Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
Michael Press <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Quoted message said:In article <[email hidden]>,
Casey Kerrigan said:In article <[email hidden]>, B.
Lafferty said:<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Which I think most regions will have to do, because they brought
> the guy in to make serious changes and I have to say that things
> improved in many ways. They were definitely better than when
> Voight was running the show. I'm sure many of us always felt that
> there are forces behind the scenes who had their own agenda/s. I
> think we'll start to see that now.
>
> CH
>
What's Casey's take on this?
If USAC is going to return to the ways of the bad old days ( ie
Pre-Gerard) then I assume that NCNCA and a number of other of the
Local Associations will drop out of the LA program. This would be a
disaster for USAC. if things get bad enough then I imagin that a
number of people in different LAs may look into the independent
racing option. Personally I've been there and done that. I have no
interest in being involved in an independent racing program again.
If there are others in my region that do want to start an
independent racing program again then more power to them.
The ultimate control that USAC members can exert over the
organization is via the purse strings. Cut off a lot of the
financial support via not renewing licenses or not doing races and
you put the organization into a lot of hurt. One would hope that the
USAC board would have learned this lesson before Gerard was brought
in. We will have to wait and see what happens.
Is it the case that Federal statutes say that the USAC
must be able to show that they indeed represent their
constituency; and that if the constituency abandons the
USAC that USAC will lose their statutory power? Might this
state of affairs obtain?
USAC is a NPC organized and existing under the laws of Colorado, since CO
swiped it from the more restrictive and intensively monitoring NY. USAC has
_NO_ statutory _power_. They are also a limited tax exempt organization
under the IRC. They have no constituency. They are, so to speak, a
charity. Under IOC rules, a single organization may represent each sport
for the purpose of Olympic participation, and USAC is so designated by the
USOC. Also, no constituency. What do you mean by that silly word, anyway ?
Did you think the move to CO was to enable a constituency ? It's really a
private club, with reporting requirements to state and federal authorities.
The real constituents are the self-congragtulatory Important people. They
have, on occasion, done things for public image, but I can't really recall
(for the time I raced under it - 2 years, in its present incarnation) that
any of it stuck. I have not lived in the US for a long time, racing under
other organizations in other countries. If the charter of USAC has changed
significantly, my comments have less validity, except the one about how the
organization weaseled out of being watched closely by a well-trained
supervisory body in NY. An argument at the time was that to be incorporated
in CO was going to be closer to the real center of cycling. Of course.
That's probably why General Motors remains a Delaware corporation. Close to
the heart of the core automobile buying population. Yeah, try again.
The reason that USAC can behave so badly comes from the organization of its
"governance". What an inapt word in this case. While you read of lots of
conflict in the organization, you don't ever get the sense that it is
responsive. It is not designed to be that way. Not to say it's so much
better in France, but we do have two major race organizations, both of which
have actual constituencies, and both of which are threatened by localized
racing organizations (2 I can think of, at least). The pyramid of power is
directed by the UCI and its monopoly authority. Trickle-down monopolies,
below that. But not human constituencies.
--
Sandy
--
S'endormir au volant, c'est très dangereux.
S'endormir à vélo, c'est très rare.
S'endormir à pied, c'est très con.
- Geluck, P.
