Nature Valley Girl

" wrote:


LaPorta Potty was also trying to argue - after the unequal prize money
disparity was brought to light - that it was okay to do that because the
"women" asked for it in exchange for a lower entry fee. *But what the posters
also pointed out was that it wasn't the WOMEN RACERS that asked for the lower
entry fee and prize money, but rather the TEAM MANAGERS. *Those are two
totally different entities with conflicting interests.

Women's racing needs bigger and deeper fields which will bring better
racing. The unfortunate fact is that prize money doesn't seem to
guarantee bigger women's fields (unlike the men) because the prize
money is won by the few decent racers. So it's actually not a bad
idea to lower barriers to entry to get bigger fields, which eventually
will make for better racing. There are countless promoters who have
offered good prize lists for women only to have a relative handful of
racers show up.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Women's racing needs more money before
it can get bigger and deeper fields. What's ruining women's cycling is a lack of
money, not a lack of talent.

Thanks,

Magilla

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.

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.

A minimum prize money requirement by both the UCI and USAC is stupid because:

1.) Neither make it a rule that women be paid the same as men. This is
discriminatory and the women have a right to complain about it.

2.) There are no minimum salary requirement for women as their are for men, making
prize money for women their main source of income.

3.) Men make 3-4 times what women make in salary, so giving them less prize money on
top of that is adding insult to injury.

4.) Prize money matters a lot and is a direct reflection of the quality of an event
(at least in the eye of sponsors).

5.) Complaining about prize money being too low is not a violation of one's contract,
so I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact, it's a healthy thing to do.



Magilla

Amit Ghosh wrote:

On Dec 1, 11:23*am, MagillaGorilla


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.

So you think that Christine Thorburn and Kristin Armstrong pay their own entry fees
to NRC races? How about their plane tickets too? I got news for you, only 20% of
the women racers at Nature Valley Girl paid their own entry fees (all of them on
composite teams). No rider on any women's pro team pays for their own entry fee
(HELLO, team management pays for it).

It is likely LaPorte never asked any of the women RACERS - as opposed to team
MANAGERS - if it was okay to lower their purse by $10,000. What he did was to only
ask the team managers (who benefit by paying a lower entry fee). But then he tried
to pass this off as the same thing as if the women RACERS themselves had agreed to
have their prize money lowered in exchange for this lower entry fee arrangement.

In fact, no female racer wanted the prize money reduced by $10,000!

LaPorte was rightfully outted and given a legitimate beat-down.

Thanks,

Magilla

On Dec 1, 12:17*pm, "

Women's racing needs bigger and deeper fields which will bring better
racing. *The unfortunate fact is that prize money doesn't seem to
guarantee bigger women's fields (unlike the men) because the prize
money is won by the few decent racers. *

So it's actually not a bad
idea to lower barriers to entry to get bigger fields, which eventually
will make for better racing. *There are countless promoters who have
offered good prize lists for women only to have a relative handful of
racers show up.

dumbass,

we've strugged with the size of women's fields on and off and we've
found that field sizes (in all cats actually) aren't affected by fees.

the women in particular are hurt by the lack of depth because of poor
development. first year racers would be riding against t-mobile pros.
mandating separate women's cat 3 fields has been a big step.

even if the fee was $0 you wouldn't be guaranteed big fields. so it
doesn't make sense to compromise the quality of an event or hurt the
finances of our club in order to slash fees.

it makes more sense to organize a desirable event and charge an
appropriate fee. this does mean that our fee might be high, but we
also give discounts and free entries to volunteers. the logic is that
you either have time or or you have money. if you have neither than
bike racing should probably not be a priority.

On Dec 1, 10:53*am, Amit Ghosh wrote:

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.

Dumbass,

I used to wonder why pack fillers cared about prize lists until I read
an article about gamblers. It described the perceived value of
momentarily thinking you may hit it big between the time of placing a
bet and losing the money. It occurred to me that race entries are the
same deal. From the moment one registers, until the crushing defeat,
there is a suspension of disbelief that you will not win. There is
some value in that suspension of disbelief and the larger the prize,
the more value there is in thinking you might win. This suggests that
one should pre-register for races as early as possible.

Bret

Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
Shirley, Bob's point was that it does happen, or even a lot.

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Yeah, I guess.

Bob Schwartz wrote:
Good comeback. You're the undefeated champion.

Rope a dope ?

Amit Ghosh wrote:

On Dec 1, 12:17*pm, "

Women's racing needs bigger and deeper fields which will bring better
racing. *The unfortunate fact is that prize money doesn't seem to
guarantee bigger women's fields (unlike the men) because the prize
money is won by the few decent racers. *

So it's actually not a bad
idea to lower barriers to entry to get bigger fields, which eventually
will make for better racing. *There are countless promoters who have
offered good prize lists for women only to have a relative handful of
racers show up.

dumbass,

we've strugged with the size of women's fields on and off and we've
found that field sizes (in all cats actually) aren't affected by fees.

the women in particular are hurt by the lack of depth because of poor
development. first year racers would be riding against t-mobile pros.
mandating separate women's cat 3 fields has been a big step.

even if the fee was $0 you wouldn't be guaranteed big fields. so it
doesn't make sense to compromise the quality of an event or hurt the
finances of our club in order to slash fees.

it makes more sense to organize a desirable event and charge an
appropriate fee. this does mean that our fee might be high, but we
also give discounts and free entries to volunteers. the logic is that
you either have time or or you have money. if you have neither than
bike racing should probably not be a priority.

Women's cycling fields are low throughout the country regardless of purse
or entry fee because there is no future in cycling for an aspiring female
Cat. 5...because there is no money to be made at the elite level. So they
quit before they get any good and go on to become secretaries or teachers
or whatever it is they do. Or, they simply never take up bike racing to
begin with. They watch the TV and they see there is no Tour de France for
them. In fact, there's no television coverage for women's cycling, period
with few exceptions..

It's that same reason there are no female Pop Warner football players or
Little League baseball players. Instead, they aspire to become Varsity
cheerleaders so they can hopefully one day get a good job:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/28/business/28cheer.html

Thanks,

Magilla

Bret wrote:

On Dec 1, 10:53*am, Amit Ghosh wrote:

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.

Dumbass,

I used to wonder why pack fillers cared about prize lists until I read
an article about gamblers. It described the perceived value of
momentarily thinking you may hit it big between the time of placing a
bet and losing the money. It occurred to me that race entries are the
same deal. From the moment one registers, until the crushing defeat,
there is a suspension of disbelief that you will not win. There is
some value in that suspension of disbelief and the larger the prize,
the more value there is in thinking you might win. This suggests that
one should pre-register for races as early as possible.

Bret

I completely agree with this as well, which adds to my other points.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Women's cycling fields are low throughout the country regardless of purse
or entry fee because there is no future in cycling for an aspiring female
Cat. 5...because there is no money to be made at the elite level.

Dumbass,

There is no money to be made at the elite level, except for
a very few men. This doesn't hurt the depth of men's racing.

Don't you find it interesting that no women RACERS are sticking
up for you in the comment thread?

You should talk to that guy in Philly that used to run those
trashcan UCI cyclocross races. The stuff that the 2nd tier
Belgian guys hate because it puts guys that can't ride their
bikes ahead of them at the start.

That guy could tell you how this sort of thing works.

That was a while ago, I forget where he used to run those races.

Bob Schwartz