Todays idiot masters fattie doper

[DirtyWorks]

Given the demographics of baby boomers in the USA and Australia wouldn't be all that different, I'd be surprised if the same were not the case in the USA.

What members USA Cycling has are aging and most of them live in California. Independent federations and independent events in particular are growing much faster. Basically, anything complying with UCI rules isn't very popular here and hasn't been for a decade.

 

[Bertie]

I see the discussion topic here as being fought over from different perspectives. This is the case with Masters racing. At P12 races the vast majority of folk have the same motivation, to be better. With Masters you have a wide variance in motivation and hence a wide variance in standards. Neither is wrong, if anyone wants to ride 30 hours and try and win everything, great, why not? It is not fair or right to criticize their choice of life or suggest that they don't have balance. Who are they to decree what the right amount of training is for a certain age group? It does seem to me that many of the posts suggesting wide spread doping in Masters, do so because they are simply not competitive and don't think other Masters should train long and hard to be competitive. The notion that fun in bike racing comes from not being competitive for Masters is frankly absurd. I like it more when I am fit and competitive, not when I am unfit and struggling. I don't believe there is as much doping in Masters as many believe, I do believe there is a wide spread in how much Masters train.

 

[Bertie]

Very poor math and stats used here. I think there have been hundreds of masters tested at Nats over the last few years between road and track. We know of two or three positives. Your 10% might be a factor of 10 out, and that's from winners. If we assume the lower order finishers are cleaner (fair assumption) then we seem to be well below 1%

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Let's say the next 8 Masters nationals winners in any discipline are really, actually clean, that's still 10% of the population is doped. Winners are but one person. What about the others in the Winner's field? They are all clean and pure of heart? As RaceRadio points out, the Masters athletes on top of the podium at USAC bike racing are not the purest of heart.

Well there are approx 8 age categories, 3 events (RR, Crit, TT) and two sexes, making for at least 48 winners, not including the tandems. OK, some riders might have won more than one race.

All winners were tested we are told. No other reports of doping from the tested riders?

So based on above so far we have approx a 2% hit rate amongst the winners.

 

[Race Radio]

I can't speak for USA, but here in Australia, Masters riders represent the largest number of competitive (road, crit, track racing) and recreation oriented (club, tour and sportive type) cyclists, and have represented the largest segment of growth in the sport here, by far.

The participation rates and numbers have been growing strongly for the past 5 years.

In fact if it were not for the number of masters memberships and the race entries from masters, the State & National cycling federations bodies and many races on the calendar would be marginally, if at all, viable. It's one reason why CA has been trying for years to amalgamate the remaining unaffiliated masters organisations that still exist in some States.

Given the demographics of baby boomers in the USA and Australia wouldn't be all that different, I'd be surprised if the same were not the case in the USA.

Here in the US a race may have 2 categories of masters with 100 guys in each

Levi's GF had 4,000 riders, Leadville has 1,500, Whistler had 7,000. They all sell out.

What Brad Sohner said is accurate,

Bike racing is alive and well, but it's clear that bike RIDING is where the future and $ of the sport is.

Masters racing is a insignificant part of the sport, making the fact that some spend thousands of $$$ a year doping even more absurd.

 

[BotanyBay]

Having a Masters World Championship makes about as much sense as having a Cat5 state championship. The prize for the latter should be an upgrade, not a medal. Same goes for masters racing (IMHO).

We have no need to group riders by age when we have a perfectly good system that can group them by ability.

Here's a zinger for you. If you try and pick-up the sport of short-track speedskating, you will find that 10-year-olds compete right next to the 25-year-olds. You earn your way into the company of Apolo Ono, you don't "age" your way anywhere.

 

[nslckevin]

Here in the US a race may have 2 categories of masters with 100 guys in each

Levi's GF had 4,000 riders, Leadville has 1,500, Whistler had 7,000. They all sell out.

What Brad Sohner said is accurate,



Masters racing is a insignificant part of the sport, making the fact that some spend thousands of $$$ a year doping even more absurd.

First of all, anybody who spends anything on doping is an idiot, let alone somebody who has nothing to gain except an ego boost.

I don't disagree with you completely about the significance of masters racing, but it IS large segment of the racing demographic. That doesn't make it important, but if nothing else, their entry fees help pay the bills to give more opportunity for the more important groups to race. (Elites and juniors).

In Nor Cal in 2010 we had 4677 licensed racers. 1488 were under 35, 3189 were older than 35.

Two of are bigger races (based on entries) are the Snelling RR in February and the Wente RR in April. Snelling had 872 entries. 343 were in 35+ groups. Wente had 904 entries, 493(!) were in 35+ groups. In Nor Cal there are two races (or more) pretty much every weekend from early February to mid September.

The number of total race entries in an area will always be a small subset of the people who ride recreationally or do centries and Gran Fondo's. But it is not an insignificant number.

We have a ton of great road races in Nor Cal. If you took nearly 70% of the racing population out of the equation, most of those races would go away because they wouldn't be able to afford promoting them.

Kevin Metcalfe

 

[nslckevin]

Having a Masters World Championship makes about as much sense as having a Cat5 state championship. The prize for the latter should be an upgrade, not a medal. Same goes for masters racing (IMHO).

Hey, if you can figure out a way to make me 25 again I'd sign up. At least I hope that is what you mean by upgrading the winners of masters races...

We have no need to group riders by age when we have a perfectly good system that can group them by ability.

Here's a zinger for you. If you try and pick-up the sport of short-track speedskating, you will find that 10-year-olds compete right next to the 25-year-olds. You earn your way into the company of Apolo Ono, you don't "age" your way anywhere.

For cycling that is an excellent suggestion if you want to keep it small and in a niche.

What exactly is the downside to having masters races and championships? I am not asking whether or not you think there is value in it. I am asking why it is a bad idea? How does it hurt cycling?

Kevin Metcalfe

 

[gobuck]

What Kevin says has merit.
I had been competitive in the local 123 crit that occurs every Wednesday night until I was in my early 50s. Now that I am 1 year older, I am pack fodder. If I don't get to race against guys my own age I don't race anymore. I know I am getting slower with age but so are the guys I race against. It wouldn't happen without Masters racing.

 

[Race Radio]

First of all, anybody who spends anything on doping is an idiot, let alone somebody who has nothing to gain except an ego boost.

I don't disagree with you completely about the significance of masters racing, but it IS large segment of the racing demographic. That doesn't make it important, but if nothing else, their entry fees help pay the bills to give more opportunity for the more important groups to race. (Elites and juniors).

In Nor Cal in 2010 we had 4677 licensed racers. 1488 were under 35, 3189 were older than 35.

Two of are bigger races (based on entries) are the Snelling RR in February and the Wente RR in April. Snelling had 872 entries. 343 were in 35+ groups. Wente had 904 entries, 493(!) were in 35+ groups. In Nor Cal there are two races (or more) pretty much every weekend from early February to mid September.

The number of total race entries in an area will always be a small subset of the people who ride recreationally or do centries and Gran Fondo's. But it is not an insignificant number.

We have a ton of great road races in Nor Cal. If you took nearly 70% of the racing population out of the equation, most of those races would go away because they wouldn't be able to afford promoting them.

Kevin Metcalfe

I agree, Norcal, Colorado, and a few others have some excellent road races. Those numbers on licenses are interesting. Very top heavy, clear that we need to do more to get more kids into the sport.

Unfortunately here in the US the gulf between Categorized racing and Centuries is huge. In order to raise the over all level the sport events that bridge that gap.

 

[Deagol]

.....it's time to take cycling less seriously. Have fun riding. Enjoy the people you ride along with. But all the rest is just unimportant. .....

best quote of the year....

 

[spetsa]

Imagine that, another master doper.

 

[nslckevin]

Imagine that, another master doper.

He got caught so I don't know if I'd call him a "master doper".

 

[BotanyBay]

Hey, if you can figure out a way to make me 25 again I'd sign up. At least I hope that is what you mean by upgrading the winners of masters races...



For cycling that is an excellent suggestion if you want to keep it small and in a niche.

What exactly is the downside to having masters races and championships? I am not asking whether or not you think there is value in it. I am asking why it is a bad idea? How does it hurt cycling?

Kevin Metcalfe

Back in the 80's, we had masters racing on a much simpler level. 35+ and perhaps a 55+ at most races. It was nice and easy. A "Vet" could always ride his respective category at the Sr. level, and if he had anything left (which he usually did not) he could also ride the VETS race. But remember, back in the day, an event was usually a quality amount of time and distance.

Now we have situations where there are SO MANY masters races (with so many of the respective riders doing "multiple masters" events), many of the other important "development of the sport" events have been tossed by the wayside AND most events outside the Cat 1-2 level have been severely shortened.

Many of you have come into the sport knowing only the "30-mins plus one lap" criterium format. I used to race 25-30 mile criterium events when I was a junior. And there would be a 10-12 event, plus a 14-15 and 16-17 junior event. Now it's usually just "juniors" and they're lucky if they get to spend a half-hour racing after driving 120 miles to the event.

But what do masters riders do? They ride their 30-minute 50+ event, cool down for a lap, get into the 45+ event, cool down for a lap and then see if they have anything left for the 35+. Ridiculous. They might as well create a separate "omnium" event and charge money for scoring the riders for it.

What do I have against all this? The proliferation of "follow the masters racers cash" race promotion has simply marginalized bicycle racing. And it has shoved other people out of the racing.

And then we reward these marginalized awesome athletes with their own set of championships, just for ego-stroking. It's all part of the baby-boom era of self-worship.

 

[Bertie]

I like most of what you say (Bottany Bay), but I dont see the issue with having Masters Nats, its just a way to race against a higher level, nothing wrong with that surely, something to aim for, and keep the competitive juices flowing. I would like to see Masters starting at M40+, and incrementing in 10 year periods only, and have Nats at decent distances like 75 miles, 1 hr crits and proper 40KM TT's. Less races, stronger fields. Wish it was the 80's for Masters Cycling.

 

[firestorm]

Back in the 80's, we had masters racing on a much simpler level. 35+ and perhaps a 55+ at most races. It was nice and easy. A "Vet" could always ride his respective category at the Sr. level, and if he had anything left (which he usually did not) he could also ride the VETS race. But remember, back in the day, an event was usually a quality amount of time and distance.

Now we have situations where there are SO MANY masters races (with so many of the respective riders doing "multiple masters" events), many of the other important "development of the sport" events have been tossed by the wayside AND most events outside the Cat 1-2 level have been severely shortened.

Many of you have come into the sport knowing only the "30-mins plus one lap" criterium format. I used to race 25-30 mile criterium events when I was a junior. And there would be a 10-12 event, plus a 14-15 and 16-17 junior event. Now it's usually just "juniors" and they're lucky if they get to spend a half-hour racing after driving 120 miles to the event.

But what do masters riders do? They ride their 30-minute 50+ event, cool down for a lap, get into the 45+ event, cool down for a lap and then see if they have anything left for the 35+. Ridiculous. They might as well create a separate "omnium" event and charge money for scoring the riders for it.

What do I have against all this? The proliferation of "follow the masters racers cash" race promotion has simply marginalized bicycle racing. And it has shoved other people out of the racing.

And then we reward these marginalized awesome athletes with their own set of championships, just for ego-stroking. It's all part of the baby-boom era of self-worship.

You have hit the nail on the head! The way racing in general and Masters racing in the 80's and 90's was so much better. USA Cycling has gotten greedy and that has trickled down to the local level.

It is ridiculous to have so many Master categories and starting at age 30. Most elite cyclists start hitting there best form in their 30's. It's even more ridiculous that so there are so many Masters Championship categories at Masters Nats. It used to mean something to win a jersey at Nats. Now you have diluted fields and just need to pin a number on and your chances are pretty good in some of the events.

It is sad that most racers have to do 3 races just to get a solid amount of racing in.

Racing has really changed in the last ten years and not for the better. It is a little worrisome that there are more crits than road races and stage races as far as prepping future generations to make the leap to the pro level.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Racing has really changed in the last ten years and not for the better. It is a little worrisome that there are more crits than road races and stage races as far as prepping future generations to make the leap to the pro level.

I think has more to do with the costs of running an event and the level of approvals required nowadays compared to back then.

10+ years ago you could get away with a race on the open roads with no police involvement, no traffic management plan, no council approval, no approval from the roads authority, and no need to worry about costs of insurance coverage.

All these relatively recent (and mostly legitimate) bureaucratic safety requirements have forced a lot of racing onto closed circuits and hence a greater proportion of crits and kermesse style racing is the natural consequence of that.

You can still do open road racing but it is a lot more expensive now and more difficult to organise than it used to be. Most local clubs (which traditionally hosted events in Australia) are not well equipped to manage that now.

Getting a crit on a closed circuit is far easier and cheaper and much more likely to happen for race organisers nowadays.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

What do I have against all this? The proliferation of "follow the masters racers cash" race promotion has simply marginalized bicycle racing. And it has shoved other people out of the racing.

Can you explain how a masters race "has shoved other people out of the racing"?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

It would seem it's not only masters:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gregory-ball-banned-for-two-years-by-cycling-australia

As a fellow Aussie paracyclist, that's pretty sad.

 

[BotanyBay]

Can you explain how a masters race "has shoved other people out of the racing"?

Limited time for road closure.

Reduced mileage for all events.

Eliminated events that always used to be there.

Too MANY masters events, and they cut into race mileage or event availability.

 

[BotanyBay]

I like most of what you say (Bottany Bay), but I dont see the issue with having Masters Nats, its just a way to race against a higher level, nothing wrong with that surely, something to aim for, and keep the competitive juices flowing. I would like to see Masters starting at M40+, and incrementing in 10 year periods only, and have Nats at decent distances like 75 miles, 1 hr crits and proper 40KM TT's. Less races, stronger fields. Wish it was the 80's for Masters Cycling.

I'd be more inclined to support masters championships if they'd greatly reduce the number of jerseys they award. Right now, it's just sad to think about.

 

[happychappy]

He got caught so I don't know if I'd call him a "master doper".

Master bater?

 

[spetsa]

I'd be more inclined to support masters championships if they'd greatly reduce the number of jerseys they award. Right now, it's just sad to think about.

I agree, it is a total joke. It is no suprise to me that racers test positive at Master's Nats at a higher rate than any other race. The idiots who would dope would probably also brag about their stars and stripes jerseys which were won by racing against 25 people. This year's races were more like the Northwest Championships. A quick look shows that our resident national champion here on the forum won his RR and ITT by beating exactly four riders from East of the Rocky Mountains and one from East of the Mississippi River. Not your fault, but not too impressive. It has been this way for quite some time. Nobody cares about your jerseys other than you. Do they give every entrant a medal or a certificate stating that they participated? Wouldn't suprise me if that is why half of the people go.

 

[ericfalcon]

And another......

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...ioned-for-8-months-after-positive-test_196362

 

[Oldman]

I agree, it is a total joke. It is no suprise to me that racers test positive at Master's Nats at a higher rate than any other race. The idiots who would dope would probably also brag about their stars and stripes jerseys which were won by racing against 25 people. This year's races were more like the Northwest Championships. A quick look shows that our resident national champion here on the forum won his RR and ITT by beating exactly four riders from East of the Rocky Mountains and one from East of the Mississippi River. Not your fault, but not too impressive. It has been this way for quite some time. Nobody cares about your jerseys other than you. Do they give every entrant a medal or a certificate stating that they participated? Wouldn't suprise me if that is why half of the people go.

I wouldn't be too quick to discount those results. Many of those riders getting the "easy" jerseys are World Champions as well. It is not untypical to see more local representation when the venue is not near a major city.