So, here I am back for round 2, tacky title and all. Last time I introduced the blog, and talked a good deal about very little. For those of you at home looking for a consistent theme, you just might find it, as yet again I put off any discussion of the nitty-gritty leg-work involved in putting on a bike race for the first distracting topic that comes to mind.

Photo: Cambridge College Cycling

In the inaugural edition of the blog, I introduced our promoter’s guide, really nothing much more than a laundry list of important names, deadlines, and organizational paperwork necessary for getting things going. I may have fluffed it up a little. But it was all I had to start organizing the race, and at first glance the list was intimidating. Once I got rolling a little, things started to take care of themselves in an errand-ish, tedious way. But, my confidence swelled with every official-looking, important-sounding e-mail I sent off. Ahh, Alexander (Ephraim Miele George, Whatever) Bremer, GTC Promoter! I was really getting into it. And my cock-sure attitude served me quite well. At least until I encountered a topic not covered by the twelve lines of text in my promoter’s bible – today’s topic – categories!

It came in a simple little package – an unassuming e-mail sent out to a certain CRCA list-serve, which, though “not complaining,” offered some serious criticisms of the way the race was structured, the timing of the events, and the fields that were chosen. My fragile promoting ego-bubble was completely burst (Thanks Jaimie). At that point, I felt quite locked in to the schedule I had set up, and tried as best I could to justify a lame women’s field set-up at 6:45 am. But really, thanks Jaimie, that e-mail started what I think is a pretty drastic revision for the 2008 running of GTC.

For me, that dialogue opened up a lot of new, challenging and complicated issues involved in promoting. Advanced and intellectually heady issues like: what races to run, how much cash to put up, timing the events… No, I know, really basic questions but ones completely untouched by the promoting outline I had to work with. So, this time around I thought a little (just a wee-bit) about what could be changed so that this time the race might not appear to be “to the detriment of all.” I am sure there are people that take issue with the changes we have made, but it certainly reflects feedback received last year.

Photo: Cambridge College Cycling

There are 5 + hours of collegiate races that make up the bulk of the day’s racing, leaving us with a tight schedule to fit in what USCF races we can. So, let’s start with our bread and butter, the 3/4 race. Huge race, 3’s and 4’s flock by the busload. OK, and then add a men’s and a women’s premier event. Elite races get our sponsors the attention they deserve. Oh, and what the hell, there is no shortage of 4’s in the area so add a 4/5 to catch any registration stragglers. For our under-funded club, these are all, frankly, economically driven choices – ones that are fairly easy to make. And where the economics stops, it starts to get to be a touchy subject. It forces the promoting organization to ask itself why opens each field it does. Is it just for profit? Attention and sheer volume of attendance? Or are there other reasons to put on a race?

We decided to add a women’s 3/4 field because our team thinks it is important to give all women the chance to compete, like male racers can, and compete in a field of peers (P/1/2/3/4?!?), like men. We decided this even though we might not make much money on the field this year. However, supporters of this rationale would argue, this in turn promotes women’s cycling by encouraging women to race. This would cause the field to grow more profitable for us in the future – it is economics. It is an investment. But, it comes at a cost as others may quickly point out. First off, all the races for 2008 are slightly shorter than normal. There is no room left for masters or juniors fields. And maybe only half an hour of racing for these women is establishing a negative precedent. Could we have put on a better race without a W 3/4? Would that be fair? Wise? What fields did we miss? How do you think we could change this year’s fields to make a better race?

Photo: GS Mengoni USA

Registration does not open for nearly a month, so please share your thoughts on how you think we could make our race better. Be sure to include your name so I can cite you in my addition to the promoter’s guide, under the heading “Beware of the Categories.” There is a lot to talk about on related issues like prizes and timing, too. But please save those for another day… I need to squeeze this blog out for quite a few more weeks!

Thanks for reading, and for your comments.
– Alex

Watch for the next installment, Making the Race 3 – … Ummmmm.