their parents. No doubt these kids have talent, but without their parents passion, knowledge, and experience in cycling and the financial resources to make it happen, they would have never made it as far as they did.


Its a model, but I'm not sure it is successful. It is more of the same.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Track cycling is an expensive sport for amateurs to get into. I live near enough to Marymoor to ride there, but it is _not_ cheap. Compared to basketball (as a reference to mainstream sports), or even road racing, the buy-in for giving track racing a try is huge.

I read on wiki somewhere that amateur races in Belgium are like 6 euro. Its the chicken or the egg, you need broad involvement to get the prices low enough to attract a broad group of people.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

foto said:


> Track cycling is an expensive sport for amateurs to get into. I live near enough to Marymoor to ride there, but it is _not_ cheap. Compared to basketball (as a reference to mainstream sports), or even road racing, the buy-in for giving track racing a try is huge.
> 
> I read on wiki somewhere that amateur races in Belgium are like 6 euro. Its the chicken or the egg, you need broad involvement to get the prices low enough to attract a broad group of people.



Actually the buy in is way way cheaper than road cycling if the kid is coming from something like BMX - almost all tracks have a fleet or rentals and the race fees are way cheaper than road races fees not to mention you get to race more than once in the day. Now compaired to basketball and the like yes the fact that you can practice at the local playground is a big limiter for kids.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

32and3cross said:


> Actually the buy in is way way cheaper than road cycling if the kid is coming from something like BMX - almost all tracks have a fleet or rentals and the race fees are way cheaper than road races fees not to mention you get to race more than once in the day. Now compaired to basketball and the like yes the fact that you can practice at the local playground is a big limiter for kids.


Ok, fair enough, I guess I am talking about my singular situation--already having a road bike.

Trying out road racing cost me $10 for the mid-week practice crit. Trying out cross costs 10-15 to roll up on a mountain bike and go for it. Trying out track racing costs $50 for the class, a USAC license ($10 for one day), an MVA membership ($10 for one day), and bike rentals ($15 for one day) before I can show up and pay the $15 entry fee and try out track racing. That's a total of $100 upfront just to get your feet wet.

I know supporting racing isn't cheap, I am not complaining, I am just suggesting why track might be the fringe of a fringe here.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Wow, they charge you for a rental on your first day? Lame.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

kbiker3111 said:


> USOC alone has an Olympic cycle budget over $600 million. Thats in addition to the Subway Sandwiches Apollo Ohno sells. You're right most of it is sponsor money, but its still a ton of cash.


The entire USOC operating budget was $190M in 201 - not just for cycling but everything (including paralympics, winter, summer). Most of that comes from tv rights. To put it in perspective, that's not much more than what a major university's athletic budget (like Ohio State).


----------



## shomyoface (Nov 24, 2007)

stevesbike said:


> reality check. US Olympic athletes and 2 other countries are the only ones in the world that do not receive ANY government funding. They must generate financial support from private sources (sponsorships and compete with pro sports for it). The USOC receives 0 financial support from government.
> 
> The US mens water polo team is training near where I live to prepare for the Olympics. Many are living with host families, they train at a nearby high school, people from the area make meals for them, etc. They scrape together whatever they can to train.


Reality check back at ya.....I attended a US public university who provided me with a swimming scholarship, from which I competed in the 1988 Olympic Games. State universities receive funding from the government (perhaps not directly to sports scholarships) which provides an environment for elite athletes to train and attend college. No other country in the world provides an elite environment like the NCAA collegiate system. Fifteen colleges do provide this system for cycling (Marian, Leas-McRae) but are private institutions and do not support my argument of public money supporting Olympic athlete development.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

shomyoface said:


> Reality check back at ya.....I attended a US public university who provided me with a swimming scholarship, from which I competed in the 1988 Olympic Games. State universities receive funding from the government (perhaps not directly to sports scholarships) which provides an environment for elite athletes to train and attend college. No other country in the world provides an elite environment like the NCAA collegiate system. Fifteen colleges do provide this system for cycling (Marian, Leas-McRae) but are private institutions and do not support my argument of public money supporting Olympic athlete development.


lots of other countries provide an elite athletic collegiate system - Australia is a good example. That doesn't stop them from providing funding to programs/athletes that are not supported/funded by the collegiate system. There are a lot of Olympic sports that are not represented by collegiate athletes (woman's gymnastics is a good example). The 'public' money to support US public university sports is increasingly taking the form of excessive student fees, which is adding to individual student debt.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Cycling is not a NCAA sport, as far as I know. All financial support for collegiate racing comes from whatever sponsorship a team can attract and the rest falls on the participants to cover.

If you have the talent to be a pro athlete in the US, why oh why would you go into cycling?


----------



## 1793red (Feb 7, 2011)

shomyoface said:


> Track cycling used to be the #2 sport (after baseball) in the country - then fell apart. It's correct about the money, USA (and other countries) excel in sports where there is a large amount of public and private money - USA swimming, track and field etc. Look at GB's athletics program, money was reduced and the program fell apart, and the sports that received the finding (swimming and cycling) exploded. Canada have been suffering over recent years, the money dried up and their performances deteriorated.


Guess you didn't see the 2012 london world cup, eh?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

MTB may actually be the best way to grow the sport. One of our local racer-promoters has been pouring a TON of personal time and money into the Texas High School Mountain Bike League. 

Texas

The idea is, get HS kids involved, using whatever bikes they already have (lots of kids have a crappy mtb to start with). 

I like the idea and have been supporting it in small ways (donations).


----------



## gordy748 (Feb 11, 2007)

*These are the droids you are looking for*



foto said:


> Cycling is not a NCAA sport, as far as I know. All financial support for collegiate racing comes from whatever sponsorship a team can attract and the rest falls on the participants to cover.
> 
> If you have the talent to be a pro athlete in the US, why oh why would you go into cycling?


+1 (x 10 to the power of a large number)

American sports is handled very differently from most of the rest of the world. In, say, UK or Australia, a promising athlete is identified at school or local sports competitions, where they are funneled into their relevant sports academy (UK) or Institute of Steroids, sorry, Sports (Australia). The UK system is actually very free-market; profits from the national lottery support the athletes, and different sports (and athletes) get funding based on their relative Olympic success. You do well, you get more cash, if you don't, you lose it.

The Australian system is actually based on the old Eastern-bloc model of sports, where kids are identified as superior then relocate to a central academy where their entire needs are met (schooling, training, etc).

In the US the major sports are NCAA sponsored. When you look at the (Olympic) sports where America dominates, or is at least competitive, it's primarily the ones supported by NCAA. Swimming. Athletics. Rowing. Lacrosse. In these types of sports the USA has athletes with realistic chances of medals in almost every event. In these sports the kids get identified much like in the UK or Australia.

But I don't see cycling being a major NCAA sport. There's no reason why there couldn't be a Pac-12 road & track championships, from which the best go on to race the other collegiate groups in a national collegiate championships. And if there is a system like this... then I haven't heard or seen it.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

gordy748 said:


> +1 (x 10 to the power of a large number)
> 
> American sports is handled very differently from most of the rest of the world. In, say, UK or Australia, a promising athlete is identified at school or local sports competitions, where they are funneled into their relevant sports academy (UK) or Institute of Steroids, sorry, Sports (Australia). The UK system is actually very free-market; profits from the national lottery support the athletes, and different sports (and athletes) get funding based on their relative Olympic success. You do well, you get more cash, if you don't, you lose it.
> 
> ...


Well...there are regional USAC collegiate conferences with a national championship for all major disciplines. But there is no funding. I am aware of several qualified riders that did not attend collegiate nationals due to lack of scrilla.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

foto said:


> Track cycling is an expensive sport for amateurs to get into. I live near enough to Marymoor to ride there, but it is _not_ cheap. Compared to basketball (as a reference to mainstream sports), or even road racing, the buy-in for giving track racing a try is huge.
> 
> I read on wiki somewhere that amateur races in Belgium are like 6 euro. Its the chicken or the egg, you need broad involvement to get the prices low enough to attract a broad group of people.


I started (at Marymoor) track racing with my fixed gear commuter. It maybe cost me $600. I showed up with a brake on and some nicer tires on: I would take the brake off and change out my gearing and go. Entry fees are really low here at $20 per night and each night equals 3 races. 


I think that of any track that should be held as an example, Marymoor should be it. There is fantastic rider support (through teams and individual riders) and the crowds are better on a regular race night then some of the events I raced in at Elite Nationals. Some of that has to do with the quality of the field and the fact that Bilko is a great announcer. Primes bring some excitement to the longer pro 1-2 races (being in the field for those sprints isn't quite as much fun.)


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*agreed*



GearDaddy said:


> Good for you. It seems like this is the only successful model for development that I ever see. Of the local riders that I've seen excel, the story is usually the same, i.e. their success in large part is due to the overwhelming support from their parents. No doubt these kids have talent, but without their parents passion, knowledge, and experience in cycling and the financial resources to make it happen, they would have never made it as far as they did.


but our velodrome has free development classes for kids
we have a couple clubs / shops that support kids pretty well (including Jen's former shop Adams Ave Bikes, she is now endorsed and on a team, in fact she won an elite women's road race of restricted gears)

but it's parents, but we have more moms and dads on bikes, so hopefully it continues to improve

Waldo, our track is similar on pricing. typically $20 for an evening of racing, discounts for members


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

foto said:


> Ok, fair enough, I guess I am talking about my singular situation--already having a road bike.
> 
> Trying out road racing cost me $10 for the mid-week practice crit. Trying out cross costs 10-15 to roll up on a mountain bike and go for it. Trying out track racing costs $50 for the class, a USAC license ($10 for one day), an MVA membership ($10 for one day), and bike rentals ($15 for one day) before I can show up and pay the $15 entry fee and try out track racing. That's a total of $100 upfront just to get your feet wet.
> 
> I know supporting racing isn't cheap, I am not complaining, I am just suggesting why track might be the fringe of a fringe here.


The MVA gives you two free races when you take the classes. The classes are required if you want to race track (anywhere.) The knowledge that you gain from that class is very valuable even if you wont be racing track ever. 
WSBA charges 10 dollars for one day pass, 10 dollars for a rental number and then whatever the entry fee is. 

I went to Elite Nationals in Carson and discovered that it costs 20 dollars a day just to ride the track.


----------

