Northeast Racing
06-20-17, 03:03 PM
#3901
Senior Member
06-20-17, 03:14 PM
#3902
Senior Member
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"...)
But I did actually read that (no hint as to WHY it's the so-called "right thing"...)
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.
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.
06-20-17, 03:38 PM
#3903
Senior Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
06-20-17, 04:08 PM
#3904
Senior Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
06-20-17, 04:22 PM
#3905
Senior Member
Women racing think there is. Feel free to tell them they are wrong.
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.
06-20-17, 04:47 PM
#3906
Nonsense
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 13,918
Bikes: Affirmative
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 880 Post(s)
Liked 541 Times
in
237 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.
06-20-17, 04:52 PM
#3907
Senior Member
Because that's (1) where the money comes from, and (2) that's how one can determines more equal payout per rider
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
06-20-17, 05:00 PM
#3908
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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
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.
06-20-17, 05:32 PM
#3911
Senior Member
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?
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).
This makes absolutely no sense unless one believes money grows on trees (My daddy told me it doesn't when I was very little).
If you say so.
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.
06-20-17, 05:35 PM
#3912
Senior Member
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.
06-20-17, 05:59 PM
#3913
Nonsense
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 13,918
Bikes: Affirmative
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 880 Post(s)
Liked 541 Times
in
237 Posts
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.
06-20-17, 06:05 PM
#3914
Senior Member
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.
06-20-17, 06:21 PM
#3916
Senior Member
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.
06-21-17, 05:49 AM
#3917
no cat contains
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edinburgh Scotland
Posts: 884
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked 142 Times
in
75 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.
06-21-17, 06:34 AM
#3918
Senior Member
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.
06-21-17, 08:46 AM
#3919
Nonsense
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vagabond
Posts: 13,918
Bikes: Affirmative
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 880 Post(s)
Liked 541 Times
in
237 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.
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.
06-21-17, 09:19 AM
#3920
NYC
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,714
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1169 Post(s)
Liked 107 Times
in
62 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 shorter than their equivalent level men's crits? That seems way more sexist to me given the logistics of crit days.
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.
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.
06-21-17, 09:32 AM
#3921
gmt
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 3 Times
in
3 Posts
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.
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.
06-21-17, 03:19 PM
#3923
Senior Member
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.
06-21-17, 08:25 PM
#3924
Senior Member
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. It’s a big part of what we do, but fitness is not the only thing. There’s skills, there’s tactics … there’s all kinds of stuff..." Tim Johnson
"...during the Lance years, being fit became the No. 1 thing. Totally the only thing. It’s a big part of what we do, but fitness is not the only thing. There’s skills, there’s tactics … there’s all kinds of stuff..." Tim Johnson
06-21-17, 08:26 PM
#3925
Senior Member
And now let me tell you how I really feel 
__________________
"...during the Lance years, being fit became the No. 1 thing. Totally the only thing. It’s a big part of what we do, but fitness is not the only thing. There’s skills, there’s tactics … there’s all kinds of stuff..." Tim Johnson
"...during the Lance years, being fit became the No. 1 thing. Totally the only thing. It’s a big part of what we do, but fitness is not the only thing. There’s skills, there’s tactics … there’s all kinds of stuff..." Tim Johnson