Follow-Up: Safety & Media Coverage

This post is an excuse to post one of my favorite TI recon images

Note: This post is a follow-up to yesterday's opinion piece on the relationship between gravel racing and the media which covers it. If you have landed here and have not seen the post being referenced, please take a moment or two to read it for context on today's reaction. 

First, some house cleaning  According to a source close to Orange Seal, it was not their ATV which was involved in the incident in The Mid-South event this past weekend. I apologize to Orange Seal for any confusion regarding this incident. .

Next, thank you for the mostly positive responses I received on the article yesterday. I appreciate the time taken to respond to the thoughts I wrote concerning gravel racing and the media. Now on to my reaction to your comments!

The comment which I thought was very insightful was one concerning how top gravel Pros need  there to be coverage of their racing because it amplifies their ability to make money doing what they are doing. This is a notion which exists now because gravel riding was monetized. It was not always this way. And while it may seem that "making money"off gravel is "bad" then, from someone of my perspective, I would push back on this a bit. My real issue with all of this stems from how I see the definition of "success" versus how most people see this word being worked out. Specific to gravel racing, I want to get into this a bit. 

I've written about this before, but to my mind, the outcomes we are seeing now: ATV's interfering with racing, champagne spraying of finishers, Pro vs Every Other Rider classes/event start times, ancillary events like running, etc, the whole circus which is "Big Time Gravel" these days circles around money. Money is the measuring stick for "success". If a promoter and the very pointy end of the Pro field can eek out some sort of "career" out of gravel, if tons of money flows through venues/city's coffers, and if there is a lot of media attention digitally and socially, then you have hit the big time of gravel. 

But it wasn't always this way, and "gravel" wasn't built out with any of the above in mind. In fact, as one commenter astutely pointed out, gravel's genesis was a rejection of all of the above which permeated other types of cycling events. 

Image credit: Jon Duke

Another thing all the chasing after the big time has brought is a more "cookie-cutter"(using the commenter's term) approach to gravel events. This is evident in the categories offered, the satellite events, the sponsored pre-ride events, expos, Pro cats separation from the rest of the riders, and more. 

It used to be that many gravel events were quirky, had their own personalities based off race director's creativity, and used interesting courses sometimes based in historical background or other interesting geographical highlights. Now things like this are seen as getting in the way of being "successful". 

Another interesting irony is what Pro riders think about gravel racing now versus what they used to come to it for. I remember back around 2015/2016 when it was not uncommon to hear the random Pro/ex-Pro roadie comment on gravel racing something to the effect of how it was more relaxing. It was "fun" not to have to come and compete at the dog-eat-dog level of Pro road racing and just ride for the joy of riding. 

Funny how this relaxed atmosphere and having Pro's enjoy that with us has also been excluded from being a thing anymore. I guess making a living off what you once thought was "fun" and relaxing is more important than experience and the joy of cycling. Now you are out there dodging ATV's. So much for the old days..... 

But this is what happens if success is defined as it is now. It doesn't have to be based on money. It doesn't have to be based on attendance numbers, (so you can "raise enough money to put on the event") , it doesn't have to be about satisfying sponsors or eeking out a career. Gravel racing should not be based on the revenue stream of amateur classes of people so you can feature Pro's, have live streams of Pros, and sort of shuffle off all the cool things which made gravel a thing in the first place.

Gravel didn't need "rock stars" in the beginning. It didn't need thousands of entrants to an event. The events were equitable. There was respect across the entire field. The events were smaller in terms of attendance. This made the events feel more inclusive without highlighting certain classes or last place finishers. Everyone was included. Everyone was the focus. Money was important, but it was a tool, not the gauge of success. Gravel events did not need thousands of participants in a singular event to raise capital. No one was expecting a paycheck from gravel. A handshake, a hug, a shared beer and new friends were your rewards. 

Image credit Wally Kilburg (R.I.P.)

 But like I said in a post not too long ago, to think we're going to see the toothpaste put back in the tube is not going to happen. We are stuck with this behemoth called Professional Gravel Racing and all we can do is make a decision. Either support it, or ignore it. Your first line of support has to be seen as event registration. Without those dollars race directors are not making a living off gravel. Professional riders and semi-pro riders are not making a living in gravel racing. I think as long as the rider who buys in understands their shoulders are being stood upon to support the ecosystem, then that's fine with me. I have no beef with individuals who grasp their place in that ecosystem. 

Or, on the other hand, you decide to not support those events and do......something else. You likely decided your rides and self-created adventures will have to fit into a season without spending money at the big time events. And if this is you, that's cool as well. You probably don't care if so-and-so loses a career in gravel event promotions or racing. No one said you had to support this, so I wouldn't feel guilty if this is you. I also don't think folk banking off gravel are going to suffer if a few folks drop out of the scene. 

One more note about yesterday's post. I had one RD of a well known gravel event message me and that person told me they decided not to use side-by-sides for their live stream after their first year of using them because they recognized there were dangers in doing so.  According to this individual they use USAC and UCI trained ATV operators and drones where the course dictates their usage makes sense. 

That's all well and good, but this doesn't mitigate dust issues (if their ATV riders are out there driving with the riders) nor does it guarantee zero incidents,with event related vehicles, as I stated yesterday. These near misses and crashes occur at UCI events every year. Gravel doesn't need vehicles on course. Not more than local traffic already incurs. Again, why add to the problem when it is completely unnecessary. 

But I will tip my hat to this event for taking measures to help make their event safer than it could be otherwise.