For Les Earnest

B. Lafferty said:

VN: When USA Cycling was established, that concern was raised by board
members at the time. Les Earnest, in particular, was critical of the
structure and even sued.

GB: Les Earnest was right!

VN: In what sense?

GB: That a small group of individuals can come in and take over USA
Cycling... and they have.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9712.0.html

So why not organize a grassroots movement to migrate to FIAC in 2007?
WHy keep sending your money to USAC and then complain about it?

Magilla

"MagillaGorilla" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

VN: When USA Cycling was established, that concern was raised by board
members at the time. Les Earnest, in particular, was critical of the
structure and even sued.

GB: Les Earnest was right!

VN: In what sense?

GB: That a small group of individuals can come in and take over USA
Cycling... and they have.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9712.0.html

So why not organize a grassroots movement to migrate to FIAC in 2007? WHy
keep sending your money to USAC and then complain about it?

Magilla

Your point is well taken. More of the regional associations should consider
joining FICA and terminating their USAC affiliations.
http://home.pacbell.net/learnest/

Bill,

What do you thik the likelihood of NEBRA doing that? I don't see it
happening; too many people don't want to change.

CH

Bill,

What do you thik the likelihood of NEBRA breaking off? I don't see it
happening; too many people don't want to change. Maybe there should be
an online or in person forum later this summer after things have been
studied more.

CH

Quoted message said:

Bill,

What do you thik the likelihood of NEBRA doing that? I don't see it
happening; too many people don't want to change.

CH

I see a lot of people being [censored], but I'm not sure if it's enough to
rock the boat though. I was really surprised to see the letter from
Tobi Stanton supporting Gerard though, that's a good sign IMO. Unless
USAC really starts screwing with the NEBRA I think it's going to be a
case of business as usual since things tend to run pretty smoothly and
Colorado really doesn't have that much effect on things here anyway.
That said I'm sure things could, and would run just as smoothly if we
switched to another association, or became independent.
It pains me to admit it but magilla's probably right, until Colorado
does something to make life miserable for individual racers, they are
selfish enough not to give a [censored] about the big picture and will just
go with the flow, and as long as we continue to have people running the
regions like Diane and Casey I can't see it getting that bad.
Right now I'm split between my commitments to my friends around New
England, like you, and all the others that I really enjoy working with,
and being really [censored] on principle and saying screw USAC and
jumping ship.
Bill C

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

Bill,

What do you thik the likelihood of NEBRA doing that? I don't see it
happening; too many people don't want to change.

CH

I see a lot of people being [censored], but I'm not sure if it's enough to
rock the boat though. I was really surprised to see the letter from
Tobi Stanton supporting Gerard though, that's a good sign IMO. Unless
USAC really starts screwing with the NEBRA I think it's going to be a
case of business as usual since things tend to run pretty smoothly and
Colorado really doesn't have that much effect on things here anyway.
That said I'm sure things could, and would run just as smoothly if we
switched to another association, or became independent.
It pains me to admit it but magilla's probably right, until Colorado
does something to make life miserable for individual racers, they are
selfish enough not to give a [censored] about the big picture and will just
go with the flow, and as long as we continue to have people running the
regions like Diane and Casey I can't see it getting that bad.
Right now I'm split between my commitments to my friends around New
England, like you, and all the others that I really enjoy working with,
and being really [censored] on principle and saying screw USAC and
jumping ship.
Bill C

Why support USAC at all though? Just send your money to FIAC and
continue to race. FIAC will insure races too.

Magilla

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

Bill,

What do you thik the likelihood of NEBRA doing that? I don't see it
happening; too many people don't want to change.

CH

I see a lot of people being [censored], but I'm not sure if it's enough to
rock the boat though. I was really surprised to see the letter from
Tobi Stanton supporting Gerard though, that's a good sign IMO. Unless
USAC really starts screwing with the NEBRA I think it's going to be a
case of business as usual since things tend to run pretty smoothly and
Colorado really doesn't have that much effect on things here anyway.
That said I'm sure things could, and would run just as smoothly if we
switched to another association, or became independent.
It pains me to admit it but magilla's probably right, until Colorado
does something to make life miserable for individual racers, they are
selfish enough not to give a [censored] about the big picture and will just
go with the flow, and as long as we continue to have people running the
regions like Diane and Casey I can't see it getting that bad.
Right now I'm split between my commitments to my friends around New
England, like you, and all the others that I really enjoy working with,
and being really [censored] on principle and saying screw USAC and
jumping ship.
Bill C

It isn't riders that is important in supporting a non-USAC racing
program. It is the promoters that are the important people. Rider's
don't really care who sanctions the race ( except for the few people on
track to become a Pro rider). As long as the promoters are realitively
happy with USAC there is little incentive for the promoters to support
a non-USAC organization. If the promoters get fed up with USAC then
they will probably be more open to non-USAC sanctioning.

Casey Kerrigan said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

Bill,

What do you thik the likelihood of NEBRA doing that? I don't see it
happening; too many people don't want to change.

CH

I see a lot of people being [censored], but I'm not sure if it's enough to
rock the boat though. I was really surprised to see the letter from
Tobi Stanton supporting Gerard though, that's a good sign IMO. Unless
USAC really starts screwing with the NEBRA I think it's going to be a
case of business as usual since things tend to run pretty smoothly and
Colorado really doesn't have that much effect on things here anyway.
That said I'm sure things could, and would run just as smoothly if we
switched to another association, or became independent.
It pains me to admit it but magilla's probably right, until Colorado
does something to make life miserable for individual racers, they are
selfish enough not to give a [censored] about the big picture and will just
go with the flow, and as long as we continue to have people running the
regions like Diane and Casey I can't see it getting that bad.
Right now I'm split between my commitments to my friends around New
England, like you, and all the others that I really enjoy working with,
and being really [censored] on principle and saying screw USAC and
jumping ship.
Bill C

It isn't riders that is important in supporting a non-USAC racing
program. It is the promoters that are the important people. Rider's
don't really care who sanctions the race ( except for the few people on
track to become a Pro rider). As long as the promoters are realitively
happy with USAC there is little incentive for the promoters to support
a non-USAC organization. If the promoters get fed up with USAC then
they will probably be more open to non-USAC sanctioning.

That's my point, even if badly stated. Given the quality of the
regional associations' leadership, and their ability to smooth things
over, I can't see the crunch hitting promoters and trickling down to
racers, and like you said, racers don't give a [censored] unless they are
looking to go pro and need Colorado.
It just feels like Rumsfeld and Cheney have hijacked cycling to me.
"Screw the grunts! We've got an agenda to push and money to make!".
Don't know if they are making money, but people will usually pay a
high price for power.
Bill C

My experience suggests otherwise, Casey. It is difficult to go
non-sanctioned in a region that is USAC. Riders get confused about
needing a different license and you get 'fallout' on the official
level, too. So much so, that my title sponsor is requesting we go back
to USAC. The riders don't necessarily care as long as the race is ok,
even then people will still go back to bad races. It seems very
American.

CH

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

My experience suggests otherwise, Casey. It is difficult to go
non-sanctioned in a region that is USAC. Riders get confused about
needing a different license and you get 'fallout' on the official
level, too. So much so, that my title sponsor is requesting we go back
to USAC. The riders don't necessarily care as long as the race is ok,
even then people will still go back to bad races. It seems very
American.

CH

You even said it yourself in your second to last sentence  above. "The
riders don't necessarily care." Actually the one thing the riders seem
to care about are upgrade points. Will the non-USAC sanctioned race be
worth upgrade points. Today we have a couple of local promoters who do
non-sanctioned races. They do some Cross and MTB races, a time trial
series and this year they even did a circuit race. They pretty much do
their own officiating. They don't draw a huge number of riders but they
draw fields that are on the small to medium size for around here. when
these promoters did the circuit race people asked if they could get
upgrade points. I said as long as the race met the Min field and
distance requirements then riders could get upgrade points.

Actually it is easy to do a non-sanctioned race. You just have to
realize you might need your own officials and your fields may not be
large at first. If your race is a good one and people have fun there
there probably isn't anything to stop your fields from growing larger.
But yes if you are the only non-sanctioned race in your region then it
is harder to draw riders to your event.

B. Lafferty said:

VN: When USA Cycling was established, that concern was raised by board
members at the time. Les Earnest, in particular, was critical of the
structure and even sued.

GB: Les Earnest was right!

VN: In what sense?

GB: That a small group of individuals can come in and take over USA
Cycling... and they have.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9712.0.html

RS: Maybe these guys should sponsor a golf tournament
or mount an America's Cup campaign instead of buying our
sport and creating such discord among the rank and file.
VN: Oh - really!?
RS: Well, kinda'. I guess what I am saying is that there seems to
be a shetload of people disappointed with GB's dismissal and no
one at all is giving props to the Ochomaniacs. Is anyone happy
with this situation yo?
VN: Wow - I never looked at it that way.
RS: That's why they pay me the big bucks.

On 04/09/2006 09:51 AM, in article
[email hidden], "e-RICHIE"

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

VN: When USA Cycling was established, that concern was raised by board
members at the time. Les Earnest, in particular, was critical of the
structure and even sued.

GB: Les Earnest was right!

VN: In what sense?

GB: That a small group of individuals can come in and take over USA
Cycling... and they have.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9712.0.html

RS: Maybe these guys should sponsor a golf tournament
or mount an America's Cup campaign instead of buying our
sport and creating such discord among the rank and file.
VN: Oh - really!?
RS: Well, kinda'. I guess what I am saying is that there seems to
be a shetload of people disappointed with GB's dismissal and no
one at all is giving props to the Ochomaniacs. Is anyone happy
with this situation yo?
VN: Wow - I never looked at it that way.
RS: That's why they pay me the big bucks.

When can I read the rest of the interview!?!

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

When can I read the rest of the interview!?!

"Next week."

Quoted message said:

Why support USAC at all though? Just send your money to FIAC and
continue to race. FIAC will insure races too.

Magilla

It's really up to the local race organizations and/or promoters to
sanction their races with a FIAC member organization such as ACA. The
riders can't do much about it if USAC is the only game in town.

BTW, maybe I'm the only one who cares about this, but people frequently
refer to USAC as "Colorado". Colorado in general is not USAC country
and hasn't been since a certain political faction within USAC tried to
execute a cynical power play known as the Regional Rep Program. Most of
the road and cross races are sanctioned by ACA. Tyler is the second
most popular choice and USAC runs a distant third. The Colorado
Velodrome Association runs USACs road presence in CO, which should tell
you something. In future if you must use a nickname, please refer to
USAC as "Colorado Springs" or just "C-Springs" if you want to sound
like a local.

Thanks,
Bret

"It just feels like Rumsfeld and Cheney have hijacked cycling to me.
"Screw the grunts! We've got an agenda to push and money to make!".

Is that what you really think Bill? If so then by all means tell us
what the "agenda" is and why making money is bad.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"It just feels like Rumsfeld and Cheney have hijacked cycling to me.
"Screw the grunts! We've got an agenda to push and money to make!".

Is that what you really think Bill? If so then by all means tell us
what the "agenda" is and why making money is bad.

Hey Bill, aren't you glad you're not Eunuch's treating psychiatrist?

Making money is fine. How you make it, that's another story. NPO's
should not be trying max profits for exec's over what their mission is.
Promoters trying to make money to justify their work and time is ok,
promoters putting [censored] races on and gouging...I guess it's all in the
eye of the beholder.
CH

Tom Kunich said:

"It just feels like Rumsfeld and Cheney have hijacked cycling to me.
"Screw the grunts! We've got an agenda to push and money to make!".

Is that what you really think Bill? If so then by all means tell us
what the "agenda" is and why making money is bad.

Lets go through this pretty quickly. Rumsfeld/Cheney is pretty simple
"body armor scandal":
http://tinyurl.com/m2css
http://tinyurl.com/s5tp5
http://tinyurl.com/mz7mn
Quoted:
Despite its clear superiority Pinnacle was given short-shift by the
Army researchers after Murray Neal, its inventor and the president of
Pinnacle, was reportedly told by Natick's Dr. James Zheng that the SOV
Dragon Skin system "will never be fielded unless the technology and
intellectual property are turned over to Natick Soldier Systems
Center," according to sources who spoke with DW upon assurances of
anonymity. Neal confirmed that he ultimately had to threaten legal
action to prevent the Army from reverse-engineering his invention to
steal his secrets.
End quote.

I'll let you go get the GAO reports comfirming the 10s of millions in
wrongly/fraudulently billed services by Haliburton subsidiaries that
the government has decided to pay, in spite of the fact that GAO says
the bills are invalid.

The arrogance and abuse of power to the detriment of the people and
entity they are supposed to be serving is eerily similar IMO. IMO for
the Whitehouse crowd it's about money, and using the power they have.
For USAC it's not so much about the money as it is the power over
people's lives. In both cases the primary benificiaries seem to be the
clique at the top who are hell bent on taking care of themselves first
and foremost.
The behavior of both groups is indefensible, but at least noone is
dying from the abuse of power at USAC.
When they find that Bush ordered the leak of classified information I
will fully support impeachment, and charges for violating national
security. Noone is above the law.
Bill C

All of what you say is perfectly fine. However, aren't the stockholders
the ones who should be making that decision?

As for racing - if the races suck, people stop going. Maybe you noticed
the absence of road racing at Sea Otter this year?