Some of the offenders are pretty amazing.

Is it possible that the results for the Central Valley Classic (a very well-run NRC race) have yet to be posted to USCF? They published them promptly back in March, but they just haven't sent them to USCF -- although I'm certain they've been reminded to do so numerous times.

There has only been a USCF ranking system ( with promoters submitting results to USAC ) for a couple of years ( 3 or 4 I think).

Most promoters are publishing results of some kind, just not in the format needed by USAC. It is rare for a promoter to not publish any results at all.

Since I see a lot of problems with the USCF national ranking system I can't get that worked up about not all promoters sending results to USAC. The problems I see with the USCF ranking system are.

1) Ranking points are based on reported number of finishers, not the number of starters. A flat road race where almost everyone finishes ( and included in the results) is worth more ranking points than a really hard RR where most of the field drops out. Also note if there are technical problems and only 6 to 10 riders are placed that will reduce the ranking points. I think it would make much more sense to base the ranking points on starting field size.

2) The ranking system doesn't recognize categorized master racing. This means that a 35+ 4/5 race is either treated like an open masters race or a Cat 4/5 race.

3) The system doesn't recognize 35+, 45+ 55+ races. The system only recognizes 30, 40, 50, 60+ races or races with a 5 year age group. This means that a 35+ race is worth less in the rankings than a 30+ race.

4) Ranking points are based on the overall category of the race. Since other races have more Cat A and B races riders in those regions can get higher rankings.

5) Nor Cal isn't the only region that has few promoters submitting results to USAC. Hard to have a true national ranking when most race results aren't included in the rankings.

velogirl wrote:casey wrote:Another problem is we have had some new promoters this year who are new to bicycle racing and have been trying to get the basics of just making the race happen much less dealing with the other aspects like getting results posted.

Please! Is being a new promoter an excuse for not submitting results? I promoted my first race this year and results we posted to our website, NCNCA, and USAC within days. With online registration tools like SportsBase Online, submitting results is a piece of cake.

Actually, I think most of the promoters who don't submit results (year after year) have been doing this a long time (but I'm sure Casey has stats to either refute this or back it up).

As a first-year race promoter, I found it invaluable to have a mentor who has successfully promoted many races in the past. I was also smart enough to hire folks in key positions (like a registrar) who had the expertise to do the job right, rather than trying to do it all myself.

Maybe first-year promoters should be encouraged to work with experienced promoters as co-promoters or working with a mentor who can show them the ropes. It's not rocket science. It's good old fashioned project management. Why re-invent the wheel when there are promoters who've developed great models for promoting successful races? We can all learn from each other in this respect.

If results are really a priority for USAC, they wouldn't grant a race permit to a promoter who didn't submit results the prior year. Obviously, results aren't a priority to USAC (although they are to racers, teams, and sponsors).

A post like this makes me think there should be a category on this forum called "race promotion" and this post can be the first one in it.

casey wrote:Another problem is we have had some new promoters this year who are new to bicycle racing and have been trying to get the basics of just making the race happen much less dealing with the other aspects like getting results posted.

Please! Is being a new promoter an excuse for not submitting results? I promoted my first race this year and results we posted to our website, NCNCA, and USAC within days. With online registration tools like SportsBase Online, submitting results is a piece of cake.

Actually, I think most of the promoters who don't submit results (year after year) have been doing this a long time (but I'm sure Casey has stats to either refute this or back it up).

As a first-year race promoter, I found it invaluable to have a mentor who has successfully promoted many races in the past. I was also smart enough to hire folks in key positions (like a registrar) who had the expertise to do the job right, rather than trying to do it all myself.

Maybe first-year promoters should be encouraged to work with experienced promoters as co-promoters or working with a mentor who can show them the ropes. It's not rocket science. It's good old fashioned project management. Why re-invent the wheel when there are promoters who've developed great models for promoting successful races? We can all learn from each other in this respect.

If results are really a priority for USAC, they wouldn't grant a race permit to a promoter who didn't submit results the prior year. Obviously, results aren't a priority to USAC (although they are to racers, teams, and sponsors).

I think the main difference this year is that I'm not typing up results for a lot of the races. Then again in the past I have mostly typed up results that had already been posted.

Yes clubs that don't provide results in a format suitable for posting to USAC don't get their race deposits back. Some clubs post results on their club web site, which normally gets linked into the NCNCA road page but don't provide results in a format suitable to post to USAC.

Another problem is we have had some new promoters this year who are new to bicycle racing and have been trying to get the basics of just making the race happen much less dealing with the other aspects like getting results posted.

Is it just me, or does this year seem particularly bad? Has promoter apathy hit an all-time high? Casey – I’ve heard you mention in the last couple of races that if riders are pulled, they will be put in the results. I’m guessing this decision was made as a result of complaints that riders want to see how they finished, even outside of the money. I think it would be great if the results listed everyone. Of course that’s only useful if the results are indeed listed. It seems like the races that have been put on by clubs/teams have been very good, and the races that have been put on by pure promoters have not. Maybe we can implement a “half now half later” registration policy. Pay half to race, pay half when the results go up!

Hey Casey - I'm assuming that the promoter for the Santa Rosa Cloterium will lose their $100 deposit for not posting race results on time. Yes?

The Cherry Pie results are available at https://www.usacycling.org/results/index.php?permit=2006-154

Apple Pie results are on the USAC web site at https://www.usacycling.org/results/?permit=2006-238 also

The race deposit for results really applies to getting the results into the USAC ranking system more than up on the NCNCA web site but yes promotes who don't submit their results lose their deposit.