If you don't listen to the episodes I have a few points to share today that I thought stoood out. It's interesting to see where the UCI is at with how they want to pursue the gravel scene in North America.
I wrote a lot about this subject already HERE so I will try not to tread on the same ground again in this post. But the podcast is based upon a lot of what I wrote in the linked article.
Okay, so with all the previous said, one of the more interesting tidbits for me was being told by Kevin that the UCI had actually pursued The Spinistry to have one of their events be a UCI sanctioned gravel event. I also know many other promoters had been asked to partner with the UCI and this was confirmed by Kevin as well as something which is true. I fully believe the UCI is still trying to convince event promoters to partner with them. In fact, the oft referenced "Marginal Gains" podcast with Erwin Vervecken as guest confirms this as well.
Another interesting tidbit was the price to have a UCI sanctioned event, the fee for the UCI to even partner up with an event, was $40,000.00 in 2019. Forty thou?!! This doesn't include what you, as a promoter, would have to pony up to get your event up to UCI standards either. So, just from this point alone, it is pretty easy to see why there hasn't been a UCI sanctioned, large scale gravel event in the USA. And as Kevin Lee states in the podcast, the UCI isn't bringing anything to the table for the 40K licensing deal. Apparently prestige and legitimizing your event is what that does for you as an event promoter? Man! I can totally see why no event has accepted that offer!
Then something Kevin was saying, (at about the 1hr mark of the podcast, by the way) struck me as one of the best descriptions about why the gravel scene is what it is and how the semi-Pro and Pro riders should regard that. I'm paraphrasing Kevin here, but essentially what he said was this gravel cycling scene isn't reliant on competition alone. It has an element of competition, but this is not what is most important. The sense that one can ride a bicycle on gravel - or anywhere, really - and have fun, is what is most important. This "fun" can be an adventure, social gathering, going fast, stopping often, and could include parts of some of this or all of these things.
 |
| Actually, THIS is the latest podcast now! |
As Kevin said, and I agree, the upper echelon of talent in today's gravel scene should never forget what they are privileged to be able to do at gravel events is built upon the foundation of those "12mph riders", as Kevin put it, making the events what they have become. It is this and the variety of events, which has always been a part of gravel, that makes "gravel" the sort of riding many are attracted to.
Charging a lot of money to promoters to sanction an event is not going to work. Making events all similar in length and style, and forcing riders into a situation where it is all about top level competitors and "cat'ing up", as Kevin put it, is not going to foster growth in cycling here in the USA. It never really worked for road racing, MTB, or cyclo cross. How in the world does anyone think it would work in gravel cycling? It wouldn't. It would end up killing the gravel scene.
Thanks again to Kevin Lee and The Spinistry for their support!
2 comments:
In the US, it was USA Cycling that ran road racing into the ground.
Saying a gravel event is backed by UCI/USA Cycling will have
a certain generation of cyclists sprinting for the exits.
@scottg - No lie told. I would only add that USAC, for all of their foibles and failures does support many gravel events via their insurance. So at least they found a niche which actually is worthwhile to some RD's and racers.
Post a Comment