[NCNCA] McLane Pacific Cancelled for 07

[Peter Nicholson]

I heard from someone involved in the 2006 McLane that this year they  
could not come up with the required money - specifically the $10,000  
minimum for the pro purse and additional $ for medical control (drug  
testing.) The title sponsor was not interested in doing the race unless  
it was NRC, so...

Stage races?  It seems we might want to concentrate on saving the  
events we have.

-Peter

On Oct 20, 2006, at 7:24 PM, Ron Castia wrote:

> EMC/Vellum Cycles would be there in force, NRC or no NRC. We are very  
> sad to see this go.
>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Tad Borek <tadborek at pacbell.net>
> To: "Fowlkes, John" <JFowlkes at us.fujitsu.com>; NCNCA at ncnca.org
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 6:52:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [NCNCA] McLane Pacific Cancelled for 07
>
> Fowlkes, John wrote:
>> Casey,
>>
>> Can you explain what this means?
>>
>> "McLane Pacific did offer to continue to sponsor the event at the  
>> level
>> of the previous years, but that level was not enough to meet the
>> requirements currently set by USA Cycling."
>
> Speculating here, but it sounds like USAC set some stricter rules for
> making it onto the NRC and I guess they couldn't meet them.
> http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=496
> I wonder what NRC event is taking its place.
>
> Hopefully they'll do that with all levels of races, so we can free up a
> more weekends during the year, for golf and shuffleboard. Maybe they
> should try to ixnay Cat's hill and Nevada city next - something to  
> shoot
> for in 2008?
>
> On USAC's side of things, why would they change the rules for an
> 11-year-old, barely-relevant race series, if it means killing off a 14
> year old event with a great sponsor (Warren Buffett! indirectly) that
> draws what, over a thousand entries over the two days? Isn't that one  
> of
> the most successful CA race weekends on the calendar?
>
> On promoter's side, why didn't they just run it as a non-NRC race? Hell
> drop Pro/1 entirely and it's still going to be a huge event, and the
> parking will be better. Does anyone really give a rat's ass whether  
> it's
> on the NRC? Other than those racing the NRC of course. Maybe the  
> sponsor
> does?
>
> The concept of Colorado dictating standards to races seems backwards.
> USAC needs all the Mclane-pacifics it can get and the board should be
> meeting this weekend to keep it alive.
>
> At least, in my imaginary world where USAC is the governing body for
> weekend amateurs too. You know, the ones who generate 98% of USAC
> revenues...
>
> -Tad
> _______________________________________________
> NCNCA discussion list
> NCNCA at ncnca.org
> http://lists.ncnca.org/mailman/listinfo/ncnca
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:  
> http://lists.sonic.net/pipermail/ncnca/attachments/20061020/2402024d/ 
> attachment.html
> _______________________________________________
> NCNCA discussion list
> NCNCA at ncnca.org
> http://lists.ncnca.org/mailman/listinfo/ncnca
>
>




the stable wears out a horse more than any road...
Peter Nicholson
peterpen at comcast.net
638 Laurel Street
Petaluma, CA 94952 USA
+1.707.763.3493
+1.707.364.0338
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3235 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.sonic.net/pipermail/ncnca/attachments/20061020/56e98d15/attachment.bin