RaceClean?
- Thread starter Delish
- Start date
Mountain Bike Mike
Well-Known Member
I don't believe this will be the beginning of the end for USAC in a amateur bike racing because there is more to USAC than just Race clean. I can only speak why I renew my license - especially for next year. In addition to racing and participating in local / regional series points systems, I also like to see how I progress and stack up against my competition nationally. I like to have a central location to lookup my stats and my race resume. I don't like not being able see all my races (Non sanctioned) on the USAC site. For example - I won Mooch Madness and took second at Stewart and both of those races were significant accomplishments for me and yet they are unaccounted for on the USAC site - That Sucks! So my overall ranking is false. Guys I whipped this year are ranked higher than me because they raced more sanctioned events while I raced in non sanctioned races. In fact, there are several races over the past two years that are not listed on the USAC site. I don't like that. If you were to look me up, you'd think I was more of a CX racer than a MTB'er. I like the USAC system.
http://www.usacycling.org/results/index.php?compid=423387
Will Raceclean work? Nope.... Cheaters will always figure out a way around the system until they get caught, it just gives them another challenge to work around. Just like another opponent.
I'm renewing and I will be participating in more sanctioned races next year and less non sanctioned for the reason I listed above.
EDIT - I wish there was a better effective USAC feedback loop for race promoters. The end of USAC will be because of their lack of listening to the local grassroots promoters. The additional fee is just another thing to add to the already pile of things that piss people off.
Last edited:
I agree. I try not to do that hypothetical mental calculus but another $25 a year to put that argument to rest, either because it actually cleans up the sport or because it makes everybody feel like it's a level paying field, seems like money well spent. You can hardly by a new chain for $25. I don't think the end goal needs to be testing everybody any more than the end goal of the highway patrol is to pull over every speeder...it's putting in place a common sense deterrent that will hopefully prevent those who might cross that thin line from doing so. Sure, cheaters gonna cheat but it moves the line and makes it a big thick one.
w/r/t OTC supplements...if people are indeed inadvertently consuming banned substances, technically they are not doping too? Even if the willful intent is not there, the effects of the banned substances are still real and how is that any different? I'm of the opinion that people who "accidentally" take banned substances through OTC supplements often complicit, or at least witting actors in the overall fraud. It takes two to tango.
The OTC argument is a tough one because it will continue to push the limits of what is ok and what is not. Today it's ok for me to drink 12 cups of coffee before a race but maybe tomorrow that's not ok. In a year from now, 2 cups of coffee is cheating. Roctane is cheating. And so on. It's sort of the same problem with civil liberties. Once you catch all the bad guys you make up a new definition of what "bad guys" means.
When do we move into the realm of testosterone levels in women? Not all women have the same level and, in fact, science is telling us that sexes are not really binary. There are people that are, in some cases, somewhere in between. What if your driver's license says F but you have as much testosterone as the average man? Apparently this is never true in the field but maybe we just haven't found that "in between" case yet. I digress.
Unlike MBM I don't see the value in making sure we're all on the same scoreboard. Ask @UtahJoe how that plays out in real life as he has a legit Nationals story about that. In the end, it's nonsense. We spend 3 months a year saying how CrossResults is also nonsense. How often are all the best racers at the same race? Never.
I think they should just test everyone or nobody. Imagine this scenario where some of these estimates are accurate. Some claim that 1/3 of the masters are doping. Is that a high claim? Sure. But what if it's true? What if we then wipe out 1/3 of the masters fields from the races. Then the races die. It's like the NFL and steroids. Do they really want to ban it? The consequences equate to the loss of the sport. I don't think we're in that realm here but it's something to consider.
I think there is some merit in spending more energy forcing upgrades. We can all congratulate @The Heckler on his masterful season. Good job!
When do we move into the realm of testosterone levels in women? Not all women have the same level and, in fact, science is telling us that sexes are not really binary. There are people that are, in some cases, somewhere in between. What if your driver's license says F but you have as much testosterone as the average man? Apparently this is never true in the field but maybe we just haven't found that "in between" case yet. I digress.
Unlike MBM I don't see the value in making sure we're all on the same scoreboard. Ask @UtahJoe how that plays out in real life as he has a legit Nationals story about that. In the end, it's nonsense. We spend 3 months a year saying how CrossResults is also nonsense. How often are all the best racers at the same race? Never.
I think they should just test everyone or nobody. Imagine this scenario where some of these estimates are accurate. Some claim that 1/3 of the masters are doping. Is that a high claim? Sure. But what if it's true? What if we then wipe out 1/3 of the masters fields from the races. Then the races die. It's like the NFL and steroids. Do they really want to ban it? The consequences equate to the loss of the sport. I don't think we're in that realm here but it's something to consider.
I think there is some merit in spending more energy forcing upgrades. We can all congratulate @The Heckler on his masterful season. Good job!
Mike, I love you, but that ranking system would be more accurate if they actually ranked people by shoe size.
Yes, the nationals were a great example...group of racers from all over the US coming to a tough course in PA that was unlike much of what they were used to riding...Then factor in the fact that many riders from the MASS series were also racing...mass series not being part of USAC......That race predictor worked like a charm LOL.
@pearl @Norm .......shit im currently ranked dead last amongst my team and every other cat 1 racer that I know...@norm is ranked higher than me? REALLY? Are they ranking us by weight? WTF?
Mountain Bike Mike
Well-Known Member
Mike, I love you, but that ranking system would be more accurate if they actually ranked people by shoe size.
Yes, the nationals were a great example...group of racers from all over the US coming to a tough course in PA that was unlike much of what they were used to riding...Then factor in the fact that many riders from the MASS series were also racing...mass series not being part of USAC......That race predictor worked like a charm LOL.
@pearl @Norm .......shit im currently ranked dead last amongst my team and every other cat 1 racer that I know...@norm is ranked higher than me? REALLY? Are they ranking us by weight? WTF?
Don't be surprised the next time I see you, I'm coming in for an unexpected HUG! You can't say I love you without a hug!
1speed
Incredibly profound yet fantastically flawed
But don't you think the rankings will always be bullsh*t anyway? No matter which way it falls -- more races are sanctioned or sanctioning bodies cease to exist altogether - only a potentially non-representative sample is ever going to be used to establish your relative placing. This plays out all the time across local series. Most people who race local series and do well find that it's a lot harder to replicate those results in something like the MASS because all the local "bests" come together to sort themselves out there. So if your local series happens to be USAC sanctioned (the MASS leaves it up to individual promoters to be sanctioned or not, so the series overall is not) you may have a false impression of where you actually stand in the broader sample of riders from your region or the rest of the country. If more races became sanctioned, fewer riders would race because they won't want to incur the additional costs of licenses. And some of those folks may be the legit best. They may already be avoiding USAC races now and/or getting their best results in series and races that aren't USAC sanctioned (i.e., yourself!) Either way you slice it, the idea of rankings is kind of weak. There is probably a pretty strong correlation between the USAC rankings and actual performance, but your statement already proves a bias exists, and I think more sanctioning would just push that bias the opposite way: you may see your rankings improve, but there may be a few guys who can beat you that stop racing altogether.
I get the idea of wanting to know where you stand relative to your competition, but I don't think there is a really great system anywhere to do that. On the rare occasions when I feel like I had a good day in a race, I always bear in mind that if I make the top step of the podium it's always at least in part due to the fact that the guys who can always kick my ass didn't show up. If you ever get to the point where you are standing on the top step and don't have that feeling at all, then it won't matter what USAC or any other governing body says about your rankings.
jnos
Well-Known Member
Plenty of excuses remain:
So & So must have a tiny motor in his bike because he beat me and can't be doping with PEDs because everyone gets tested for PEDs. USAC needs to start a CLEANRACEMACHINE program and charge $10 per race so everyones bike can get X-rayed.
So & So only beat me because he broke his collar bone a few years back and got a plate put in so when we both crashed mid race, his collar bone didn't break. Let's impose a no plates/screws/pins rule so everyone has the same chance of breaking a bone.
So & So only beat me because he inherited millions of dollars from his parents when they died and doesn't have to work as hard as me and has more free time to train and more money for coaches and equipment. USAC must impose a basic income requirement and tax anyone with more money than me to even the playing field.
I can go on.
You jest, but I would say the influence of having kids bears way more on race results than sticking needles in your ass. Likewise, manual labor versus a 12 hour day versus an easy job and so on.
Life ain't fair.
i feel some more non-sensical blabbering coming, read at own risk.
==========
think of the rankings as a sample of people racing? as not everyone participates in the system.
I'd have to give it more thought, but let's use strava for an example - say i'm 10th in a ranking, but i don't see any of the usual names
in front of me (or behind me) - so i really can't consider myself 10th (??) - but if there are 100 people in the ranking, than i'm in the top 10% -
this works for strava cause the segment doesn't change (although the wind and conditions do) - since there are others that aren't in the segment that
would end up behind me, the 10% strata should hold....(there may be a bias to faster people using strava - so i'm not sure if the sample is representative.)
the USAC ranking is like CXresults, in that it uses strength of field to get to a relative ranking - here is their FAQ.
http://www.usacycling.org/usa-cycling-rankings-faq.htm
they use 'best results' too - which is interesting, no weighting (pun) most current results (12 month window - not having enough events is a torpedo.)
----
here's the point.
i would postulate that there is a big data solution to finding potential dopers. Too much velocity to their improvement? Cyclical improvement? not sure of the discriminator, but there must be one.
Then having more races sanctioned, means more data, would improve their methods of identification, making it less expensive to find cheaters->lower fees.
vicious circle eh?
having significant rewards for turning in cheaters would probably help too.
==========
think of the rankings as a sample of people racing? as not everyone participates in the system.
I'd have to give it more thought, but let's use strava for an example - say i'm 10th in a ranking, but i don't see any of the usual names
in front of me (or behind me) - so i really can't consider myself 10th (??) - but if there are 100 people in the ranking, than i'm in the top 10% -
this works for strava cause the segment doesn't change (although the wind and conditions do) - since there are others that aren't in the segment that
would end up behind me, the 10% strata should hold....(there may be a bias to faster people using strava - so i'm not sure if the sample is representative.)
the USAC ranking is like CXresults, in that it uses strength of field to get to a relative ranking - here is their FAQ.
http://www.usacycling.org/usa-cycling-rankings-faq.htm
they use 'best results' too - which is interesting, no weighting (pun) most current results (12 month window - not having enough events is a torpedo.)
----
here's the point.
i would postulate that there is a big data solution to finding potential dopers. Too much velocity to their improvement? Cyclical improvement? not sure of the discriminator, but there must be one.
Then having more races sanctioned, means more data, would improve their methods of identification, making it less expensive to find cheaters->lower fees.
vicious circle eh?
having significant rewards for turning in cheaters would probably help too.
jnos
Well-Known Member
Only if you include a penalty for false accusations.
The Heckler
You bring new meaning to the term SUCK
@Mountain Bike Mike
I think the solution is MTBresults.com.
Email colin @ crossresults and trick him into expanding his database. They already have road results.
I think the solution is MTBresults.com.
Email colin @ crossresults and trick him into expanding his database. They already have road results.
I fail to see how USAC rankings would mean anything. You can't compare a top person in NorCal's race scene to NJ's race scene because totally different people raced each race. It is kinda like comparing results on strava segments from different states.
Last edited:
xc62701
Well-Known Member
Just an FYI. I went through the process to see what the cost would be to buy my license online and get this - the license prices increased and then they add the race clean surcharge when you add the new license to the cart. So not only did they increase my license fee by $25 - they also added another $25 for the race clean BS. That's totally absurd.
That's it - I already submitted my application to downgrade and I let them know exactly why. If they deny it I let them know I would not be renewing my license. Let's see what happens.
That's it - I already submitted my application to downgrade and I let them know exactly why. If they deny it I let them know I would not be renewing my license. Let's see what happens.
i think it falls under the law of large numbers.
racers in a category, are a sample of all cyclists. is the pool being sampled from in california different from the one in nj? - it may be larger, but would the deciles fall in the same place?
(ie, if i moved there, would i be in the same percentile?)
ha, you can be like me...cat 1 for life
I mean what reason would I ever have to upgrade and get my pro license? I have only ever been to 2 races in 8 years that even had an exclusive pro class in which you were required to have a pro license....every other race its been pro/cat1/open. Maybe its holding me back from that big money contract?
Obviously I can't test the theory, but I don't it necessarily falls out that way as certain people are going to be better in some places over others.
Anyways, thanks for the JRE link @gtluke, the armstrong one was a good listen. Whatever your thoughts about armstrong are, the guy does a good interview.