"Conditions for Reintegration" with USAC meeting Nov 18th

Is Colorado getting closer to having a combined USAC/ACA association? This Friday your ACA club is encouraged to attend a special meeting with the CEO of USAC, Steve Johnson. Attached is the Full Agenda for the Meeting and below is a snippet of it

6:00 Welcome, Introductions, and Roll Call of Club Presidents

6:30 Presentation Steve Johnson, President & CEO of USACycling

6:45 Presentation Bill Barr, President, ACA Board of Directors
Clint Bickmore, Vice President, ACA Board of Directors
Chris McGee, Executive Director, ACA

7:00 Statement of Conditions for Reintegration

1- For the first three years in which the ACA serves as a Local Association of USAC, the USA Cycling
Development Foundation’s Center of Excellence of Award will provide $20,000 per year to the ACA for the
ACA’s Junior Development Program.

2- As per the LA Agreement, USAC will rebate the ACA $10 for each full price license sold in the ACA’s LA
area (Section 2.2) during the Term of this agreement. As all ACA license members who join USAC as a result
of the ACA becoming the Local Association are in excess to the 2011 licenses sold, the ACA is due an
additional $5 for each license sold during the 2012 Term of this agreement (Section 2.3).

3- The Local Association can set local policy regarding race points points series, upgrades, various LA fees,
including but not limited to: calendar fees, surcharges, race kit fees, officials’ fees and race day duties,
calendar date request fees, required EMT on site for all races, and the continuation of existing programs and
continuation of existing staff.

4- The ACA will work with USAC personnel on providing transaction process flow from the USAC license web
application to include ACA local association process flow. Additionally, the ACA will provide USAC web
personnel local association information to include with license purchase confirmation.

News Item: 

200 Comments

Good to hear the position

Good to hear the position summary--thank you for taking the time.

Unfortunately, it confirms my biggest concern: that the integration has little tangible benefit for the average road racer (AKA "the silent majority").

Would love to hear someone say "There's going to be bigger, better road races...and more of them!" even if it was a bold faced lie under the pretense of caring about the average racer. Instead, it would seem that this is all almost a reflection of national politics in that the special interest groups are driving the agenda.

ACA is strong. Don't F it up...

1. We have some of the best racing already. USAC knows this and is playing hardball trying to get our money back.
2. Collegiate - In most USAC states, collegiate races are on their own calendar. Not enough time to run collegiate and all USAC cats.
3. Mountain Biking - Hum, I wonder why most Mountain is not through USAC? They already know something...
4. Pro Riders - Again that is a USAC Executive Decision to enforce that rule after it was on the books for a number of years.
5. Cyclocross Rankings - You got me there. Yep we need that for the few racers doing nationals in January so they have a shot in the 40-41 cat.
6. UCI races? We had 4 in our state this year. More than most other "USAC" States.
7. Nationals = MONEY - Why do think they are in Wisconsin in January? MONEY For USAC.
8. Administrative - We will have two databases, USAC and BRAC. A lot of services are run by the LA not USAC anymore.
9. Only if it wasn't a financial mess. It's DOUBLING our costs to keep current service levels.
10. No Dual Sanctioning - Again USAC Executive strategy to get our money.
10. Yep, need programs for the top 1%. Forget the bottom 99%.

For the races BCS promotes, how much more will it cost you next year??? This year we had two races almost every weekend from April to December. This is going to kill off smaller races, for the few elite riders...

Elite vs amateur and $$$

Reintegrating is all about supporting elite cycling. Nothing in this list favors the average amateur, the one who comprises the bulk of the ACA membership.

How many ACA members will pay an extra $30 on top of the $60 annual USAC license fee to get the goodies we now get for free with ACA? What is now a $45 license turns into a $90 annual license. With a $10 one-day fee, you need to do at least 9 races just to break even on your annual license. How many current members race 10+ days per year?

This will be the end of cycling that caters to amateurs. No offense to Pete and others at BCS, but they are pros and elite racers and have a difference perspective.

You think juniors will benefit? Talk to parents of U23s to hear the horror stories about how USAC selects kids for national teams and opportunities to race in Europe. It's based on politics, not ability and past results.

The only downside for amateurs of not reintegrating is that if you ever want to do a USAC race, your ACA category will not be honored. Is that worth all the extra cost?

This BCS argument is for top

This BCS argument is for top level racers, not the masses. The ACA is about the masses. It's fun, affordable, recreational racing. Beer league softball for bike dorks. Dont mess with a good thing just so a few fast guys can accrue some points for Nationals call ups. That vast majority of the people racing ACA races dont give a bleep about Nationals, Worlds, or whatever other race Pete, Brandon and Keller are tapering for...

Comment on BCS Position

Many commenters have mentioned that 'elite level racers will see the most benefit with re-integration', in response to Pete's posting.

BCS Does have a talented and successful elite cyclocross team, of which Pete is a member. Although I don't wish to speak for the team or the shop, it should be noted that the team is one of the larger grassroots programs in the state, with many lower category riders. Also, the team is sponsored by a bike shop, which I'm sure by pure numbers they do more business with lower category racers.

Hence, I wouldn't expect BCS's position to be based only on the benefit to the elites.

BCS & Grassroots etc

Exactly correct, the bulk of their membership are not elite racers.

To quote Jon Tarkingon's opinion:

"From my keyboard it appears a lot of racers out there in forum land are pretty caught up with a view of the emerging USAC/ACA vote that is equivalent to staring at your handlebars during a bike race."

Many people are taking a self-interested view. They are not elite racers and only see their fees going up.

Again, not to speak for BCS, but the way I see it an organization like BCS must look at the benefits to racing as a whole. Their team has both elite and non-elite racers, and their shop stands to benefit from what best serves the sport at the local level.

Many of Pete's points are not for Elite

I counted them up, and about 6 or 7 of the 11 points he makes are related to the sport in general, juniors or collegiate. His first point is probally what he thought was most important, and I agree, and that is all about building a unified bike racing community instead of a fragmented one. That's gotta be better in the long run.

Promoter's positions?

I'd like to hear the positions of the promoters. They're the ones financially most effected by this possible change over. I'm sure they'll love handing over 7% of their prize purses. For Superior that's roughly $2,200. Sure the top 1% who are the most vocal; pro's, juniors, one's who go to nationals will say they're being hamstrung. Wake up, USAC is using you as bait to entice the masses of racers, who are very happy with the ACA, to reintegrate for $$$. Steve Johnson was paid $230k in 2009. Now he wants to collect more money from the masters racers of Colorado. My club is voting NO and if the ACA goes back I'm going the mtb route.

Pages