sdgrannygear

To steal a quote from someone who posted a comment on chris lotts' blog, the truth has three sides, yours, his and the truth.

I'm curious as to what the deal is between CBR and USAC. I've read Chris' blog and from his side, he thinks that USAC is really a for profit entity trying to screw the little guys and put them out of business so they can increase their market share and fatten their own wallets. Furthermore, he thinks that they are run by a bunch of incompetent fools who are running cycling into the ground. He's obviously very vocal about his disdain towards them. What I want to know is, what is USAC's side of the story? Why do they no longer accept CBR points? They did last year and for several years before that but have since stopped. I tried to use a couple CBR races for an upgrade but was denied. The only thing they would tell me is that USAC has sent a cease and desist order to any CBR points towards upgrades, no reason was given as to why CBR is no longer recognized. So what is their story? Are they really trying to cut down the competition? Is the truth somewhere in between?

Apparently Oregon, Colorado and a few other states have had problems with USAC as well, are Lotts' complaints the same as these states?

mkadam68

I would imagine, that unless someone from USAC responds here, that this would all be conjecture.

My guess: Insurance stepped in & said they can't be connected to CBR points in case of lawsuits, etc...

badhat

colorados ACA has a reasonable reciprocity agreement so we're fine on that front.

our current USAC drama is that the UCI has suddenly decided to enforce its rule barring uci racers from competing in events not sanctioned by national bodies. apparently, according to the aca director, USAC has the discretion to override this rule, and allow pros to race in regional events, but are currently choosing not to. the end result is that no UCI. racers can participate in ACA races which make up about 90% of colorados race calendar.

this sucks for the pros who used our events to train, it sucks for our promoters who lose participants and publicity, it sucks for our development teams who used to routinely get to race and learn from world class talent. really nobody wins, and as far as i know the USAC hasnt responded to ACAs concerns.

ACA is certainly not without its problems but this seems like a really petty turf war using our scene as hostages.

waterrockets 

Who says USAC is our "national governing body?"

badhat

UCI, i guess

mattm

I never got why states wanted to opt out of the USAC thing in the first place.. it only seems to complicate things.

In other words: assimilate, dammit! Then people would have less to complain about.

Brian Ratliff

My license cost me $20 and race results are posted next day. OBRA has a reciprocity agreement with USAC, so there really is no downside. If I want to race outside of OR, I can just buy a USAC license and my category transfers straight across.

OBRA is a damn fine organization. Don't know what OBRA's initial beef with the national organization was (before my time) but I sure like the way things turned out.

brianappleby

I've heard that USAC doesn't honor the reciprocity when upgrading from 2-1. Some guy on our team won a stage at Cascade, and USAC didn't count it... according to the guy..

badhat

i have been pretty happy with the ACA and find that theyre more responsive to complaints and problems and are generally better about posting full results quickly than USAC is. i havent had bad experiences with USAC particualrly but i do like the grass roots ness of ACA. as mentioned before they do bumble sometimes: the timing chip debacle this year makes them look really sloppy, but if it sorts itself out soon, it'll end up another point in thier column.


the oddest part of that is of course, USAC is based in Colorado and barely runs any races here.

Brian Ratliff

It might be the reciprocity is only one way. You can upgrade from 2-1 in OBRAland on an OBRA license and USAC will respect your Cat 1 status when applying for a USAC license, but USAC might not recognize OBRA races for upgrading under a USAC license. The head of OBRA goes by the name of OBRA3 here on the forums, you can ask him if you want the real answer.

Obviously a vast majority of our racers are purely local, maybe straying out to WA or CA for a few races here and there. I don't know what our Cat 2+ riders do regarding licensing if they race equally inside and outside of OR. It could simply be that they hold and maintain separate OBRA and USAC licenses and the upgrade points are segregated.

At Cascade, for the P1 field the whole issue is moot because it is an NRC race.

Creakyknees

to answer the OP, yes, USAC is a for-profit corporation

/ oops I was wrong... shouldn't trust my memory. they are §501(c)(3)

badhat

501c3 is not-for-profit

cmh

+1 OBRA is a great organization. They do a great job of everything except guaranteeing no rain on race days.

Fat Boy

Really the CBR vs. USAC thing is contentious because of Chris. He's childish, vindictive, prone to tantrums, and loud-mouthed, just like every other bike racer. He's also a hell of a good guy and runs pretty good races. The deal is, he's just very tough to deal with. If he'd just shut his mouth and run his show, he'd have reciprocity just like all the other regional organizations. He just can't keep his mouth shut, though, so he's in a situation where there is a lot of bad blood between the two organizations. The racers end up in the middle.

California racers need to speak up. Send something to USAC that demands reciprocity. If you go to a Cat 3 CBR race and then a Cat 3 USAC race on successive weekends, you'll see about 75% of the same people. Most of us are members of both organizations. They don't need to like each other, but they should respect each other enough to allow at least 1/2 of your upgrade points to come from an outside organization.

If there are 500 or so emails to USAC, I bet they start to think about it a little more seriously.

calRider

You might want to verify this. A guy on our team was a CAT 3 in OR under OBRA, and came down to CA where USAC put him back in the 4s...it's possible the guy lied about being a CAT 3, but I doubt it. Of course, maybe other states will honor your OBRA CAT.

VT Biker

My understanding that one of the issues with USAC which caused the ACA to form in the first place had in part due to Masters racing, and the more flexible ACA breakout, with separating the 35+ and 45+ into 4's and 3's and above.

USAC if I understand correctly was less flexible, forcing 35+ & 45+ new racers to race against 35+ and 45+ guys who had been racing 20+ years, and could hammer it out. The ability to create a 35+4 and 45+4 categories increases the marketability of the ACA races to racers who are coming into the sport later in life. Again this is my understanding, and I can see promoters who find the ability to attract new Masters racers to their events as a reason to race under the ACA banner.

If someone has better information on the reason for the historical break between USAC and ACA, feel free to jump in.

badhat

thats both true and incredibly frustrating.

we have such a glut of masters categories now its really staggering.

i understand the value of having a couple of different masters cats but the problem with ACAs execution is that they routinely comingle the races anyway...

so for example, last weekend at hugo, they ran Cat3 and 35+cat3 together, allowed them to ride together and then scored seperately.

keep in mind that if youre 35 or over (as i am) you can register in EITHER catergory, race the same race, and then depending on which box you checked, get a different finish spot.

I raced staight up SM3, and off the top of my head i can think of 5 or 6 other guys who were active in the race who are over 35 and raced the regular SM3. so the guys who chose to race in the same race but registered as 35+3 have basically an imaginary finish rank.

if the point of age based cats is safety, since youngns are typically more reckless that us family types, then racing us all together completely defeats the point, if its supposed to be easier or harder or whatever... then running us all together again completely defeats the point.

I've seen races where 35+3 and 3 started together and the guy who "won" 35+3 was well behind 40 year olds in the same race who registered for SM3.

its just completely pointless and stupid. either have actual seperate races, or get rid of seperate scoring, or make it automatic- if youre over 35 and enter a mixed race, youre automatically scored in your AG.

i get that masters are basically subsidizing the sport for the rest of us but i just dont think we need to bend so far backwards to give every single one of them a participation award.

asgelle

That has nothing to do with ACA (or USAC). The choice of fields and arrangement of categories within fields is up to the discretion of the promoter. There are a few restrictions on how the groupings can work but they are very minor and seldom of consequence.

pjcampbell

but can I deduct the cost off my license as a charitable donation haha

badhat

not true in ACAs case at least. cant speak for USAC but having dealt with ACA a lot in the past few years, they do a lot to encourage events to run these categories, especially in terms of awarding BAR/BAT status or CX Cup status, etc to races who comply with the category requirements they set out.

miwoodar

I agree Badhat. It's stupid to hold a combined 3's and a 35+3's race that is scored as if they are two different races. I care more about the 35+3's option when it comes to crits BTW.

FWIW, Russell Harding has a good summary of the organizations and positions thereof is his blog:
https://theroadtocat1.com/2011/04/21/...local-impacts/

asgelle

Encourage is not the same as mandate. It's still up to the promoter to choose to be part of BAR/BAT or not. Obviously, there has to be consistence in classes if series championships are involved.

brianappleby

Since we're venting.

ACA scores Masters separate from Seniors when they mix fields, but they don't separate the 1's from the 2's in P12 races.

WTF?

The 2's don't even get their own category in the State Time Trial. I have to race against 1's, and get scored against 1's, and beat 1's if I want upgrade points, but I'm not a 1.

asgelle

What he misses is that the impetus for OBRA, ACA, etc. to go from local organizations to licensing and sanctioning bodies was the decision by USCF in the 90's to fire the district rep's and replace them with new regional officers.

sdgrannygear

So what you are saying is that it's purely political and because they don't like the guy. I'm not sure even all the emails would change anything because usac has their hand in so many weekend races that we really can't boycott usac if we want to race more than maybe 8 races during the season.

Anyway, from what I understand, usac will start honoring cbr races later this summer, the question is, why not just prorate the other races we've already done? Nothing has changed, so why don't they stop hurting the riders?