Three domestic pros with impressive resumes are handed pink slips.
Another sponsor bites the dust.
Philly’s in trouble just seven weeks out.
New names in the results.
The 2009 domestic cycling season has started out unlike any other I can remember. It seemed to start out big with Tour of California and Lance’s comeback, but those two high points didn’t resonate down through the ranks. Unfortunately, it seems like many of the U.S. domestic scene’s woes can be attributed to the economic downturn. Events, teams and riders all find themselves strapped for cash and unable to fulfill hopeful promises they made before the big dive last October. It’s also become apparent just how inter-dependent these three entities are upon one another as budgets grew bigger and bigger. Most of us are in this sport because we love it, and that includes several promoters and sponsors who barrel forward with a vision using primarily raw energy and passion. Oftentimes things work out, but as the economic bottom continues to drop out many teams and riders are being left in the cold. I know my hindsight is 20-20, but if everyone had just taken a slightly more objective, business-minded look at the 2009 season there might not be as many events, teams and riders floundering about as there are now.
Before the end of 2008 season, it seemed that teams were the first to cry uncle as several called it quits before the season was even over. Sky-high gas prices last summer forced a lot of team managers (including little-old ABD) to rethink their programs. It was like a financial tornado ripped through the budget as road trips and airline tickets became the most expensive items by a long shot. I have a lot of respect for directors like Tamayo and Carney that knew they had to reduce their programs and the amount of travel for ‘09 in order to survive. Those two have spent some time in the trenches as riders and are all too familiar with the “no-dough-by-June” scenario that many fledgling teams and riders get sucked into.
On the other hand there’s Michael Ball, who seems to have good intentions but also very little experience in the cycling world. Unfortunately he piped a good enough tune to attract several great riders to his program that probably knew better but just wanted a job this year. Now cycling fans around the country might unfortunately get to watch on the main stage what has happened time and time again to smaller programs. Let’s hope I’m wrong- the fact that Creed, Baldwin and Grajales were fired last week before the season even began is a shame. I thought that the UCI or USAC had some sort of B.S. litmus-test that they applied to each team to make sure things like that don’t happen, but my guess is that since Mr. Ball snuck those three in on his “amateur” team he didn’t have to provide proof of anything for them.
Just as some teams pulled the ripcord late last year so did events. I also have a lot of respect for those promoters that knew right off the bat that they had to postpone for a year or reduce their agenda. The ones that moved forward on a hope and/or a prayer only to cancel have now left gaping holes in riders and teams schedules- leaving them without opportunities to to show some return on investment for their sponsors. (Again, I really hope I’m wrong and events like Philly are a go). Cycling is just like a lot of businesses in that there needs to be an answer to the “what have you done for me lately?” question. Without a strong domestic calendar teams currently have meek answers to that question and now we see sponsors like Successful Living pulling out of their programs mid-season. Would Successful Living had pulled their sponsorship (or would Michael Ball have been able to attract more money) if there had been a packed NRC calendar for teams to strut their stuff the past couple months? But even if the calendar had been full, would teams have been able to afford to attend them? It’s difficult to say, but a weak domestic calendar for the past two months has lead to one more crumbling piece of the puzzle- thin press coverage of the domestic scene.
Without a strong domestic calendar teams are scattered throughout the country and VeloNews and CyclingNews coverage doesn’t seem to be as focused as when they know which event is THE event of the week. The last two domestic races to receive much coverage were Sea Otter and Battenkill (on the same weekend), and if you look through the results their is basically one or two pro teams followed by lots of amateurs. It’s awesome that young guys are getting shots at the P-R-O’s, but it makes you wonder where all the other pro riders and teams are. Events aren’t attracting fields that showcase the best riders in the U.S. and thus attracting the press coverage that those events and teams can show off to their sponsors.
So, here’s my “i-drank-three cups-of-coffee-this-morning-just-throwing-it-out-there" solution to bolster the U.S. cycling scene:
In order to guarantee that riders always have a place to show off their talents and sponsors, regardless of the economic conditions, there needs to be a solid, consistent U.S. calendar. USA Cycling needs to remove the financial barriers to entry for an event to be on the National Racing Calendar and grant NRC status to events that have proven to be well-run and rider friendly. If an event has an enormous prize list that’s great too, but it’s most important to build consistency into the calendar.)
A well-run event means there is an A to Z work plan in place well ahead of time and there are competent people to execute it. I would say that most often a first-year event does not qualify for NRC status, however if it is a team of race-promoting veterans running it and can insure a multiple year commitment then it qualifies (i.e. the TOAD series in Wisconsin this year has Ochowicz and Schuler involved). If you’re a first time promoter with a huge cash windfall then it only makes sense that you recruit some people that know what their doing.
By ”rider-friendly“ I mean a an event with a challenging, safe course that allows for the strongest guys to come out on top. It also means that the event’s date on the NRC calendar allows for a reasonable amount of time for teams to travel to it. For instance, having all the West Coast events back-to-back in March and April makes sense when most riders spend the early season training there, but to then throw an East Coast event like the U.S. Open in there right before riders would have to be back at Sea Otter or the Tour of Gila doesn’t make sense. Rider-friendly also means that promoters should allow Category 1 amateurs into their races if pro teams don’t fill the field (many NRC promoters already do this).
USA Cycling should set aside a ”base amount“ of funding for each event on the NRC calendar that helps insure its return year after year in case they were to hit a financial rough spot. The funds would be a minimal amount that insures a safe, smooth running event, not prizes or any amount that could line a promoter’s pockets. That amount of money would be stated in the A to Z plan from the get go so there were no surprises for USAC. As far as prizes in a down economy, if an event is hard up then riders can race for a donated furniture set (ask ABD’er Pat Murphy about that) or some old brick like they do in Europe. As long as you have a well-run event and aren’t charging an exorbitant entry fee for a 15 minute race then riders will be there. Illinois’ own Hillsboro-Roubaix started out as a modest event but the promoters’ do an exemplary job and it’s a unique course so the event has quickly grown to be THE early season race in the Midwest.
But truthfully, as much as I would like USA Cycling (or some governing body) to call me up so we can start working on my plan, I just hope that as the NRC calendar picks up on the East Coast in May we see a return to ”normalcy“: stacked fields, solid coverage, excited fans and satisfied sponsors.
No comments:
Post a Comment