Well said. USAT should be the foundation. I have argued on many an occasion that in order to be USAT sanctioned, the event must belly up and secure USAT officiating. What is submitted on paper to secure sanctioning in many cases is never reviewed on site.
Then we run into the issue that if every race must have officials, where do they come from? I’d like to see USAT approach all our tri clubs, or us as individuals to promote the benefits of officiating and offer some kind of perk, like waiving the annual membership fee in turn for officiating at a minimum of one event.
How many of us would be willing to wear the hat at least one event per year, knowing that all USAT events would in turn be watched over by someone who knew their way around?
Heck of a goal…but it requires a notable level of participation from those of us who would realize the greatest benefits.
If I were a race director, I’d still ask why should I try to get my race sanctioned? I agree with Dan’s article and that the USAT sanction should indicate races that are exceptional in terms of safety and fairness. In reality though it seems that there comes a point where growing field sizes have a drastic negative impact on both of these issues.
What does it mean to an RD who can sell 500 additional entries to his race? He brings in a hell of a lot more money, the cost per racer to host the race drops significantly, drafting will increase (fairness decreases), and there would be some decline in safety. I think it’s obvious what most RDs would do. Cha-ching!
I think USAT has a balancing act to play. On one end they need to promote safety and fairness in their sanctioned races. On the other they need to provide assistance to RDs to make it easier, and if possible cheaper, to host races. Yes, USAT help RDs through developing rules, training referees, and setting race standards that all races, not just sanctioned ones, take advantage of. The interests of the athletes and race directors are often at odds. While USAT exists to serve the membership I believe it ought to function, as much as possible, to bridge the “us and them” gap and work for the benefit of both sides. After all, the membership wants to race, if the federation makes it easier to host more races then they are serving the membership.
I agree that USAT should make their sanction really mean something. That it shouldn’t be something that just any race can achieve. But if RDs are going to have to jump through more hoops to get this sanction, there needs to be some real ($$) benefit to them for doing so. Just attracting racers isn’t enough. Races fill up anyway, and lets face it, the USAT headbadge currently ain’t all that strong.
USAT needs to make it easier to become an official. I have thought about it but all clinics offered are held concurrently with large races. Why not have a website where potential officials can sign up and then when say 8 - 10 from a specific regional area have signed on schedule a seminar nearer their location.
I found it difficult to justify spending dollars on airfare, food and hotel to become certified for a thankless job.
I think if the certification process was more conveinent more people would become certified.
“If I were a Race Director…”: Because USAT is our only sanctioning organization. You are either a part of the picture, or outside the box.
“What does it mean…”: Everything. It is about supporting the growth and advancement of the sport.
No question on the balancing act…but USAT already makes it easy to get sanctioned. The sanctioning packet takes very little effort to complete. Fill in some blanks and send in some maps, verify some permits where needed and local infrastructure support and you are all set. It really is that easy. Anyone who thinks it is cumbersome or difficult has not completed the process. The issue to me, having been on both sides of the registration table, is who is there to make sure what is promised up front actually happens?
We can either work to make USAT a long term viable entity which carries some clout, or why bother with the process at all?
Great post and great idea. We all need to strive to give back to the sport in some way, shape, or form.
As far as officiating goes, I know that some people would be uncomfortable with penalizing their peers for wheel sucking. I on the other hand, know who has the propensity for wheel sucking and would scrutinize very objectively as the opportunitiy presented itself. Also, I want random testing for PEDs. There are a few people around that could potentially fail.
I still think the PED issue can be dealt with by setting up my plan for a “League Of Their Own”
Be a Dopey Pro, or Dopey Elite all you want…fess up to it and stand on your merits. Of course you may die due to those merits…but what the heck…the fame and hardware is worth it right? Legalize it, perform by it, and then die by it.
I’m hearing there is a standing policy with USAT about comping anyone who officiates, but I don’t find a mention of it in that section of the USAT site.
<I’d like to see USAT approach all our tri clubs, or us as individuals to promote the benefits of officiating and offer some kind of perk, like waiving the annual membership fee in turn for officiating at a minimum of one event.>
Any official who works at least two races per year receives complimentary annual membership from USAT.
David Schoonmaker
USAT Mid-Atlantic Region officials coordinator
Well I be a voice against Slowman on this one. He was in the position to insure or at least champion these things instead of just writing about them. He steps away from being able to promote positive change to just writing about good ideas. He can no longer say NO or even YES to an issue, no longer bring forth legislation that makes it safer for you or me. He now writes about good ideas with hollow words.
Thanks for your interest in the officials program. Officials receive a modest stipend, which varies depending on race distance and duties, from the race director. They are also compensated for travel at either $.35/mile driven or cost if other means are used and receive one night’s accommodations (either hotel or home stay). To find out more about the officials program, look here:
Thanks for the update on that part. I never knew, and I went to the website previously and never noticed anything about that. USAT could do a lot better job promoting that entire picture.
That was my initial reaction…but think about it. He said for all intents and purposes…he found out what he needed to find out.
I’d be hard pressed to accuse him of not having the best interest of the sport close at hand. He determined he is better suited to a position off the board than remaining on the board. Another post dealt with this extensively. I’m glad he knows how to tell the difference. Lots of people on boards and what all don’t belong there, and don’t know it.
He made a very logical decision that he could be easily replaced as a board member, but was a more valuable and effective instrument for effective action when working outside the board. He concluded he couldn’t do both, so he made the logical pick.
If you look at his work done on the outside including fixing the election and changing the Constitution, it is hard to dispute his effectiveness on the outside, though obviously you are free to try.
Well I be a voice against Slowman on this one. He was in the position to insure or at least champion these things instead of just writing about them. He steps away from being able to promote positive change to just writing about good ideas. He can no longer say NO or even YES to an issue, no longer bring forth legislation that makes it safer for you or me. He now writes about good ideas with hollow words.
I have to agree with this; he could have been an agent of change from inside of the USAT intead of posting good ideas about what should be changed in USAT on his website. When he was writing about the the USAT needing to say “NO” and “YES” to dangerous races and to good races what better place to start the change than as part of the BOD.
He had the chance to promote these ideas and he walked away from the chance to do it.
Not everyone is cut out for “BORED” life. I sit on several community boards and if I wasn’t retired and training there’d be dead bodies all over the place. Listening is an overrated skill, IMHO.
Dan is a conceptual person, an idea man. He’s the inventor type, not the follow through type.
Anyway, even if running for the board wasn’t the best idea in the world, he made some headway in the short time he was there.
So, major props to the guy for quickly realizing it wasn’t his gig and being honest about it.
We digress. No one else has thoughts on requiring officiating at USAT events and participating in the process? Maybe I’m the one finding out what I needed to find out.
the one thing I think that was missing from Slowman’s analysis is course certification - in the age of GPS, there’s no excuse whatsoever for a course advertised as 10K being actually 9.5k, or 10.5K, or for a 1/2 IM bike being 59mi (are you listening, JA Productions?)
Anybody else think that course certification should be a required part of USAT sanctioning?
Actually I don’t care if the course is certified, but I wish they would say. For instance if they say the course is Certified 1.5k/40k/10k it should be those distances. If they say it is about 1.5/40/10 then I don’t care. I’ve raced to many courses with goofy out and backs or loops around a transition just to be an exact distance.
As far as officiating goes, I know that some people would be uncomfortable with penalizing their peers for wheel sucking. I on the other hand, know who has the propensity for wheel sucking and would scrutinize very objectively as the opportunitiy presented itself.
The first sentence sounds like you think people wont penalize their friends. The second sounds like you want to get a few people who you have a grudge against.
I sit on several community boards and if I wasn’t retired and training there’d be dead bodies all over the place. Listening is an overrated skill, IMHO.