USA Cycling's response to ACA Relationship


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: 


Is this guy for real?

No CEO would ever be permitted to release a statement like that without
some editorial oversight. It is indicative of larger management problems
at USAC. And Mr. Johnson: Quoting an obscure sociologist is condescending at best.
We're not a bunch of college kids in a lecture hall, we're well educated
adults. Talk to us, not at us.
Point: ACA.


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.

Yes, it's about money, but it

Yes, it's about money, but it's more about control. USAC wants a monopoly! OBRA is getting the squeeze too.
Support grassroots racing. Buy an OBRA and ABR license every year! USAC fees: Racer--$60, Official--$75, Race Director--$150, Club--$150, Coach--$60, Mechanic--$60. Those fees do NOT go to help with grassroot cycling, but rather to fund the bureaucracy USAC has become.


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

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!

He says a lot, but leaves out

He says a lot, but leaves out a lot. His knowledge of the corruption of USAC, its commercial interests, its top heavy BOD far removed from membership. The money given back to the LA is license rebates, each district must recruit their own new riders our be penalized if membership falls. How about the DOUBLING and TRIPLING of Officials license fees? And to claim USA Cycling's registration system serves the public best, that bias statement is quenching the competition, Ironic that the CEO of a national cycling organization would try to silence the competition, and that's what they're attempting to do with ACA, CBR, OBRA, and ABR.

George, I bet you can't

George, I bet you can't provide a single documented fact for your arguments.

"DOUBLING and TRIPLING of Officials license fees" Shouldn't all members buy into the system and have a license? Lots of other professions have IDs and licenses that one has to pay dues. IAFF (firefighters) pay dues every paycheck.

My sources are reliable. Do a

My sources are reliable. Do a little research on published articles around the time when USAC first formed. Read the imposed agreement USAC forces onto each LA every year. Dig around their own archives about why fees went up. Only the "elite' officials benefit from the extra revenue. Your bet is a foolish gamble.

Yeah, it's a bit late. I didn

Yeah, it's a bit late. I didn't know about it until the merger was already underway. Could have interviewed all the clubs of NCNCA, as the USAC merger won by ONE vote! What we wewre promised in 2002 initially did not manifest itself. An association can declare itself independent again and refuse to sign that dreadful imposed "agreement", or at least have it altered to meet the needs of the district.