Kelli Lusk » USA Cycling MTB Nationals Recap w/ Kelli Lusk

Dave and Fish,

Well said, however don't hold your breathe that the Fed's will ever get there act together. They are a highly road focused entity, and are looking for the next Lance, not the next MTB hero.

It's why we stopped promoting USA Cycling races years ago, because the lack of support for small Mtb promoters was obvious.

Its a real bummer to see these young JR riders already experiencing the lop sided rules and regulations of our sanctioning body.

Junior World Championship cost:
USAC fee $1000
Airfare $100s of dollars

National Champion from Colorado:
USAC fee 0
Airfare 0 (paid by USAC)

Same thing last year.

I talked with Kelli at Windham and applaud her efforts however I disagree with the end result about altitude nationals. It became clear that the altitude folks yearn for the 90s when Colorado was the epicenter of world mountain bike racing with the world championships in Durango and Vail and consequently the local stars won. The old guys think that is racing and the US mopped up. The problem is the rest of the world reinvented the sport and left the US in the dust. If we want to compete in World Cups, we now have to play their game however the old guard at USAC hasn't figure it out so we are stuck racing ourselves except only 1 or 2 states are invited.

Dave, I have seen lots of juniors get fed up with the selection procedure and move to road without most people realizing what has happened. Unfortunately Idaho is a done deal so we have a 4 year run where non altitude racers are cut out of the mix. I heard the junior argument that at the nationals, 3rd on back was a lot of California racers. True and those racers spent most of the summer in Tahoe riding at altitude so if you have a kid that races, you need to spend a ton of money sending them to the mountains to live or get 13th.

It's looking like USA Cycling won't be supporting the UCI events as they have in the past--the previous two years they've paid the UCI inscription fee and waived the USA Cycling event fee. If this ends up being true it will be just another expense for the UCI promoters.

What I really don't understand is that if a portion the USA Cycling budget comes from the Olympic Committee based upon performance (I think) so why would they not want to support the promoters who are going through the a$% pain of dealing with the UCI to get the top 20 riders UCI points? Very disheartening indeed.

I still agree with SW. Look at aerobic performance at and above 5000 feet. I think you lose 5% by 5 or 6k then another 1% per every thousand after that. There's not many guys at the top level that can afford to give away 5% to someone who lives up there and still contend for the top 5 slots. Riding on rocks and roots is a learned skill that would benefit anyone greatly if they had any aspirations of taking it to the next level. It's not an automatic 5-10% addition to your time. And Kelli has asked for constructive feedback. My feedback is that a place like SolVista is great once every four years. But if you choose another arid western ski town at 6000 feet and above for the next year or two then don't expect many pats on the back from 90% of your racers. And I don't know the first thing about promotion, but if there's a lack of quality bids or an unwillingness for promoters to even want to deal with USAC/UCI stuff then take a hard and open minded look at why. Solve that issue and everything might flow from there.

please, I am not dumping on USAC because where I live. I just believe their line that we need World Cup level courses and an altitude Nationals is not a World Cup Course. Being fast on rocky, rooted, hot, cold, steep, muddy courses is important if you are racing World Cup Races. Being fast in altitude is not.

Some World Cup races are held in southwest style heat or humidity, some on Texas style rocks and some on East Coast style roots but NO World Cup Races are held in altitude. There is a big difference between 3,000 and 6,000.

It's the National Championships with big implications for riders. The decision should be made on what is the best course and then figure out how to make it work financially. It's only one race. I remember when Sonoma stepped up at the last minute to host the Nationals. USA Cycling should have kicked in money so at least we had a nationals at a real mountain bike location. Instead we raced on a mowed lawn and a car track! The talk is all about WC courses but we don't get a WC course for our most important race of the year.

I don't mind them looking in a haystack, just as long as they are also looking somewhere other than just Colorado.

Just when I thought USA Cycling was getting their act together, I find out that Sun Valley at 6,000 ft. is the front runner for the Nationals. So for a 4 year run, just hand the Championships to those that live in altitude no matter how they may perform at non altitude World Cup Events. Sure Pros can spend the summer in the mountains but the big losers are the fast non altitude juniors (14-18) that know their dreams of being a champion just got flushed

So I wonder if someone has looked at the bump in ridership with the Pro XCT status - like Bump N Grind 2009 vs 2010, or the Greenbrier Challenge in Maryland a few years ago vs. last year. Does USAC have a number they can float to promoters and basically say you get a USAC/UCI race with officials etc etc and it's going to cost you "x" number of dollars. Market it how you want, you keep the rest if there is much. And can USAC budget in a loss to themselves for each WC race - like saying we'll eat 5k or 10k per race just to make sure we get them done - but then insist there's two or three events over 2 days that garner UCI XCO points. Like Friday night TT, Saturday point to point and Sunday XCO. Would be a tough weekend but there's your points. Then all the regional riders could be challenged to come out and try the TT - get $100 if you're within 2 minutes of JHK or whatever. That would be pretty cool. Or even go to the big companies like Trek, Cannondale, Shimano, SRAM etc and pitch the idea of building an endowment that can spit out enough interest per season to cover all UCI fees etc. Then they get their names splashed all over a pretty cool ProXCT series forever.

Hey Matt, SW, dirty and Chainsaw - thanks for the discussion. So what is the total nut for a UCI race - basically your UCI, USADA fees, race officials fees etc?
Will the World Cup series always be worthy of being the holy grail for USAC's energies? It seems like a meat grinder for juniors and U23's. IT does seem like a lot of time, money and energy to pop a couple of new guys into the top 20 over there for a few years at a time then repeat.

Dave,

To answer your question "can results from 5 US based UCI races do it" in regards to starting positions at UCI races. I think the answer is no and the current Pro XCT structure isn't quite correct. Forgive the rest of the post as it's a bit long.

So the question is what should the USA Cycling Pro XCT look like to maximize UCI point totals so our riders can get better starting positions at world cup events. According to the UCI MTB Rules this is how the individual point tallies are tabulated as best I can tell:

Class 1 one-day events: the best 5 results – 60 points for first
Class 2 one-day events: the best 4 results – 30 points for first
Class 3 one-day events: the best 3 results – 10 points for first
Class 1 stage races: the best 3 results – 120 points for first
Class 2 stage races: the best 2 results – 80 points for first
Hors Class one-day: all – 90 points for first
Hors Class stage race: all – 160 points for first
National Championship – 110 points for first
Continental Championship – 200 points for first
World Cup: all – 250 points for first
World Championship – 300 points for first
Olympic Games – 300 points for first

Then it’s actually quite simple to figure out that in order to maximize their point totals they must race in at least 5 Cat 1 one day races, 4 Cat 2 one day races, 3 Cat 3 one day races, 3 Cat 1 stage races, 2 Cat 2 stage races, as many as possible Hors Cat one day and stage races, World Cups, National Championships, etc. So in the US it’ll be extremely difficult for most promoters to run any Hors Cat race because in order to do that the previous years race had to have 30 foreign riders who represented 15 different nationalities (this is completely biased to the European Continent BTW IMO). This really means that USA Cycling should be focused on the Cat 1-3 events, both one day and stages. The current USA Cycling Pro XCT setup isn’t correct IMO—it should include two days of UCI racing and more stage races at each USA Cycling Pro XCT stop. We should eliminate the current short track and switch to one of the other UCI formats so that race can garner UCI points as well. The UCI events that contribute to the XCO rankings are XCO (cross country Olympic, 5-9km), XCP (cross country point to point, 25-60km), XCC (cross country circuit, less than 5km), XCT (time trial, 5-25km). To maximize the points the USA Cycling Pro XCT should have about 12 events with most hosting 2 UCI single day races or a stage race on any given weekend. Throw in the UCI events in Canada and now you have a fairly robust calendar for those top 20 riders (male and female) who actually care about the points. Also IMO USA Cycling should subsidize the UCI events with at a minimum the UCI inscription fee’s, USADA fee’s, and USA Cycling fee’s to include the Pro racers insurance surcharges & permitting costs because really at the end of the day the UCI moniker really isn't important to the amateur riders who for the most part pay the promoters bills .

On the other hand USA Cycling could just scrap the whole darn thing and just send (and pay) those top riders to Europe and let them race over there—maybe that would be more cost effective.

Thisguy,

No argument regarding women's road cycling. In 'cross we have KfC and that's it. When KfC's butt-kicking reign ends, there's not much depth. Mountain? In both Mountain and 'cross where's the sponsorship required to build the depth? We're in an olympic upswing right now so the Women's road sponsorship looks pretty good. The year after the next summer games, the crack high wears off. The four names you mention are likely the only four getting paid to ride dirt full-time. That's zero depth. USAC is doing nothing to add to the depth. The aging membership is the perfect example.

David Phillips, I think we generally agree and we're not the only ones. Except that's not the USAC model and it hasn't been for maybe 10 years. I'd add that this kind of policy making is way out of Ms. Lusk's pay grade.

The issue of getting Americans into decent position on the starting grid is a problem with roots in USAC's irrelevance to most promoters. Running a UCI event is *really* expensive with no obvious benefits to the promoter or attending racers.

Ms. Lusk, I let some of your factoids pass and they deserve to be debunked.
-while you mention that 'various promoters' do the Pro XCT's, are they the events with the most attendance? Sea Otter has good attendance, but that's it. Will these promoters have the funds to do it again in 2011? In other words, was there a big net benefit to the promoter for going Pro XCT? Doubtful.
-while you mention some costs being covered by USAC, there are other high costs not covered by USAC. Scott Tedro have non-specifically mentioned these as have other promoters.
-The development-aged attendance figures for 'Pro XCT' events are almost non-existent and entirely local. It's unclear to me how these events draw in potential talent. Please elaborate.