my post from yesterday brought out frustration in the comments

While I don't want to burden you with drama :), I will say that many people credit their recent emphasis on customer service (including the web site) on the very guy they just booted (Bisceglia). I dealt with USA Cycling pre-Bisceglia on a race I helped promote and the customer service was appalling -- not answering phones, not replying to multiple emails or voicemails begging for a reply, etc. It was like a black hole. This was part of the reason that you saw quite a few local associations break away from USA Cycling. It was Bisceglia that brought most of the local associations back "into the fold."

So, hopefully they can retain the customer service ethic that he instituted. If not, we could see the local associations pull away from USA Cycling again. While in the end I don't care if a cool race is sanctioned by USA Cycling or someone else, there could be more "drama" over the next few years as the local associations (and the members) figure out which way USA Cycling is headed.

i think there are two major issues raised here: whether the clear progress usac has made in what used to be it's abysmal customer service will go out the door as fast as bisceglia and what the relationships between the local associations and the national sanctioning body are.

• first, i don't believe that bisceglia was booted.  i saw some emails from usac staff indicating they were surprised by the announcement.  no one in my immediate peer group really knows what happened.  there are assumptions that are likely driven by the suddenness and unexpected nature of the departure.  but until someone comes across with facts, it's prudent to withold judgement. 
• second, i strongly agree with mitch that customer service used to suck and that it has improved dramastically.  the web site alone makes things so much easier.  i deal with the colorado springs staff on a very frequent basis and you can tell that the web site is handling the mundane stuff so they are free to put out the inevitable fires.  work seems to be smoother there than i have ever seen.  my impression is that these types of changes are implemented by the lower-level staff.  they may have been initiated by higher-ups, but they are now routine tasks.  usac sees the benefit in these and i cannot imagine anyone there not seeing the benefit in maintaining what they have (as customer service standards and technology enhancements) at a minimum. 

i know that i sound like an apologist.  a lot of people have been burned so badly, and so repeatedly, that usac has lost the benefit of the doubt.  permanently.  i would suggest having another objective look.  usac was aware of the problems back then and i, personally, have noticed a significant improvement in customer service of late.  there is still room for improvement, but what group cannot say that.

the second issue deals with the nature of the relationship between the local associations and usac.  this is an area that's clearly misunderstood by a lot of people.  you can tell this is the case from emails asking quesitons that confuse the roles of usac, mabra, promoters and indiciduals.  mitch is correct that at least one group that used to be a local association has left the building and started their own thing.  another splinter group was making rumblings about doing the same in pennsylvania this past spring.  i had hoped to interview them and find out what their progress was but have lost contact.  they were unambiguous about their goals: supplanting usac as the dominant sanctioning group in competitive cycling.  some of the people who are influential in mabra made some really disparaging remarks about that group and their goals.  i thought it was silly at the time and i think it's silly now.  usac doesn't have some sort of divine right to run cycling in the states.  if it is inefficient, other options will spring up and usac will be replaced.

which brings us to the crux of the issue.  in our current litigous society, usac will be very difficult to supplant primarily because there are not a lot of other options in terms of getting insurance policies to run races.  read the sentence several times and think about it.  i have contacted several insurance firms.  i've talked to multisport promoters and their insurance companies.  i've talked to adventure racing promoters and their insurance companies.  i have yet to find an organization that can come anywhere close to allowing you to put on a race for $2 per racer.  that's the reality.  you may not like usac, but the promoters in this area can't leave.  they need insurance to run races, and they can't afford to use the other options that are out there.  i played around with the economics of putting on some supported training rides (roling enclosure and catering before and after) this past winter and it simply won't work.  i played around with trying to get third party insurance for a cyclosportif and it will not work.  actually, i should be more accurate and say that i could not make it work.  my breakeven number of riders was ridiculously high and implausable.  i have not given up (i'm still courting alternatives in terms of motor marhsalls and police) but i have to be realistic. 

racers want to race and promoters provide that option.  there are not many practical alternatives to promoters for sanctioning and insurance.  ergo, most use usac.  please note that this is really different than the way that most promoters use bikereg.  promoters love bikereg because it kicks ass.  racers love it because it kicks ass.  but there are still people who use active.com or sportsbaseonline.  promoters can, and do, choose to use whatever service suits them.  the insurance marketplace is really differnet.  i would guess (as an actuary) that the insurance companies see this as low reward and relatively high risk.  if they knew what a bunch of yahoos most bike racers are, they would probably run screaming from any business proposal. 

i think where most of the people who agitate for change fail is in assuming that others are as interested in alternatives (on principle) as they are, and in providing an easy and practical and useful alternative.  anybody can be a hater.  providing an alternative structure is hard.  you must enter whatever marketplace it is you are choosing to compete in, and you must convince others that your way is not just right, but preferrable.  for some you must prove that it is preferrable for economic reasons.  for others you must prove that it is preferrable for social or practical reasons.  you may be able to leverage popular unhappiness.  but the bottom line is that if you don't offer a solution, the status quo has tremendous inertia.  mabra has contractual agreements with usac and is their agent in the mid-atlantic.  so even if the promoters and racers of mabra chose to pull up stakes and go their own way, it's not clear that mabra could come along for the ride.  if you've ever been to one of the late fall annual meetings, you know how hard it is to get the team representatives in the room to all agree on anything.  it would be exceedingly difficult to get them to organize a completely new structure. 

there are not good options for insurance other than usac.  promoters need insurance and support.  they will go where it's easiest to get these things.  local associations that break out will pay a premium for these services so it must provide some sort of abstract return on investment to be free of usac.  i think that it can be done but it will require a comprehensive list of services offered to promoters.  i don't think it will happen until something like tort reform completely changes the landscape of insuring sports events and signed waivers become bulletproof.

- - - posted by scott