Dear USAT Board candidate, As a USAT member with an interest in directing a race in the future, I'd like to ask you your opinion regarding the $500 "Growth Initiative Stipend" for new race directors that was recently implemented and budgeted for $50,000. As listed from the USAT website, there are 4 rules that a race director must meet in order to receive the $500 stipend and 6 rules in which, ambiguously stated, "some of the points" must be met by the race director. Of particular interest to me are some of the last 6 rules which would require a race director to: 1) Offer Pro money 2) Create a marketing plan that publicizes USAT 3) Donate the proceeds to a charity and 4) Be the sole proprietor of the event The cost of each of the first 3 above seem to far outweigh the benefit of the $500 stipend. As a board candidate, would you 1) support these requirements as stated, 2) work to lower the bar, or 3) dissolve the initiative? Do you think such a nominal stipend tied to so many costly requirements is working as an incentive for race directors to create new races? I see an enormous potential benefit built in for pros, for charities, and for USAT publicity by way of the race director's marketing requirement. What I don't see (given the stringent requirements) is a benefit to the race director looking to create a new race for triathletes. This leads me to wonder of the $50,000 earmarked for this program, do you know how much has been handed out in the form of stipends? And lastly, do you feel the true purpose of the program was designed for the benefit of the pros, charities, and USAT publicity?
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Question for USAT Board Candidate Slowman ['Sota]
[ In reply to ]
'Sota,
I understand you were asking these questions of Dan, but I would like to put my two cents in - I am running for the Eastern Region board seat.
If race directors and members do not know the goal/purpose of this Initiative it hard to judge it's value. Adding race may be good for the sport. Then again, maybe it isn't good for the sport. When races compete for athletes and there is little coordination within a geographic area, I believe it actually hurts the sport. I am NOT suggesting that USAT get involved with race scheduling. But, growth without a plan is not a good thing.
Secondly, a single level initiative seems to ignore geographic areas, portions of the population that are potential athletes and organizations (race directors, sponsors, towns) that would be involved in creating and continuing races.
I believe a more comprehensive and dynamic "Race Development Initiative" would be a valuable project. There are many ways to help people create races, besides providing a small amount of cash and a list of requirements.
nlc
http://www.SLB-Coaching.com
For me Frailty is a lot harder to bear than dying.
I understand you were asking these questions of Dan, but I would like to put my two cents in - I am running for the Eastern Region board seat.
If race directors and members do not know the goal/purpose of this Initiative it hard to judge it's value. Adding race may be good for the sport. Then again, maybe it isn't good for the sport. When races compete for athletes and there is little coordination within a geographic area, I believe it actually hurts the sport. I am NOT suggesting that USAT get involved with race scheduling. But, growth without a plan is not a good thing.
Secondly, a single level initiative seems to ignore geographic areas, portions of the population that are potential athletes and organizations (race directors, sponsors, towns) that would be involved in creating and continuing races.
I believe a more comprehensive and dynamic "Race Development Initiative" would be a valuable project. There are many ways to help people create races, besides providing a small amount of cash and a list of requirements.
nlc
http://www.SLB-Coaching.com
For me Frailty is a lot harder to bear than dying.
Re: Question for USAT Board Candidate Slowman [SLB Coach]
[ In reply to ]
SLB Coach, Thanks for your response. I'd be interesting in hearing from ALL USAT Board candidates that see this post!
Re: Question for USAT Board Candidate Slowman ['Sota]
[ In reply to ]
about a dozen years ago i went to USAT and queried them on starting a program in which first time RDs or RDs with first-time races would receive a special benefit. sort of like a goodie bag like you get at a race, except the benefits would be counted in the thousands of dollars. you get certain manufacturers (i was one) who'd give products to new races (we gave a pair of wetsuits to each race to give away as prizes).
i was eventually kicked out of my own program, because other companies came in as sponsors (i.e., they paid money to USAT) and i couldn't pay the sponsor rate. problem was, only the sponsors benefits were presented, not the best offers or the best deals. the final result is that the benefits that did accrue to RDs stopped accruing to RDs because of the federation's greed.
my biggest problem with USAT over the years has been its insistence in putting RDs and members second and third, and first place went to sponsors, who became the federation's primary customers. my view is to bring private industry in as partners, and industry and USAT will ALL treat the REAL primary customers as if they're first. an argument can be made that by treating the RD as a primary customer, these benefits flow to the end-user, giving him a safer, cheaper, fairer race, and more of them.
so, the long answer to your question is, i'd probably revamp the whole program. prize money ought not to be mandated. prize money is a market issue. you'll offer it when it benefits your race. what's important is for the federation to make it easier and cheaper for you to put on your race. yes, anything you can do to help defray federation expenses, fine. for example, share your mailing list with the federation, so that it can market its annual memberships.
however, the federation's job isn't to make money from you, it's to make money for you. so, there ought not (in general) to be federation sponsors. there ought to be official suppliers, non-exclusive, and the federation ought to work to create competition, so that when it comes to fluid replacement, swim caps, race buoys, bike numbers, online registration, and on and on, the federation helps to drive your prices down.
now, yes, there also ought to be a special incentive for first-time races and first-time RDs. but this ought not to cost a lot for the federation to execute, and there should be no strings attached that would cost you money. the last thing we need to do is to cripple a first-time race by forcing it to pay prize money.
of course, if you're a board member and you want the three elite board members to vote your way on other issues, well, i suppose you need to do something to appease the elites. me, i'd rather help the elites in other ways.
again, when i started this USAT program i, myself, at no cost to the federation, spent over $10,000 per year in wetsuit giveaways to first time races. were i on USAT's staff, it would take me about a day and a half to call up my industry buddies who'd pony up a benefit to first-time RDs that would well exceed double the $500 stipend and would cost the federation nothing and would cost you nothing.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
i was eventually kicked out of my own program, because other companies came in as sponsors (i.e., they paid money to USAT) and i couldn't pay the sponsor rate. problem was, only the sponsors benefits were presented, not the best offers or the best deals. the final result is that the benefits that did accrue to RDs stopped accruing to RDs because of the federation's greed.
my biggest problem with USAT over the years has been its insistence in putting RDs and members second and third, and first place went to sponsors, who became the federation's primary customers. my view is to bring private industry in as partners, and industry and USAT will ALL treat the REAL primary customers as if they're first. an argument can be made that by treating the RD as a primary customer, these benefits flow to the end-user, giving him a safer, cheaper, fairer race, and more of them.
so, the long answer to your question is, i'd probably revamp the whole program. prize money ought not to be mandated. prize money is a market issue. you'll offer it when it benefits your race. what's important is for the federation to make it easier and cheaper for you to put on your race. yes, anything you can do to help defray federation expenses, fine. for example, share your mailing list with the federation, so that it can market its annual memberships.
however, the federation's job isn't to make money from you, it's to make money for you. so, there ought not (in general) to be federation sponsors. there ought to be official suppliers, non-exclusive, and the federation ought to work to create competition, so that when it comes to fluid replacement, swim caps, race buoys, bike numbers, online registration, and on and on, the federation helps to drive your prices down.
now, yes, there also ought to be a special incentive for first-time races and first-time RDs. but this ought not to cost a lot for the federation to execute, and there should be no strings attached that would cost you money. the last thing we need to do is to cripple a first-time race by forcing it to pay prize money.
of course, if you're a board member and you want the three elite board members to vote your way on other issues, well, i suppose you need to do something to appease the elites. me, i'd rather help the elites in other ways.
again, when i started this USAT program i, myself, at no cost to the federation, spent over $10,000 per year in wetsuit giveaways to first time races. were i on USAT's staff, it would take me about a day and a half to call up my industry buddies who'd pony up a benefit to first-time RDs that would well exceed double the $500 stipend and would cost the federation nothing and would cost you nothing.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
No offense, Dan, but when I asked the question about the money trail a while ago, you assured me there wasn't one. You just outlined a MAJOR $$$ trail, and one that is exactly what I implied. Maybe this doesn't always translate into personal enrichment for some of these BOD members, but its a $$$ and greed trail all the same. Bottom line is the $$$, as you succintly put, made second and third rate customers of the members and RDs out there trying to do the right thing.
As I said, it ALWAYS gets down to $$$. The bigger the ego, the more clear it becomes.
As I said, it ALWAYS gets down to $$$. The bigger the ego, the more clear it becomes.