It was a violation of USA Cycling's own bylaws and the strategy backfired as soon as the courts took the time to review it. Unfortunately, many of the structural changes that were overturned had actually been beneficial, not least of which was the change that brought three members of the USA Cycling Development Foundation to the USA Cycling board of directors. In the upcoming election, the initial reaction might be to classify the opposing groups as good guys and bad guys. Hang on a minute. The past few years have seen some serious problems in cycling.
Road racing struggles to attract young riders.
Poor fiscal management at USA Cycling has led to the elimination of key athlete programs, staff layoffs and an inability to meet ongoing financial obligations. But this election shouldn't become a referendum on the leadership of USA Cycling, Les Earnest's commitment to democracy or even Mike Plant's ego. Instead, we need to look at the relative merits of the competing proposals and then decide. Frankly, many of the problems faced by USA Cycling stem from a lack of past leadership by its board. One bright spot has been the inclusion of Thom Weisel, Mick Hellman and Jeff Garvey on the USA Cycling board of directors.