From: les@sail.stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Length of Races in the U.S.:  Too Short?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 22:46:29 GMT

Regarding the lengths of USCF national championship road races,
I earlier remarked:
. The distances were chosen to separate the top riders from the
. also-rans.  Given that there are about 1/10 as many women riders
. as men in the U.S., shorter distances are sufficient to decide
. the women's races.  More would be boring.

John Ampe responds:
>I can see your points Les, but I still think the overriding principle
>should be that men's and women's races should be the same length.  The
>running community has eventually come over to this viewpoint over a
>period of many decades.  Triathlons use equal distances even though
>they have a similar ratio of women competitors.  Now I realize that
>there is a great inertia caused by short local races and short
>international races, but I would like to see the USCF act to change
>things, rather than just react to the way things are.

I too support the "equal opportunity" principle.  In particular,
I reject the sexist UCI view of women, encoded in their rules, as
pitifully weak creatures who must be protected from overexertion.
Nevertheless it appears to me that the analogy between running,
triathlons, and bicycle road races does not hold because of the
effects of drafting and it leads to a dilemma if we attempt to
equalize the lengths of men's and women's road races.

Suppose that we boost the women's national road race championship
distance to between 160 and 205 km., the same as the men.  In order to
prepare for this, then, the women should have an opportunity to
compete in local or regional races of comparable length.  Suppose also
that we create incentives that will induce local race organizers to
offer such races (easier said than done).  Then what happens in the
local races?  If we are lucky, 8 to 12 riders will show up for the
women's race and shortly after the start one of them likely will ride
off the front and time trial the rest of the race, chased by other
individual time trialers and a couple of two-rider teams.

Would this provide training for the national road race?  In particular,
would it provide training that would not be obtained from an individual
time trial of the same length?  Note that a straight time trial could
be run in less total time inasmuch as the overall rider density on the
road can be higher than in a road race, even when you put multiple
groups on the same circuit with all the problems that entails.
In any case, there doesn't seem to be a practical way to provide women
with an opportunity to train adequately for a long national road race
championship.

Please note that the USCF national individual time trial championships
do use exactly the same distances for men and women in the same age
groups.  Thus, those events do observe the "equal opportunity"
principle in a manner similar to running and triathlon races.

>I also find it unfortunate that NORBA is quickly setting a precident
>for shorter women's mountain bike races.

The drafting argument presented above does not transfer to NORBA
events, in which it is a much less important factor.  I suspect that
the shorter distances are the result of marketing considerations based
on the first issue I raised, namely that watching a small number of
competitors go 'round and 'round with negligible changes in position
gets kind of boring after awhile.

>By the way, Les, I do appreciate all your efforts to reform the rules.
>I hope you are not planning to retire from the Board any time soon!

As a matter of fact, I was planning to step down at the end of my
current term, next year.  On the other hand, the fact that there now
seems to be a good chance to reorganize the Board of Directors along
the lines that I have been advocating for the last dozen years has
gotten my juices flowing, so I might go for one more round.

Other things that I would like to get passed before I leave are term
limits on officers and directors, so as to dislodge the "old boys
club."  I tried to get these proposals on the agenda of the House of
Delegates this year but they were vetoed by the Legislation Committee,
most of whose members are officers.  I plan to do it next year in a
way that is veto-proof.

If all goes according to plan it will be much harder to get elected
next year -- just one director will be elected from each of the three
sections of the country instead of the current four from each section.
Thus, there is a good chance that my interests will be superseded by
political realities -- it's hard for opinionated curmudgeons to get
broad political support.

--
Les Earnest                                  Phone:  415 941-3984
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022