Psimet2001 

Based on what Gary wrote i figured this might be worth seeing so I un-blocked it..... I might change my mind but - here....

This is the entire basis of the system we have now. the only thing we actually put in to separate fields was "men" and "women" qualifiers. Then people that were good started to think it would be fun to still be able to race and do well. Enter masters. Then it never seemed fair to have to compete with kids - either because the kids are too good or they suck so badly they pose a safety risk to all - so we have juniors.

I have watched a LOT of people walk away from the sport because we don't currently offer women's masters races. One of the best racing talents in this area is a coach (triathlon - Age group Kona podium annually) who could bring between 30-100 women to the sport but she refuses to even think about racing road anymore. When asked why on the numerous occasions when I have pleaded with her to race: "Rob - no way. There's no masters races and I'm not going to compete with a 20 something. And the second is that road racing means crits and crits are too dangerous. Don't tell me they aren't either as remember I was racing when someone in our field died in the race." The issue for the racer is NOT the field size - that is only an issue to the promoter if that promoter actually cares. Speaking as a promoter you're going to drive yourself bonkers if you start caring about field sizes. People want to compete where they at least feel they have a chance at winning.

People DON'T want to lose to someone they don't feel they should lose to. Whether that's someone younger, someone older, or someone of a different gender that difference will always be brought up as either a reason for them losing or the "only reason they won". In short we are too stupid and vain to allow ourselves to truly admit where we are on the talent spectrum and too stupid to admit that we still judge others as inferior by age or gender. It's a self absorbed sport based on vanity/ego.

BUT......
Our category system is busted in a couple of major ways. We all know the ways but let me speak to the one that affect race participation the most. There are 2 and they are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

1. Cat5. Category 5 is an experience upgrade category. It has absolute f*$@all to do with talent or ability. The "purpose" is so that you learn the important things. how to get to a race, pin a number on, line up when you should, learn how to know how long the race is, what the format will be, how to corner with all your friends and what to do when you wreck, flat, think you were placed wrong in the results at 35th instead of 32nd, etc. This has always made sense to cyclists that are indoctrinated already in the sport. It has NEVER made sense to new racers. I assure you that every racer when they start to learn about the sport they almost always ask "so what category am I then? How do they determine that? Is there some sort of trial or test race or something?" So even as a new racer with no experience we all believed that there should be some sort of way of separating people based on their ability - ESPECIALLY when they start.

Because of this disconnect we have created a system whereby a rider who has been finishing in the "faster group" on their Saturday shop ride decides to give it a try and does it in the "beginners" category of 5. They toe the line next to some HGH drugged out masters aged racer who has been training with power for 5 years and just decided to "give racing a try". They get slayed. They get yelled at. Most likely they also got pulled. If they're smart they also just decided that was a colossal waste of money and time. They aren't comforted by the reality that "even someone that will become the next Lance will have to start as a cat 5" It will also dawn on them that it isn't just some guy that is sandbagging. That they will constantly be competing with riders completely above their ability unless they themselves get to at least Cat 3 and are able to be in contention in nearly every race. Because before then you are always being visited by riders "on their way up". Meaning every time you toe the line you are toeing the line with talent that far exceeds and excels in comparison tot he rest of the field.

If we were able to somehow identify those talents and better predict where people "belonged" at least physically then we would end up with a more evenly matched fields in the area and level that is most important - at the starting level.

I have tried to come up with actual answers. My current one is to have 2 cat 5 races on the same day. Only allow riders to enter as a cat 5 - not for the specific cat 5 field. Then painstakingly and manually make judgement about every person who enters by searching strava, garmin, trainingpeaks, facebook profiles/pictures, etc and make judgement on whether I think they should be in the "fast race" or the "citizen actual entry level" race. Although this would seem to open a minefield of ethical and legal issues - I have actually been told I am allowed to do that as long as I keep certain things impartial like duration and awards and I make it clear that riders could be in either race. but seriously how do you really rank people without having been able to watch them perform?

2) In today's reality there is little to no point in having a P, 1 and a 2 designation. These are subtle and minor ways of describing really small differences, nay nuances of ability (as in the ability to talk a patron into giving you money being the only difference between P and 1). It makes perfect sense to those that "struggled" to achieve those levels but in reality they are all racing the same race almost all of the time. 3 different designations to describe close enough talent levels that they all feel competitive in all of the races they race together. Yet we have roughly 1 category designation at the most crucial - entry level of the sport. Oh and the p/1/2 designation - even thought it is 3 different levels are so exclusive that when deciding whether to award a cat 2 state championship in the p/1/2 race or the 2/3 race I was able to just simply ask every cat 2 in the state. All 5 of them (yes, women's field). That's ridiculous.

So ye, the category system is broken but the answer will never be the blending of all ages and genders into fields of comparable talent. While perfect in a world where we can simply allow performance to decide - we are too bigoted to accept that as a whole.

I go back to talking with Samantha Schneider and her dad Dave. At a time when Sam was (and still is) winning a ton of domestic races and arguably the best crit racer in the US - Dave basically says, "She's graduating college. she'll probably quit then. There is no real career in racing bikes - especially in the women's field. Tibco paid for her college and for that we are grateful."

Then I remembered all of those times I talked to women pro racers who all had the same story - I was an athlete in college but then I started my career focused on that and/or family then found myself in my 30's and wanting to come back to compete.

This behavior has nothing to do with USA Cycling or anyone's policies. Hell I even took a break from riding during my college years (best damn decade of my life). When, as a whole, the best in our sport would easily qualify as living in poverty and rely on the kindness of friends and neighbors just to survive it's not hard to understand that at that critical point in a youth's life it's not hard to walk away from cycling. They almost always come back though and that's why our numbers are so high in masters age groups.

What I am happy about is that Sam didn't quit. She has remained a top level racer. She has developed under smaller team and less pressure. She got married and is enjoying her life. She has actively helped lay the groundwork for Skylar to meet and exceed her achievements and now Skylar is signed on for her second season racing in Europe for boels dolmans.