Is Symmetrics getting hosed by the UCI and the Tour of California?

[steephill]

There was a simmering discontent when Symmetrics wasn't invited to the
Tour of California. Well, I think there is more to the story:

http://www.steephill.tv/2008/is-symmetrics-getting-hosed/

Steve
www.steephill.tv bike travelogue

[Off The Back]

steephill wrote:
> There was a simmering discontent when Symmetrics wasn't invited to the
> Tour of California. Well, I think there is more to the story:
>
> http://www.steephill.tv/2008/is-symmetrics-getting-hosed/
>

Great article Steve. Yes, they are getting hosed. For your next project in
investigative journalism, you should dig into AEG's finances and see which
teams paid for entry, and how much, and which teams got paid to race. I bet
the domestic US teams are financing California vacations for Quick Step, et.
al.

Is there another sport where entry into a major event is determined by how
much an athlete or team is willing to pay?

Mark
http://marcofanelli.blogspot.com

[Bob Schwartz]

Off The Back wrote:
> Great article Steve. Yes, they are getting hosed. For your next project
> in investigative journalism, you should dig into AEG's finances and see
> which teams paid for entry, and how much, and which teams got paid to
> race. I bet the domestic US teams are financing California vacations for
> Quick Step, et. al.
>
> Is there another sport where entry into a major event is determined by
> how much an athlete or team is willing to pay?

Quick Step does not need the Tour of California. For them there
is little difference between training races in California or
Spain, other than expense and jet lag.

Conversely, the ToC does not need any specific US domestic team.
There are lots of those, and from AEG's standpoint they are
interchangeable. No one shows up in person or streams video
to see the Bissels or Kelly Benefits of the world. All AEG is
asking for is some means of differentiation to know who to
select for their race.

This is no different than going to Superweek. You pay high
entry fees and some of that goes to pay low level Euro pros to
come to Milwaukee and kick your ass.

Bob Schwartz

[steephill]

On Feb 28, 1:33*pm, "Off The Back" > wrote:
> steephill wrote:
> > There was a simmering discontent when Symmetrics wasn't invited to the
> > Tour of California. Well, I think there is more to the story:
>
> >http://www.steephill.tv/2008/is-symmetrics-getting-hosed/
>
> Great article Steve. Yes, they are getting hosed. For your next project in
> investigative journalism, you should dig into AEG's finances and see which
> teams paid for entry, and how much, and which teams got paid to race. I bet
> the domestic US teams are financing California vacations for Quick Step, et.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Feb 28, 1:05*pm, steephill > wrote:
> There was a simmering discontent when Symmetrics wasn't invited to the
> Tour of California.





Dumbass -


Only on that team.

No one else cares.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 28, 7:23 pm, steephill > wrote:
> > -what did the UCI do when AEG decided to selectively ban some riders
> > on a team while letting the rest of the team race ? all my reading
> > tells me this was an AEG decision, not a UCI order. this means that
> > organizers are effectively doping enforcers who don't have to abide by
> > any written criteria. ie. if i don't like a rider for any stated or
> > unstated reason i can simply demand that hi team not start him.
>
> Actually, the UCI ultimately made the decision. Someone at the press
> conference asked that question.
>

dumbass,

that statement by the AEG supports EXACTLY what i said.

the AEG frames it as an "agreement" between the teams and the
organizer that no rider "under investigation" will ride the ToC, but
really this is a decision by the AEG because presumably they would
exclude teams that don't agree to this.

the UCI simply supplied the list of riders "under investigation", and
by what body ? (CONI ? guardia civil ? german cops ? USADA ?)

this is an important distinction.

in addition, as i said before there are no reports of a UCI
investigation into puerto, if that's what they mean. if there is, who
the is name of the investigator ?

on the other hand CONI is investigating puerto, they are calling on
riders and personnel to testify. who has testified or made any
statement to the UCI about puerto ?

puerto happened in 2006 and by the end of that year all the implicated
riders had been cleared to ride. it's 2008, and the UCI has not made
any progress in that case, so at this rate the investigation will be
open forever.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
>,
steephill > wrote:

> On Feb 28, 1:33*pm, "Off The Back" > wrote:
> > steephill wrote:
> > > There was a simmering discontent when Symmetrics wasn't invited to the
> > > Tour of California. Well, I think there is more to the story:
> >
> > >http://www.steephill.tv/2008/is-symmetrics-getting-hosed/
> >
> > Great article Steve. Yes, they are getting hosed. For your next project in
> > investigative journalism, you should dig into AEG's finances and see which
> > teams paid for entry, and how much, and which teams got paid to race. I bet
> > the domestic US teams are financing California vacations for Quick Step, et.
> > al.
> >
> > Is there another sport where entry into a major event is determined by how
> > much an athlete or team is willing to pay?
> >
> > Markhttp://marcofanelli.blogspot.com
>
> It's known that the domestic teams pay an entrance pay but the ProTour
> teams don't pay anything. Last year the domestic squads paid an
> entrance of $10,000 each.
>
> Steve
> www.steephill.tv

At this point, I'm starting to wonder if the ASO has to pay anything to
anyone to put on Le Tour! Next thing you're going to tell me that being
a podium girl is a pay-to-play proposition.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[[email protected]]

On Feb 28, 8:00 pm, Bill C > wrote:

> we've all come to expect the
> lowest sleaziest common denominator from the most all the folks
> running cycling.

dumbass,

they are just stupid and incompetent.

the UCI is supposed to be the CYCLIST'S UNION. they write the rules
and enforce them ostensibly for the benefit of all licensed riders.
for instance, the purpose of anti-doping rules in not to just hammer
the best riders (like all the kunichs that write to velonews think),
it is to make the sport fair for all competitors.

the UCI also has rules which are to ensure that competitors are
treated fairly by their teams, organizers and officials. organizers
that don't follow the rules are supposed to get sanctions.

they have to make their stand and face the likely possibility that
they will be made irrelevant, because otherwise they are failing
miserably at their job.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
>,
steephill > wrote:

> There was a simmering discontent when Symmetrics wasn't invited to the
> Tour of California. Well, I think there is more to the story:
>
> http://www.steephill.tv/2008/is-symmetrics-getting-hosed/
>
> Steve
> www.steephill.tv bike travelogue

Thanks for covering this story, Steve. I've gotta say that it's a pretty
bizarre omission to leave off what is, by at least one measure, the best
team in the Americas.

And now to hear that they're stumping for Team Whatever from Colombia,
based on some acceptable climbing results, instead of the pretty darned
good team from British Columbia...

A little while ago I noted that pro cycling has a lot in common with the
semi-pro levels of other pro sports. Now I'm beginning to wonder if it
operates with any more professionalism than the Vancouver Dodgeball
League.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Feb 28, 4:23*pm, steephill > wrote:
> > -what did the UCI do when AEG decided to selectively ban some riders
> > on a team while letting the rest of the team race ? all my reading
> > tells me this was an AEG decision, not a UCI order. this means that
> > organizers are effectively doping enforcers who don't have to abide by
> > any written criteria. ie. if i don't like a rider for any stated or
> > unstated reason i can simply demand that hi team not start him.
>
> Actually, the UCI ultimately made the decision. Someone at the press
> conference asked that question.




Dumbass -


You are seriously missing the point of all this.

The UCI, the teams and the race itself are in the business of MAKING
MONEY. If the Symmetrics team can't help the race MAKE MONEY, then the
race is going to look to include another team which can help them MAKE
MONEY.

The ProTour inclusions allow the race to get the big title sponsors,
hence they help the race MAKE MONEY. Other teams which bring along
their own sponsors or pay big entry fees are helping the race MAKE
MONEY.

Until the Symmetrics team figures out how to help the race MAKE MONEY,
they will continue to be excluded.

The event organizers don't give a **** about a team that's going to
place someone in 10th or 20th place. For the teams in that boat, entry
is all about MONEY.

Understand?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

"steephill" > wrote in message
...
| There was a simmering discontent when Symmetrics wasn't invited to the
| Tour of California. Well, I think there is more to the story:
|
| http://www.steephill.tv/2008/is-symmetrics-getting-hosed/
|
| Steve
| www.steephill.tv bike travelogue

OK, I need clarification on something. Are you saying that the Symmetrics
team couldn't get in, even if they paid the $10k or whatever? You mention
further down that, as an event sponsor of some sort, it's more likely that a
team would get in. But what level of $$$ does that entail?

Basically, the question is, can *any* decent non-Pro-Tour team get in if
they have the bucks, or is there more to it than that?

Also, why the surprise revelation about "LetLeviRide.com?" Did anybody
actually believe that it wasn't orchestrated by one of the team's sponsors?
I might have missed something somewhere that implied it was an entirely
grass-roots effort, but I assumed from the start that Trek was behind it.

I should add at this point that I believe having the Tour of California
nearby was definitely good for business. My theory is that, for those with
significant others, the heavy local news coverage makes it a lot easier to
justify a new bike purchase to the non-biker in the family. High-end bikes
suddenly appear legit. My guess is that this was industry-wide and not
limited just to companies that sponsored teams that did well.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[steephill]

> You are seriously missing the point of all this.

No, your the missing my point. As I said Medalist Sports explanation
was acceptable, but I posted the report for two reasons:
1) To highlight the UCI's ambiguous stance on how teams are selected
for events which implies unwritten rules.
2) To point out the UCI is lobbying for a Colombian team which doesn't
meet Medalist Sports stated criteria; a team that is less qualified
than Symmetrics, but that AEG seems quite willing to accept.


> The UCI, the teams and the race itself are in the business of MAKING
> MONEY.

Everyone accepts that, but the procees needs to be understood
otherwise it's not a sporting event:

- Symmetrics was willing to pay the entrance fee for the race. If that
wasn't good enough then what is the actual fee (entrance fee +
sponsorship) the organizer is looking for? I asked "What does
Symmetrics need to DO to get into the Tour of California?" Medalist
Sports says Symmetrics isn't eligible but I pointed out that's not
quite true. The process needs to be more transparent.

- Is the UCI getting paid to lobby for the Colombian team or is there
some quid pro quo? That's not a legitimate way for the UCI to MAKE
MONEY. The fact they don't support their own UCI America's winner
certainly implies some sort of illicit behind the scenes deal which no
administering body should be engaging in.

If we don't know the facts then cycling starts looking more like an
exclusive, underground party with a rigged outcome rather than a
sporting event.

Steve
www.steephill.tv

[steephill]

> OK, I need clarification on something. Are you saying that the Symmetrics
> team couldn't get in, even if they paid the $10k or whatever?

Yes.

> You mention
> further down that, as an event sponsor of some sort, it's more likely that a
> team would get in. But what level of $$$ does that entail?

That's part of my point... it's negotiable when it should be more
transparent.


> Basically, the question is, can *any* decent non-Pro-Tour team get in if
> they have the bucks, or is there more to it than that?

I pointed out that Symmetrics is not eligible because they are neither
a ProTour team or a U.S. domestic squad. However, I've revealed a
similar Colombian squad is in good with the UCI and AEG and I'd like
to know why.


> Also, why the surprise revelation about "LetLeviRide.com?" Did anybody
> actually believe that it wasn't orchestrated by one of the team's sponsors?
> I might have missed something somewhere that implied it was an entirely
> grass-roots effort, but I assumed from the start that Trek was behind it.

Levi made it seem so at the pre-race press conference. "Hey, somebody
made up these t-shirts?" sort of thing.

Steve
www.steephill.tv

[Bob Schwartz]

steephill wrote:
> That's part of my point... it's negotiable when it should be more
> transparent.

It doesn't need to be transparent to you and me. It looks
to be negotiated on a team by team basis. Negotiations
with Symmetrics didn't work out.

If you were negotiating a starting salary with an employer
would you expect them to tell you about other candidates
for the job and details about prior rounds of negotiations?
Would you tell the employer about other opportunities you
had going? You might, if it helped your case. Otherwise
you'd STFU, eh?

Bob Schwartz

[Off The Back]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> OK, I need clarification on something. Are you saying that the Symmetrics
> team couldn't get in, even if they paid the $10k or whatever? You mention
> further down that, as an event sponsor of some sort, it's more likely that
> a
> team would get in. But what level of $$$ does that entail?

Well, Ball states that Rock & Republic gave over $1,000,000 to the race.

How much money does it take to put on a race like the Tour of California? I
can't even imagine. Even the cities that host starts and finishes have to
pay a lot. If I remember correctly, hosting a start will cost you $15K and a
finish is $50K. Add that to a handful of $1M sponsors, and you're talking
about a pretty big budget.

I'm sure there are people reading this thread who know a lot more.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

| > Basically, the question is, can *any* decent non-Pro-Tour team get in if
| > they have the bucks, or is there more to it than that?
|
| I pointed out that Symmetrics is not eligible because they are neither
| a ProTour team or a U.S. domestic squad. However, I've revealed a
| similar Colombian squad is in good with the UCI and AEG and I'd like
| to know why.

Right, that's why I asked the question. Is it just about the money? Are the
Colombians willing to pony up the $$$, or is the UCI offering to subsidize
their entry?

| Levi made it seem so at the pre-race press conference. "Hey, somebody
| made up these t-shirts?" sort of thing.

I figured he was joking around about it, especially since he knew a lot that
he wasn't letting on ("You'll be seeing something in a few days" sort of
thing). I mean, really, when have you seen successful "grass roots"
movements in competitive cycling???

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"steephill" > wrote in message
...
|
| > OK, I need clarification on something. Are you saying that the
Symmetrics
| > team couldn't get in, even if they paid the $10k or whatever?
|
| Yes.
|
| > You mention
| > further down that, as an event sponsor of some sort, it's more likely
that a
| > team would get in. But what level of $$$ does that entail?
|
| That's part of my point... it's negotiable when it should be more
| transparent.
|
|
| > Basically, the question is, can *any* decent non-Pro-Tour team get in if
| > they have the bucks, or is there more to it than that?
|
| I pointed out that Symmetrics is not eligible because they are neither
| a ProTour team or a U.S. domestic squad. However, I've revealed a
| similar Colombian squad is in good with the UCI and AEG and I'd like
| to know why.
|
|
| > Also, why the surprise revelation about "LetLeviRide.com?" Did anybody
| > actually believe that it wasn't orchestrated by one of the team's
sponsors?
| > I might have missed something somewhere that implied it was an entirely
| > grass-roots effort, but I assumed from the start that Trek was behind
it.
|
| Levi made it seem so at the pre-race press conference. "Hey, somebody
| made up these t-shirts?" sort of thing.
|
| Steve
| www.steephill.tv
|

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Feb 29, 6:33*am, steephill > wrote:
>
> - Is the UCI getting paid to lobby for the Colombian team or is there
> some quid pro quo? That's not a legitimate way for the UCI to MAKE
> MONEY. The fact they don't support their own UCI America's winner
> certainly implies some sort of illicit behind the scenes deal which no
> administering body should be engaging in.




Pollyanna -


Behind the scenes deals are the way the world works.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Bob Schwartz]

Off The Back wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>> This is no different than going to Superweek. You pay high
>> entry fees and some of that goes to pay low level Euro pros to
>> come to Milwaukee and kick your ass.
>
> That's so 1990's Bob. Now it's US guys like Kayle Leogrande, Adam
> Bergman, and Dave Fuentes who get paid from our Superweek entry fees.

They do, but I was referring to the guys that get travel
expenses and appearance money. Like the Milram B team that
showed up a while back, teams where Otto has to pay airfare
from Europe.

Compromised US domestic pros are the Symmetrics of Superweek.
There are lots of them and no one notices if a specific one
isn't there.

Bob Schwartz

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> How much money does it take to put on a race like the Tour of California?
> I can't even imagine. Even the cities that host starts and finishes have
> to pay a lot. If I remember correctly, hosting a start will cost you $15K
> and a finish is $50K. Add that to a handful of $1M sponsors, and you're
> talking about a pretty big budget.

I was told that the Local Organizing Committee for the Prologue (in Palo
Alto) had to come up with $180k. We put in $1k ourselves, as did two other
shops, for a fund-raising event featuring the Astana team a couple days
ahead of the race. Overall there's quite a bit of money involved.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Off The Back" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> OK, I need clarification on something. Are you saying that the Symmetrics
>> team couldn't get in, even if they paid the $10k or whatever? You mention
>> further down that, as an event sponsor of some sort, it's more likely
>> that a
>> team would get in. But what level of $$$ does that entail?
>
> Well, Ball states that Rock & Republic gave over $1,000,000 to the race.
>
> How much money does it take to put on a race like the Tour of California?
> I can't even imagine. Even the cities that host starts and finishes have
> to pay a lot. If I remember correctly, hosting a start will cost you $15K
> and a finish is $50K. Add that to a handful of $1M sponsors, and you're
> talking about a pretty big budget.
>
> I'm sure there are people reading this thread who know a lot more.

[[email protected]]

> I was told that the Local Organizing Committee for the Prologue (in Palo
> Alto) had to come up with $180k. We put in $1k ourselves, as did two other
> shops, for a fund-raising event featuring the Astana team a couple days
> ahead of the race. Overall there's quite a bit of money involved.
>

dumbass,

is the bike industry the stingiest there is ?

i realize bike shops aren't the most profitable business ever, but if
i owned a shop i would be embarrassed to post on a forum all i could
come up was $1000 to put towards an event like this.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Mar 2, 6:44*pm, " >
wrote:
> > I was told that the Local Organizing Committee for the Prologue (in Palo
> > Alto) had to come up with $180k. We put in $1k ourselves, as did two other
> > shops, for a fund-raising event featuring the Astana team a couple days
> > ahead of the race. Overall there's quite a bit of money involved.
>
> dumbass,
>
> is the bike industry the stingiest there is ?
>
> i realize bike shops aren't the most profitable business ever, but if
> i owned a shop i would be embarrassed to post on a forum all i could
> come up was $1000 to put towards an event like this.




Dumbass -


Since they don't make money, how do you expect them to put up more?

Win the lottery?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> I was told that the Local Organizing Committee for the Prologue (in Palo
>> Alto) had to come up with $180k. We put in $1k ourselves, as did two
>> other
>> shops, for a fund-raising event featuring the Astana team a couple days
>> ahead of the race. Overall there's quite a bit of money involved.
>>
>
> dumbass,
>
> is the bike industry the stingiest there is ?
>
> i realize bike shops aren't the most profitable business ever, but if
> i owned a shop i would be embarrassed to post on a forum all i could
> come up was $1000 to put towards an event like this.

What do you think would be reasonable, and why?

And why should I, as a bike shop owner, be any more embarassed about having
a tough time coming up with $1000 to help bring a bike race to town than,
say, a Cat-5 racer who expects discounts and preferential service? A Cat-5
racer who might work in a job that brings home easily twice what I do?

We do what we can. Bicycle Advocacy is becoming a major focus, and that
costs a lot of $$$ as well (and probably, long term, has a much better
return on investment than a bike race, since if my customers don't have
roads to ride on in the future, there aren't going to be many bikes sold).
Tomorrow I get to spend 6 hours in a metal tube, breathing stale air,
traveling to Washington DC where we try and convince legislators that
cycling is worthy of their support. That cars aren't the only answer to
getting around. That schools should be encouraging kids to ride to school
rather than be driven 3 blocks by their parents. It seems like it should be
so simple, so obvious. But we're up against a whole lot of other ways to
spend the tax dollars they've snagged from me and you.

In the end, a bike race is more about entertainment than something that will
make the world a better place. But a better place without bike racing
doesn't seem like a place I'd want to live.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 9:30 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote:
> >> I was told that the Local Organizing Committee for the Prologue (in Palo
> >> Alto) had to come up with $180k. We put in $1k ourselves, as did two
> >> other
> >> shops, for a fund-raising event featuring the Astana team a couple days
> >> ahead of the race. Overall there's quite a bit of money involved.
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > is the bike industry the stingiest there is ?
>
> > i realize bike shops aren't the most profitable business ever, but if
> > i owned a shop i would be embarrassed to post on a forum all i could
> > come up was $1000 to put towards an event like this.
>
> What do you think would be reasonable, and why?
>
> And why should I, as a bike shop owner, be any more embarassed about having
> a tough time coming up with $1000 to help bring a bike race to town than,
> say, a Cat-5 racer who expects discounts and preferential service? A Cat-5
> racer who might work in a job that brings home easily twice what I do?
>
> We do what we can. Bicycle Advocacy is becoming a major focus, and that
> costs a lot of $$$ as well (and probably, long term, has a much better
> return on investment than a bike race, since if my customers don't have
> roads to ride on in the future, there aren't going to be many bikes sold).
> Tomorrow I get to spend 6 hours in a metal tube, breathing stale air,
> traveling to Washington DC where we try and convince legislators that
> cycling is worthy of their support. That cars aren't the only answer to
> getting around. That schools should be encouraging kids to ride to school
> rather than be driven 3 blocks by their parents. It seems like it should be
> so simple, so obvious. But we're up against a whole lot of other ways to
> spend the tax dollars they've snagged from me and you.


dumbass,

i was expressing my frustration at trying to find support from within
the cycling industry for the various events we're organizing. i don't
know what's an appropriate amount to put towards a bike race for you,
but how does that $1000 compare to an ad in the paper or on
velonews ?

if you do indeed work towards growing cycling you have more foresight
than most shop owners who are short sighted and complain that they
lose sales to walmart and don't see a solution.

for example: in my area parents pay $8-10,000 a year for their kids to
play hockey, so it's not hard to conceive that parents would also be
willing to spend on higher end bikes for their kids if they felt value
in the activity. yet i see very few stores try to develop any sort of
kid's program.

we happen to have a very good shop supporting us, but it's
embarrassing that when i list my sponsors i can't list major players
in the bike industry (though we have decent support from other
industries). but many members of the bike business will not spend
money to grow the sport and aren't willing to invest the marketing
dollars that will grow their business.

they have the attitude that why should "i the owner of shop x" spend
money to promote the sport when shops "w", "y" and "z" will benefit ?

bike racers that go into shops expecting discounts because "they are a
racer" should also be embarrassed, but that is another matter.

[steephill]

On Mar 3, 6:30*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote:
> >> I was told that the Local Organizing Committee for the Prologue (in Palo
> >> Alto) had to come up with $180k. We put in $1k ourselves, as did two
> >> other
> >> shops, for a fund-raising event featuring the Astana team a couple days
> >> ahead of the race. Overall there's quite a bit of money involved.
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > is the bike industry the stingiest there is ?
>
> > i realize bike shops aren't the most profitable business ever, but if
> > i owned a shop i would be embarrassed to post on a forum all i could
> > come up was $1000 to put towards an event like this.
>
> What do you think would be reasonable, and why?
>
> And why should I, as a bike shop owner, be any more embarassed about having
> a tough time coming up with $1000 ...
> We do what we can. Bicycle Advocacy is becoming a major focus...

Nothing wrong with a $1000 donation and the work you do for the
cycling industry.

By the way, you replied earlier questioning whether the
letleviride.com was set forth as a grassroots campaign. I found the
press release announcing it and it uses the words "grassroots
campaign" to describe itself:
http://www.velonews.com/article/72252

Best of luck in D.C.

Steve
www.steephill.tv bike travelogue

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> By the way, you replied earlier questioning whether the
> letleviride.com was set forth as a grassroots campaign. I found the
> press release announcing it and it uses the words "grassroots
> campaign" to describe itself:
> http://www.velonews.com/article/72252

It does stretch the meaning of "grassroots" just a bit, doesn't it? :>)

Meantime I'm hearing reports of Levi on the prowl for decent lawyers to try
and fight his/Astana's exclusion from the TdF. I suspect there's funding
coming from other than Levi. If Trek didn't sign a sponsorship agreement
where the amounts were contingent upon being in the TdF, they may have a LOT
on the line in this one.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"steephill" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 6:30 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote:
> >> I was told that the Local Organizing Committee for the Prologue (in
> >> Palo
> >> Alto) had to come up with $180k. We put in $1k ourselves, as did two
> >> other
> >> shops, for a fund-raising event featuring the Astana team a couple days
> >> ahead of the race. Overall there's quite a bit of money involved.
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > is the bike industry the stingiest there is ?
>
> > i realize bike shops aren't the most profitable business ever, but if
> > i owned a shop i would be embarrassed to post on a forum all i could
> > come up was $1000 to put towards an event like this.
>
> What do you think would be reasonable, and why?
>
> And why should I, as a bike shop owner, be any more embarassed about
> having
> a tough time coming up with $1000 ...
> We do what we can. Bicycle Advocacy is becoming a major focus...

Nothing wrong with a $1000 donation and the work you do for the
cycling industry.

By the way, you replied earlier questioning whether the
letleviride.com was set forth as a grassroots campaign. I found the
press release announcing it and it uses the words "grassroots
campaign" to describe itself:
http://www.velonews.com/article/72252

Best of luck in D.C.

Steve
www.steephill.tv bike travelogue

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> On Mar 3, 9:30 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote:
> > >> I was told that the Local Organizing Committee for the Prologue (in Palo
> > >> Alto) had to come up with $180k. We put in $1k ourselves, as did two
> > >> other
> > >> shops, for a fund-raising event featuring the Astana team a couple days
> > >> ahead of the race. Overall there's quite a bit of money involved.
> >
> > > dumbass,
> >
> > > is the bike industry the stingiest there is ?
> >
> > > i realize bike shops aren't the most profitable business ever, but if
> > > i owned a shop i would be embarrassed to post on a forum all i could
> > > come up was $1000 to put towards an event like this.
> >
> > What do you think would be reasonable, and why?
> >
> > And why should I, as a bike shop owner, be any more embarassed about having
> > a tough time coming up with $1000 to help bring a bike race to town than,
> > say, a Cat-5 racer who expects discounts and preferential service? A Cat-5
> > racer who might work in a job that brings home easily twice what I do?
> >
> > We do what we can. Bicycle Advocacy is becoming a major focus, and that
> > costs a lot of $$$ as well (and probably, long term, has a much better
> > return on investment than a bike race, since if my customers don't have
> > roads to ride on in the future, there aren't going to be many bikes sold).
> > Tomorrow I get to spend 6 hours in a metal tube, breathing stale air,
> > traveling to Washington DC where we try and convince legislators that
> > cycling is worthy of their support. That cars aren't the only answer to
> > getting around. That schools should be encouraging kids to ride to school
> > rather than be driven 3 blocks by their parents. It seems like it should be
> > so simple, so obvious. But we're up against a whole lot of other ways to
> > spend the tax dollars they've snagged from me and you.
>
>
> dumbass,
>
> i was expressing my frustration at trying to find support from within
> the cycling industry for the various events we're organizing. i don't
> know what's an appropriate amount to put towards a bike race for you,
> but how does that $1000 compare to an ad in the paper or on
> velonews ?
>
> if you do indeed work towards growing cycling you have more foresight
> than most shop owners who are short sighted and complain that they
> lose sales to walmart and don't see a solution.
>
> for example: in my area parents pay $8-10,000 a year for their kids to
> play hockey, so it's not hard to conceive that parents would also be
> willing to spend on higher end bikes for their kids if they felt value
> in the activity. yet i see very few stores try to develop any sort of
> kid's program.
>
> we happen to have a very good shop supporting us, but it's
> embarrassing that when i list my sponsors i can't list major players
> in the bike industry (though we have decent support from other
> industries). but many members of the bike business will not spend
> money to grow the sport and aren't willing to invest the marketing
> dollars that will grow their business.
>
> they have the attitude that why should "i the owner of shop x" spend
> money to promote the sport when shops "w", "y" and "z" will benefit ?

Amit, you dumbass: I think you're underestimating the amount of
sponsorship activities that many bike shops engage in, and grossly
overestimating the economic scale of most bike shops.

There's a large component of "labour of love" in a lot of cycling
businesses, which is good for us because it means bike shops in
surprisingly marginal locations (ie high chance of having one near your
house), but bad for bike shop owners, because they would be better off
getting their real estate licenses and using their reduced work hours to
ride bikes.

Mike is not running a marginal bike shop, but $1000 is not milk money,
and it's not for an advertising campaign or a program to encourage kids
to race mountain bikes. It's for a pro bike race, which is, at best, a
mid-to-long-term investment in the general health of high-end cycling in
the region. And long-term investments have a substantial discount rate,
especially when they're as nebulous as this.

The reason your bike club can't get major bike industry support is
because cycling is not a major industry. Go solicit Magna or local pubs
or maybe Bata. Tell Bata that you have some interesting shoes to lend to
their museum, or something.

In general, I try not to tell bike shop owners how their industry works.
For the most part I imagine such well-meaning advice sounds like it
would if a layman told me how to do...whatever it is that I do.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Tom Kunich]

"Ryan Cousineau" > wrote in message
]...
>
> Amit, you dumbass: I think you're underestimating the amount of
> sponsorship activities that many bike shops engage in, and grossly
> overestimating the economic scale of most bike shops.

Amit hasn't even the slightest clue about the financial stability of the
cycle business.