# No more Pros at local races.



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

At least in Colorado. 

http://www.yourgroupride.com/road/27-road/993-no-more-pros-at-local-races#JOSC_TOP

_It is being reported by Brian Holcombe of Velo News that Continental registered riders will be subject to fines and suspension by the UCI if they start non-USA Cycling events (ACA). Continental teams include, Bissell, Jamis-Sutter Home, Jelly Belly-Kenda, Kelly Benefit Strategies-OptumHealth, Kenda-5-hour Energy, RealCyclist.com, Chipotle, Team Exergy, Trek LIVESTRONG and Wonderful Pistachios_. 

I know that Texas and Oregon have separate (from USA Cycling) sanctioning organizations. Would this affect those states as well? Any other states?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

TXBRA is a regional governing body of some sort but it's USAC all the way. 

The two velodromes host both USAC and ATRA races. I'm not aware of any non-USAC road racing going on down here though. 

I wonder if this is a result of the Bruyneel-split talks and the resulting UCI paranoia.


----------



## agm2 (Sep 18, 2008)

Creakyknees said:


> TXBRA is a regional governing body of some sort but it's USAC all the way.
> 
> The two velodromes host both USAC and ATRA races. I'm not aware of any non-USAC road racing going on down here though.
> 
> I wonder if this is a result of the Bruyneel-split talks and the resulting UCI paranoia.


Maybe for saying they were going to allow race radios.


----------



## Infini (Apr 21, 2003)

I'd always thought all the races worth doing in the US were USAC


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

Just when I thought that it couldn't possibly get any worse; some BS like this comes along.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

So pros living around the country can no longer ride as a solo rider in a local race? What the hell good does that do?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ZoSoSwiM said:


> So pros living around the country can no longer ride as a solo rider in a local race? What the hell good does that do?


I've said this many times, but this now tops my list of the UCI doing something that really has no apparent benefit to the riders.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Does this count for mountain bike and CX? I could see it being a bigger issue there.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

Seems to me like they're penalizing people for being good at something.


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

Infini said:


> I'd always thought all the races worth doing in the US were USAC


Over 90% of all road racing in Colorado is ACA. The biggest exception are the college races. I don't think it is hubris to say that Colorado is probably one of the more competitive regions for road racing where you can have over 30 riders in the Pro 1-2 cat show up for a local weekend crit. 

There's been cooperation between ACA and USAC; there is a reciprocity agreement between ACA and USAC for cat upgrades, etc. The 7-Eleven velodrome in Colorado Springs is USAC.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

IMO, could be about getting more support for NRC races than international politics. Wouldn't stop riders and teams fom skipping NRC events for other USCF races, but does work to limit some of the options.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

88 rex said:


> Does this count for mountain bike and CX? I could see it being a bigger issue there.


USAC seems to have done a pretty good job of screwing CX.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Infini said:


> I'd always thought all the races worth doing in the US were USAC


Come to Oregon some time...You might change your mind  

Stage Races:

Cherry Blossom
Mt. Hood Stage Race
Elkhorn Stage Race
Cascade Classic Stage Race
Eugene Stage Race

They are all great races that generally have pro team representation at them, which makes it fun for all the amateurs to go and watch them race...and see how fast they really are.

This could also effect weekly training schedules since some of the local pro's in the Portland area come out for the weekly race at PIR (Portland International Raceway) that is a great 1.25 hour training race for them with lots of interval or threshold work (depending on what they want to do that day) and some sprint work for Primes and the finish.

For the regular road races it could have a big impact since a lot of the local pro's use them for training races early season (we start racing here in mid February).

Honestly...this is a stupid move and just shows that the USAC doesn't want to rattle any cages and have bent over to take it with no Vaseline from the UCI :mad2:

Just one more reason for Oregon to stay separate from the USAC and operate their own racing organization...which is 10x's more efficient, cheaper and better organized than USAC ever thought of being.


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

Wookie, do you think it is an effort by USAC/UCI to try and bring Colorado and Oregon back in the fold? ACA's balance sheet looks much better than it did a few years ago, CX racing is way up, we have races with over 1000 participants (Mt. Evans), Lookout Mountain has over 600, and mid-level crits have over 400. 

What kind of participation is there in Oregon? 





Wookiebiker said:


> Come to Oregon some time...You might change your mind
> 
> Stage Races:
> 
> ...


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

PDex said:


> Wookie, do you think it is an effort by USAC/UCI to try and bring Colorado and Oregon back in the fold? ACA's balance sheet looks much better than it did a few years ago, CX racing is way up, we have races with over 1000 participants (Mt. Evans), Lookout Mountain has over 600, and mid-level crits have over 400.
> 
> What kind of participation is there in Oregon?


It could be, but I think it has more to do with them caving into the UCI than anything.

With that said...your comments do have some merit since several of the states with the biggest racing scenes are not part of USAC and have formed their own governing bodies. Granted they work with USAC and follow the same basic rules...so if you are a CAT 3 in Oregon, you are a CAT 3 everywhere else.

We can have similar numbers here for races and have the largest cyclocross scene in the nation with the "Cross Crusade" which can have 1400+ people show up for a race and over 200 participants in a single race.

I'm sure it chaps USAC's hide that they don't have control over Oregon, Colorado, Texas and maybe another state or two's racing scene....but I really think in the end, they don't want to upset the UCI since they are the "Top Dog" on the racing scene and until something better comes along to replace it, which I would guess they will jump on the second it does.


----------



## ms6073 (Jul 7, 2005)

Wookiebiker said:


> Come to Oregon some time...You might change your mind


Agree whole heartedly but I thought that the Mt. Hood & Cascade Classic Stage Races were USAC seeing as the Cascade Classic is and Mt. Hood used to be on the National Racing Calendar?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

ms6073 said:


> Agree whole heartedly but I thought that the Mt. Hood & Cascade Classic Stage Races were USAC seeing as the Cascade Classic is and Mt. Hood used to be on the National Racing Calendar?


The P/1/2 classes *may* be...But all other classes are run by OBRA and the overall events are put on by OBRA. No USAC card is required to race in those races...just an OBRA card.


----------



## culdeus (May 5, 2005)

This sounds like a huge lawsuit.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Let's keep the org's straight. According to the op, USAC is not doing this. The UCI is.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

This news seriously bums me out... Here is the email we all got from USAC: 

*Dear Professional Rider,

You are receiving this email because you are a professional rider on a USA-based UCI team or another professional UCI team. About 3 weeks ago we sent a communiqué to the managers of our UCI professional teams that contained the attached document. This information addresses specific UCI rules for participation of professional riders. As we move into the bulk of the racing season, it is important that all of you familiarize yourself with these rules and possible ramifications, especially rules regarding participation in events that are not sanctioned by USA Cycling, which are addressed by the rules shown below:



1.2.019 — No licence holder may participate in an event that has not been included on a national, continental or world calendar or that has not been recognised by a national federation, a continental confederation or the UCI.

1.2.021 — Breaches of articles 1.2.019 or 1.2.020 shall render the licence holder liable to one month's suspension and a fine of 50 to 100 Swiss francs.
*


The attachment on the email goes on to clarify that the restrictions on local (non UCI) races only applies to UCI Protour and Pro Continental riders, not the UCI Continental (BISSELL, Kelly Benefits, Jamis, etc) 

I feel that the UCI and USAC have to come to a middle ground that respects the fact that racing in the USA is very different from Europe. Our concentration of pros across the US is pretty weak, even in the pro cycling "meccas" like Boulder. Events are small and dont have the funding to apply for UCI status. Even Gila, one of the largest races on the calendar, didnt have the funding needed to take the next step up. 

This also stinks for aspiring local riders. There is nothing like the excitement of having a pro or two show up for a small local race, especially if they are ProTour/ProContinental.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

chase196126 said:


> This news seriously bums me out... Here is the email we all got from USAC:
> 
> I feel that the UCI and USAC have to come to a middle ground that respects the fact that racing in the USA is very different from Europe. Our concentration of pros across the US is pretty weak, even in the pro cycling "meccas" like Boulder. Events are small and dont have the funding to apply for UCI status. Even Gila, one of the largest races on the calendar, didnt have the funding needed to take the next step up.
> 
> This also stinks for aspiring local riders. There is nothing like the excitement of having a pro or two show up for a small local race, especially if they are ProTour/ProContinental.


Yeah, I didn't see how *any* rider could think, "hmmm, this is AWESOME news." 

Bring us back to the question if cycling really _needs_ the UCI, in lieu of the potential split league.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

UCI and USAC...both are more concerned with keeping *control* than they are with anything else. "Rider's? Screw them!...they are just here so we can run our show, make our money..."

Telling a racer he can't race...because of some edict by a fatty in a suit somewhere?....Obviously that is bad for us who race, who pay our fees to these organizations. Who would be hurt if Fabian C. showed up to a Thursday nite TT in Podunk, Canada and rode? Nobody. But UCI wants to be able to say..."Ok, Dude, you have our permission to go do that one race. Come back next week and ask again, if you want to race somewhere else."

Similar with USAC....they want Control! 

OBRA and other 'upstart' organizations are a threat to them because us riders get a better all around deal and simply ignore the USAC. They have always been quite difficult to deal with. 

I feel for the pros who are now being 'excluded' from a lot of potential competitive events due to political considerations.

So USAC..now they can go..."Hey, it's not us...(wink wink) It's the UCI that is making us do this to you"


----------



## Chainstay (Mar 13, 2004)

There is only one reason for this. It does not solve a problem? It does not make anything better for any cyclist?

The UCI just want exclusive rights to the pros. You sign a pro contract and they get to tell you what races you can enter and what ones you can't. They don't like any other race organisers getting a piece of their action.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

spade2you said:


> I've said this many times, but this now tops my list of the UCI doing something that really has no apparent benefit to the riders.


is that why a winner had his last name 'mispelled' at a local race in MD?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

bas said:


> is that why a winner had his last name 'mispelled' at a local race in MD?


I would guess there might be ways around this. I don't recall the application process requiring too much proof of identification, although I'm not sure how someone could upgrade so quickly after creating a license from scratch.


----------



## TerminatorX91 (Mar 27, 2011)

spade2you said:


> I've said this many times, but this now tops my list of the UCI doing something that really has no apparent benefit to the riders.



I don't see it benefits the sport here in the US either.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

the only benefit i can see is to stop pro teams stacking local races for 'training' which really ruins things for everyone else, and isnt really in the spirit of the event

that doesnt happen very often though so it is more likely just a bizarre UCI power play


----------

