Equal prize money in cross

[CunegoFan]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/helen-wyman/helen-wyman-pressing-the-equality-button

Across the hall they are discussing this by competing to see who can be the most politically correct without regard to economic reality. I found many of Wyman's [What a name for a women's activist!] points to be specious. The goal seems to be a rather self serving and fanciful belief that if she makes more money it will improve women's cross as a whole. It seems to me that if you want to increase the money at the top then the effort should be placed on increasing participation at the bottom--not trying to shame promoters and sponsors into going against their own self interests.

[fiamme red]

I don't follow cyclocross, but the last elite woman's cyclocross race I watched a few years ago was easily won by a woman (LVG) who was 47 or 48 years old. The men's race was much more compelling. I suspect that most casual spectators only watched the women's race because it came right before the men's race.

[FlashUNC]

She's spot on.

[nooneline]

She's spot on.

Ditto. Wyman nails it.

[MattTuck]

Ummm. Not sure where to begin on this one.

I see it as a different category of race. Just like cat 1, cat 2, etc. Seems that the promoters give different prize money for different categories.

I am not sure if it is possible, but I would support any woman that wants to race in the men's top field, so that she has access to that prize money.

[choke]

she's spot on.+2

[josephr]

I'd say her argument is certainly self-serving and it'd be self-serving if it was made by a male or a frog or a chess piece...and that's just human nature. She makes a great point, but last I heard, CX is an amateur sport fueled by interested amateurs --- and, by 'amateur' I mean that strictly by its economic definition. I'd submit that most people who 'race' aren't in it for the money and don't really care about a payout. They enter a race because its challenging/fun and could care less if the top 3 boys/girls get ca$h. I'm sure if you quadrupled the pay cash out, it'd gain some attention, but then you'd have to quadruple the entry fee, and then you'd loose a lot of registrants.

If CX racers really wants make some $, CX needs to be an Olympic event and then they can get on the Wheaties box....boy or girl.

[ceolwulf]

If the viewers are there, then the sponsors will be there, then the money will be there, and then the exposure will be there and the viewers will be there.

[nooneline]

If the viewers are there, then the sponsors will be there, then the money will be there, and then the exposure will be there and the viewers will be there.

so what you're saying is, "if you build it they will come."

[eBAUMANN]

while i certainly respect and support the push for equal payouts...why dont we stop and look at the financial equality in other professional sports as precedent on which to base our argument...oh, right.

the sad truth of the matter is, there is just less interest in women's professional sports across the board, and less money as a result.

at the end of the day, professional sports are a BUSINESS, and for promotors/sponsors/etc it just doesnt make sense to pour money into something that isnt paying you back.

[ceolwulf]

so what you're saying is, "if you build it they will come."


Sort of? It's a circle and someone along it has to take initiative to start it. It seems the people with the money don't want to be the ones to do it since there's no guarantee of a payout. At the same time the racers themselves are not likely to be the right ones to do it since their own interests are clearly too close to the surface.

I don't have any answers here - it's not an easy thing to solve.

[Mark McM]

Interestingly, in US amateur racing (USCF), there is gender discrimation in the opportunities to compete for prize money - only, the discrimination is against men. This is because women are allowed to enter "men's" races (and compete for men's prizes), but men are not allowed to enter "women's" races. Opportunity-wise, this puts men at a disadvantage, as they have fewer races for which they can compete for prize money.

In "men's" races, the finishers are paid for their placing, and the amount paid for each place does not vary by gender. If 1st place pays $1000, and the first place finisher is a woman, then that woman will be paid $1000 (and yes, it has happened).

[slidey]

I want to believe, but her half-baked points don't really go too far with me. In the meanwhile, I'm all for what MattTuck suggested - allow/even encourage the women who desire to race in the Men's race to do so by possibly better scheduling and awarding max of the two winnings times a factor (< 1.5) to account for the special treatment afforded to the women as well as the opportunity of a handful of women to earn more than men in what was a "men's race", while discounting the opportunity lost by men participating in women's races.

1 - We (Elite & Pro Women) would be happy to race for one hour, the same as men, to secure equal prize money. We aren't allowed, as the rules say we can't. I repeat - I'd be happy to race for an hour.

Does she represent the Elite & Pro women? I checked her website as well as did a quick online search, and couldn't find anything to this effect.

2 - We (Elite & Pro Women) train just as hard, and for as many hours as the men.

Quite possibly true - but some data would be handy. I'm sure there's tons of power data these elite athletes (men/women/other) crunch out, so an apples-apples comparison might be possible here.


3 - Our races are just as exciting to watch

Totally subjective


4 - We race on the same course, and face the same challenges

Racing the same course doesn't necessarily always imply the same challenges - e.g. nature. In fact this unpredictability implies that the earlier race could be tougher than the later race, or vice versa dependent on the unpredictable variables like weather. Racing on the same course is a fact and only fair, but the inference of level of racing/challenges (barring number of corners, etc but that'd be really stupid an argument to make) faced based on that does not follow.


5 - Entry numbers at the very top of the sport are almost identical. That is despite the huge disparity in prize money

Data would help, so I did my wiki'ing - It'd seem that in 2014, Elite men had 66 starters where as Elite Women had 45. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_UCI_Cyclo-cross_World_Championships)

[CunegoFan]

I want to believe, but her half-baked points don't really go too far with me.

Most of her points seem to boil down to "ditch diggers work as hard as CEOs so they should be paid the same as CEOs." The only acknowledgement that there is a huge disparity in demand for the product is the belief that if she and a small group of women at the top get more money then it will somehow translate to more demand.

Where is the emphasis on getting more women involved? Recreational running has more female participants than male.

[FastforaSlowGuy]

I don't think Wyman or anyone else at the top of the women's pro sport would tell you that the economics are the same, so I think folks here are talking past her points rather than responding to them.

I don't know how you expect to grow a sport from the bottom, when there's nowhere meaningful to go at the top. And right now, there's nowhere to go, at least not in any meaningful way. Ambitious, competitive people like to engage in things where there is a high degree of upward mobility with increasing levels of opportunity. Women's cycling offers great upward mobility and almost no opportunity, so you can understand why they might have problems attracting and retaining top talent.

UCI and other governing body support for women's cycling is an entirely different issue from TV ratings. UCI, USA Cycling and other leagues/federations exist to represent the sport. Why shouldn't we expect them to represent the ENTIRE sport, rather than half of it?

We can't blame viewers or broadcasters for the lack of coverage if the federations aren't supporting the sport and creating opportunities for viewership. But economic realities cut both ways, folks. If we think it is a worthwhile goal to have a robust pro women's cycling scene, then we should expect that creating that will take some investment. Create some real opportunity, and you'll grow the sport. If you take the position that women's cycling must first "deserve" that investment, you're already off to a bad start.

And for the record, I would LOVE to see more women's bike racing. Because bike racing is fun to watch, and it doesn't suddenly become less fun if the riders don't have a Y chromosome.

[choke]

Most of her points seem to boil down to "ditch diggers work as hard as CEOs so they should be paid the same as CEOs." The only acknowledgement that there is a huge disparity in demand for the product is the belief that if she and a small group of women at the top get more money then it will somehow translate to more demand.When I read posts like this I can't help but wonder if we even read the same article. And to compare the men (CEOs) to the women (ditch diggers) in such a way is just...incomprehensible in ways I can't even begin to adequately express. It's certainly, IMO, one of the most disrespectful things that I have ever read on this forum. Vos, Ferrand-Prevot, et al deserve far more than that treatment.

The prize money distribution is set by the UCI, not the event sponsors themselves, and I think that point is lost on many.

The UCI should, above all, be fair and equitable. The disparity in the way that money is awarded depending on the gender of the rider proves that they aren't even close to achieving that result. If you don't think that the women deserve to be paid equally that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I would love to see the reasoning as to why the Top 50 men are paid prize money but only the Top 25 women receive the same.

It seems to me that 'growing the sport' should be one of the prime duties of the UCI. This is not the duty of the riders themselves. Obviously one way to make more women interested is to increase the prize money that they receive.

[slidey]

The prize money distribution is set by the UCI, not the event sponsors themselves, and I think that point is lost on many.

Not knowing the exact dynamics of how UCI decides which race gets what payout, my expectation is that the payout is proportional to the various event broadcast/advertising deals available, which is again proportional to the number of views of the event, etc. If the sponsorship deals are lesser for the women's event, then I'd expect the payout to be lesser, on average.

However, I can definitely see UCI citing "low viewership/appeal" (which is likely true), not citing the percentage/absolute difference (as that would make things transparent), and shrinking the women's payout in favour of pocketing some more dough.

[CunegoFan]

When I read posts like this I can't help but wonder if we even read the same article. And to compare the men (CEOs) to the women (ditch diggers) in such a way is just...incomprehensible in ways I can't even begin to adequately express. It's certainly, IMO, one of the most disrespectful things that I have ever read on this forum. Vos, Ferrand-Prevot, et al deserve far more than that treatment.

Most of her arguments are based on the idea that the women do an equivalent amount of work and thus should be paid the same. Sorry, but people don't get paid based on how hard they work. They get paid based on the value they generate. If pay were based on hard work then ditch diggers would be living like royalty.

I would love to see the reasoning as to why the Top 50 men are paid prize money but only the Top 25 women receive the same.

Pro sports is entertainment. The money is depends on public's desire to watch the event. Because the men's event generates the most revenue, it has more prize money and more prize money allows a deeper payout. If you want the top 50 women paid then fine, the money paid to first ten will decrease drastically.

Obviously one way to make more women interested is to increase the prize money that they receive.

Really? Do you watch sports based on how much money the athletes make? Did you start racing because of how much pros make?

[gavingould]

The prize money distribution is set by the UCI, not the event sponsors themselves, and I think that point is lost on many.


not exactly true. the UCI mandates minimums for prize money distribution. promoters can (and have) made equal payouts at UCI events, Koppenbergcross being the largest thus far.

[Mark McM]

The UCI should, above all, be fair and equitable. The disparity in the way that money is awarded depending on the gender of the rider proves that they aren't even close to achieving that result..

Unfortunately, the facts are not in evidence to support this argument. Does women's racing generate the same revenue and fan support? Women's events do generate more revenue and fan support in some sports (gymnastics, figure skating, etc.), but probably not in cycling.

Prize money is only a part of most racer's incomes (and often just a small part). Teams sponsorship and endorsements generally make up a larger portion of rider income. Do women get equal income from teams and endorsements? Why or why not? Would equalizing the prize lists change that?

[1centaur]

It's certainly, IMO, one of the most disrespectful things that I have ever read on this forum.

No, not even close :)

[zennmotion]

Are there even any women in this conversation? This was a troll thread from the beginning.

[shovelhd]

Some of those prize lists are disgustingly disparate. That's the UCI for you. No parking in the Pro/Elite lot because you're a woman? No defense for that.

USAC gets closer with the National Criterium Calendar races. In order to be considered for the Calendar, a race must put up minimum prize money for the elite races, both men and women. $15K for the men, $7.5K for the women. In most cases the women's field is half of the men's field so it is at least somewhat defensible.

I would be fine with requiring equal payout if both fields reach an equal minimum entry.

Whoever is dissing Laura Van Gilder hasn't seen her crush a sprint to beat an 18 year old phenom after being in the break for an hour. She's an amazing specimen, and a great person as well. One of the rare ones.

[FastforaSlowGuy]

Some of those prize lists are disgustingly disparate. That's the UCI for you. No parking in the Pro/Elite lot because you're a woman? No defense for that.

USAC gets closer with the National Criterium Calendar races. In order to be considered for the Calendar, a race must put up minimum prize money for the elite races, both men and women. $15K for the men, $7.5K for the women. In most cases the women's field is half of the men's field so it is at least somewhat defensible.

I would be fine with requiring equal payout if both fields reach an equal minimum entry.

Whoever is dissing Laura Van Gilder hasn't seen her crush a sprint to beat an 18 year old phenom after being in the break for an hour. She's an amazing specimen, and a great person as well. One of the rare ones.


I agree with all of this except tying payouts to field size. The race is at the front. Why does it matter how many are at the back?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[choke]

Pro sports is entertainment. The money is depends on public's desire to watch the event. Because the men's event generates the most revenue, it has more prize money and more prize money allows a deeper payout. If you want the top 50 women paid then fine, the money paid to first ten will decrease drastically.How do you know that the men's event generates the most revenue at a CX WC event? Really? Do you watch sports based on how much money the athletes make? Did you start racing because of how much pros make?Perhaps I wasn't clear that my comment was directed towards the participation level.not exactly true. the UCI mandates minimums for prize money distribution. promoters can (and have) made equal payouts at UCI events, Koppenbergcross being the largest thus far.Yes, you are correct in that it is a minimum. It's interesting to note that the equal payment at the Koppenbergcross only came about because a bike shop in Baltimore (Twenty20 Cycling) put up the money for that purposeUnfortunately, the facts are not in evidence to support this argument. Does women's racing generate the same revenue and fan support? I think the facts do support that the UCI has failed miserably in promoting women's cycling. As for the rest....who knows? I can't imagine that it would be easy to find any real documentation on the revenue side, at least in regards to the CX WC, which is the only area where Helen directed her comments.

[shovelhd]

I agree with all of this except tying payouts to field size. The race is at the front. Why does it matter how many are at the back?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In CX plenty of times riders have come through the field to win. I've seen Helen Wyman do it more than once. It's the last lap that matters.

Why tie to field size? Equal commitment from both sides. I hear women complain about payout all the time only to have a dozen of them show up.

[cfox]

I agree with all of this except tying payouts to field size. The race is at the front. Why does it matter how many are at the back?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bigger field = more entry fees/bigger contribution to the pot

[FastforaSlowGuy]

bigger field = more entry fees/bigger contribution to the pot


So that 100 rider cat 4 field should get paid the same as pro women? Huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shovelhd]

So that 100 rider cat 4 field should get paid the same as pro women? Huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He didn't say that. Everyone knows that the lower category races subsidize the higher categories. Cat5 men in particular as they cannot win prize money. Besides the elite prize money in big races is almost always put up in advance by Sponsors.

[FastforaSlowGuy]

Besides the elite prize money in big races is almost always put up in advance by Sponsors.


He said prize money should match who feeds the pot, and as you said, lower rates amateurs are the ones who subsidize everyone else. So why should my Cat 4 registration money go disproportionately toward elite men than elite women?

And tying payouts to field size to "encourage" more women to sign up? I totally get the frustration race promoters feel over small women's fields, but this doesn't actually solve it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FlashUNC]

If you're judging a cross race payout by who generates the most value -- rather than say the UCI's imperative to promote all of cycling sport -- then the beer vendor should easily get the biggest payout from both Elite races.

This idea the UCI -- whose sole job is to promote and oversee the sport -- has to adhere to some Randian wet dream is ridiculous.

[old fat man]

How do you know that the men's event generates the most revenue at a CX WC event? Perhaps I wasn't clear that my comment was directed towards the participation level.Yes, you are correct in that it is a minimum. It's interesting to note that the equal payment at the Koppenbergcross only came about because a bike shop in Baltimore (Twenty20 Cycling) put up the money for that purpose
I think the facts do support that the UCI has failed miserably in promoting women's cycling. As for the rest....who knows? I can't imagine that it would be easy to find any real documentation on the revenue side, at least in regards to the CX WC, which is the only area where Helen directed her comments.

Are you really doubting whether the 5000+ Belgian fans are primarily there to see the men's elite race? Do people go to see the Rolling Stones so they can hear the bands that are opening for them?

I don't see where the UCI focuses on promoting the sport of cycling in their mission statement: http://62.50.72.83/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTY4MzQ&LangId=1
They use the word "promote" but their targeted responsibilities are organizational and rules based, not promoting. While better promotion and greater participation is certainly to their benefit, it is not the UCI's responsibility.

[FlashUNC]

Are you really doubting whether the 5000+ Belgian fans are primarily there to see the men's elite race? Do people go to see the Rolling Stones so they can hear the bands that are opening for them?

I don't see where the UCI focuses on promoting the sport of cycling in their mission statement: http://62.50.72.83/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTY4MzQ&LangId=1
They use the word "promote" but their targeted responsibilities are organizational and rules based, not promoting. While better promotion and greater participation is certainly to their benefit, it is not the UCI's responsibility.

To read that page and say promotion and devopment of the sport across a number of core disciplines isn't at the core of the UCI's mission is a willful misreading IMO.

From another page on the UCI site about its mission: http://62.50.72.83/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTU0OTk&LangId=1

The main mission of the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) is to promote cycling on the five continents, in all disciplines (road, track, mountain bike, BMX, para-cycling, cyclo-cross, trials and indoor cycling) and on all levels.

The development of Elite competition is the central objective of all the development actions led by the UCI. For elite cycling to continue to encourage cycling amateurs, practising or non-practising, and to inspire the young, it is vital that all groups that make up our sport function correctly. The elite come from the grass-roots level; champions cannot develop their potential without competent coaches; to exist, athletes must be able to depend on solid structures.



The UCI intends to increase in all disciplines :

- the number of countries where cycling is a recognised sport,

- the number of disciplines practised in each country,

- the number of countries taking part in major competitions,

- the number of licence-holders, especially women and the youth, in all countries,

[Broken]

...

Across the hall they are discussing this by competing to see who can be the most politically correct without regard to economic reality...

Lol. I wanted to say as much over there but was afraid I would set a new record and get banned after only 1 post.

Once RS took a stance the minions had to follow.

[bobswire]

I enjoy reading these kinds of threads, I don't participate in them since all I'd accomplish is proving my ignorance since I feel both sides are right.

[AustinHorse]

I totally support equality in payouts and would gladly take a hit. A big part of why we are not watching women's elite racing is because the current coverage, events, and attention aren't being directed there. But guess what the internet is democratizing everything anyways, even cycling. Professional cycling will continue to lose big money sponsors as they stick to the old ways (dudes and doping). The growth potential for women's elite bike racing is so huge ignoring it is at one's own peril. For sure established promoters will get by for a bit longer with the status quo but don't sleep if you're trying to build something today.

[El Chaba]

It is the MARKET that determines what someone's services are worth.....Whether or not that worth is "fair" is strictly a matter of perspective....I am a strong proponent of equality of opportunity....I am not a fan of attempts to manage the equality of outcomes....

[shovelhd]

He said prize money should match who feeds the pot, and as you said, lower rates amateurs are the ones who subsidize everyone else. So why should my Cat 4 registration money go disproportionately toward elite men than elite women?

And tying payouts to field size to "encourage" more women to sign up? I totally get the frustration race promoters feel over small women's fields, but this doesn't actually solve it.

Tying payouts to field size is very common in the Northeast. And I'm not saying anything I'm suggesting is a silver bullet. If the women's field size problem was easy to solve it would have been solved decades ago. What I am suggesting is that by requiring equal minimum fields then it at least partially justifies equal payout.

[shovelhd]

I totally support equality in payouts and would gladly take a hit. A big part of why we are not watching women's elite racing is because the current coverage, events, and attention aren't being directed there. But guess what the internet is democratizing everything anyways, even cycling. Professional cycling will continue to lose big money sponsors as they stick to the old ways (dudes and doping). The growth potential for women's elite bike racing is so huge ignoring it is at one's own peril. For sure established promoters will get by for a bit longer with the status quo but don't sleep if you're trying to build something today.

You're not suggesting that women are immune to doping are you?

[oldpotatoe]

If you're judging a cross race payout by who generates the most value -- rather than say the UCI's imperative to promote all of cycling sport -- then the beer vendor should easily get the biggest payout from both Elite races.

This idea the UCI -- whose sole job is to promote and oversee the sport -- has to adhere to some Randian wet dream is ridiculous.

I imagine he already does. It's about viewers, advertising, who watches and sees that banner. It's about cost, money, always. It's a business. I would love it if the women's 'anything', event, game, class, whatever, generated as much interest as the 'men's, but it just doesn't. Nor does u23, nor does cat 3/4/5, nor does...

[FastforaSlowGuy]

Tying payouts to field size is very common in the Northeast. And I'm not saying anything I'm suggesting is a silver bullet. If the women's field size problem was easy to solve it would have been solved decades ago. What I am suggesting is that by requiring equal minimum fields then it at least partially justifies equal payout.


So maybe the solution is to pay both men and women 33% deep, for example. If 150 men race, pay to 50. If 90 women show up, pay to 30. It gets tricky to figure out how big the total pot must be, but it's something. In any event, I think the top spots in both should see equal money.

And to be clear, I'm only talking about prize money here. All that crap about the market makes no sense to me in the context of prize money, where even Cat 4 can get paid. Whatever drives spectatorship, it sure is hell isn't my race that's doing it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FlashUNC]

I imagine he already does. It's about viewers, advertising, who watches and sees that banner. It's about cost, money, always. It's a business. I would love it if the women's 'anything', event, game, class, whatever, generated as much interest as the 'men's, but it just doesn't. Nor does u23, nor does cat 3/4/5, nor does...

Its a total Catch 22. I want to watch women's races. Marianne Vos is incredible. Katie Compton is a machine. The women's Olympic race in 2012 was infinitely more interesting than the men's race. I can't because there's "no interest."

The UCI's own mandate is to promote and oversee the sport. Simply requiring equal prize payouts would elevate and deepen women's fields by making the racing itself a bit more lucrative. Deeper women's fields maybe start to draw more fan interest, more sponsor dollars.

This isn't a magic wand that fixes anything overnight. But when guys 5 laps down in an elite race are getting paid out, but top 25 women aren't, then the UCI is falling down on the job to promote women's cycling.

[ptourkin]

Its a total Catch 22. I want to watch women's races. Marianne Vos is incredible. Katie Compton is a machine. The women's Olympic race in 2012 was infinitely more interesting than the men's race. I can't because there's "no interest."

The UCI's own mandate is to promote and oversee the sport. Simply requiring equal prize payouts would elevate and deepen women's fields by making the racing itself a bit more lucrative. Deeper women's fields maybe start to draw more fan interest, more sponsor dollars.

This isn't a magic wand that fixes anything overnight. But when guys 5 laps down in an elite race are getting paid out, but top 25 women aren't, then the UCI is falling down on the job to promote women's cycling.

Yes.

[nooneline]

Its a total Catch 22. I want to watch women's races. Marianne Vos is incredible. Katie Compton is a machine. The women's Olympic race in 2012 was infinitely more interesting than the men's race. I can't because there's "no interest."

It's just that dumb echo-chamber/death spiral: there are too few sponsors, so there's too little promotion, so there's too little coverage, so there's too little interest, so there's too little coverage, so there are too few sponsors.

But if there's any place where this cycle could be interrupted, it's Euro pro cx. They've got tens of thousands of spectators paying admission and buying from vendors. They've got financials that are sufficient to pay start contracts to almost every rider - and extremely lucrative ones to top riders (10,000 -15,000 Euro to top men, just to show up and start a race). The money is certainly there. The only question is whether or not people still want a racing culture where the women can't park in the elite parking lot.

[FastforaSlowGuy]

I have to think that a lot of the inequality - not just in pay, but in silly rules like parking - is partly a reflection of the Euro penchant for traditionalism. Road racing reigns supreme because that's how it's always been. Mens road racing sits at the top of that heap because that's how it's always been. As a white guy, I feel comfortable saying that we'd see the UCI pushing more aggressively in new directions (women's racing, BMX, Asia, etc.) if the leadership team were more well-rounded. I don't expect a lot of novel ideas out of a giant echo chamber.

I also take issue with the folks who decry all this as elitist political correctness. If prize money (not salaries) were linked to how many fans a rider draws, then domestiques should get less money for a TDF stage win than a GC contender. And Cat 2/3/4 CX should get no payout whatever. The reason prize money exists is to encourage more and better riders to show up. It's NOT a means of sharing profits with riders based on who creates the most publicity. That's what sponsorships and salaries are for.

[abalone]

I think that women should get equivalent or roughly equivalent pay to men based on fairness. However, I don't think that the top 5 women cyclocross racers are head and shoulders better than the rest of the women's field.

If more money was put into women's cycling, the incorrect thinking is that more women athletes would help bolster the rankings of all but the top 5 women's racers. I don't think that is going to happen. What would happen in reality is that the talent pool of athletes would widen for cycling, so you get tons more women runners and other mainstream athletes into cycling, and it would completely overwhelm the entire field from top to bottom.

There are probably 1000 elite women runners who would easily beat out the top 5 women cyclocross racers with about 6 months of training and learning race tactics. Easily.

[shovelhd]

I don't think you understand cyclocross racing at the elite level.

[fiamme red]

Whoever is dissing Laura Van Gilder hasn't seen her crush a sprint to beat an 18 year old phenom after being in the break for an hour. She's an amazing specimen, and a great person as well. One of the rare ones.I mean no disrespect to her. She's a great athlete. But it says something about the depth of the women's field when a 48-year-old woman so dominates an Elite race that the real race is for 2nd.

[nooneline]

I mean no disrespect to her. She's a great athlete. But it says something about the depth of the women's field when a 48-year-old woman so dominates an Elite race that the real race is for 2nd.

It only says something about the depth of the women's field in that race.

[AustinHorse]

@shovelhd absolutely not but there is nothing like the legacy and entrenchment in women's as there is in men's.

[shovelhd]

It only says something about the depth of the women's field in that race.

On that day. Laura also does the NCC circuit for Mellow Mushroom.

[Mark McM]

I think that women should get equivalent or roughly equivalent pay to men based on fairness.

What do you mean by "fairness"? Most of the arguments are based on some sense of "fairness", but there seems to be a disagreement about what "fairness" means. Should we also end age discrimination, and give Masters and Junior racers the same prize money as Elites out of "fairness"? Should we also give para-cycling racers the same prize money out of "fairness"?

[choke]

There are probably 1000 elite women runners who would easily beat out the top 5 women cyclocross racers with about 6 months of training and learning race tactics. Easily.I had no idea that Marianne Vos was such a mediocre cyclist.

[FastforaSlowGuy]

There are probably 1000 elite women runners who would easily beat out the top 5 women cyclocross racers with about 6 months of training and learning race tactics. Easily.


Hahaha! Um, no. Not a question of athletic talent, just TOTALLY different activities. Like comparing lacrosse and hockey. Just ask a triathlete who has to juggle three.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nooneline]

I think abalone has a good point that if the good athletes from other disciplines all had more opportunity to try cycling, then we'd have a much larger pool from which we'd be drawing champion cyclists. Raise your hand if you've ever known a good rower take up cycling and just start slaughtering their way through the categories. Or think of Eric Heiden, who was a long-track speed skater who pivoted to cycling and went pro.

On the flip side, it's interesting the way that different cycling disciplines are hard for different people. Change disciplines and things can equalize in funny ways. In my local scene there have been some road pros who race at the track. They'd drop me like a stone on the road but we race against each other on the track. And, there's the woman who won the triathlon world championship, who struggles to get to the front of a podunk amateur 'cross race.

[abalone]

I think abalone has a good point that if the good athletes from other disciplines all had more opportunity to try cycling, then we'd have a much larger pool from which we'd be drawing champion cyclists. Raise your hand if you've ever known a good rower take up cycling and just start slaughtering their way through the categories. Or think of Eric Heiden, who was a long-track speed skater who pivoted to cycling and went pro.

On the flip side, it's interesting the way that different cycling disciplines are hard for different people. Change disciplines and things can equalize in funny ways. In my local scene there have been some road pros who race at the track. They'd drop me like a stone on the road but we race against each other on the track. And, there's the woman who won the triathlon world championship, who struggles to get to the front of a podunk amateur 'cross race.


This is precisely right. The top 5 women are not going to be as athletically competitive if they had the same type of competition that other athletes from other sports face. If prize money were increased for the women, it would draw more female athletes from other sports such as Running. There would be absolutely no way that the top 5 female cyclists would even be able to stay in the pack then. It's all about the sheer number of participants, i.e. the "talent pool" from which each sports draws its champions. Consider the following...

1) Running has a huge participant base. The talent pool is enormous compared to cycling. Any athlete at one point has run. The talent pool is in the billions... Think about it, the top 5 runners selected from a billion! Those runners would be very, very good athletes.

2) Cycling, and especially women's cyclocross cycling, is such a niche sport. The talent pool is tiny. Literally, we are talking about maybe a couple hundred registered US women racers. Now, you get your top 5 women cyclists from a talent pool of like 200 female athletes. Those women would be ok athletes, but nothing compared to female runners.

Bottom line: if prize money were increased for the women, as I think it should, you would see a huge influx of other female athletes coming in and the top riders in the women's cycling would get dropped at every conceivable race. Elite amateur and pro women would be relegated to Category 4/5 status.

[fiamme red]

Bottom line: if prize money were increased for the women, as I think it should, you would see a huge influx of other female athletes coming in and the top riders in the women's cycling would get dropped at every conceivable race.Increased prize money would still be peanuts compared to the endorsement money that top women runners can make (e.g., 7-figure contracts with Nike).

[choke]

While I agree with you that the talent pool would be increased, this ....the top riders in the women's cycling would get dropped at every conceivable race. Elite amateur and pro women would be relegated to Category 4/5 status....is just so over the top IMO that all I can say is :eek:.

[1centaur]

Back on topic a bit, one way to view this issue is to step back and examine what prize money is supposed to produce, where it comes from, and can the goal assumed to be achieved through equal prize money be produced more effectively otherwise.

The thread on this topic at V Salon points out that the original article is not calling for equal prize money period but equal prize money at World Cup events where historically prize money was used in part to reimburse for assumed travel expenses of elite racers (sounds like time for a rethink). WC events help rack up points that become part of the perceived value of 'cross riders but one can see why some riders do not want to spend money to chase points.

So what is prize money good for in that case? improving the odds that the field is competitive. For what purpose? To build the sport. Can the sport be built otherwise more cost effectively? That is the question. Does the governing body really believe that women's cross has the potential to be a big sport? One wonders. Would equal prize money be tokenism given its level and depth? Maybe, but then it is tokenism for the men too, so if we are in token world why should the money be different? Maybe due to lack of belief. Is such lack justified? That is a question that will not get answered publicly by naysayers. Thus a pinch point that can be exploited by those seeking more money, not that they would see it that way, just the reality. Which groups really need prizes to provide field depth, and which classes would lead to monetary rewards for the sport if they did have field depth? Would money make U-23s more competitive and then create better elite fields so a better bang for the buck than women's fields, or will U-23s compete regardless? So many questions.

[GladiusXII]

I mean no disrespect to her. She's a great athlete. But it says something about the depth of the women's field when a 48-year-old woman so dominates an Elite race that the real race is for 2nd.

She's 50.... Someone's grandma who crushes souls. Would be interesting to see her 5-30s power numbers...

[shovelhd]

She has a great sprint.