Nature Valley Girl

MagillaGorilla wrote:
And just because it was the ****ing Olympics, I'm suppose to worship her like some kind of
anatomically correct Adriana Lima blow-up doll with a built-in Fleshlight.

There might be a market for something like that even in these lean times.

On Dec 2, 1:36*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
*MagillaGorilla wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

In article
,
*Amit Ghosh wrote:

On Dec 1, 11:23*am, MagillaGorilla

The problem is "LaPorta Potty" wrote an email to the author of the original
article bragging about how the Nature Valley Girl race was a "model" to
emulate for all women's races. *But then a few posters pointed out that he
only offers women half the prize money! *That, my friend, is a bitch-slap.

Basically, LaPorta Potty was caught with his pants down by his ankles and
someone opened the plastic door on him. *And everyone is now left with that
image.

dumbass,

laporte's problem is that he has bought into the same sense of
entitlement that many racers exhibit.

to me prize money suggests that one is being paid for their services.
normally when one takes a job one comes to an agreement about how much
thy will get paid. the only agreement that exists in this case would
be if there is any minimum prize requirement given the sanction of the
race.

i don't know about the NRC, but the UCI publishes purse requirements
given the level of the race. if the riders took out licenses under
that body - they agreed to that level of compensation, or there is no
agreement in place at all.

if the race paid out what was advertised they should stop
complaining.

But LaPorta Potty tried to make it sound like they did and that he was doing them
a favor by cutting their prize money in half. *In fact, he was harming women
cyclists by doing that and going against the will of 100% of the women
racers.

i haven't asked all 134 racers, but probably 75% of the racers won't
see any prize money, but 100% will have to come up with the entry fee.
my guess is that bottom 75% has to cover all or some of their own
fees.

it sounds to me like laporte just moved around $10,000 on his balance
sheet. did any racer ask laporte to reconsider, or do anything about
it other than whine in the comments section long after wards ? if the
racers didn't like the format of fees and prizes they should not have
raced the event.

It appears that they are not.

Racers on pro teams don't get to decide what races they do. *They are TOLD what races
to do and are sent a plane ticket in the mail. *That's how it works.. *You're thinking
of how your Cat 5 team operates.

So when you lower prize money for the racers, that doesn't mean they have the right to
refuse to race because of that. *What happens is they show up ****ed off and race like
**** because the purse is ****.

That's why managers don't speak for racers. *Managers don't get any prize money and
therefore should not be using their clout with promoters to lower it.

What I said was too short to be clear. By `they' I meant
potential racers. By `not' I meant not racing, as in not
even joining a team. Amit says if they do not like it,
they do not have to race. I say they do not like it and
do not race.

--
Michael Press

You and Amit are back in the 1930's with this logic. *You could say that about any
workforce prior to their job specialty forming a union (e.g. autoworkers, steelworkers,
welders, airline pilots, Teamsters, Screen Actor's Guild, etc.)

dumbass,

i'm talking from the point of view of an organizer. we're providing a
service (putting on a bike race) in exchange for a fee or a
sponsorship.

the racers aren't my employees, they are the customer (as are the
sponsors).

they may be pros that want exposure or prize money or amateurs that
simply enjoy racing. but the bottom line is they pay us for providing
a race and the purse is one thing that can make a race more
attractive.

your take on the relationship between the racers and organizer makes
no sense to me.

MagillaGorilla wrote:
You and Amit are back in the 1930's with this logic. You could say that about any
workforce prior to their job specialty forming a union (e.g. autoworkers, steelworkers,
welders, airline pilots, Teamsters, Screen Actor's Guild, etc.)

Eventually, everyone would quit their job if they had that mentality and the only people
who would work would be disenfranchised riders who ride in a tonic state of clinical
depression over their poor work conditions and salary - which is basically what describes
the current women's peloton. If the teams were smart enough, they would realize a union is
actually a good thing for the sport.

One of the conditions that is necessary to form a union is an
end product that has value. Without that collective bargaining
has no leverage.

How many people in this country would notice if bike racing
went away? Bike racing in total, not just the subset that is
women's bike racing.

Sports like football and baseball unionized at times when
serious money was coming in, to insure that the athletes got
their cut. I'm not sure women's bike racing is an analogous
situation.

Bob Schwartz

Amit Ghosh wrote:

On Dec 2, 1:36*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
*MagillaGorilla wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

In article
,
*Amit Ghosh wrote:

On Dec 1, 11:23*am, MagillaGorilla

The problem is "LaPorta Potty" wrote an email to the author of the original
article bragging about how the Nature Valley Girl race was a "model" to
emulate for all women's races. *But then a few posters pointed out that he
only offers women half the prize money! *That, my friend, is a bitch-slap.

Basically, LaPorta Potty was caught with his pants down by his ankles and
someone opened the plastic door on him. *And everyone is now left with that
image.

dumbass,

laporte's problem is that he has bought into the same sense of
entitlement that many racers exhibit.

to me prize money suggests that one is being paid for their services.
normally when one takes a job one comes to an agreement about how much
thy will get paid. the only agreement that exists in this case would
be if there is any minimum prize requirement given the sanction of the
race.

i don't know about the NRC, but the UCI publishes purse requirements
given the level of the race. if the riders took out licenses under
that body - they agreed to that level of compensation, or there is no
agreement in place at all.

if the race paid out what was advertised they should stop
complaining.

But LaPorta Potty tried to make it sound like they did and that he was doing them
a favor by cutting their prize money in half. *In fact, he was harming women
cyclists by doing that and going against the will of 100% of the women
racers.

i haven't asked all 134 racers, but probably 75% of the racers won't
see any prize money, but 100% will have to come up with the entry fee.
my guess is that bottom 75% has to cover all or some of their own
fees.

it sounds to me like laporte just moved around $10,000 on his balance
sheet. did any racer ask laporte to reconsider, or do anything about
it other than whine in the comments section long after wards ? if the
racers didn't like the format of fees and prizes they should not have
raced the event.

It appears that they are not.

Racers on pro teams don't get to decide what races they do. *They are TOLD what races
to do and are sent a plane ticket in the mail. *That's how it works. *You're thinking
of how your Cat 5 team operates.

So when you lower prize money for the racers, that doesn't mean they have the right to
refuse to race because of that. *What happens is they show up ****ed off and race like
**** because the purse is ****.

That's why managers don't speak for racers. *Managers don't get any prize money and
therefore should not be using their clout with promoters to lower it.

What I said was too short to be clear. By `they' I meant
potential racers. By `not' I meant not racing, as in not
even joining a team. Amit says if they do not like it,
they do not have to race. I say they do not like it and
do not race.

--
Michael Press

You and Amit are back in the 1930's with this logic. *You could say that about any
workforce prior to their job specialty forming a union (e.g. autoworkers, steelworkers,
welders, airline pilots, Teamsters, Screen Actor's Guild, etc.)

dumbass,

i'm talking from the point of view of an organizer. we're providing a
service (putting on a bike race) in exchange for a fee or a
sponsorship.

the racers aren't my employees, they are the customer (as are the
sponsors).

The racers are NOT your customers. The team managers are your customers. The racers are like
indentured servants since they don't have a union. By asking for a raise in prize money, they
are merely asking to get a canary in the coal mine so they don't die.

Magilla

Amit Ghosh wrote:

On Dec 2, 1:36*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:


You and Amit are back in the 1930's with this logic. *You could say that about any
workforce prior to their job specialty forming a union (e.g. autoworkers, steelworkers,
welders, airline pilots, Teamsters, Screen Actor's Guild, etc.)

dumbass,

they may be pros that want exposure or prize money or amateurs that
simply enjoy racing. but the bottom line is they pay us for providing
a race and the purse is one thing that can make a race more
attractive.

your take on the relationship between the racers and organizer makes
no sense to me.

The NRC calendar and pro races are not like amateur races. NRC promoters have an obligation to
listen to the racers. By lowering the prize money, you are ****ing on your star performers.
The racers don't like that. They will show up to race only because they got a plane ticket
mailed to them and because it's in their contract to race.

But you will **** off pro racers by having a trailer park purse. The women open their legs up
for money. So they can buy shoes and stuff.

Magilla

Bob Schwartz wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
You and Amit are back in the 1930's with this logic. You could say that about any
workforce prior to their job specialty forming a union (e.g. autoworkers, steelworkers,
welders, airline pilots, Teamsters, Screen Actor's Guild, etc.)

Eventually, everyone would quit their job if they had that mentality and the only people
who would work would be disenfranchised riders who ride in a tonic state of clinical
depression over their poor work conditions and salary - which is basically what describes
the current women's peloton. If the teams were smart enough, they would realize a union is
actually a good thing for the sport.

One of the conditions that is necessary to form a union is an
end product that has value. Without that collective bargaining
has no leverage.

How many people in this country would notice if bike racing
went away? Bike racing in total, not just the subset that is
women's bike racing.

Sports like football and baseball unionized at times when
serious money was coming in, to insure that the athletes got
their cut. I'm not sure women's bike racing is an analogous
situation.

Bob Schwartz

Perhaps not, but the multi-billion dollar bike industry as a whole would care.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Bob Schwartz wrote:
One of the conditions that is necessary to form a union is an
end product that has value. Without that collective bargaining
has no leverage.

How many people in this country would notice if bike racing
went away? Bike racing in total, not just the subset that is
women's bike racing.

Sports like football and baseball unionized at times when
serious money was coming in, to insure that the athletes got
their cut. I'm not sure women's bike racing is an analogous
situation.

Bob Schwartz

Perhaps not, but the multi-billion dollar bike industry as a whole would care.

Dumbass,

On Dec 2, 4:23*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Riders need to unionize and stop the nonsense and
inequity that goes on in the sport. *


You left out going to congress with hands out for $25B. That would
help, right?

WE NEED TO MAKE CYCLING TOO BIG TO FAIL!!!


SOGOTP!!!

On Dec 2, 2:55*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Amit Ghosh wrote:
On Dec 2, 1:36*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

You and Amit are back in the 1930's with this logic. *You could say that about any
workforce prior to their job specialty forming a union (e.g. autoworkers, steelworkers,
welders, airline pilots, Teamsters, Screen Actor's Guild, etc.)

dumbass,

they may be pros that want exposure or prize money or amateurs that
simply enjoy racing. but the bottom line is they pay us for providing
a race and the purse is one thing that can make a race more
attractive.

your take on the relationship between the racers and organizer makes
no sense to me.

The NRC calendar and pro races are not like amateur races. *NRC promoters have an obligation to
listen to the racers. *By lowering the prize money, you are ****ing on your star performers.
The racers don't like that. *They will show up to race only because they got a plane ticket
mailed to them and because it's in their contract to race.


dumbass,

yeah, and mcdonald's gives you free refills of coke so some people
will choose it over a place that doesn't. but that's not the same as
an obligation.

On Dec 2, 6:30�am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
�Amit Ghosh wrote:

On Dec 1, 11:23�am, MagillaGorilla

The problem is "LaPorta Potty" wrote an email to the author of the original
article bragging about how theNatureValleyGirl race was a "model" to
emulate for all women's races. �But then a few posters pointed out that he
only offers women half the prize money! �That, my friend, is a bitch-slap.

Basically, LaPorta Potty was caught with his pants down by his ankles and
someone opened the plastic door on him. �And everyone is now left with that
image.

dumbass,

laporte's problem is that he has bought into the same sense of
entitlement that many racers exhibit.

to me prize money suggests that one is being paid for their services.
normally when one takes a job one comes to an agreement about how much
thy will get paid. the only agreement that exists in this case would
be if there is any minimum prize requirement given the sanction of the
race.

i don't know about the NRC, but the UCI publishes purse requirements
given the level of the race. if the riders took out licenses under
that body - they agreed to that level of compensation, or there is no
agreement in place at all.

if the race paid out what was advertised they should stop
complaining.

But LaPorta Potty tried to make it sound like they did and that he was doing them
a favor by cutting their prize money in half. �In fact, he was harming women
cyclists by doing that and going against the will of 100% of the women
racers.

i haven't asked all 134 racers, but probably 75% of the racers won't
see any prize money, but 100% will have to come up with the entry fee..
my guess is that bottom 75% has to cover all or some of their own
fees.

it sounds to me like laporte just moved around $10,000 on his balance
sheet. did any racer ask laporte to reconsider, or do anything about
it other than whine in the comments section long after wards ? if the
racers didn't like the format of fees and prizes they should not have
raced the event.

It appears that they are not.

--
Michael Press

Racers on pro teams don't get to decide what races they do. �They are TOLD what races
to do and are sent a plane ticket in the mail. �That's how it works. �You're thinking
of how your Cat 5 team operates.

So when you lower prize money for the racers, that doesn't mean they have the right to
refuse to race because of that. �What happens is they show up ****ed off and race like
**** because the purse is ****.

That's why managers don't speak for racers. �Managers don't get any prize money and
therefore should not be using their clout with promoters to lower it.

Thanks,

Magilla- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Managers of Pro teams are generally working as independent agents for
the team sponsors. As Len Pettyjohn stated many years ago for the
Coors Team, "I'm not interested in the prize list. I want to know
what kind of exposure can you give my sponsor". He was looking for
the local media market details, not the prize list.