USA Cycling does it again - CX Worlds selections

[Bruce K]

So, it appears USA Cycling has left open spots on the U23 Men’s and Women’s teams because there weren’t any “qualified athletes” to fill discretionary spots.

Seems kind of BS to me.

Why would you not fill the team and give some up and comers European experience?

BK

[72gmc]

A short-term, hope we get lucky approach instead of a long-term foundation for better results approach. Doesn’t make sense to me, but it’s what they do.

[Chris]

I think it’s possible to go over there, with no European experience and get pulled on your first lap. That’s not a lot of experience for the money.

[Bruce K]

But that would be their choice as discretionary picks have to be fully self-funded.

USA Cycling only provides financial support for the “big guns”.

They would be helping with mechanical/pit support.

BK

[mhespenheide]

I don't know the rules, so this is only speculation, but do the athletes competing in the World's need a certain amount of UCI points, or other qualifications beyond a single performance at Nationals?

I ask because I know that, in Track and Field, a country can have been allocated three athletes for World Championships, but all three of those athletes need to have made certain time cut-offs. In that case, leaving unfilled spots allows runners a last-chance to get a qualifying time and compete.

[Mark McM]

Why would you not fill the team and give some up and comers European experience?

Using the "follow the money" theory, USA Cycling's strategy for developing the sport can be summed up with one word: "Olympics". Cycling is a niche sport in the US, and except for the -7 episode, the general public pays no attention to cycling (and most other niche sports) except during the Olympics. Thus, USA Cycling's biggest opportunity to generate revenue is from corporate sponsorships to develop and support the Olympic cycling team.

There used to be multiple cycling sports organizing bodies in the US, for the various different branches of cycling: USCF for amateur cycling road, track and cyclocross, US Pro for professional road racing, NORBA for offroad racing, ABA for BMX, etc.. For a long period of time, only amateur cyclists could compete at the Olympics, and the Olympics had only road and track events. Thus, USCF was the only cycling federation that could participate in the Olympic money grab. When the Olympics decided to allow professional cyclists to compete, USCF's immediate reaction was to buy US Pro (and thus form USA Cycling), so that they could maintain control over Olympic funds. A few years later, when mountain biking was added to the Olympics, USA Cycling' immediately reacted by buying NORBA. And when BMX was added to the Olympics, USA Cycling immediately absorbed ABA.

Where does that leave Cyclocross? By all appearances, cyclocross is merely tolerated by USA Cycling, simply because they can't get rid of it. Because cyclocross is not an Olympic sport, USA Cycling has little opportunity to make any money from it, so they have no interest in developing or supporting it. Cyclocross is essentially the red-headed stepchild of US cycling.

By the way, the Olympic angle also explains why USA Cycling provides far more support to track cycling than any other cycling discipline: There are far more Olympic medals available in track (12 medal events) than in road (4 medal events), BMX (4 medal events) or MTB (2 medal events). Olympic medals is what draws sponsors, so the more medals available in any given sport, the more money there is to grab.

[Bruce K]

Discretionary picks are based on a petition process based on 3 criteria:

Medal capable
Will contribute to a medal capable team atmosphere
Will he medal capable in the near future

The selection committee is sadly void of current or near current cross racers, team personnel, promoters, etc

But the deadline to add is now past so....

BK

[John H.]

Most of the athletes that WERE selected don't even meet the criteria that you gave for the discretionary selection-

But it is not the fault of the athlete(s)- It is USAC and the environment.
In past years they have had some cross campaigns where they keep an entire group in Belgium for training and racing.
There were few if any american kids over there this year.

The athletes need to Euro racing to even have a chance at doing well at the world championships.

I strongly disagree with naming extra athletes to merely "fill the roster".
Well heeled kids go, others cannot.

And from what I have seen in road, mtb and cross worlds treams- The younger riders are not looked after in a manner that allows them to race at their best.
They tend to go to Europe- Over-train chasing each other around, ride too hard on pre-rides and easy days and end up not putting together a good race on race day.
None of this is the fault of the athletes- it is the USAC program.

[earlfoss]

I'm cool with that move. We don't have an American aside from Compton who has a prayer of holding their own against the Europeans. Maybe there's the oddball one-off performance, but race in and race out we don't have a hitter much less a critical mass of racers who could even meet the discretionary selection criteria. This is the world championships for goodness sake. I know that's not a popular view with the social media savvy crowd, but the fact stands.

[Bruce K]

Disagree - especially on the Women’s side.

Noble and Keough have WC wins this year.

Conditions will play a big factor into who can do what.

But we’re also talking about the U23 and Juniors.

I guarantee you the Elite teams will be full.

We’re talking about talent development.

BK

[e-RICHIE]

USA Cycling only provides financial support for the “big guns”.


That's fine.

Our "big guns" only figure in the races now and then, and when they do they're women.

It's the World Championships. If USAC doesn't toss cabbage at the up and comers and no-hopers all season long by way of camps, development trips to big races, or mentoring, then the WC isn't a place to start.

[earlfoss]

Disagree - especially on the Women’s side.

Noble and Keough have WC wins this year.

Conditions will play a big factor into who can do what.

But we’re also talking about the U23 and Juniors.

I guarantee you the Elite teams will be full.

We’re talking about talent development.

BK


WC wins in the USA don't really count, especially so early in the season. I'm pretty sure the decision makers at USAC know this. Noble is barely in the top 20 when it's a WC where things count - in Belgium. I'm not saying she's bad, but you can't race in the USA all season and then expect to slay at the European WC events.

[HenryA]

Using the "follow the money" theory, USA Cycling's strategy for developing the sport can be summed up with one word: "Olympics". Cycling is a niche sport in the US, and except for the -7 episode, the general public pays no attention to cycling (and most other niche sports) except during the Olympics. Thus, USA Cycling's biggest opportunity to generate revenue is from corporate sponsorships to develop and support the Olympic cycling team.

There used to be multiple cycling sports organizing bodies in the US, for the various different branches of cycling: USCF for amateur cycling road, track and cyclocross, US Pro for professional road racing, NORBA for offroad racing, ABA for BMX, etc.. For a long period of time, only amateur cyclists could compete at the Olympics, and the Olympics had only road and track events. Thus, USCF was the only cycling federation that could participate in the Olympic money grab. When the Olympics decided to allow professional cyclists to compete, USCF's immediate reaction was to buy US Pro (and thus form USA Cycling), so that they could maintain control over Olympic funds. A few years later, when mountain biking was added to the Olympics, USA Cycling' immediately reacted by buying NORBA. And when BMX was added to the Olympics, USA Cycling immediately absorbed ABA.

Where does that leave Cyclocross? By all appearances, cyclocross is merely tolerated by USA Cycling, simply because they can't get rid of it. Because cyclocross is not an Olympic sport, USA Cycling has little opportunity to make any money from it, so they have no interest in developing or supporting it. Cyclocross is essentially the red-headed stepchild of US cycling.

By the way, the Olympic angle also explains why USA Cycling provides far more support to track cycling than any other cycling discipline: There are far more Olympic medals available in track (12 medal events) than in road (4 medal events), BMX (4 medal events) or MTB (2 medal events). Olympic medals is what draws sponsors, so the more medals available in any given sport, the more money there is to grab.

Its this ^^^^^^^^.


Its about keeping a job funded by the money grab above. Mostly the governing bodies are about self perpetuation without much regard for regular participants in the sport. Its been that way for decades and in most sports. And somehow they seem to keep most people fooled into believing in the glory of amatuer athletics.

[John H.]

You don't develop talent by taking a kid to a race that is WAY over their head.
Then reduce their chances by letting them over-train, under-rest, etc.
Then put them in a race where they start in the back row, instantly get dropped- And then get pulled early on.

Again, it is not the fault of the athlete.

Disagree - especially on the Women’s side.

Noble and Keough have WC wins this year.

Conditions will play a big factor into who can do what.

But we’re also talking about the U23 and Juniors.

I guarantee you the Elite teams will be full.

We’re talking about talent development.

BK

[glepore]

listen to Richard...

[Bruce K]

It’s not just Worlds

It’s these last few races leading up to Worlds as well

BK

[John H.]

All true- USAC is a bureaucracy of the highest order.
You don't get hired by USAC to do great things.


Its this ^^^^^^^^.


Its about keeping a job funded by the money grab above. Mostly the governing bodies are about self perpetuation without much regard for regular participants in the sport. Its been that way for decades and in most sports. And somehow they seem to keep most people fooled into believing in the glory of amatuer athletics.

[Bruce K]

Richie -

Hopefully Jesse Anthony will be a big part of doing what you propose

But I also still question the fact that there was nobody qualified for either U23s or Juniors as a Discretionary.

It just doesn’t feel proper.

BK

[bewheels]

I don’t know if it is still the case, but the USCF was primarily funded through moneys that were allocated for the Olympics. This is/was why things like cyclocross were not well supported. And very likely why to took over NORBA and the BMX group when they became Olympic sports. It is also why there is/was a strong focus on track. It wasn’t just because we may have had a better shot at medals, it was because the funding was for Olympic sports and track has been an Olympic sport for a long time.

As I mentioned, I don’t know if that is still the case

[Hellgate]

I think this is a reflection, in general, of the state of CX in the US. Instead of growing solid young racers, we have"Hecklers Hollow," "Cross Dressers," and beer hand ups. In full disclosure...I completely enjoyed a beer hand up last season in San Antonio from a cross-dresser while being off the back...

That said, CX is a side show in the US, and as a result that's the product that's produced.

[e-RICHIE]

Richie -

Hopefully Jesse Anthony will be a big part of doing what you propose

But I also still question the fact that there was nobody qualified for either U23s or Juniors as a Discretionary.

It just doesn’t feel proper.

BK

I don’t see why we’d want to move a few riders to Northern Europe for some events that really are Northern European centric. I never have. So by extension (to your reply) I’d be content to see Jesse simply enhance what we have here. To quote myself, “We are not them.” I see no point in trying.

As far as the selections for U23 and Juniors are concerned, did you see who’s on the lists? The best riders from the past two seasons are on it. I ask you, who is missing?

[Bruce K]

Not completely sure

Who do you consider the next up and comers?

Stephenson & Lando for Men? Russenberger, Santa’s, & Arensman for Women.

Some of them beat those named to the team at Nationals.

BK

[e-RICHIE]

Not completely sure

Who do you consider the next up and comers?

Stephenson & Lando for Men? Russenberger, Santa’s, & Arensman for Women.

Some of them beat those named to the team at Nationals.

BK

USAC already has six U23 riders. That’s plenty on the men’s side.
For U23 women there are four. Did Sophie and/or the others petition?
PS beating an Elite level rider at the Natz, on just one day, means nothing.

[Bruce K]

That is a good question

I thought I read they declined petitions as “not having future medal potential” but they never said who.

BK

[Red Tornado]

I think this is a reflection, in general, of the state of CX in the US. Instead of growing solid young racers, we have"Hecklers Hollow," "Cross Dressers," and beer hand ups. In full disclosure...I completely enjoyed a beer hand up last season in San Antonio from a cross-dresser while being off the back...

That said, CX is a side show in the US, and as a result that's the product that's produced.

This.
I don't race cross but have friends who do, and I attend as many races as I can in support. There are a good number of serious racers who come out, but I see a lot of what the person I quoted sees as well. Nothing wrong with a more laid back atmosphere than the sometimes-uptight road scene, but has it become too laid back?