With all due respect to mwolf and jason k - posting a request for racers without putting a link to your event makes the person who might be interested work to find you. I'm not female, so I'm not your target audience, but every little bit helps. And those little Post title things aren't very clear - so put it in your text so that it appears more boldly.

Jason's race on Saturday May 26th is the Cycle Sports Criterium / Northern California/Nevada Junior Criterium Championships, which includes a Women's 3/4 and some Masters races too, in addition to a full slate of junior races for the guys and gals too.

http://www.tieniduro.org/events/2007ncdjcc.pdf

But the good news Jason is that a buddy conned me into registering, so I'm coming.

There are races for women 3's and 4's on all three days of the HOLIDAY weekend.

It seems to me that promoters who want to do something to help women's racing while keeping the attendance and finances reasonable should be talking to each other about reducing conflicts on some weekends and aiming at weekends that don't already have races for those groups.

If you want to help the fields that are underserved, consider adding races for the fields that usually fill up before race day. There are riders who can't get in the races that are already full and they would go to another race that day if one were offered.

from no less than the doyenne of racing of OBRA.

http://list.obra.org/posts/obra/show/35987

http://list.obra.org/posts/obra/show/35999

First, I appoligize somewhat for tacking this on to this thread, but I hope people will see it here... and it's sorta related....(initially it was listed on the ncnca calendar implying that it was jr.s only.. so i hope people didn't cross it off their list long ago and never look back)

I agree that whether fields tend to pre-reg shouldn't affect whether the field is offered, as promoters look at the final turnout...

But, lack of pre-reg'ing does leave some of us sweating...
We have offered an Womens 3/4 race at 10:50 am (so you don't have to be there at the crack of dawn, or stay till 3 pm or anything)... and we have a whole 4 riders signed up.... $450/6 places and we have 4 signed up....

Our team relies on donations to exist. We make a very small amount of money on this race compared to other clubs, as we spend most of the day entirely on Jr.s (with only 3 adult cats) Even the Junior Girls get their own races......

I do hope that a bunch of women come out and race - we had 35 last year which, while not amazing from a financial standpoint was certainly enough to offer it again. I hope we get at least a similar turn out this year, otherwise it may affect next year.

I know we could pick other fields to make more money, but that isn't out main goal. We want to provide races for the jr crit championship as well as some other fields that are at times under-represented... or at least aren't over-represented...

So.. I'd love to see more women racing... and if any of you know any junior women out there that are interested, we have one on our team already, and she'd love to have some friends that were also into riding... as a junior team we'll do all we can to help girls get into the sport.

Anyway.. everyone, please come out and race our crit in Livermore... and send some junior girls our way if you know them... . going into a junior club can be a lot easier than jumping into an elite focused club (men or women) i think... we are used to handling a wide variety of fitness and skill and spending time working with all of them to help them progress..

Thanks,

Jason

Ladies we are offering races for 3/4's and Pro123 but only have 4 women signed up. We have $1750.00 in cash plus primes. Please show you support.

Thanks

I've raced in southern California a few times at the SD Cyclovets Omnium. There they offer women's races in 5 different categories, and the riders show up. This year there was a limit on how many could enter the time trial, and pre-entry was required. The promoter has offered this masters "stage race" for years, yet includes the standard male elite categories, and also W1/2/3 AND W3/4. They do indeed compete against their peers and receive CASH prizes, as do we all. Check their flyer at http//:www.scnca.org/2007RaceFlyers/CV.pdf

Why not applaud Velo Promo for continuing the Kern Co. Women's Stage Race each year, even without the money making men's categories? Keep building (offering) it and they WILL come! :lol:

I re-read your earlier comment and you're right, Elis. Sorry.

I feel ya'. I do.

Warren keeps telling me that it should be a fully satisfying experience -- in a Socratic or perhaps a masochistic way, I guess -- to race against ubers all the time and get your butt kicked by the same 1-2's every week, never having your own category to race against your peers. (Like it would be if there were only Elite Women fields offered). He wants me to agree it's a "character-building experience," as my bubba would have said. (Mike - That's the true yiddish bu-bah, not Bubba like Melcher or booba like its anatomical).

I have agreed with Warren (many times) that some racing with ubers is a good thing for the education value, but we need a portion of balanced races against our peers -- be they cat 3-4 women or 45+ 3-4 masters!

Mikey is correct! Our interests are the same! And I'd be a doodie-head, like Mike said i was, were I to stand anywhere but alongside you in your quest for a more fair distribution of fields.

I guess the only difference is that you want parity in fields offered at MORE races and I want them at SOME races. (And that other little thing about the huge numbers of 45+ 3/4's in the region vs. the 6 ubers who win all the crits) But I am totally with you!!

Quote:First of all, I only raised the Elite option in response to Elis' complaint about not having second or third crits to race for training.

Apparently, Jess, you and I have a little misunderstanding here (big surprise, I'm sure).

I was not complaining that women don't have second or third crits for training. I was responding to the idea that women should use one of these open "training" races as their primary race, which is what I saw proposed as an alternative to providing specific women's categories. I do occasionally race in the open races for additional training, but to replace an entire women's field with a race that might just be a second or third training race (and that by the admission of some folks around here doesn't even matter to them as a race -- it's just pack intensity training) rubs me the wrong way. And you can quote me all you want on that.

I think I was the person who first suggested that existing sponsors of clubs with large female continents, and those club themselves could be a source of funding to make more women's races viable. This is not just some pie in the sky idea. It came from some races my brother promoted back east, and was first suggested by the clubs/sponsors themselves, AND it worked really well. The clubs had a bit more vested interest in their member's participation, the sponsors liked being THE sponsor of the race-a little more direct involvement than just space on the jersey, and the field sizes and prizes were very good.

Most of the guys I know that are in their second race of the day are not very competitive in that second race. They're just there for the fun of riding around, and some training. I see women in the masters races enjoying the same benefits (in their second race of the day). I think a person can feel safer in the 35+123 and 45+ races than they would among the E3's, and E4's. Probably due to the age-related declines in average serum testosterone levels...

Mikey -
I'm not saying my suggestions were THE solution, or even good ones. They were just subjects for discussion and debate. Honestly, I don't know the answer -- I don't even know if there's really a problem. But I'm glad we have this Forum to converse about things and share ideas and arguments.

mhernandez wrote:
1. sponsors ~ i'm not sure how many generous sponsors you think women's teams have. But, Velogirls did sponsor a Cat's Hill event, i recall. And, i know that VeloBella puts in huge resources to get new women into cross races. I know that MetroMint threw down resources at the Giro d'SF.

So, i'm not really sure what you mean by this and not really sure what else you expect. But, saying that we need to draw more sponsors into the sport is kind of like saying we should conserve water or drive less.

i mean, duh?

Okay, Mike. Good points. I guess that suggestion is not the "answer."
I simply thought that some sponsors might like additional exposure for their products, and some promoters might react well to the offer. If that won't happen, then it's not a very good suggestion. (But I don't think it's a "duh" suggestion either. I mean, ouch!)

mhernandez wrote:2. pre-reg ~ again, i'll say that i am not in favor of trying to force people into pre-reg'ing. Life dictates racing, not the other way around. For example, if Cherry Pie had been wet i would not have raced it this year. That course design would have had people crashing all over themselves after that downhill first turn. And, what about the folks who don't figure out if they'll get babysitters until the last minute, or just don't know if they'll get the time off work, etc, etc, etc.

Pre-reg is a nice thing to offer and it's great when people can take advantage of it ... but, it's not what determines what race categories will be offered. That is a decision made in the months BEFORE registration ever opens. Looking at historical data and determining what race categories will be offered is the promoter's discretion.

Let's not call it anything other than that. Pre-reg doesn't affect that decision.

To a degree I know you're wrong about this one. Because there are promoters for events later in the year who are looking at the pre-reg numbers for Brisbane, and are concerned. They have said so in this Forum. And while it's more practical for the 4's and masters to preserve their spots by pre-reg'ing, there are other good reasons to do it. Like giving the promoters some peace of mind by committing to an event. Whether you'd personally race Cherry Pie in the rain, my friend, is not a thorough refutation of these valid consequences of encouraging pre-reg by women.

But again, I don't tender that as "the answer," just as a subject for positive discussion. (And at least you didn't duh me on it.)

mhernandez wrote:3. Women racing with men ~ for the (god, let it be) LAST TIME ... women racing with men is NOT a viable option. I find it so incredibly ironic that someone who fights and claws so desperately to have a 45+ 3/4 field because he wants to be able to race with his "peers" should then have the temerity to suggest that women not have the same option.

Years ago, we had only a handful of women racing - and, to even give them any chance at racing their bikes ... sometimes they would HAVE to ride with the men's categories. Those times have changed. Now we have a thriving women's racing scene and women's fields can sell out (Bariani, for example).

But, more to the point - women racing with men is flatout NOT a way to grow participation of women in the sport. I would like you to understand this clearly, so please take a moment to just let this sink in as axiom ~ women racing in the men's categories is NOT a viable option for the health of our sport.

On this point, Mikey, you misunderstood me. I never posed this as the solution to the additional fields desired by the women. Since you likened it to my often-espoused argument about the logic of adding or limiting 45+ open races to 45+ 3/4 IN SOME INSTANCES, let me clarify:

First of all, I only raised the Elite option in response to Elis' complaint about not having second or third crits to race for training. I did not ever propose that women racing in Elite cats was a desirable (or even adequate) alternative as a primary race.
In regards to Cherry Pie, in February I did insinuate as best I could that if 35+ cat 3 women wanted to, they could race the 55+ 3/4 race en masse. I believe that there were only a couple of guys pre-registered for that race. They'd basically have expropriated that as their own race. I thought that was a constructive suggestion, but no one took it.
I still have not heard why using a lower-cat elite race or 20-year older master race for training is a suggestion worth outright rejection. But in any cae, the NCNCA & UCSF do not deserve disapprobation for legislating this accomodation to women racers.

Secondly, I do not believe I have shown any "temerity" in my arguments. I have not opposed the addition of categories for women (as others have based on demographics and past history of low turnout at races). This thread simply proposed a couple of suggestions how women might be able to positively influence promoters to achieve their worthy goal of additional fields. YOU AND I ARE ON THE SAME TEAM, MIKE! You are trying to achieve the additional field by persuasion, and I was suggesting other ways it might occur. This was not a negative thread.

BUT equating the additional womens' field with my former 45+ 3/4 advocacy is illogical. Why?
1. Because I have only advocated adding or so limiting that field at some races, not all. As Casey has pointed out, there are lots of races already offering the multiple fields you crave. Last year there were only one or two offering mine.
2. The huge numbers of masters racers supports the amendment of the 45+ category at some races, both by virtue of the demographics and the disprortionate number of podiums going to only 6 racers. The same cannot be said of the additional women's field.

These are very different issues and it serves no purpose to attempt to join them to expose my "temerity." My bad attitude is illuminated on it's own, I'm sure of it. :twisted:

I will continue to support your quest, and to make constructive suggestions if I think of any. Maybe if you think of ways I can encorage promoters to add a 45+ 3/4 field you'll do me the return favor of starting up a thread....

Damn. So far I'm not doing too great at re-sparking the old love light, am I Mikey?

OK, so here are the "constructive solutions" and/or "logical points" that i see you having put forth, Jess:

1. women should get their "generous sponsors" to give promoters money to help offset the "leap of faith" in scheduling women's events.

2. women should pre-register for events.

3. women get preferential treatment in USAC racing because they can race with men.

- - -

Allow me to offer my thoughts:

1. sponsors ~ i'm not sure how many generous sponsors you think women's teams have. But, Velogirls did sponsor a Cat's Hill event, i recall. And, i know that VeloBella puts in huge resources to get new women into cross races. I know that MetroMint threw down resources at the Giro d'SF.

So, i'm not really sure what you mean by this and not really sure what else you expect. But, saying that we need to draw more sponsors into the sport is kind of like saying we should conserve water or drive less.

i mean, duh?

2. pre-reg ~ again, i'll say that i am not in favor of trying to force people into pre-reg'ing. Life dictates racing, not the other way around. For example, if Cherry Pie had been wet i would not have raced it this year. That course design would have had people crashing all over themselves after that downhill first turn. And, what about the folks who don't figure out if they'll get babysitters until the last minute, or just don't know if they'll get the time off work, etc, etc, etc.

Pre-reg is a nice thing to offer and it's great when people can take advantage of it ... but, it's not what determines what race categories will be offered. That is a decision made in the months BEFORE registration ever opens. Looking at historical data and determining what race categories will be offered is the promoter's discretion.

Let's not call it anything other than that. Pre-reg doesn't affect that decision.

3. Women racing with men ~ for the (god, let it be) LAST TIME ... women racing with men is NOT a viable option. I find it so incredibly ironic that someone who fights and claws so desperately to have a 45+ 3/4 field because he wants to be able to race with his "peers" should then have the temerity to suggest that women not have the same option.

Years ago, we had only a handful of women racing - and, to even give them any chance at racing their bikes ... sometimes they would HAVE to ride with the men's categories. Those times have changed. Now we have a thriving women's racing scene and women's fields can sell out (Bariani, for example).

But, more to the point - women racing with men is flatout NOT a way to grow participation of women in the sport. I would like you to understand this clearly, so please take a moment to just let this sink in as axiom ~ women racing in the men's categories is NOT a viable option for the health of our sport.

I believe NorCal is the best region for bike racing in the US. I believe we have advanced both the men's and women's quality of racing to a degree that we should be proud of.

But, when i go to a race and see 7 or 8 categories for men's events and 1 women's event ... i do not think that is the best way to do it, in most cases.

It is for each race promoter to make those decisions. And, like you have done in lobbying for 45+ field varyations - so, too, must women and those who support women's racing lobby for better racing opportunities for women.

~m[/b]

BrentC wrote:----------------------------------------------

What are you talking about Jester/zebraman ? I wasn't even responding to your posts on Cherry Pie in the first place.. do back off the speaker box.

I never said USAC or NCNCA are making a mens preference. The USACMENs NCNAMENS was meant as a point.. those organizations don't exist.. USAC is for EVERYONE. I said they should stand up for the people paying their pay checks in this case this forum is for Cat3/4 women.

If you want a rant on Men getting excluded from Cherry pie open another topic. Ill stand behind you if the NCNCA or USAC don't field a mens race.

No wonder nothing ever gets across on these boards...

Another person clumsily dedicated to reducing logic to absurdity. I did "open this topic," Brent. I was proposing what I thought were constructive solutions for an issue women were raising in another thread about field distributions at races. This was never about Cherry Pie. Your criticism of the NCNCA & UCSF were not helpful to the theme of "constructive solutions" that was the topic of this conversation I began.

Furthermore, your response continues to raise no logical argument to support its premise - that the NCNCA and USCF don't "stand up for" women. I have demonstrated that in fact they do. Their rules create an obvious and undeniable preference for women, who are eligible to race in ALL elite races as well as women's races, and who have received from those organizations an advantage in category and age placement in those elite races.

"Discrimination" means segregating a category of people, like women racers.
"Preferential discrimination" means segregating a group of people for preferential treatment, like allowing them to race in all categories.
"Invidious discrimination" means prohibiting a category of people from equal participation.
What you are promoting is not equality. Equality means equal treatment for both genders -- only elite races. I am certain that no reasonable mind thinks equality is the answer (ironically).

What we have in place is preferential discrimination. The organizations you accuse have legislated an advantage to women to try to bring them on par with their male counterparts in elite races by allowing them to race down a category or against 20 year older male racers. I don't hear a lot of women saying that preferential treatment should be abolished.

But it seems to me that what you are promoting is invidious discrimination. Quotas. Restrictions. And I believe we've learned in all areas of our society that such measures are counterproductive and offensive.

(Now, perhaps you can stop accusing a logical argument of being a "rant" and complaining about my comments on a thread I created as being off the subject, and instead JUST ANSWER THE LOGICAL POINT I MADE.)

casey wrote:Brent C

did you not read the posts that point out that a Cat 4 woman under 35 had more opportunities to race with her gender than a Cat 5 man under 35 last year? I don't think the Cat 3/4 women are being ignored or excluded. There are probably more separate Cat 3 women's races in our region than any place else in this country.

Now if you include the options that women have to ride in the so called men's races ( yes I realize that some women don't think this is much of an option) then women have the ability to do a whole bunch of additional races.

Are there enough women's races? I don't know but I do feel that having more races in general is better than having fewer races. The women's racing situation is probably better in this region than any other region. In a perfect world women would have as many opportunities to race with other women as men have to race. The reality is that given the limited number of hours in a day and course resource limitations promoters have to pick and choose what categories they offer. Very few races have no categories for women but in some cases there are women only races. Again in a perfect world a promoter wouldn't have to take economic considerations into account when putting their race schedule but the hard fact is that economic considerations do have to be considered in many cases. Everyone can't be a Velo Promo which has promoted the Kern County Women's stage race for several years and has lost money on that event every years. Then again Velo Promo can take the profits from a Snelling and use those profits to off set the losses from the Kern County race.

sorry but I don't think that NCNCA or USCF should mandate that every race has to include a category(s) for women. I think if you start mandating some categories to have then you reduce the ability of promoters to have races and the ability for promoters to offer interesting and creative new types of races. If you are going to mandate that every race have at least one category for women then would you not also want to have every race include at least one category for juniors? What about Cat 5 men? Masters 55+? Once you open that door to include certain mandated categories then everyone is going to want to have their favorite group included in the mandatory category list.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother caring.

Oh well.

I just think it could be so much better considering this is an organization of highly motivated and educated people. But I guess that comes with a price too high for everyone... and will probably eventually be the demise of the sport.

I'll keep putting my time and efforts into the cyclocross events and not worry about road racing.

Correction to what Warren said above. I am not the "district Rep" there is no such position. NCNCA is the local USAC rep otherwise known as the Local Association. NCNCA gets rebate money from USAC for providing certain services ( like upgrades, race permit approvals, officials scheduling etc). I just happen to do a number of things for NCNCA ( like upgrades etc).

Last year NCCA got a little under $36,000 from the USAC License rebates. This year NCNCA ll spend $8,000 to compensate all the people who do things for NCNCA ( like running the BAR/BAT, be the NCNCA web master, treasurer, doing the upgrades etc). The $8,000 is divided between all the people who do things for NCNCA based on the amount of time they reported spending doing NCNCA things. The other money NCNCA gets from USAC goes to programs ( like the Cat 3/4 women's program, Cat 4 women's mentoring, Junior points series, race equipment delivery, buy new/replace race equipment, pay for web hosting, new race grants, special grants and so on.

Brent, you are saying what many people think about the USCF and their involvement in races. Here's the truth. The USCF does not see it as part of their mission to promote or encourage races for women cat 3's or 4's, or men 3's or 4's, or any masters age riders. The USCF does many things, but these are not among them. They simply allow, or enable those races to happen.

The USCF "paychecks" come from sponsorships, the USOC, private donations, and some from the license and race fees. They rebate back to the local districts (like NCNCA) a part of each rider's license fee to pay the District Rep, in our case that's Casey. If you think he's getting paid too much for that, well...

USCF provides race insurance, officials training, and general organizational things, but they leave it to local districts (and promoters) to decide what races are run and what categories are offered. This is actually a good thing, because if you want to run a race with whatever categories you want the USCF will essentially allow you to do that. They don't help you do that very much, but they don't restrict you very much either.

If you want to promote an event with only women's racing, you can. If you want to contact a promoter who is already scheduled to have a race on the day you want, you can. You don't need to ask the USCF or Casey. And you can say to that promoter, look, I'll offer racing for all the women's categories and ages so how about you don't offer any women's racing that day because that would conflict with my race? I expect that promoter will be quite happy with this exchange and then you can offer just what you want.

Brent C

did you not read the posts that point out that a Cat 4 woman under 35 had more opportunities to race with her gender than a Cat 5 man under 35 last year? I don't think the Cat 3/4 women are being ignored or excluded. There are probably more separate Cat 3 women's races in our region than any place else in this country.

Now if you include the options that women have to ride in the so called men's races ( yes I realize that some women don't think this is much of an option) then women have the ability to do a whole bunch of additional races.

Are there enough women's races? I don't know but I do feel that having more races in general is better than having fewer races. The women's racing situation is probably better in this region than any other region. In a perfect world women would have as many opportunities to race with other women as men have to race. The reality is that given the limited number of hours in a day and course resource limitations promoters have to pick and choose what categories they offer. Very few races have no categories for women but in some cases there are women only races. Again in a perfect world a promoter wouldn't have to take economic considerations into account when putting their race schedule but the hard fact is that economic considerations do have to be considered in many cases. Everyone can't be a Velo Promo which has promoted the Kern County Women's stage race for several years and has lost money on that event every years. Then again Velo Promo can take the profits from a Snelling and use those profits to off set the losses from the Kern County race.

sorry but I don't think that NCNCA or USCF should mandate that every race has to include a category(s) for women. I think if you start mandating some categories to have then you reduce the ability of promoters to have races and the ability for promoters to offer interesting and creative new types of races. If you are going to mandate that every race have at least one category for women then would you not also want to have every race include at least one category for juniors? What about Cat 5 men? Masters 55+? Once you open that door to include certain mandated categories then everyone is going to want to have their favorite group included in the mandatory category list.

when i said the comment about being sick of the comments on this forum i did not mean this "thread"... my bad/.

As you pointed out your merging many threads into this one...

----------------------------------------------

What are you talking about Jester/zebraman ? I wasn't even responding to your posts on Cherry Pie in the first place.. do back off the speaker box.

I never said USAC or NCNCA are making a mens preference. The USACMENs NCNAMENS was meant as a point.. those organizations don't exist.. USAC is for EVERYONE. I said they should stand up for the people paying their pay checks in this case this forum is for Cat3/4 women.

If you want a rant on Men getting excluded from Cherry pie open another topic. Ill stand behind you if the NCNCA or USAC don't field a mens race.

No wonder nothing ever gets across on these boards...

BrentC wrote:Speaking as a husband of a gal who got an opportunity to race locally and upgrade to racing world cup events only a few years ago...
I have to admit that I am deeply disappointed by many of the comments I have seen from both racers and officials on this forum.
The separatist comments are making me absolutely sick. The thing that bothers me most about even having these discussions is that these women have been paying for licenses through USAC / NCNCA just as the men have. These organizations are OBLIGATED to represent these women at the highest level and we should not have to voice opinions and comments about this subject period. Clearly there is something wrong. This is not NCNCAMENS and USACMENS. How can a promoters justify to officials of NCNCA or USAC the right to cut womens races at any level?

Okay, now we have reached the point of ridiculousness. "NCNCAMENS & USCFMENS?"

Indisputably, the NCNCA and UCSF are blameless. They are NOT creating a men's preference, my friend. In fact, there is ONLY A WOMENS' PREFERENCE. There is a women's category and there is an OPEN category. THE MEN DO NOT EVEN HAVE A CATEGORY!!!!

Let me say it another way: Women are free to race in women-only AND in open categories, including racing down a category or racing older categories in many instances. A 35 year old Cat 3 woman is entitled to race against men more than 20 years her senior! In these ways the USCF has in fact been "separatist" and gender-discriminating IN FAVOR OF WOMEN RACERS!!!

Now you want to put quotas or rules on race promoters? I don't think you understand that nearly all the races in the NCNCA are run to make operating expenses for the teams that present them (including their women racers). This is not a big profit mill that can tolerate restrictions. This is racers volunteering and working hard to present races for each other.

Anyone who want to run a race with 2, 3 or ALL women's-only fields can do so. You can schedule one yourself! In fact, the only thing you can't do is run a men's-only race, because there is no such category. Are you sure you want to start advocating gender quotas and restrictions, at the risk of losing the existing preferences?

Please excuse by reactivity, but the NCNCA and USCF are not responsible. Clearly - by rule - they have given more than equal opportunity to women.

Zebraman

Speaking as a husband of a gal who got an opportunity to race locally and upgrade to racing world cup events only a few years ago...
I have to admit that I am deeply disappointed by many of the comments I have seen from both racers and officials on this forum.
The separatist comments are making me absolutely sick. The thing that bothers me most about even having these discussions is that these women have been paying for licenses through USAC / NCNCA just as the men have. These organizations are OBLIGATED to represent these women at the highest level and we should not have to voice opinions and comments about this subject period. Clearly there is something wrong. This is not NCNCAMENS and USACMENS. How can a promoters justify to officials of NCNCA or USAC the right to cut womens races at any level?
There are thousands of women racing in the USA at CAT3/4 and their money is being used on events that don't include them and I feel that is wrong. That is not to say there are no races out there! I commend those promoters who put on races for women even though they are a small field or small pre reg and appear to be taking it in the shorts. I refer those promoters races whenever I can.

I would just like to see the USAC officials that I send my money to for purchase of our license that pays their salary to actually take more of a stand with the promoters in the future rather than back them with historical numbers of low entries and shrug their shoulders.
I suggest if you want to use USAC insurance and be part of the calendar than you should have to include the women who are participating in paying the costs or cut them a deal on their licenses since you cannot guarantee that they are going to get to race the event that uses the name on their licenses.

As well, any promoter who uses the USAC Results and Ranking or NCNCA Premier status on their flyer's, websites or advertisements should be held to the HIGHEST requirements of standards.

casey wrote:At the risk of incurring the wrath of the great Mr Hernandez

Case, you realize now that you're going to have to number up and lead me out, or at least protect my back side when Mikey comes 'round to spank me. AGAIN!

(By the way, MH -- fantastic job at Land Park, par usual. You truly did give me and 75 other 35+ 1/2/3 guys and 1 or 2 gals a serious bruisin')

Quote:I think that having women teaching and encouraging other women definitely helps, and I think that threads such as this one where women's races are treated as having less value than men's races (financially, which is currently the case but can be changed, and figuratively) definitely hurt.

Way to go, Laurie Fenech!!
I hope I wasn't understood as saying that women's racing has less value. The Eagle Racing Team is trying very hard to attract and/or nurture more W3 & W4 racers. Our current squad are among the most active racers we have so far in 2007. For Cherry Pie it was not a question of valuing any group. We have one of the shortest days of the year. We had already committed to the Juniors Points Series. We are primarily a masters team, and Team Spine (our co-sponsors) doesn't have a women's team, as far as I know. AND we are a new team with concerns about income, especially since our February race is more likely to get rained out than others.

I appreciate the sensitivity of being in the numerical minority. My proposals were not intended to discount the women, they were simply ideas. I do not advocate women buying their way in, nor being subsidized, nor having proportionate prizes. (I don't even support those stupid advanced tee-off spots in golf). I just thought that the sponsors might welcome the opportunity to get some more exposure at chosen races. And I don't think it's unreasonable to encourage pre-registration as a demonstration of commitment to chosen races.

As for "concessions made," I believe that the NCNCA and USCF rules have already made concessions. Women are free to race second and third races, just like the men. That's why the Women's races are restricted by gender and the Elite races are not. As I pointed out months ago, the women of all ages and categories are eligible to race multiple races at crits. So if you want 2nd and 3rd races for training, Elis, you've got several options at every race. (see the quote below from my letter in February)

Quote:In case there was any doubt, both junior and senior women racers are eligible to race in multiple categories at the Cherry Pie Criterium:

Women 4 35+: Open Women, Masters 55+ 3/4, Elite 4, Masters 3/4, Elite 5

Women 4: Open Women, Elite 5, Elite 4

Women 3 35+: Open Women, Masters 55+ 3/4, Elite 4, Masters 3/4

Women 3: Open Women, Elite 4, Elite 3

Women 2 35+: Open Women, Elite 3, Masters 3/4

Women 2: Open Women, Elite 3, Pro/1/2

Women 1 35+: Open Women, Elite 3, Masters 3/4

Women 1: Open Women, Elite 3, Pro/1/2
1H2. Women may enter any race for which they are eligible by age, category, and any performance requirements and may enter categorized races for men that are up to one category lower than their women's category, or in the case of category 1 women, up to two categories lower. In addition, category 4 and 3 women who are 35 or older may compete in Masters races for all riders up to 20 years greater than their racing age, subject to other eligibility requirements.

Believe me, (if you are over 35 and a cat. 3) your chance of a podium in the 55+ is better than mine in the 35+ 1/2/3 -- especially with Hernandez gunnin' for me!!

Some more thoughts:
Every weekend I see women riding strong in the Elite peloton. They seem to dig it.
Lots of us have to overextend for our second race of the day, racing in more difficult categories or against younger racers. It's probably the best way to improve.

And finally:
Guys between 18-35 normally don't have any opportunity to race twice like the women do, so perhaps we should really be debating the sport's overt discrimination against young adults!

And please forgive me, Mike. Can't we just team up on Warren?

3 races for the ladies? I noticed a 1/2/3 and a 3/4 race. what's the 3rd race?

All I can say is the Stienbeck Crit May 13th has it all and lots of CASH dollars and primes for female with 3 different races for the ladies. This is our first year so we hope all come and enjoy a day in the sun. :lol:

Preceeds will benefit 2 great charities

Elis wrote:Quote:Not to twoot our own horns or anything, but between you and I we brought about 25 women to race at Bariani.

Twoot away! You both deserve it.

twoot twoot!

Sometimes typos come out better than what was intended!

Muah!

leadout wrote:in the womens circles, and from our perspective (Quad-Knopf Sequoia Cycling Classic), what do we need to offer to increase the womens participation in this event?
Time trial? No mass start event. you alone. not too scarry a course.
Crit? mass start. scarry for the beginner.
RR? we did not offer a rr this year and may not go back to that just because of typical logistic issues.
Mo money???
reduced fees???
we had a whopping 12 riders in the crit for 3 and 4 women. they started together but were picked seperately (is that an issue in itself!?). not to much chance that will be back. but we had all kinds of women cats for the tt. and that turnout was much worse! 6 total in all the amateur races!
i need insight...to fight to keep the women events here...
and yes, we know that there were confliciting events in both norcal and socal.

mike camarena
quad-knopf sequoia cycling classic

If you are talking about attracting more 3/4 women, then I can give you my opinion.

There are just not enough of us to split between 3 races. Bariani/Zamora was hugely popular in NorCal because it is relatively close to the largest population base of cyclists, it had a seperate race for Cat 4 women, and although the 3s were combined with the 1,2s, Bariani is the kind of course where that is not so bad.

And I imagine that convenience was the cause for SoCal racers. San Dimas is a lot closer.

I myself considered the 3/4 crit just because I wanted to support the equal prize list you were offering the pro women. Here are the factors in my deciding to go to Zamora instead.

1. It was too long of a drive just for a crit. I would have considered it more if it were coupled with a road race (I loved the old Exeter course by the way) I personally am not interested in TTs.

2. We had already driven out to the Central Valley the preceding three weekends. Enough was enough. I think you may have seen the brunt of this in several categories, not just women.

Prize money, reduced fees and to some extent, course "hardness" has little to do with it (as long as seperate categories exist, course "hardness" does become a factor in mixed categories as its intimidating for the lower of the mixed categories). Convenience, racing value, and category offered does.

I think that your date selection is probably the single most critical factor, both in how your race is the 4th central valley race weekend in a row, and in how you were competing against popular races in both NorCal and SoCal.

And adding a road race, so that the drive is worth it, would help as well.

Sabine

in the womens circles, and from our perspective (Quad-Knopf Sequoia Cycling Classic), what do we need to offer to increase the womens participation in this event?
Time trial? No mass start event. you alone. not too scarry a course.
Crit? mass start. scarry for the beginner.
RR? we did not offer a rr this year and may not go back to that just because of typical logistic issues.
Mo money???
reduced fees???
we had a whopping 12 riders in the crit for 3 and 4 women. they started together but were picked seperately (is that an issue in itself!?). not to much chance that will be back. but we had all kinds of women cats for the tt. and that turnout was much worse! 6 total in all the amateur races!
i need insight...to fight to keep the women events here...
and yes, we know that there were confliciting events in both norcal and socal.

mike camarena
quad-knopf sequoia cycling classic

Quote:Not to twoot our own horns or anything, but between you and I we brought about 25 women to race at Bariani.

Twoot away! You both deserve it.

velogirl wrote:I have to say I'm rendered speechless by this conversation. I don't want anyone to think that means I don't care or that other women don't care. I've tried to respond half a dozen times and I just don't know what to say to any of this and I've chatted with some other women in the district who feel the same way.

maybe it's time to move onto another topic for you gentlemen to debate.

Campy vs Shimano?

Waxing vs shaving? Above the knee or not?

Best team kit of 2007?

I just see no sense in arguing with the same 2-3 people over this.

The topic keeps slipping and sliding faster than I can keep up anyway.

I'd rather do what we've been doing. And thats "do"

Not to twoot our own horns or anything, but between you and I we brought about 25 women to race at Bariani.

That beats banging your head against a virtual brick wall anyday.

Velogirl wrote:

"Waxing vs shaving? Above the knee or not?

Best team kit of 2007?"

Oh sure. Bring up a few more things where women have the advantage over guys. :-)

I have to say I'm rendered speechless by this conversation. I don't want anyone to think that means I don't care or that other women don't care. I've tried to respond half a dozen times and I just don't know what to say to any of this and I've chatted with some other women in the district who feel the same way.

maybe it's time to move onto another topic for you gentlemen to debate.

Campy vs Shimano?

Waxing vs shaving? Above the knee or not?

Best team kit of 2007?

Mike, your agitated reply is probably a view shared by others with a certain mindset, so thanks for trying to clarify things. I said nothing about the quality of women's racing, pro or non-pro. I have lots of respect for women pros and and a photo of Christine in a TT (we have the same coach) is part of my screensaver.

You asked for a list.. Webcor, T-mobile, Lipton, several new teams this year and last, do the others actually pay a rider more than $30k/year? Can you name 5 women pros on the track? What are the first names of the Meares sisters? What is the country of Victoria P.? Team name of Sarah, and what did she accomplish at the WC in January? No fair Googling. :-) And FWIW, my sprint times on the track are real close to those of the women track pros.

Anyhoo... If the rider, male or female doesn't fly through the cat 4's and 3's in about one, maybe two years total they are very unlikely to have the talent and fortitude needed to be a pro. I'm sure you can think of many, many pros who fit this, and I can't think of any who do not (unless you're including the $10k dreamers). And no, I'm not including juniors, who would obviously need more years to finish growing and maturing.

So my point that you adressed was, that women who are 3's for several years aren't "developing" into pros, they're "developing" into career 3's and maybe some 2's, or maybe a 1, just like the guys in the 3's. I don't think riders in this area (multi-year cat 2's, 3's and 4's) should get more attention/money/effort, etc. than several other groups who could use it.

FWIW, I've been going to my wife's running, duathon, and XC ski races for 22 years so my comments about those would only apply to that time frame, not 40 years ago.

Quote:She wants no more support than men get. Contribute equally and benefit equally. Like it is for her and all of the other women in her running races and duathons.

... my, oh my ... how short our memories are.

As someone who was in duathlon at it's early stages in the 80's and someone who banged his head against the running boards for far too long...

equity in running and multisport was (and still is) a long hard battle.

i won't even get into the societal norms that were broken but a scant 40 years ago by women running at all ... in this country.

and,

Quote:How about if all the women who have raced more than 3 years (because if they're not a pro by then they never will be)

well, that's just a stupid statement to make.

Warren, i don't know you but you seem like a reasonable ... if wordy, kind of guy.

but that is flat out horse poop dripping from your mouth and pretty much symbolizes the mindset that I take issue with.

Don't you see how dismissive that statement is? You dismiss the quality of women's racing and the need for maturation and development of individual women riders - all in one casual, sage-like statement.

Did you even see the Tower Crit? Did you watch Merco? How about Visalia? Have you ever watched the women race Redlands?

Have you ever compared your TT time to Thorburn or your Redlands HC to Genevieve or Anderson? Have you ever considered that Tuetenberg would drop your ass in a sprint?

These women are tremendously fast, Warren. They know how to race their f'ing bikes.

Can you even name all the women's pro teams off the top of your head? Ok, how about 3 riders from each?

- - -

If you're not a pro by 3 years into racing you probably won't be ... what a shitty thing to say to a rider. What a kick in the teeth to their dreams.

Would you say that to a junior rider at the track?

Don't you have any clue as to the hypocrisy in that statement?

You talk about equity as the goal between the genders in our sport ... but you begin this talk of equity by setting the women aside and underneath men's racing.

if you're not a pro by 3 years into racing ...

you have no idea what you're talking about, Warren.

... maybe i shouldn't check the forums before morning coffee.

The search on the Colorado thing wasn't working for me so I browsed a bit and found these:
http://www.tetoncycling.com/forum/display_message.asp?mid=17328
http://www.tetoncycling.com/forum/display_message.asp?mid=13464

Since that board is anonymous, I would hope most of the bad postings are not serious...

casey wrote:Bicycle racing is such a minority sport that we need to keep on developing new racers from all genders and ages.

E3's, E4's and E5's have girlfriends/wives/sisters who might want to race. So do masters. And some masters have kids who might want to race too. Increase the number of masters and E3/4/5's and you'll help increase the number of women and juniors. There has already been a large increase in the number of masters racers and a subsequent increase in the number of juniors (who are often coached/mentored by masters).

Elis, consistently full fields are a sign that there are not enough racing opportunities for the groups filling those fields. Some people are being shut out. There should not be some quota or limit for the number of riders that's used to say when there is enough "development" of that group. Who are you to say that 50 M5's is enough and that we should "develop" W4's instead until they fill their 50 rider fields too? Talk about sexist.

Who is it you wish to develop? Most juniors have very little income so it's reasonable that their entry fees are lower. You say men don't need "development" so when you say we (meaning the guys, not the gals) should subsidize the "development" of racers that need it, which according to you is only the W3's and W4's. So, you are expecting men to subsidize the racing for W3's and W4's. Nice.

How about if all the women who have raced more than 3 years (because if they're not a pro by then they never will be) should have to contribute a share of money equal to that of the riders you expect to cover the costs of "developing" W3's and W4's? Let's keep it fair and equal, right? All the non-pro Women 123's can pay just as much in per rider for the same expense per rider as the non-pro Men. Fair? The cost of subsidizing the W3's and W4's will be split among each ("non-developing" male and female rider equally? The men have been doing that for women's racing for 20+ years. The women haven't done it at all. How do you propose we correct this imbalance to make things fair?

What is "development"? Increasing the number of people racing? There's no reason more emphasis should go to women than men, young or old, because all of them could be increased. 10 more W4's are not more important than 10 more M4's or 10 more of any other group.

Is "development" only for future pros? Here's a secret, most real pros don't come through the junior ranks, or at least they're not pros because they were "developed" in the junior racing programs, or in W3's races. To be talented enough to become a real pro means the rider won't spend more than a month or two in the 3's, and even if there were no 3's races they'd still become pros. All the cat 3 races do for 99% of those riders is "develop" a few 2's and offer racing for people who don't train enough to be 2's. How many (real) pros can you say raced more than a few times in W4's? How many W3's races did they do? How is developing more 2's and W3's and W4's more important than developing more masters men racers?

And no, the 5's didn't have to lobby or complain to get their races. The category 5 was a way to formally license the significant number of riders who were competing in the "citizen" and "public" races at many bike race events. These categories have been offered for 30+ years for riders who felt they weren't ready to race with the USCF cat 4's. And promoters offer them races because they pay in substantially more dollars than they get paid back. And even though the average W4 creates less than half the income and attendance of a E5's race promoters still offer the W4's a race. And you want even more that that and ask other people to pay for it? Yeah, that's fair.

About why women aren't racing more? My wife has raced, and so have some female friends of ours. I'm sure you know reasons and factors for why women feel somewhat differently about racing and training for bike racing than men do. For many sound reasons bike racing is simply less appealing for women than for men.

Look at the number of women who take part in running races, triathlons, and duathons. I don't see preferential treatment for the women in those sports like we see in bike racing, but their participation compared to men is much, much higher than in bike racing.

My wife tells me she doesn't want the preferential treatment that you advocate for women racers. She thinks it's ridiculous when 20 W4's rolling around at 22mph get the same prizes and places as 100 M4's. Preferential treatment encourages a sense that it's needed because "I'm just a girl", and the guys have to subsidize me or I won't play. That's crap. She wants no more support than men get. Contribute equally and benefit equally. Like it is for her and all of the other women in her running races and duathons.

If you truly want to read threads that are hostile towards women's racing dig through some of the archives at http://www.tetoncycling.com/forumdisclaimer.aspx which is the site that serves as the main forum for CO racing.

Over the past several years about 90% of the new riders who have responded to my new rider's survey have said they got into racing due to the encouragement of their family and or friends. This would mean that the best way to bring more women into the sport is for women racers to encourage their friend or women they meet to give racing a try. In my new rider surveys I have had a few women say they got into racing because their boyfriend was a racer and now the boyfriend is long gone but they were still racing.

Bicycle racing is such a minority sport that we need to keep on developing new racers from all genders and ages. A couple of years ago I know that there were something like 112,000 kids enrolled in youth soccer just in Northern California. There are only 49,000 licensed USCF riders in the entire country. No there is plenty of room for the sport as a whole to grow.

Casey, I wish I had an answer for that. I think that having women teaching and encouraging other women definitely helps, and I think that threads such as this one where women's races are treated as having less value than men's races (financially, which is currently the case but can be changed, and figuratively) definitely hurt. I know that if I were a beginning racer reading these threads I wouldn't feel like a lot of people wanted me there and would be less inclined to race. There are a lot of women on bicycles out there -- maybe we can take a look at the development demographics and see where they are and figure out how to recruit from there. Organizations like VeloBella, Velo Girls and BAWC are reaching out and I do think that the sport is growing, but despite the best of intentions it won't be overnight, and some concessions may need to be made it we want to see it grow.

Again, I do think that most people want to see women's racing grow.

And to answer your questions, Warren, quite simply I don't think that there is a need to develop of-age men's cycling. In the words of a friend, there hasn't been a need to develop men's cycling since Greg Lemond raced the Tour. Development as I see it is the act of cultivating growth in necessary areas. You've said yourself that men's races almost always fill -- the sign of successful development.

I'm sure there was a time when those men's fields that everyone now takes for granted had to fight tooth and nail for their own fields. The cat 5 field is a recent addition, and I'm sure it took some time to become popular. However, in the interest of growing the sport and developing it, categories were added (I'm sure at least some of them were at a loss at first). Now look at all the options available to elite and master's men: it's incredible! How lucky to be able to race several times in one day ("just for training" -- what a luxury)! And how sad that after all that work to develop the sport, there's little recognition of the potential for similar sacrifices to bolster other fields and continue developing the sport. And if you want to frame development in a discussion about potential for a professional career, look at the average age of professional racers in the pro categories and I think that you'll see a trend of younger males (who need development via junior programs) and women in their mid- to late-30s (who need development via the 3 and 4 categories).

I'm sure that there are a group of people who spoke out for the development of men's cycling when it was necessary for the growth of the sport. Now that the men's fields fill regularly (which is fantastic), there are other opportunities for development to fill the sport. If it's for love of the sport, then we're all in this together, and asking one group to develop themselves while shutting them out of events isn't the way to do that, in my opinion.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the great Mr Hernandez let me throw some more statistics into the mix ( not to beat up on any category just to give people some information to work off of.

For USCF as a whole women make up 11.5% of the membership. In NCNCA territory women make up 15.1% of the membership.

Last year in Cat 4 women only races the average field size was 24 riders. The largest field sizes for Cat 4 only women were Snelling WenteRR, Sea Otter and livermore Hills. The smallest field sizes ( 14 or fewer riders) were Cantua, Alameda Crit, Pinole TTT, Santa Cruz Crit, Copperopolis, Dunlap TT Dist Championship TT, Leesville Gap, District RR, Patterson Pass, Esparto and Mt. Tam.

Small field sizes for Alameda and Copperopolis are understandable since there were other races on the same day that also had a category Cat 4 women could ride in. Not sure why Cat 4 women don't show up for TTs.

RRs tend to draw larger numbers of Cat 4 women which is understandable since newer riders may not feel they have the skills to be comfortable to ride a Crit in a large field.

Should promoters work harder to avoid having two events on the same day that include Cat 4 women? It seems like when we do have this type of situation at least one of the events will have a fairly small turnout of Cat 4 women.

What do we need to keep growing the number of women who participate in racing? I don't think it is simple a matter of having more races for Cat 4 women. I think there needs to be additional steps beyond just having more races. I think it would help to bring more women into the sport if there were more Skills clinics taught by women for women. A lot of women seem to be more comfortable doing skills clinic in an all woman environment. More no drop training rides would probably help. We started seeing good growth in new women riders as we have seen more women only clubs develop. Would more women's clubs help bring in more women? I think the continued growth of women's racing starts at a more basic level than simply having more races for Cat 4 women. I think there has to be more out reach to bring the good women recreational cyclists into racing. The question is how does the cycling community reach out to let these good recreational rider know about cycling and how do we give them the basic skills set and confidence to give racing a try. In this case I don't think it is as simple as "if you build it they will come"

The Jesster wrote:
A suggestion from a promoter who's trying to help remedy a cacophany of complaints with constructive suggestions.

You will never make everybody happy.

Do whatever you want to do that pleases your club members, sponsors and volunteers the most.

Event cost is not the main inhibitor to participation by any group considering the other costs of bicycle racing - events could be free or almost free and the participation by most groups would not change much at all (some people will show up to anything, and some people will hardly ever show up to anything, there's some other ride/event going on that day/time, etc) , and I have tried this model.

One could also look at the example of Farid's *free* (except for parking) junior training program at the track and for the largest district in USA Cycling we have pretty sparse attendance, and this is no reflection on the quality of Farid's program, just a.) the difficulty in attracting people to any type of event when there are many different ways and places in the area to ride a bike and b.) the relatively small number of juniors in the sport.

I've been in the sport for 30+ years. Women have been made to feel welcome over and over again. Races for them even though their field sizes are a fraction the size of other groups ready to race, prizes for every finisher, or maybe every other finisher or similar, and we almost never see a race where the ratio of riders to prize places is as good for any of the guys' racing groups as it is for the women. Most of the time the women get to race in the afternoon instead of at 8am like the other "development" groups of racers.

The simple reason no one is "pushing" for the other groups of racers to pay more entry fees, or bring their own sponsors is because those other groups are already providing significantly more income vs. expense to promoters than the women do. Some simple research will confirm this over and over.

For the most part, more financial and time allowance has been made by promoters for women and juniors racing than the other groups on a per rider basis. This is obvious.

Please explain why we should spend more to "develop" women's racing instead of trying to develop men's racing? If we offered prizes and races for the 50+ and 60+ guys like we do now for women 4's we could see some good velopment there. So how about we develop that too?

Lets encourage promoters to offer races for riders with less than 15 races. With the same cost/income ratio per rider as the women's "development" racing groups get. Develop riders from all ages and sex equally, right? Not just the women?

There is "development" available for the masters men under 45, masters men over 55, men who have less than 10 races (have you seen those field sizes at EB's?), Juniors, U23, collegiate, etc., but who do we hear complaining the most about wanting even more support for their development even though they get all this support? And you're asking for even more and saying women aren't made to feel welcome? I don't think that's a reasonable approach.

The simple fact is that the guys like to have women come to races, ride in their own races, and they provide all kinds of extra incentives for women to race.

Casey has already shown us that their are many good racing opportunities for women to race in NorCal. The promoters are a major reason for that.

Those second race entries... That second race for most riders is training and they won't pay more for that. It's basically a nice way for the promoter to pick up some extra income and entries that they wouldn't get otherwise. The field that those second entries are for are already as large as the other groups, i.e., profitable. Now if you'd like to have another women's race and offer reduced entries for that so their field is 70 riders instead of 55 that sounds great.

Please explain why you think riders who are already paying more than one full entry fee are somehow obligated pay even more than they already do to support the "development" of women's racing? And why that extra support should not also/instead be going to other groups of riders who might need "development". Sure, there are lots of E5's now, but there could be even more if they got the same support in dollars and time on a per rider basis as the other "development" groups. I guess we should also expect the women who are not "developing" to pay more to "develop" men's racing too, right?

Casey has already shown us that there already as many racing opportunities for the W4's as the M5's, and there are a LOT more of those M5's who would like to race but don't get in the fields because they are full. How is that fair to the guys? Let's see what happens when ALL the E5's get to race. How many will show up then? And all the E4's and E3's who want to race. Nobody shut out by field limits. Every week, Just like we already have available for the women. Equal or penalizing? For who?

These numbers tell us quite clearly that promoters are not looking for reasons not to have women's racing, but are in fact trying to offer women's racing even though the cost/income is never as good as it is for the guys who are, or could be racing.

Complaining about penalizing women's categories? How about if we first make the women's categories equal? You know, same amount of prize money per entry as the same category of the guys. Let's see, 50 Cat 5's get no money. 100 cat 4's racing for $150 in prizes, or $1 per cat 4 and 5 rider. 40 W4's (which is like the E4,5's combined), so that equals $40 in prizes. Fair? $300 for 100 E3's, or $3 per rider, so the field of 30 W3's gets $90. Fair enough? The E3's get 6 prizes for 100 riders. So that would be about 2 prizes for the W3's. Fair, or penalizing? How about if we just say one prize place for each 10 riders in the field, which is better than what the guys get now. Especially the guys who are "developing".

The fact is that while the Velo Bella folks put on a good event in Menlo Park, the guys contributed far more net income than the gals did, maybe more than usual. If anyone should feel unwelcome it's the guys who subsidize the other racers at one race after another.

And I wonder why a promoter like Jess tries so hard to help, and reach out, in the face of such frustration... Because some people do appreciate the efforts, and time, and money, and subsidies from the other racing groups?

Quote:For Cherry Pie we had something like six women preregistered three days before the race. I think 76 showed up once the sun came out.

I would NOT have raced Cherry Pie in the rain, Jess. And, I would not race Brisbane in the rain, either. Unless there were a few thousand $$ on the line, of course.

I am not in favor of trying to mandate pre-reg. We're all working folks, and many of the women racers not only work, but have family obligations, too.

So, we wait and see if the weather will shine favorable on us (not to mention if we even want to race) before we register. There are races I know I will do, rain or shine.

But, Cherry Pie and Brisbane ain't them.

More to the point?

spend less time typing and more time training because i'm gonna throw down some spank on yer butt in the upcoming races. One spank for everytime you've brought up those damn demographics as a stick to wield against the smaller fields.

picking on girls? ... you'll get yours!
:P

The notion of providing "solutions" for women is a little off, in my opinion. Requiring a solution for a women's race implies to me that there is a problem with women's racing itself, which is something I don't see. What I see is people trying to come up with reasons to not include women's racing, or not consider lower-category women's racing development racing. Now there's a real problem.

It's pretty clear that women's racing doesn't have the same muscle in the community as men's racing does, or master's racing. I haven't heard anyone push for another group of racers to pay higher prices for their races since there aren't (yet) as many of that group as another, or for another group to bring their own sponsors to be able to race.

Maybe the place for solutions isn't to penalize the women's category while we're theoretically trying to develop it. Maybe there are other creative solutions that can be employed as well. For example, why don't those people racing a second (or third) race of the day pay a little more for those "freebie" races, and that extra income can go toward developing the sport in the form of women's 3 and 4 separate-category races and junior races. Someone pointed out that it's widely accepted that the full fees paid by elite and master's racers go toward subsidizing the junior fields (which are mostly male); why not do something similar for the women's fields that are more viable as development categories for women's talent? The folks who get to race those second and third races are already at a big advantage by having several fields to choose from -- what's an extra $5, $10 or $15 toward the development of the sport?

All of these suggestions about how women can help the development of women's racing is really one-sided. There are a lot of people out there who claim to be interested in developing the sport, but in practice have an "every (wo)man for himself" attitude about development. These threads on the forum aren't exactly encouraging women to come out to races in droves -- why should they, when it seems like few people want them to come and race because they're just eating into the "profitable" race time, and now they might not be welcomed unless they bring a sponsor for their race? Gee, sounds like a really swell Saturday with a group of people who are happy to see you, right? Of course, there are notable exceptions to this rule, and honestly I believe they are in the majority. Unfortunately they are not the most visible or vocal group at this point.

I personally think that women would be more likely to pre-register and take Jess' suggestion if they felt more welcome. So how about instead of asking these development riders to provide their own sponsorship, we ask the riders who have a lot of opportunity to race and claim to support cycling development to put their money where their mouths are and pony up and extra $10 each for their second and third races of the day. I think that would be an excellent solution to the big-picture problem.

It's just a suggestion.
A suggestion from a promoter.
A suggestion from a promoter who didn't add an additional women's field because of historically low attendance.
A suggestion from a promoter who was really sweating because of low pre-reg.
A suggestion from a promoter who would appreciate people commiting to a race, even if it probably won't sell out.
A suggestion from a promoter who'd like all racers to commit to race, even if it rains.

A suggestion from a promoter who's trying to help remedy a cacophany of complaints with constructive suggestions.

Hello? We can be selective and state that the women aren't pre-registering, but we should also look at the men's numbers -- they're not pre-registering either. With on-line registration, what's my motivation to pre-register unless I think the field will fill? And if I can see the pre-reg numbers, I know when a field is close to filling. W3 fields never fill. W4 fields occassionally fill. And Tom's race is still three weeks away!

I think lots of folks wait until the last minute because there are so many things that can happen between now and race-day. Heck, if I race this weekend and crash, or I get sick, or fall in love and move to Figi, the promoter probably won't refund my $25 so why should I pre-reg?

ps -- Menlo Park filled the Women's 4 race and there were 30 women in the Women's 3 race. Those aren't $-losing numbers. Yeah, having 100 guys in a field will yield additional income, but having 30 women in a race doesn't technically lose money. And Bariani has 49 CAT4 women registered!!! Could one more woman register so we can sell that sucker out? So it's clear to me that CAT4 women will support CAT4-only races....