Another Day with JHK: Incredibly Frustrated

by Jeremy Horgan-Kobelski

December 17, 2009
Comments

For anyone planning on racing or following the domestic mountain bike scene in 2010, the last week or so has likely had you reconsidering your travel plans.

Shortly after USA Cycling announced the final Pro XCT calendar with dates and venues, presenting sponsor US Cup decided to withdraw its support and focus on an alternate series, the US Cup Mountain Bike Racing League.

As an athlete who has been working behind the scenes for years on the structure of a new professional calendar for mountain bike racing, this development is incredibly frustrating. It seems as soon as we had many different stakeholders pulling the train in the same direction, we lost track of the big picture.

I have been working both as a USAC board member as well as a top domestic athlete on setting priorities, goals, structure and providing input on the direction of a future U.S. national series for almost five years now. The biggest change from several years ago — which I firmly believe to be positive — is the move away from an “all-encompassing” series with one title sponsor to a collection of the best races in the U.S. with individual promoters and event histories.

This is a model far more sustainable in the long term. In the traditional series model, if the title sponsor withdraws its support the whole thing is in danger of evaporating overnight. In a new calendar-based model, if one individual event sponsor folds there are still several other healthy events that can make up the bulk of a domestic racing season.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Both the strengths and weaknesses of this model are now on display. On the upside, despite the current uncertainty there will likely be a variety of good races in 2010. However, without a broad consensus about which events are the most valuable we’ll never achieve the goal of building a credible and prestigious calendar.

In 2009 — the first year such a calendar was implemented — there were many positive steps that were taken toward this end. We moved beyond the problems of no prize-money and serious international scheduling conflicts. Although in some cases small, all the Pro XCT events had a minimum prize purse and were inscripted with the UCI – something that should be a prerequisite for inclusion on any professional national calendar.

A New Dilemma

In some ways, the fact that there may be two competing series pulling athletes in different directions could be viewed as a success – a luxury problem compared to the recent past. Competition is good, right? That’s true, but it presents a new dilemma.

The existence of multiple calendars of big races devalues each one. If the top professionals, media and industry are pulled apart to competing races, the events never gain the traction and legitimacy they need to become prestigious must-attend events by everyone. This has always been the biggest drawback of moving away from the “series” model: It’s harder to build real prestige with a loose collection of events than with a strong, centrally controlled series. I know this first hand, as I won the inaugural 2009 Pro XCT with a minimum of media attention.

Despite that fact, I would like to see this new model be given the opportunity to grow because in the long term it is more viable. The only way this growth will happen is if the industry, sponsors, athletes and promoters are all on the same page. The strength of any eventual series will come from the fact that every event is viewed by everyone as a must-attend affair.

Overcoming Hurdles

I don’t have all the answers about how to do this, but I can talk at length about how this is a much more complicated problem than Joe Blow MTB blogger thinks it is. Scott Tedro, chairman of US Cup and owner of Team ShoAir, has cited frustration with the UCI as the reason for US Cup’s lack of involvement. Not even being a race promoter, I can sympathize with that. However, if US Cup is sincere in its desire to build a legitimate domestic MTB series with the top pro riders in attendance, the UCI hurdles are something the organization will have to accept — and adjust its business model accordingly for those events. Organizers the world over have figured out ways to promote lucrative UCI races, and I challenge the top mountain bike promoters in this country to make it happen.

In fairness though, there is a case for intervention from the governing body here. Despite the constant criticism leveled at them, USAC is a group of quality individuals trying hard to make great domestic mountain bike racing a reality. I know this to be true as I am one of the people participating in countless conference calls and traveling to productive board meetings every year.

USAC officials have stated that they don’t want to be in the event promotion business. That’s appropriate; but having highly ranked UCI events in this country is not only compatible with their mission statement, but is implicitly mandated.

Olympic start spots and USA Cycling’s U.S. Olympic Committee funding is directly dependent on the UCI rankings of my peers and myself. Therefore a reasonable case can be made that they should shoulder some of the costs associated with promoting UCI events in America. I urge USAC and the national promoters out there to figure out a way to share these costs to alleviate some of the current risk associated with promoting a high-level UCI event.

This need not be a permanent subsidy. As the prestige and quality of these events grow the costs of inscription, anti-doping and UCI officials will become smaller in relation to the event budget over time.

Opportunities Exist

In any case, at this late date in the year I still don’t know what the eventual outcome of this latest saga will be. I am currently hopeful that there will be a single collection of quality races next year in which my peers and I can test ourselves. There is still an opportunity to create a legitimate Pro XCT for 2010 with one or two US Cup events in the mix. For example, the successful Fontana, California, event makes particularly good sense for inclusion.

US Cup and USAC both have valid concerns and objectives. US Cup would like to offer more prize money to professionals and a better event experience to amateurs – both of which I wholeheartedly support. USAC needs its top athletes to be earning UCI points, and would like to see its national calendar legitimized with inclusion on the international schedule.

These are both excellent objectives, but if both parties pursue their own agendas we all lose. There has been much momentum built in the domestic cross-country racing scene in the last year or two and I urge all the stakeholders to keep it moving in the same direction. If this means adjusting business models for an event or two, giving up some control or abandoning past prejudices — do it. By keeping our eyes on the long term together we can continue to make top-level mountain bike racing in this country a reality.

Jeremy Horgan-Kobelski races for the Subaru/Gary Fisher professional MTB team and will take the #1 plate into next year’s Pro XCT — whatever form it takes. Look for more of his writings, photos, and video at www.jeremyhorgan-kobelski.com and www.jhkandheather.com.

Categories : Features, Rider Journal

rider

JHK, Is there enough UCI points at these US events to matter? If there were lots of UCI points, and very fast riders came to America, then still would Americans even get points?

This is what you need to tell usac to do: Pick race promoters across the country (quality races). Call them up. Tell them, congratulations, your race has been chosen to be in our series. The race promoter goes about business as usual. Usac list it in it's series. Usac pays whatever uci fee there is. The promoter agrees to some minimum pay-out. The promoter does not incur any extra fees from this uci upgrade. You pro racers show up to a quality event, and get your points and competition.
Local promoters stay in business because they provide quality service. National events stay in business because of a sort of monopoly, not because of quality. The above system would reward quality events and also put the uci/olympic burden back on the ones that need it to happen - usac.
The US has no racing fans, just participants. We can not put on events as the rest of the world does.
Nobody cares about your uci points. This argument is not going to benefit you as you will not get support for it. usac has to take it up.
whats going on with cx that it works anyway? does usac put more into that than mtb?

guy

The United States is huge. Airline travel with a bike is a pain. If I am going to pay to go to a race, which I do many times a year, it is either a regional or a race that will provide an experience worth my investment. I do not want to travel across the county, pay a ton of money and race a 20-mile race up and down a ski hill.

I think many racers and organizers alike agree that rather that placate to the pros searching for UCI point the focus is on the everyman. Racing in the US is healthy if you are not looking for UCI points. Perfect examples are Iceman (which JHK won) over 4000 people in attendance this year. Chequamegon has 2500 people every year. Everyone I talked to who did the Breck Epic cannot wait until next year’s edition. The NUE series has races that sell out with over 250 people in attendance. There are several successful 24 hour racing series that are successful year after year. 1200 people show up to Leadville every year. If USA Cycling or the top pros do not consider these real races that is fine because the masses do.

I understand that there are elite level athletes that are trying to make the Olympics and they need UCI points. However, USA Cycling to understand that the promoters need to do what is necessary to keep there event healthy. They need to attract the “Joe blow MTB blogger” to spend the money to fly across the country and attend their event; otherwise, who cares if fastest 25 guys show up they will never cover the costs.

BigT

I think mountainbiking needs a paradigm shift. I think you build the events then add sanctioning if the participants are there. I dont think it makes a lot of sense dumping mass amounts of money into uci sanctioning for far flung unpopular events. I think it makes much more sense just sanctioning existing events like Sea Otter, and Fontana. These events are fun and easy to axcess for Joe rider and lets face it Joe rider is who provides the bread and butter of these events.

I think if promotors vizualize the bread and butter event which make money they might start making enough money to involve sanctioning. I don't think you get the bread and butter through sanctioning because most folks dont care. Most people just want a fun event with easy axcess instead of far flung events with international sanctioning.

ripper

I’m just a lame Cat2 racer and don’t care for UCI points at all. What I care about is turnout. I’m sick and tired of racing against 5 people in my age group, with two sandbagers and the other two clearly moved up too soon.

UCI events attract top class national pro riders, which results in much larger turnout in all categories.

Can USCup, or other promoters, stir enough interest in their events to consistently attract 500+ amateur racers without UCI inscriptions and top pros? Can you guys?

mtbendo

While I agree UCI inscription is not what amateurs are looking or, I argue it is imperative for the health of the sport. For example, the primary reason road racing is healthy in the US is largely due to the top pro's success on the international circuit, and definitely not due to the many non-sanctioned grass-roots events. You can look to any sports' success and link it to success at the top. Another example is US soccer. And for those who remember the hay-days of mountain biking, it was the success of our own racers such as John Tomac, Juli Furtado, Tinker Juarez, Missy Giove, etc. Both are important, so I agree there needs to be an effort to make BOTH co-exist. This is nothing new, folks! It used to be this way...it can happen again!

BTW, as successful as you think AZ racing is, it is a far cry from what it used to be. The races are not run any better or worse than in the past. Their erosion is due to the lack of top-end success.

Frank

Come on people is no one offended by JHK's self entitled blow hard perspective on mountain bike racing in this country? He challenges' promoters to come up with a workable UCI qualified series? What kind of crap is that? He challenges people to dump a lot of money into something maybe 10 or 15 people have an interest in? I mean really how many people from the states go chasing UCI points every year in the hopes of going to the Olympics?

The fact is that the UCI is an unwanted quantity here in the states, if people actually cared for it there would be a demand that would fund it. As it turns out there is no demand for it other then from those like JHK lucky enough to have the opportunity to be where he is. As for the rest of us we have family's to provide for, jobs to go to and hopefully as many mountain bike races as we can get to in a year. Here is AZ we have at least 10-15 quality races a year to go to and at all of these races there is a grand total of zero people looking for points form the UCI, they just want to be out having fun with their friends on the weekend.

Adjusting business models to fit JHK would mean alienating the bread and butter participants at these events. No more swag or prizes because all the money has to go to the greedy pockets of the UCI. Why do you think promoters like Epic Rides here is AZ are seeing nothing but an increase in participation while JHK's pet project goes down the craper? Its called supply and demand, there is no supply for what you want JHK because there is not enough demand.

As for the "Joe blow mountain bike bloger" think, could you get any more self righteous? Mountain bikers aren't like regular sports fans, we actually get out and ride and would rather spend our time doing that then following your "cycling career"

John

Pretty selfish post. Speaking of self righteous...With your logic, I guess they should dump the Tour De France and let Lance and company show up to the Kansas hill climb. I mean why should someone with huge talent get to compete against the worlds best in his own country. JHK has talent that very few, including you will never have and this country should have an elite (worlds best) race series for those capable of competing with the worlds best or else, JHK has no choice but to like up with you and then be accused of sandbagging.

Frank

John, Sorry but in my post nowhere did I recommended doing away with classifications for races, clearly there has to pro, cat1, cat2, and so on. Way to knock down that straw man though, it sounded good, really liked the part where you compared my talent to JHK, because I clearly said in my post I could beat him head to head.

You can say all you want that JHK and the other 10 riders in the country who care about and have a chance for the Olympics "should" have an opportunity to earn UCI points but the fact remains that there is no market for that type of format. Its simple economics, promoters can either fund races that appeal to 99% of competitors or sacrifice for the 1% who want UCI points. They tried that approach and as it turns out JHK's model didn't work.

If a promoter can find a way to make UCI style racing popular and profitable then I have no problem supporting them. But for JHK to call on everyone else to sacrifice for a race schedule that fits his needs is ridicules.

Ty Kady

Hello everyone. I really like to see that this topic has captured the interest of the mountain bike community, and I hope this dialogue can act as a catalyst for change in our sport. However, the dialogue is only good as long as it’s productive and we talk about solutions.

I hate to see it getting a little negative. JHK and the other riders, promoters etc should be encouraged to engage in conversation, as they are have a stake in this sport as well. But it’s really easy in this day in age to sit behind a computer screen and turn it into a bag session or get off topic quickly.

I personally talked to Jeremy on the phone Friday, and we had a really productive conversation on the hurdles we face as a management company in the sport. I think I was able to give him a different perspective on the US Cup and why we chose to do what we did.

While JHK and I may not agree on all topics, its clear to me that he wants the sport to go in the same direction as the US Cup, one of those being deeper payout for the pro privateer, among many other issues.

So let’s keep it positive, and let someone like Jeremy, who has seen the sport at its pinnacle as well as the current rebuilding phase with its trials and tribulations, give input without it becoming personally negative.

Take Care and Happy Holidays.

Over and Out.

DWeber

If UCI issues caused the split thats a shame because no more than 15 racers (at the biggest events) were getting any benefit from the UCI status anyway. The focus should have been on spending the money to imrpove the series otherwise and once established, the UCI status could follow. (The UCI status does have a positive effect on the series when it is the reason some of the top riders show up, I just don't believe its the most important thing and more prize $ would have most of them there anyway). The THREE-FOUR riders who make the olympics will be in Europe to make that happen regardless. The people there love cycling and mainstream Americans never will so the biggest races will always be there. That being said the sport of cycling is very popular in the US by those that do it, and the majorty of them don't follow Pro racing. Changing that is what can grow the sport here. Having a great National series with better coverage would make more of a difference with these potential fans than an American doing well at the Olympics once every four years. Good news is the sport really is still alive out there, even if not promoted to it's potential and people like Tedro and JHK are trying their best to improve that.

DblDwn

I support Scott Tedro's decision to to pull the Pro XCT series away from the USAC & UCI. I'm tired of seeing my entry fees to the suits at USAC. I would rather see my money go to the race promoters and professional athletes that deserve it!

Unfortunately, top US mtn pros are going to have to make a choice. . . attend races with the hopes of winning UCI points for the Olympics, or attend races to put money in their pocket.

As a spectator, I don't see what the big deal is about the Olympic mtn biking events, most of which are geared to favor Euros, with flat, sanitized courses.

Personally, I would like to see US mtn bike racing return to its roots:
-Harded courses on REAL mountains (not vineyards or suburban parks).
-No tech help or feed zones. Mtn biking was founded on self reliance, and shouldn't be modeled after a roadie race format.

By establishing the "toughest" mountain biking races in the world, I believe the US will attract the world's best racers, top sponsers (even those companies outside of the bike industry) and ultimately the UCI.

Tobin Behling

Nice article JHK.
There are a good handful of races/promoters that have the capability to host a UCI inscribed event. The issue seems to be the additional expenses involved for inscription/payout/extra items that are required by UCI. To raise those funds, a) entry fees would need to be raised which would make the event less accessible by the general racing public or b) sponsorship funding, which as you know gets tougher and tougher to attain every year.

I am reminded of a quote from the movie: "The Right Stuff" which was about the early stages of the United States Space Program. "no bucks, no Buck Rogers".

If an entity was able to figure out a source for funding, and distribute it to those races that would have the capability to host a UCI event for the elites, we could see more opportunities for our elite athletes to attain UCI points in the USA.

Thanks for your passion and all the work you do "off the bike" to help grow our sport.

elpasodave

I've heard USAC has plenty of money to be the one that pays for UCI stuff. They should start utilizing those funds for that purpose. Grassroots localized racing is what is driving the sport in the US right now and as a grassroots race promoter, I don't mind paying fees to USAC for insurance and club membership. Those fees need to be used to fund UCI inscription to select events.

I think more promoters would be willing to let their race be a UCI event if USAC took care of all that stuff...including the cost of having the ENTIRE COUSE lined with tape, signs indicating every meter, netting for the finish area/feedzone/tech zone, and drug testing.

Most...not all...promoters just want to have a race in their town on their trails because they know that racers are really good at spreading the word on trails and hospitality.

Andy Bohlmann

I am the race director for the UCI Inscripted Pro XCT Carmichael Training Systems International Classic here in Colorado Springs, CO. We will be offering a short track XC, too.

And, FYI...USA Cycling has always said they would pay the 2010 UCI Inscription fees and will waive the USAC Race Permit fee for the UCI race date. USAC has also worked a "deal" with UCI to reduce the number of required UCI Commissaires at the UCI events. These are serious budget items contributed by USAC! They work very hard to make these UCI races a success.

USA Cycling has been excellent to work with and has been very accessable at all levels from CEO Steve Johnson to the staff who work the main phone line! As the US Cycling Federation's first Technical Director, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

When reading almost all of what is being written about the current "state of affairs," please read

between the lines as bike racing at this level as so little to do with bike racing.

Andy Bohlmann
Colorado Springs, CO

Sand Creek Sports, Inc. and Tour of Colorado

JBP

I think Dennis, Greg and Mike all make valid points, and JHK definite has his perspective, although I wonder who at USA Cycling wrote the script.

This is the dialogue this sport has needed for some time and hopefully this is the catalyst that sets change into action. Clearly the model that the United States Cycling’s sanctioned body has in place is a flawed one at best.

Proof? Look at our results on the World Cups and Olympics. We are nowhere near the podium on a consistent basis, and I believe USA Cycling is paid to produce medals at the Olympics and World Championships?

What Mr. Kobelski needs to realize that if a rider like myself or pedal pro keeps getting blown off by USA Cycling and the UCI at these races, after awhile I'm not going to come out to those events anymore?

Instead, I'm heading over to the US Cup with the other guys, that pay big money only to get pulled 3 laps into event because even though I'm top 25 in the "Pro XCT" Series, I have to take a back seat to "USA Cyclings and the UCI's call up's". At the US Cup at least I got a chance to cover some of the cost for doing a sport I love and get treated with some respect.

And don't get me wrong. JHK you’re a superb athlete and Olympian, much more than I will probably ever obtain, so I'm not suggesting that I'm somehow owed anything, or that I should make thousands by being a top 20 professional. But you give the impression that the promoter is responsible for paying for races here in the US, so you can get a better start position in Europe, whether it make sense for them or not.

Yet, if the US Cup fights for the “Joe Blow Pro”, by going away from UCI races, they are somehow frustrating you or letting the “riders” down….all 4 of you.

How can a guy top 20 or 25 at a supposed "UCI sanctioned" race not earn one dime, not even my entry fee back? Tell me JHK, how valid is that?

I hope that money the US Cup saved by pulling out of the Pro XCT will be spread a bit deeper in pay, just so that I and others can have a shot at making some money. Yet, your fine with having that go to other fee’s and expenses I don’t quite understand for the UCI and its officials, because it validates you more!

JHK and USA Cycling appeared so worried about being "validated" by the UCI and World Cup aspirations, yet an athlete that is in the top 20 at a PRO XCT event can't even make his or her entry fee back. Am I the only one that thinks this is wrong? How is that building the sport, and encouraging younger riders to keep progressing and “validating” the sport?

What JHK needs to take into consideration is that maybe, just maybe they (UCI and USAC) are not validating anything, and that’s why the sport is where it’s at currently. I would guess that a top 20 athlete in Golf, Tennis, and Basketball can at least make their entry fee back, and I'm guessing make a fair living as well.

If JHK don't come down off his soap box, he won't have to worry about the frustrations of scheduling conflicts and empathizing with "Joe Blow Racer", he'll be living out of a suite case in Europe riding around in the 30th – 50th range or grinding coffee at the local shop in Durango.

JBP-Joe Blow Pro

Dangy

I find this all very interesting as both a amateur racer and MTB/Cyclocross race promoter who has labored to see 13 races become a reality. Having been on both sides of the equation I've come to appreciate the sacrifices promoters make to provide a viable race. I am grateful for Team BigBear and US cup for creating fun, exciting races with mass appeal. The UCI question only affects a handful of racers, and I think USAC subsidies to elite racers allowing them to pursue points in Europe would be better spent than trying to create a US UCI circuit. Sure he is a excellent racer, but how many races has JHK promoted?

SteveL

Dangy's suggestion works for me. When there are only a handful of pro's who can benefit from UCI points, it's a much better allocation of resources to help them get to Europe where the competition is. If top level racers really expect to compete with the worlds best then they need to get themselves into the top level races. Racing here can benefit a much wider market of us weekend warriors who pay entry fees and collectively do a lot more for the health of the bicycle industry than do the four pro men and four pro women who might benefit for UCI points. Regional race promoters have understood this for a long time here in Colorado, as it sounds they do in AZ and other locals.

dennisbmurphy

Jeremy's article is more geared toward the issue of two series' for pros- and only tangentally mentions the amateur races.

Here in Michigan, we have had two series since the early 1990s. In past years, the conflicts simply lowered the attendance at various events. The past four years involved one promoter becoming USAC sanctioned. So Michigan has one USAC-licensed series and once non-licensed series. Efforts to meld these are impossible because a significant number of racers in this state do not have a USAC license and don't intend to get one. If both series began requiring licenses, these racers would simply cease to participate.

It is also not possible for the two series to do cross-over events- a feature that might benefit all racers in Michigan. I've discussed this issue with USAC representatives and suggested that if they dropped the Yearly license requirement mandate and offered an alternative of day-of licenses- racing in the state would be more dynamic and a better mix of races or alternative events would develop.

But USAC maintains a "must have all" mindset.. and in Michigan they are losing. The USAC series is 15-25% less attended than the non-licensed series and has fewer beginner and sport racers- these beginners and sport are the mainstay of local racing because elite/expert only make up maybe 25% of the population.

Requiring a license also makes cross-over racers sandbaggers. An expert racer that does not own a USAC license and wants to do some of the USAC licensed events simply drops down to sport for that series and unfairly competes against lesser competition. If he had the option of a $5 day-of- he would race in his own category.

USAC- return to the availabilty of Day-of licenses- it will bring non-licensed racers to your event, perhaps a means to eventually get them to acquire the yearly license.

JHK

Thanks for all the comments here - there are a lot of valid viewpoints on this subject. I particularly appreciate Scott Tedro and Frosty chiming in - as you are two of the guys I'm looking to to continue to create positive change in this sport. If anyone is interested in some follow-up: Check it out - http://bit.ly/6YS9hM

pedalpro

The series debacle has been ongoing and I agree with most of your assessment. Especially that USAC needs to subsidize USADA and UCI inscription. That IS their mission. You didn't address it specifically, but the location of these "national" events has always been an issue. They ALL need to be within 1 hour of a major international airport. The bottom line is that there is this "if you build it they will come" attitude that is fundamentally flawed. Why?

I am slso one of your "peers". I start about 20 rows back of you. I pay more than other categories so I can race with you. I pay $150 for a UCI license but I may not ever have any UCI points. I haven't ever made a penny for racing and rarely get any help paying travel expenses despite being an incredible athlete compared to 99% of humanity. We both registered for the Hawaii ProAm. You got a refund and I didn't...

I don't envy you and I think it is awesome that you are able to make a living racing your bike. The point is that you have worked hard for what you have and so have all your "peers". The only really big problem is that 90% of your "peers" can't even make ends meet and now we are in what could be the worst economy of the century. Velonews and its media brethren need to start reporting on the simple fact that there won't been any elite domestic MTB or 'Cross racing to report on if your "peers" can no longer get an equity line or max a credit card to come race with you.

JHK, you should be worried about having guys to race against and crush rather than whether US Cup and and USAC can sit down and drink a beer together. Right now there is very little regard for the athletes and if you walk the floor at Interbike nearly every company will tell you racing mountain bikes isn't something worth spending money on. I challenge you and the rest of the cycling community to imagine an MTB and 'Cross scene without any pros--because that is where we are headed!