Notices
"The 33"-Road Bike Racing We set this forum up for our members to discuss their experiences in either pro or amateur racing, whether they are the big races, or even the small backyard races. Don't forget to update all the members with your own race results.

Northeast Racing

Old 06-20-17, 03:03 PM
  #3901  
PepeM
Senior Member
 
PepeM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,841
Mentioned: 180 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2723 Post(s)
Liked 99 Times in 47 Posts
To answer your question:

Originally Posted by aaronmcd View Post
Good lord, am I seriously reading that there exist people who actually believe it's "the right thing" to hand out thousands in charity simply based on gender?
No, you are not reading that.
PepeM is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 03:14 PM
  #3902  
aaronmcd
Senior Member
 
aaronmcd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 3,461

Bikes: Cervelo S5, Marin Gestalt X11

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 553 Post(s)
Liked 64 Times in 44 Posts
Originally Posted by PepeM View Post
To answer your question:

No, you are not reading that.
Edited my original post cuz I admit it was too "ranty".

But I did actually read that (no hint as to WHY it's the so-called "right thing"...)

Originally Posted by grolby View Post
Good.


LOLing at earlier comments that I must think equal payouts are easy because I don't care about bike racing and haven't thought it through. Yeah. That must be it. It's not like there are zillions of examples of races that do the right thing and haven't gone under instantly.

This is still nothing but excuses. Putting on a bike race without losing money is hard, but it has literally nothing to do with whether or not your prizes are equal. Offer a smaller prize purse if you have to - I promise you, if your event is well-run, people will still show up and give you their money.

Stop with the mealy-mouthed excuses about how you can't afford it. You can. You're not running the Tour de France, here. Stop with the crap about how you have a better idea to help women's racing than what the thunderous chorus of active women racers are telling you, which is to treat them with fairness, respect and equality.

Doing the right thing is actually really easy, but it means you have to put aside all your "yes, buts" and DO IT. Believe me, the time when unequal payouts were acceptable has passed. People *will* start leaving your events for the ones that treat everyone better. Not just the women, but the men as well. Better to get on board now.
aaronmcd is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 03:38 PM
  #3903  
PepeM
Senior Member
 
PepeM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,841
Mentioned: 180 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2723 Post(s)
Liked 99 Times in 47 Posts
I guess I'm around and have nothing better to do, so I'll try to answer your question.

Originally Posted by aaronmcd View Post
Do you guys really believe it's "the right thing" to hand out thousands in charity simply based on gender?
I think people asking for payout equality want the exact opposite: the payouts to NOT be based on gender, which they currently are.

Originally Posted by aaronmcd View Post
I mean, if someone wants to hand out cash, whatever. But to actually believe it's somehow deserved?
I don't know about deserved. That's a tricky concept. By that standard, no one racing an amateur race deserves any payout. But organizers choose to give them, for whatever reason. So I guess the question becomes: Do you think women deserve less?

Now, I assume the answer will be 'no one deserves anything and promoters can give as much as they want to whoever they want,' which is true, there is no law against it. But then just as they can do that, racers that believe payouts for male and female riders should be equal can also choose to boycott races that don't offer them that. Surely you agree that, too, is their right.

Originally Posted by aaronmcd View Post
Take out the desire to force things to be equal based on political-correctness, and how would one argue for $5000 to a 14 person field of ANY gender?
As far as I understand, people asking for equality don't care about the figure, as long as it is equal. So whether it is $5000 or $10 is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by aaronmcd View Post
This has absolutely nothing to do with gender inequality - I'd bet good money the same thing would happen to the men's purse if the fields were that low.
This touches on a common argument: That since women's field are smaller, that is why they get less money. Nothing to do with them being seen as lesser racers. The problem with this is that, for example, Cat 4/5 fields are very often every bit as big as the P12s, yet they get much less money. Why? Probably because winning in the Elites is thought to be of higher merit. If it was merely a matter of field size, these two fields would have similar payouts. But they don't. So there is definitely a merit component to payout distribution. Hence when you give lower payouts to the P12 women, you are basically stating that they are of lesser merit. Which leads to what people asking for equal payouts want: for both fields to be considered of equal merit. Again, nothing to do with the size of the purse, merely that it is equally distributed.
PepeM is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 04:08 PM
  #3904  
aaronmcd
Senior Member
 
aaronmcd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 3,461

Bikes: Cervelo S5, Marin Gestalt X11

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 553 Post(s)
Liked 64 Times in 44 Posts
Originally Posted by PepeM View Post
I guess I'm around and have nothing better to do, so I'll try to answer your question.



I think people asking for payout equality want the exact opposite: the payouts to NOT be based on gender, which they currently are.
Part of your final point refutes this:

Originally Posted by PepeM View Post
The problem with this is that, for example, Cat 4/5 fields are very often every bit as big as the P12s, yet they get much less money. Why? Probably because winning in the Elites is thought to be of higher merit. If it was merely a matter of field size, these two fields would have similar payouts. But they don't. So there is definitely a merit component to payout distribution.
You yourself are saying the payouts are based primarily on merit, not gender, and thus argue:

Originally Posted by PepeM View Post
Hence when you give lower payouts to the P12 women, you are basically stating that they are of lesser merit.
Except this is not true, as has been argued already - the first piece of the puzzle is merit, and the second is demand, not gender. There is no reason to believe the promoter hates women, or even somehow thinks they deserve less based on gender (there is no evidence for this), instead of the much simpler and more reasonable explanation that there is less demand for women's racing (there is a world of evidence for this).


Originally Posted by PepeM View Post
I don't know about deserved. That's a tricky concept. By that standard, no one racing an amateur race deserves any payout. But organizers choose to give them, for whatever reason. So I guess the question becomes: Do you think women deserve less?

Now, I assume the answer will be 'no one deserves anything and promoters can give as much as they want to whoever they want,' which is true, there is no law against it. But then just as they can do that, racers that believe payouts for male and female riders should be equal can also choose to boycott races that don't offer them that. Surely you agree that, too, is their right.
(regardless of law, not sure where that plays into this...) Correct, the answer is that no one deserves a payout. The promoter should be able to pay however much he wants to whomever he wants, just as I should be able to give money away as I please. I do agree it is the racers' right to choose to not go to a race. My argument is that the payout variation is not reasonable grounds to vilify the promoter, especially when we have every reason to believe the reason for the purse difference is field size, and not gender.

To claim gender has anything to do with this is either (1) overlooking the obvious/evidence, or (2) purposely trying to make a big deal out of gender issues where none exist.


Originally Posted by PepeM View Post
As far as I understand, people asking for equality don't care about the figure, as long as it is equal. So whether it is $5000 or $10 is irrelevant.
First, equality in human rights is a different issue altogether. You seem to be saying this is an example of demanding quality in treatment (something which is nice to call for, but not to demand). However, I don't see any difference in treatment based on gender. As I pointed out above, there is a verifiable difference in treatment based on demand (field size), but only unfounded speculation about whether the promoter has some subconscious bias against women.
aaronmcd is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 04:22 PM
  #3905  
PepeM
Senior Member
 
PepeM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,841
Mentioned: 180 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2723 Post(s)
Liked 99 Times in 47 Posts
Originally Posted by aaronmcd View Post
My argument is that the payout variation is not reasonable grounds to vilify the promoter, especially when we have every reason to believe the reason for the purse difference is field size, and not gender.
The question then becomes: Why is field size so important?

Originally Posted by aaronmcd View Post
However, I don't see any difference in treatment based on gender.
Women racing think there is. Feel free to tell them they are wrong.

Originally Posted by aaronmcd View Post
As I pointed out above, there is a verifiable difference in treatment based on demand (field size), but only unfounded speculation about whether the promoter has some subconscious bias against women.
And people asking for equal payouts argue two things (if I understand correctly: ) One, that field size should not be a determinant on payouts and two, that if women were treated equally, it would do a lot towards bringing more of them into the sport. It is part of a bigger picture, where women feel they are treated as inferior in many ways, with race payouts being one of them. So if you want to make the sport more inclusive, you have to show that they are welcome in the sport. Equal payouts, they argue, is part of that, although far from the only thing.
PepeM is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 04:47 PM
  #3906  
TheKillerPenguin
Nonsense
 
TheKillerPenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 13,722

Bikes: Affirmative

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 797 Post(s)
Liked 238 Times in 105 Posts
I think that equal payouts is a fine idea, but I also think that when looking at the regional level the extreme focus on equal payouts is to miss the forest for the trees. There are larger issues within and outside of the sport, of which this is a relatively small symptom.
TheKillerPenguin is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 04:52 PM
  #3907  
aaronmcd
Senior Member
 
aaronmcd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 3,461

Bikes: Cervelo S5, Marin Gestalt X11

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 553 Post(s)
Liked 64 Times in 44 Posts
Originally Posted by PepeM View Post
The question then becomes: Why is field size so important?
Because that's (1) where the money comes from, and (2) that's how one can determines more equal payout per rider


Originally Posted by PepeM View Post
Women racing think there is. Feel free to tell them they are wrong.
Ha. If someone feels that way, whatever. If their feels bias what they believe to be true, well they are wrong, and I would have no problem saying as much. I've never had much of a problem telling things like they are. I know lots of people are attracted to the bandwagon though. There's even a well-documented psychological principle that goes by that name.



Originally Posted by PepeM View Post
And people asking for equal payouts argue two things (if I understand correctly: ) One, that field size should not be a determinant on payouts
This makes absolutely no sense unless one believes money grows on trees (My daddy told me it doesn't when I was very little).

Originally Posted by PepeM View Post
and two, that if women were treated equally, it would do a lot towards bringing more of them into the sport.
The thing is they ARE treated equally. If anything, a $2500 payout for a 14 rider field is well beyond generous. Well beyond equal. Whenever I see a large payout for a small men's field I think it's silly and feel bad for the promoter.

Originally Posted by PepeM View Post
It is part of a bigger picture, where women feel they are treated as inferior in many ways, with race payouts being one of them. So if you want to make the sport more inclusive, you have to show that they are welcome in the sport. Equal payouts, they argue, is part of that, although far from the only thing.
There was that one crazy blog post but I'm sure there are many women willing to go with facts instead of feelings of inferiority.
aaronmcd is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 05:00 PM
  #3908  
Ygduf
\_(ツ)_/
 
Ygduf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 10,978

Bikes: aggressive agreement is what I ride.

Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 967 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by TheKillerPenguin View Post
I think that equal payouts is a fine idea, but I also think that when looking at the regional level the extreme focus on equal payouts is to miss the forest for the trees. There are larger issues within and outside of the sport, of which this is a relatively small symptom.
just do equal prize money per participant in the race. fungible amounts. e.g. $20/racer paid out 50%-1st 30%-2nd 20%-3rd.
Ygduf is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 05:05 PM
  #3909  
TheKillerPenguin
Nonsense
 
TheKillerPenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 13,722

Bikes: Affirmative

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 797 Post(s)
Liked 238 Times in 105 Posts
I think that makes sense. I'd race for cookies though. I would highly support equal cookie payout.
TheKillerPenguin is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 05:06 PM
  #3910  
Ygduf
\_(ツ)_/
 
Ygduf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 10,978

Bikes: aggressive agreement is what I ride.

Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 967 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by TheKillerPenguin View Post
I think that makes sense. I'd race for cookies though. I would highly support equal cookie payout.
yeah. t-shirts and no cash seems to work pretty well out here.
Ygduf is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 05:32 PM
  #3911  
PepeM
Senior Member
 
PepeM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,841
Mentioned: 180 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2723 Post(s)
Liked 99 Times in 47 Posts
Originally Posted by aaronmcd View Post
Because that's (1) where the money comes from, and (2) that's how one can determines more equal payout per rider
The money comes from every registered rider, regardless of field they register to. More riders = more money, regardless of the field distribution. Some women argue that equal payouts would help bring more female riders into the sport. If they're right, that would mean more money for the promoters. Maybe they're wrong.

As for equal payout per rider, that could be done, but it is not how it's done. Payouts are decided before registration and they don't scale proportionally to turnout. Again, if 'where money comes from' and 'equal payout per rider' are so important, why aren't the 4/5s getting the same money as the P12?

Originally Posted by aaronmcd View Post
Ha. If someone feels that way, whatever. If their feels bias what they believe to be true, well they are wrong, and I would have no problem saying as much. I've never had much of a problem telling things like they are. I know lots of people are attracted to the bandwagon though. There's even a well-documented psychological principle that goes by that name.

This makes absolutely no sense unless one believes money grows on trees (My daddy told me it doesn't when I was very little).
Not sure there is any argument there.


Originally Posted by aaronmcd View Post
The thing is they ARE treated equally.
If you say so.

Originally Posted by aaronmcd View Post
If anything, a $2500 payout for a 14 rider field is well beyond generous. Well beyond equal. Whenever I see a large payout for a small men's field I think it's silly and feel bad for the promoter.
Again, the number is irrelevant to them so I am not sure why you keep bringing up sums.

Originally Posted by aaronmcd View Post
There was that one crazy blog post but I'm sure there are many women willing to go with facts instead of feelings of inferiority.
There was more than one, but sure. As for FACTS, you'll be hard pressed to show any of them because in the end, it is a matter of opinion. You think larger fields should be rewarded with larger payouts. Others think payouts should be equal across genders racing at the same level. Promoters will do whatever they think is right and riders will act accordingly.
PepeM is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 05:35 PM
  #3912  
PepeM
Senior Member
 
PepeM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,841
Mentioned: 180 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2723 Post(s)
Liked 99 Times in 47 Posts
Originally Posted by TheKillerPenguin View Post
I think that equal payouts is a fine idea, but I also think that when looking at the regional level the extreme focus on equal payouts is to miss the forest for the trees. There are larger issues within and outside of the sport, of which this is a relatively small symptom.
Yes, I agree. This probably gets attention because it is a concrete action that can easily be implemented. Solving the larger issues, well, first you would have to find a way to define them. Beyond my grasp for sure.
PepeM is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 05:59 PM
  #3913  
TheKillerPenguin
Nonsense
 
TheKillerPenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 13,722

Bikes: Affirmative

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 797 Post(s)
Liked 238 Times in 105 Posts
Originally Posted by PepeM View Post
Yes, I agree. This probably gets attention because it is a concrete action that can easily be implemented. Solving the larger issues, well, first you would have to find a way to define them. Beyond my grasp for sure.
Yeah, I think the amount of energy being used arguing about it would be better used trying to solve the other stuff maybe? It is a symptom of a deeper inequality sure, but I tend not to think that prize money which best case covers gas and entry fee is keeping anyone from the sport.
TheKillerPenguin is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 06:05 PM
  #3914  
PepeM
Senior Member
 
PepeM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,841
Mentioned: 180 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2723 Post(s)
Liked 99 Times in 47 Posts
Originally Posted by TheKillerPenguin View Post
Yeah, I think the amount of energy being used arguing about it would be better used trying to solve the other stuff maybe?
Probably. I don't even know what the other stuff is though.

Originally Posted by TheKillerPenguin View Post
It is a symptom of a deeper inequality sure, but I tend not to think that prize money which best case covers gas and entry fee is keeping anyone from the sport.
I don't think so either but, apparently, some women claim it does detract some of them from participating (or so I read here.) Which might make their case stronger, if anything. No man will stop racing because their purse became $20 smaller so that equal payouts can be achieved, while it might make some female racers feel more appreciated. May be worth a try.
PepeM is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 06:06 PM
  #3915  
topflightpro
Senior Member
 
topflightpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,879
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1528 Post(s)
Liked 253 Times in 169 Posts
USAC rules prohibit cash prizes for Cat 5 races - Prizes only.
topflightpro is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 06:14 PM
  #3916  
Spoonrobot 
Senior Member
 
Spoonrobot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,269
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1167 Post(s)
Liked 112 Times in 79 Posts
Originally Posted by PepeM View Post
Some women argue that equal payouts would help bring more female riders into the sport. If they're right, that would mean more money for the promoters. Maybe they're wrong.
Has this happened? It seems like there has been more than one event that has tried this and did not have the result that was hoped for.
Spoonrobot is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 06:21 PM
  #3917  
PepeM
Senior Member
 
PepeM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,841
Mentioned: 180 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2723 Post(s)
Liked 99 Times in 47 Posts
Originally Posted by Spoonrobot View Post
Has this happened? It seems like there has been more than one event that has tried this and did not have the result that was hoped for.
I don't know. Probably not. It is not like hundreds of women who have never raced will run to get their licenses because they hear that an event is offering equal payouts.
PepeM is offline  
Old 06-21-17, 05:49 AM
  #3918  
Yep
no cat contains
 
Yep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edinburgh Scotland
Posts: 764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 12 Posts
I'm not a fan of this bull**** meritocracy/libertarian argument that purses have nothing to do with gender and everything to do with field sizes. It's just sexism.
Yep is offline  
Old 06-21-17, 06:34 AM
  #3919  
mike868y
Senior Member
 
mike868y's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 9,284
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 248 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheKillerPenguin View Post
Yeah, I think the amount of energy being used arguing about it would be better used trying to solve the other stuff maybe? It is a symptom of a deeper inequality sure, but I tend not to think that prize money which best case covers gas and entry fee is keeping anyone from the sport.
no, but I do think being treated as second class citizens or seeing the best women at a particular race not being treated with the same level of respect as their male peers is keeping people from the sport.
mike868y is offline  
Old 06-21-17, 08:46 AM
  #3920  
TheKillerPenguin
Nonsense
 
TheKillerPenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 13,722

Bikes: Affirmative

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 797 Post(s)
Liked 238 Times in 105 Posts
I guess the part of the issue nobody heard about at say, Nutmeg, is that in addition to the W123, the Masters also had their prize money taken away from them at the start. I don't think that's right, but I also think that points to the economics of field size being the issue rather than sexism. I am not saying sexism does not exist, and I don't deny that the result of the inequality in prize money is sexist in nature, but I think the ultimate motive behind it is economic. Calling promoters out for being sexist when they view it as an economic issue doesn't really accomplish anything beyond pissing off people that are trying to keep the sport going. I essentially support eliminating payouts and replacing with cookies or sponsor gear. Promoters are less squeezed for $, impossible to justify not offering equal prize lists.

More confusing to me is, why are women's crits often shorter than their equivalent level men's crits? That seems way more sexist to me given the logistics of crit days.

Last edited by TheKillerPenguin; 06-21-17 at 09:08 AM.
TheKillerPenguin is offline  
Old 06-21-17, 09:19 AM
  #3921  
nycphotography
NYC
 
nycphotography's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,637
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1104 Post(s)
Liked 24 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by TheKillerPenguin View Post
I guess the part of the issue nobody heard about at say, Nutmeg, is that in addition to the W123, the Masters also had their prize money taken away from them at the start. I don't think that's right, but I also think that points to the economics of field size being the issue rather than sexism. I am not saying sexism does not exist, and I don't deny that the result of the inequality in prize money is sexist in nature, but I think the ultimate motive behind it is economic. Calling promoters out for being sexist when they view it as an economic issue doesn't really accomplish anything beyond pissing off people that are trying to keep the sport going. I essentially support eliminating payouts and replacing with cookies or sponsor gear. Promoters are less squeezed for $, impossible to justify not offering equal prize lists.

More confusing to me is, why are women's crits shorter than their equivalent level men's crits? That seems way more sexist to me given the logistics of crit days.
^ This.

These are the people who are busting their asses to make sure we actually have any sport available to us at all. I would fall out of my chair with a heart attack if any of these promoters really wanted to womens racing to fail, for women to lose interest in the sport, or to exclude women from the sport.

Using divisive arguments and heaping accusatory crap on their shoulders is not a productive approach, even if the grievance is 100% unanimously agreed as valid. And in this case, it's quite subjective, and there is no consensus as to its validity as the one true path they should take.

Could they handle the mens/womens prize split better? Probably. Should it be equal $ across dissimilar field sizes? Possibly. But there are potentially other solutions which would also be reasonable, and only a zealot or an idiot would push one single solution without even exploring what other solutions may exist, whether they may be fair from a greater number of points of view, and what the expected benefits, costs, and risks may be for each alternative, both short term and long term.

The reality is that the only way change will happen is if a) people work cooperatively and productively with the promoters to improve the prize structures while securing the economics of the events or b) there is a large enough consensus leading to a large enough boycott which affects the overall economics and viability of the event (or the sport) as a whole.

The odds of b) are rather remote.

Unfortunately, with the current state of political discourse in this country, the odds of a) are becoming more and more remote every day as well. But if people dig their politically twisted undies out their asscracks and calm down enough to actually work together as a team, all working towards a shared goal, namely that we have a strong sport that can grow and be accessible and productive for everyone, then MAYBE the team can work out a good solution in theory and make it work in practice.

But whining about something without contributing to any cooperative efforts to find and implement actual improvements does absolutely nothing to advance the current state of affairs. Not in business. Not in politics. Not in bike racing.
nycphotography is online now  
Old 06-21-17, 09:32 AM
  #3922  
Grumpy McTrumpy
gmt
 
Grumpy McTrumpy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
New York State Bicycle Racing Association
3 hrs
Press Release: Update on Harlem Skyscraper Criterium Women’s Prize List
This past weekend, the Harlem Skyscraper Criterium’s Women’s P123 prize list was reduced at or immediately before the start of their race. Reduction of prize lists in this manner contravenes USAC policy.
Members of the NYSBRA Board collaborated with representatives of USA Cycling, in recommending to organizers of the Harlem Skyscraper Cycling Classic, that this decision be reversed. Richard Cox, Race Director has agreed to do so, and the originally advertised prize list will be paid out in full to the appropriate racers in attendance.
NYSBRA is pleased with the outcome of these discussions, and looks forward to working with USAC and the Harlem Skyscraper Cycling Classic to ensure continued prize list parity and the success and longevity of this beloved New York City event.
Grumpy McTrumpy is offline  
Old 06-21-17, 10:40 AM
  #3923  
miyata man
Senior Member
 
miyata man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,187
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 243 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Fair.

Last edited by miyata man; 06-21-17 at 10:44 AM.
miyata man is offline  
Old 06-21-17, 03:19 PM
  #3924  
mike868y
Senior Member
 
mike868y's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 9,284
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 248 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheKillerPenguin View Post
I guess the part of the issue nobody heard about at say, Nutmeg, is that in addition to the W123, the Masters also had their prize money taken away from them at the start. I don't think that's right, but I also think that points to the economics of field size being the issue rather than sexism.
this would be an interesting point if the very existence of masters fields for men and not women wasn't indicative of how women are traditionally underrepresented in cycling.
mike868y is offline  
Old 06-21-17, 08:25 PM
  #3925  
carpediemracing 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tariffville, CT
Posts: 15,173

Bikes: Tsunami Bikes

Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 297 Post(s)
Liked 24 Times in 16 Posts
Originally Posted by TheKillerPenguin View Post
Calling promoters out for being sexist when they view it as an economic issue doesn't really accomplish anything beyond pissing off people that are trying to keep the sport going.
+1

Who the hell wants to promote a bike race nowadays? How many here promote bike races? Why the **** not? Why the **** are you not out there holding a race this ****ing year? If you're racing a bike you should be promoting or helping promote a race, period. Abso****inglutely no ****ing excuse.

Why is there no new Bethel Spring Series? Two years of a black hole in New England cycling.

Why?

Just one guy held the series for 20+ years. It's not god damn rocket science. It only takes $40-50k a year to hold the races, 400 hours or so, and maybe $5-8k in equipment. Anyone can do it. So why the **** isn't anyone doing it???

There's no new Bethel Spring Series because it's absolutely ****ing stupid to promote bike races unless you really want to spend/lose thousands of dollars a year and spend hundreds of hours to promote races that result in having selfish bike racers complain about some aspect of the race you promoted.
__________________
"...during the Lance years, being fit became the No. 1 thing. Totally the only thing. Its a big part of what we do, but fitness is not the only thing. Theres skills, theres tactics theres all kinds of stuff..." Tim Johnson
carpediemracing is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.