|USCF/NORBA License||Pyg Me|
Aug 31, 2001 9:35 AM
|So, how many people have not renewed their racing license after the extrordinary fee increase? I used to race NORBA incessantly and road occasionaly. Now, I dont do either.
Anyone else out there decide that $90 is too much?
|re: USCF/NORBA License||pmagnien|
Aug 31, 2001 10:25 AM
|USAC owns NORBA outright. The only motivation they could ever have to charge two seperate license fees is simply to create more revenue for the beurocracy. I can see how, back in the 80's, when the two organizations were seperate (and hated each other) they would require two licenses....But the whole reason they unified, was (supposedly) to eliminate this stupid crossover.
Since mountain biking is simply a form of bike racing, just as road racing is, there should be a single license, with the same fee. The same org oversees both types of racing. We're all USAC license holders, and in my opinion, it's all bike racing. We can have different rules for different types of races. That's easy.
I refuse to attempt my first mountain bike race until my USAC license is valid for both road and mountain alike. But USAC does not seem to care about that. They care more about winning the stupid pissing contest with the membership. They already lost it in Colorado, where all the racers abandoned USCF/USAC, and just started holding their own bike races on their own. USAC be damned.
What I don't understand, is why USAC seems to be content with letting Norba die. They do not seem to believe that what's good for Norba, is good for cycling, and vice versa for USCF. With reciprocal licenses, I'd probably do MTB races in the fall, and probably have a stronger road season the next year. Apply that to developing juniors/seniors, and you could actually have a world contending program again someday.
Vote for prop B. We gotta run these idiots outta town.