Doge

@Rajflyboy and @McBTC I have been suggesting category by ability for some time. Filling fields just cost's less.
Combine that with the perception on in-equality having separate classes, it is coming faster than most think. See https://www.bikeforums.net/20924577-post1.html . This bill will likely pass and then we wait a couple years to see the fallout.

Another hard one is when folks legally took testosterone and now want to race. Women, and men less so, can build a lot of mass, get off the hormone and still benefit long after.
The very top riders will generally be getting some PED help - "legally" or not. I see no way to control it currently.

Rajflyboy

Makes sense

Abe_Froman

You do realize you're advocating eliminating womens pro cycling though, yes?

Doge

Maybe. So what? But not directly. Let folks watch what they want to watch and if you are not interesting enough to be watched, then you kinda are not really a pro, no matter how good you are.

I remember doing some of the Mexican "fondos" where there were 5,000 or 10,000 starters. Everyone knew who the first woman was. She got a prize.

If people want to watch women's pro, then good. If they don't want to watch, which seems to be the case currently then if you really love it find those to support it.
This is a pro forum for the fans and should be based on the professional entertainment value. If people don't want to watch a class, then no reason for that "pro" class to exist.

For me, the most exciting cycling is Euro juniors. Way more exciting than pros. They will ride over cars to win, it is all full gas. Thousands show up to watch the kids. Tens of thousands show up to watch the men, while women are much more calculating and more boring IMO, few watch. I'd bet I follow the women more than 99% of the posters here. I like women's racing, but it is not "pro" (this forum) and never has been.

Women's cycling typically does not draw any spectators. I understand why. They go much slower than their ability and and are very risk adverse. Which is why a 14 year old girl can win the SoCal pro championship. A 14 year old boy could not. If women want to be watched and pro - give us some entertainment. So far, I have seen little that I would spend money to see. And...nor has anyone else. That is the essence of being a pro.

Abe_Froman

Sorry...I value equality over entertainment. I'd sooner end mens cycling than just say screw the women cycliats. It would appear the CA legislature agrees, too..

Doge

I agree CA AB-467 (from memory) may have the end result you prefer for all but pros. It may just have an open Fondo like class where everyone is welcome. I have advocated for that. The only division should be ability, not age, not gender. And while I disagree with this law, I think it will push non-professional cycling that way.


The law says prizes must be identical. What does that mean? The races aren't. Sports aren't. It will just eliminate prize money unless the lawyers figure for cycling they pay identical prize money for a KWhr (that is how my electric company charges me) for the winner. In professional entertainment pay and prize amount are traditionally related on profit for that event. Bigger event, more money coming in bigger purse.


In the scope of men's pro sports, cycling in particular, I think it will just eliminate prizes for winning. So the women's medal will be identical to the men's.


The legislators in CA were very short cited as I believe more prize and other compensation for winning (not salary) goes to females in CA. Soccer, gym, volleyball and college scholarships (other compensation for winning?) are already gender assigned via Title IX and NCAA. I mentioned my daughter played for a $20K gift from Nike, while same length game for males played for $0.


They are pros because they make money from entertainment, and implied in the title is that is their profession / job. Pros do not need prize money, they need salary and support. The CA law is about winning, not salary and uses the word identical, rather than the more often used and understood equal (what you said you value). So the easiest "fix" is just no prizes for the winners. In pro cycling that is pretty much how it is now. The winner is paid and the money distributed to the team - that can mean the support staff too. We already have laws on equal pay. Equal for same results. In entertainment the results are around profit. Revenue from sponsors, spectators etc. - costs. If the lawyers need to get involved it will IMO:

-Have low budget operations fold

-Result in gender-less race categorization (my preference)

-Eliminate prizes for winning

-Have lawyers draw up what the meaning of a result is, define identical vs equal and find some unit that both men and women have in each sport.

Abe_Froman

This really is not complicated. You're dancing around the subject to justify the current (sexist) setup.

If a male winner gets a $1000 for a race, the female winner gets $1000.

Also you are using false equivelance in comparing cycling to other sports. Cycling requires permits to use public roads. Professional cycling is asking the US government(and/or local municipalities) to be complicit in sexism, as they donate or lease their property to further sexist sporting events.

Doge

I have no idea why you think it is sexist. Gymnastics is 5:1 female. That does not make it sexist. Youth soccer is 2:1 female women are millions ahead in participation.

No problems for pro races like ToC. But what could have been $20K will now be $1,000K. Salary will be adjusted. This is not unlike salary being adjusted when tips go away.

In the USA that will have a large affect on the semi-pro (Pro races by folks that have day jobs). I expect we may see an effect on Redlands.
Tour of Utah, and Tour of CO have no women's fields that I know of.

Abe_Froman

How exactly do you NOT think giving a woman $100 for a race win, while giving a man $500 for a win is sexist??

fietsbob

" I wouldn't Change a Thing " https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/48393491

Doge

Because the costs are different and the revenue is different - and the events are different form length, to competitors to what it takes to train for them.

USA Cycling has over 200 National champions. The sexist part is making this about gender. Why not by age, or pay para the same, or pay every sport the same?



A 10K is not a marathon. The value for each is based on what the promoter can make off them. Equal is both groups get the same % of profit. That may be hard to figure, but that would be fair.

Identical is the pay is the same to the same number of places for what are essentially different events. The idea that men pay to 10 places and women to 4 is not identical. Ask the 5th place woman.


Professional cycling is based on the profit to the promoter and what they are willing to pay to get racers. Pro races in CA - ToC, Redlands, Dana Point Grand Prix and then big semi-pro have big purses that draw big registration and big sponsors. I'm looking at Dana Point right now. I know the guy that started it. He loves cycling, and he likes making money. It moved from San Clemente to Dana Point - for profit and lack of regulations San Clemente had. I often eat on that course. The restaurants make money on that race. They like it and they like the crowds. I expect if the women brought in the profit the men did the purse would be just as big. For DPGP is is as big. Fewer women race less time and get paid the same purse $12,000K /EA. They can afford that.


Many events in CA are single gender. Many of the pro cycling races are single gender. Some are just starting women's in Europe as well as USA. Promoters made very little on cycling and it is costly. Throw this burden on them that says reduce the pot that draws the racers that make you money and I expect, they will just stay single gender - the one that makes them money. People think racing for money is silly and just git ride of the purse. That may work for non-pros but many pro cyclist race for money.


I do not know what the fallout if this law passes will be. It is unclear if it is just coastal, state or what geography it covers. It is unclear what identical means. The bill is difficult for me to understand what it covers but I know it covers the area where my kid rowed. The bill says "prize or other inducement as a reward ".

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201920200AB467

Something that would be open for debate is women winning rowing get public money for CA college (UC Irvine, UCLA, Berkeley...).

From Rowing Scholarships & Chances of competing in College Rowing Scholarship per team are big. NCAA allows 20 / school men 0 / school is public tax payer money based on gender in the very waterways this bill is about.



If they start serious debate they will see there is likely more being taken from females.

Doge

I'd be surprised if he would have com back after those 7 and if he would have done the public confession.

If he had become an EU citizen I doubt he would have been in the mix up, but then US Postal and Nike would likely not be funding him the same.

fietsbob

There was the "every one else was doing it" justification offered..

Lance cameo'd in HBO Spoof Mocumentary , Tour de Pharmacy

Abe_Froman

Uh huh. And the state of California is saying they're not going to be a part of that sexist rationalism anymore. If pros and promoters want to continue sexist purse structure, they can just go ahead and build their own roads, and race on those for a decade or two until that practice gets eliminated by the supreme court.

Or, they could just stop being misogynistic right now and do things the right way...

McBTC

The winner of an athletic event coming down to a judge and jury just doesn't quite seem right, right?

Abe_Froman

Winner, no. Gender based payout, yes.

OBoile

Given that the 20th (30th, 40th, 100th?) place male was almost certainly faster than the 1st place women, how can you justify giving her $100 and him $0? There's no other profession where we give someone of lesser ability more simply because of their gender (or at least, there is no other profession where this is considered acceptable). We don't have a "women's only" lawyers "league" where they don't have to compete with male lawyers, or a women's only teachers group that doesn't have their performance rated against male teachers.

If you're okay with women getting paid just as much, despite being worse, are you okay with masters/junior riders getting paid less? That seems like a clear case of age discrimination to me. What about the Clydesdale category, is that weight discrimination?

The fact is, with few exceptions, any time you put some sort of qualifier on a race, whether it's "female only", or ">40 only", or "kids only" people aren't as excited about it. They know they aren't seeing the best of the best (much like minor league baseball doesn't make as much as the big leagues despite the fact that 90% of people watching wouldn't be able to tell the difference). As such, it won't generate as much money and it won't be able to support as large a prize pool.

SamSpade1941 

I love the Forward podcast and the Move. Lance always has the most fascinating guests on the Forward. His podcast the Move actually is interesting enough I started watching cycle races when I never used to or care that people race bicycles .

McBTC

To allow people 'like' males -- to compete against women who inarguably will always have a disproportionate percentage of their physicality related to the creation and nurturing of life... doesn't make a lot of sense. if political correctness is to rule the day, perhaps the rules should be more like horse racing, EG, add weights to the competitors to even amount... which I guess in a similar way is one of the suggestions in this situation and that is being required to take drugs to reduce the amount of testosterone.

Doge

2018 Dana Point GP paid $12K to men and women. While the $12K purses were identical, the prize amount per rider was not equal. Add time, less so.
Making it equal rather than identical is not misogynistic. It is simply fair. And you are correct, if this made it to the Supreme court it would likely be struck down. I doubt it will get out of CA.

There were 40 women that raced and 80 men. The men raced 50% longer. Now DPGP is a borderline entertainment event meaning the revenue is somewhat based on what sponsors and people pay to watch. What the people do is irrelevant. This exists in the hospitality industry too.

Anyway, DPGP a former PRT race, is also no more.

City permits and police etc for a race where the payouts (prize, all other costs) exceed the revenue. Major sponsors don't want to take the hit of some people calling them names by having races profitable, so they pull out.

The result is no event.

I'm not sure the ToC could take the same hit. ToC is more about overall feel-good than racing, so maybe it can.

Abe_Froman

I mean really, the answer to all of this, as it really is in pretty much all sports, is to just remove the money. It will then skew towards amateurs more. No prize purse if it is too complicated logistically for the sport to work out. Pro teams can pay riders a salary (equal) for the race, if they need pay. Problem solved.

txags92

Easy answer. Just officially define the "purse" as equal to a set percentage of the sponsorship money generated or the entry fees paid by the participants. That way the purse could be set at an "equal" percentage of the take, but since men's races draw more sponsors and more participants, the absolute value of the purse will be more. If women's racing can find a way to generate more interest or bring in more participants, then the absolute value will grow with it.

Rajflyboy

You peeps want everyone to be equal. In cycling that means everyone races in the same race. That’s the only way to truly make things equal ? Or is this really not what you want ?

Abe_Froman

You're using the fundamental impossibility of 100% complete equality to ethically justify planned, institutionalized, systemic sexism.

It's not going to work, and only paints you in a bad light.

Rajflyboy

So

you admit that men and women are different ?

I’d prefer to keep men’s and women’s cycling separate.