USA Cycling's response to ACA Relationship

Submitted by Kris Thompson on



 

From Steve Johnson
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 22, 2011
 
To my fellow cyclists in the great state of Colorado! 

As many of you know, I have been actively involved in competitive cycling for more than 30 years.  During this time, I 
have met many wonderful people, made many friends and accumulated countless memories that will endure for the
remainder of my life.  Like most of you, I spent much of this time in the sport just worrying about my own racing 
experiences, never giving the process of managing the sport a second thought.  My how times have changed!  

Today we find ourselves embroiled in a discussion of the relative merits of USA Cycling versusthe ACA as 
a preamble to some sort of “vote” by the clubs to determine whether or not Colorado racing should join USA
 Cycling and the national family of 33 other local bike racing associations, or remain an autonomous organization 
without any affiliation to the national or international sport structure.  Based on discussions I have had with
 many of you, I suspect a large number of Colorado racers really don’t care much one way or the other, while
 an even larger number can’t figure out what all the brouhaha is about.  However, for those of you who find 
yourselves wondering how we got to this point and are actually concerned about the future of Colorado bike 
racing, I would like to take a few minutes of your time to discuss this important and timely issue. 

Read the full statement from USA Cycling

This is in response to the ACA Position Statement on USA Cycling Relationship

 
 

 

News Item: 

33 Comments

Agreed

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

content aside, the tone of that missive was incredible offputting and disinclines me to be sympathetic towards the USACs position. really needed a PR person's touch. reinforced every suspeicion ever voiced about the USAC being greedy elitists who subsidize the few through the race fees of the sport ride.

too bad.

Investment???

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

The letter mentions investing $2.8M into local racing since 2003. Is this above and beyond the $10 per license that goes to the LAs? Given the other slanted truths, I suspect it is the $10 which doesn't count as generosity to me. Makes it sound generous but I really think this is all about USAC trying to increase their revenue.

Not letting pros race ACA, basic thuggery.

Nice try Steve Johnson

Submitted by Spell Checker (not verified) on

One would think that if you were the CEO of USA Cycling and wanted to mention all the great races you govern, you'd at least spell High Uintas (no "h") Classic correctly.

2.8 million spread over 8 years and 30,000-70,000 riders is about $5-$10 per rider, so yeah, I bet this is the $10 per rider mentioned elsewhere.

Why would the ACA go back to USA Cycling while accepting anything less than 50% of license fees.

-Administrative duties are increasingly being taken care of by computers these days, so there is no benefit to using USAC's supposed administrative economies of scale.

-Online race registration... We've already got that covered (x3)

-Online results .. Historically, USA Cycling has done such a poor job of this because it up to the promoter to post results. Seriously, do a USAC race and see how long (if ever) it takes for your results to show up. ACA results are up every Monday and corrected if errors are identified, try that with the USAC)

-National rankings .. this is a squeeze tactic from USA Cycling to get access to our membership's license revenue.

If USA Cycling is so great why is the ACA and OBRA able to attract so many more members per capita. Oregon and Colorado contain 2.8% of the US population but our membership numbers represent close to 15% of all licensed cyclists in the US.

This is a pure money grab, clear and simple!

Pages