Twitter has been, well, atwitter today with buzz about the lack of Women’s 1/2 field at Poolesville. I agree; it sucks. As a cat 1 woman, I’d like to think I have an option for racing other than going 74 miles with the 1/2/3 men. Pro rider and 2011 New Zealand National Road Champion Catherine Cheately tried it last year and ended up 52nd, which doesn’t lead me to believe I’ll be dominating the front of the field this year.
But while it sucks, I also don’t feel outraged and indignant. I’m all for women’s racing, but the numbers can’t be ignored: the Women’s 1/2/3 field was the smallest field last year. Of the 17 women registered, only 13 started the race and 11 finished. That’s not impressive. If a cut has to be made due to scheduling or resource availability, it makes sense that axing my field affects the fewest riders.
This highlights one of the primary issues in the controvery over equality in women’s racing: if the numbers aren’t there, how can we expect the infrastructure to be there? If we’re not generating revenue, then how can we expect to be considered a source of revenue for sponsors, promotors, and/or industry? As a female racer and wannabe pro, I do think that the UCI should promote women’s racing more, that there should be salary minimums for professional female racers like there are for men, and that the industry should support women’s racing more. But I also understand that this is foremost a business with a lot of money going in and out. The fact is that women’s racing doesn’t generate the same publicity, participation, and thus revenue as men’s racing. The top cycling idols for so many people – racers or not, men or women – are male. When I mention to people at work that I’m a cyclist, they make jokes about whether I’ve met Lance Armstrong, not Kristin Armstrong.
Where do we begin to fix this? Do we begin at the top and expect the UCI to make significant changes? Is it up to the cycling industry to infuse more money into women’s racing? Do we look to female racers everywhere to get out and race more and get more involved to put in more money and draw more attention? I don’t know. It sometimes feels like we’re fighting chicken versus egg: if more money/support goes in, will the demand increase? Does the demand need to increase before more money/support goes in? Which one has to, and reasonably can, happen first?
The one thing I do know is that at the elite level, in my own experience, the women’s racing is just as challenging, as grueling, as heartbreaking as the men’s racing. The length of our races may be shorter and the fields smaller, but the competitors are just as hungry, the crashes are just as hard, and the quality of the athlete is just as high. It’s no secret that the fastest/strongest man will be faster/stronger than the fastest/strongest women; that’s physiology and biology and a fact of professional athletics. But the women competing at the top level are trained to 100% of their ability and put out 100% effort, just as the men do. We want the win just as badly and are willing to fight just as hard to get it. The one question that doesn’t belong in this debate is whether or not professional women’s racing is equal to men’s in terms of grit and intensity.
With that in mind, I want to push for everybody to take women’s racing as seriously as they do the men’s. To treat it with as much respect and to view the competitors as no less for being women and competing in a women’s event. But I can’t expect local team promoters to bankroll a race if there hasn’t been enough participation in the past to make it worth the expense. The first step in the fight for equality in women’s racing is to get women to show up – we can’t ask for more if we’re not willing to be there to accept it.
Besides, there is a place for the elite women of MABRA at Poolesville: the 1/2/3 men’s race. It might be longer and harder, and we’re probably not a threat to the podium, but that’s no reason to stay home. We do this to ride hard and race our bikes. I see no reason to let the lack of dedicated field stand in our way.
Well said. Seems to me that increased female participation in racing could only enhance the experience for all. As cyclists, we may want to take some cues from the triathlon community, because they seem to be getting it right when it comes to women’s’ participation. The silly looking bikes and bento boxes are another story . . .
Well said, As a promoter, official, and sometimes CAT 3 racer you’ve hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately in the past years seems there are few women racing bikes and going off the triathlon community. Why, for the exact reason you mentioned. The combined fields make it extremely difficult for a new CAT 4 women to gain confidence racing, when she’s immediately spit out the back by the stronger ladies. Plus unfortnately there is a different mental attitude between cyclist and triathletes, it takes a completely different skill to roll through a 90 turn three wide
🙂 then remembering where you racked your bike intransition.
Thanks for giving the issue such thoughtful consideration. We change the fields often at Poolesville, and every year one group or another gets the short end of the stick. This year it was Women 1/2 and Masters 35+.
We wanted to include a Women’s 1/2 by combining that field with the men’s 3, similar to what is done in most collegiate races. However, our chief official wouldn’t allow it.
Ironically many elite women, like you, are entering the men’s race anyway. Only now, it will be without the separate scoring or prizes we wanted to offer.
According to USAC rule 1K2: For road, track, and cyclo-cross events, category 1 women may enter men’s races up to two categories lower. (All women may race the men’s race of the same category or up to one category lower). So, all Cat 1/2 women have the option of racing the men’s 1/2/3 OR the men’s 3 at Poolesville.
In fact, NCVC tried to offer a combined Men’s 3/Women’s 1/2 field with separate prize lists (similar to the routine combination of collegiate B/WA categories in road races), but the officials did not approve it.
Was there a reason given as to why they wouldn’t approve it? I don’t think it would be hard to score a women’s field mixed with a men’s field…