Talking Women's Cycling with Horizon DS Stef Wyman
Last week came the good news that Horizon Fitness has decided to continue their support for the women at On the Drops. The deal means another year of racing for the young British team. On the Drops puts a big emphasis on developing their young riders step-by-step and in making sure that the fans and sponsors can share in the adventure. The riders share their stories over at the On the Drops blog, and team manager Stefan Wyman considers the riders’ willingness to tell their stories and the team’s internet presence to be a big part of the team’s appeal to its sponsors.
I had the chance to chat with Stef about the Horizon renewal and the future plans of On the Drops. The conversation also turned to the bigger questions of growing women’s cycling and broadening its appeal. Below the fold, follow along as I chat by text with Stef Wyman and learn why women’s cycling needs to be changed from top to bottom and why 2 minutes of television time is worth celebrating.
Gav: Congrats on the sponsor renewal! That's great news.
Stef Wyman: Yeah, really happy. Such a great sponsor to work with. They invest in the sport, to make sure that it’s going forward.
Gav: From what Stuart has said, it seems like they really feel they get quite a lot out of the relationship. What do you think the appeal of supporting On the Drops is for them?
Stef: It’s not just about the pure return for them. Obviously we make sure everyone gets a huge return for their investment, but so nice that they care about the riders and sport itself.
Stef: I think there are a few things for them really.
Stef: I come from a business background (Although I was a cyclist myself until not too long ago), so it's not just about the bike. I understand (or at least I think I do) the way that we need to connect with our sponsors from a business point of view.
Gav: It's not about the bike, ha!

Telling Secrets
Stef: Then another point is that we do things that aren't just the standard team way of doing things. We've involved them a lot in what we do, and also in our planning for the future. For example the expansion of our online side.
We don't like to keep big secrets. We want to be open.
Gav: The online presence is really unique and I think it's a great way to reach fans - and create fans. I wish more teams would see the potential there, because it could really grow women's cycling a great deal.
Stef: It's strange, I was talking to a journo from VeloNation yesterday and we were chatting about transfers in women's racing. And we said how different men and women's cycling is.
Men get the news out there. Women's teams are all a big secret. I think the only way we'll move the sport forward is to be open. [VeloNation has since posted a brief women’s transfer story.]
Gav: Yes, they do seem secretive - though I wonder how much of that is fewer journos chasing the women's stories, you know? Like everyone wants to know where Cancellara is racing next year, maybe not as many people are wondering about Emma Pooley.
Stef: We have nothing to hide. It's a great, fast moving sport. And to make it bigger, we need more people to watch the sport. That means captivating them somehow. I think that if women's teams put the news out there, it would be used. And that could help the sport.
Gav: It does seem hard to find out news about the women's races and teams - I know we are always doing that at the Cafe!
Stef: We don't even know for sure what the new teams will be for next year in women's cycling..... So how do the riders try to get a place on them?
A funny little world....that we all love.

Building On the Drops, Year One
Gav: 2010 was the first year for On the Drops, right? What would you consider the biggest accomplishment so far?
Stef: Yeah it was the first year. I think it’s been a great year. We've been well accepted. I think the addition of Sarah Storey to the team has been a major plus for us. A true champion. Great results. Great with the other riders and fantastic to work with.
Gav: She does have a great story, and I'm really looking forward to reading the interview that Sarah (Pigeons) did with Sarah Storey. That should be great!
Stef: I also think that taking our young team to some major races like Tour Limousin, and doing 'ok' was also a plus point. There is never an easy place to start when you have lots of young riders. But we’ve done well. The riders got on great, and learnt a lot.
Gav: That is a big ask, but based on the online stories, it seemed like you have picked a group of riders who are... resilient and willing to really learn from everything they're doing.
Stef: And I think when we have raced as a team in the UK, it's been all eyes on us. And we've always gone well. Some great performances. I think if they learn something each day, and never let mistakes get them down, they can all be great riders.
Gav: I would also say that it seems like fans really relate to stories about races that don't turn out well when a rider is really honest about what happened. That's something we don't really get from the men all the time.
Stef: I agree. I ask them to blog for us, and they do it very well.
Gav: Yes, they're really good at telling their stories. And I think that's something the other women's teams need to do better. Fans need stories to follow.
Stef: We never change them. Not even a spelling issue. These are their blogs. And we want them to own them. They are real. And they are great stories. Very funny, very honest.
Gav: That really shows through. And again, not something we get from the men's side of the sport as often - lots of pr people intervening between the riders and the media.
Stef: Yeah, it takes the edge off things.

Why Women’s Cycling?
Gav: To me, this is one of the appealing aspects of women's racing - the accessibility.
Stef: Yeah, and that goes for all disciplines of women's cycle sport.
Gav: When people ask you why they should follow the women, what do you say?
Stef: I always say that you'll get an honest race. A real fight for the win. And a more 'raw' race. The tactics in women's cycling are getting better, very fast. But it's much more of a fight from the start line to the finish line. No rolling around, and pulling a break back just before the finish.
Gav: Yeah, the smaller teams and the shorter distances, you really see some aggressive racing from the women, it seems to me. It always seems vaguely irksome that the UCI limits women's race distances, but I think it does make the sport better. Maybe the men's races need to be shorter, ha!
Stef: I'd love to see the day when we can have more races with 8 riders. A more complete team tactic. But think it’s a few years away.
Gav: Ah, right. That would be great - but most teams don't yet have that kind of budget.
Stef: I agree, if they shortened mens races, might remove some the bad element of the sport. A friend of mine that is pro always said you'd have the same winner anyway!

Change from Top to Bottom
Gav: What do you think the women’s sport needs most to grow, to reach a point where there are bigger, deeper teams?
Stef: Well I think it needs to change from the top and the bottom. From the top, there needs to be greater input from people with knowledge in the sport to the UCI. I managed Pro teams for 6 years (This is the first year as a non-pro team), and I never once got asked for any feedback in respect of the sport.
Gav: Whoa, for reals? Yikes.
Stef: If there isn't proper representation from women's teams, riders and even its sponsors, there will always be strange rules, regs., etc.
Gav: Right, because the people making the rules don't know too much about how the sport works. So the women need better representation at the UCI level - makes sense.
Stef: I also think that women's races are too easy to get into. If I run a small non-pro MENS team in the UK, I wouldn't get a place in a major UCI stage race. But when we went to Limousin, there were something like 18 club teams, including ourselves. This is because there is one 1 level of 'pro' in women's racing, but there are 3 levels in mens cycling.
Gav: Hadn't thought of that, but it does make sense - it means that you have races where not everyone is good enough to be there, which lowers the quality of the races, and reinforces the idea that women's racing isn't pro.
Stef: I think the UCI needs to bring in a 2nd level of pro team. Cheaper to set up in terms of UCI guarantees etc, but meeting certain criteria. Then, I think UCI races would be able to take less teams, (But maybe with 8 riders), and the actual quality of the race would go up. I know this isn't going to be popular with everyone, but it would give all the team, including ourselves targets if we want to get up there in the rankings with the big teams.
Gav: This makes a lot of sense to me - that you would have one level of pro team that involved teams like Cervélo and HTC and another that was above club level, but still pro. That way, yeah, you don't have pro races filled with club teams. And right, you have a clear quality criteria for teams to meet to get into the bigger races. When I was talking to Noemi Cantele from HTC, she made a point along these lines that women's cycling, it needed to keep raising the quality of the product.
Stef: Yeah, and the 1st class teams have a guaranteed entry to the biggest races (I guess a bit like the pro tour), 2nd choice is the 2nd class teams. Then a limit of club teams.
Gav: it would also make it easier for the fans to follow - because you'd have a clear idea of who the main teams were and you'd see them at the various races...
Stef: Lets face it, when people come and watch our sport, they are normally used to watching men’s races. I've never been to men’s pro race where people have been dropped in the neutral zone.
Gav: Ouch! But yes, that's totally true.
Stef: I mean why on earth are teams taking these riders to races in the first place. It’s destructive to the rider, and to the sport.
Gav: It makes the sport look bad if teams are bringing riders who aren't fit enough to do the race, for sure.
Stef: Imagine how that looks to a potential sponsor who you have riding in the team car with you!
Gav: Gah! That would be embarrassing! So, here we have this great sport, well, never mind don't mind the girl going out the back, look, over there! A bird!
Stef: You must have heard my conversations in the car before!! Haha!
Our sport has a huge amount of winner. Massive champions like Vos, Ina, Pooley, Cooke, and young superstars like Armitstead. It's the strength in depth that’s lacking. But I think with some more responsible rules in place, that would come very quickly.
Gav: Oh, I quite agree. The top girls, they're amazing athletes - and I do think with better structures and more support, you could build the depth relatively quickly. There's some good women athletes out there, for sure.
Stef: I totally agree. We have great young riders. And I think taking them to a huge race (well many of them) would be really destructive. But I think a lot of team are run in a very different way to ours. The people in charge get an invitation and accept without thinking of what they are doing to their riders.
Gav: Yes, I could easily see managers not having the patience to develop riders or the insight to understand what they can and can't do. Especially in cases where you're dealing with women who have to work other jobs in addition to cycling.

Anti-doping
Gav: So what do you think about the comments from Marianne Vos about more doping controls? I read that to some degree along similar lines to what you're saying here - that the sport needs to be more structured and more professional. What did you think?
Stef: I totally agree. I think I was also quoted in her interview with Bike Pure. Testing in women’s cycling is getting towards being a joke. It's a shock when they turn up. A real shock.
Gav: That's a shame. Because to me, the sport needs the credibility that in-competition testing brings. It's not that I think women's cycling is rife with doping - far from it.
Stef: You'd never go to the Tour de France and go 10 days without someone from a team being tested......but that happens all the time in women's racing.
Gav: Yeah, and it shouldn't. Especially at a race like l’Aude or the Giro Donne - where it's a big race and they're doing hard stages. You need the assurance that the racing is fair if you're going to attract fans and sponsors.
Stef: Well men's teams are all about publishing their results. It would be good in women's cycling too..........but you have to test them first!!
Gav: Well, you could make them up, but that might be a bad idea ;)
Stef: Haha. I think the only thing you can do is enter into an expensive round of testing with a trusted team doctor.
Gav: Which, most women's teams really can't afford. Really, this is something the UCI needs to step up and do.

Au Revoir Tour de l’Aude
Stef: I heard now the Tour de l'Aude is finished. A real shame.
Gav: Bah! I'm so disappointed in the l'Aude leaving. That's a great race with lots of history for the women.
Stef: It can never be replaced as the UCI have a rule that all new women's races have to only be up to 7 or 8 days. So it simply can't be replaced within the rules of the sport.
Gav: Whoa. I did not know that. That's crap, seriously. Whose idea was that thing?
Stef: Well, another rule made up by people who aren't involved in the sport on the women’s side.
Gav: Is that part of the reason the race is gone? I had heard it was more than just money, but no one seems to have a straight answer.
Stef: I heard it was political problems with the federation. I really don't know for sure. But I'll try to find out for sure. We stay to train in that region a lot, and I'll try to get the truth one day. Such a massive loss.
Gav: At the Cafe we're trying to build up the audience for women's racing. We're teaching people the races, trying to acquaint them with the sport. So we say, okay, this l'Aude thingy, it's huge. Eh, yeah, now it's gone. Not so huge. Look! It's the Giro Donne! It's huge!
Stef: I can see some great events that are taking the sport forward. Like Sparkassen Giro, a cool event, run along side a major mens event. [It is a] weekend festival of racing, tens of thousands of people out watching.

Men, Women, and Television Time
Gav: What do you think about running men's and women's races together? I'm a fan, but I've heard some say they don't like it?
Stef: Personally I think it's the way forward. I've seen how the cyclo-cross scene is developing for women for exactly the same reason. And I'm sure it will be good for women's sport.
Gav: Me too - everything's there - fans, infrastructure, media. Media, they're not going to spend cash to send someone just to a women's race but both? Yeah, they'd do it.
Stef: But remember.... If you have these events together, the people watching don't want to see girls out the back after 3km's, or them crying because they got dropped. When we link the sports up, it’s serious business. This could be the big area of advance for the sport, and we need to make sure we take the opportunity with both hands.
Gav: Ah, very good point. Because if the two races run together, the contrast in professionalism is going to be obvy - if in fact there is a contrast. So the women's level needs to be high.
Stef: The difference in budgets is directly related to TV time.
Gav: Yep - and in fan engagement. When fans see women's racing, they're into it. But if they can't see it... really hard to draw them in.
Stef: I hear people moan, that during the Tour of Flanders, the women only get 2 minutes, etc. But let’s get 2 minutes every week this year, then as the level gets better, we might get 5, then 10. In a few years, we might have our own programs.
Gav: This year's highlights on Sporza were pretty good for Flanders, actually. But Flèche, well, it was the usual two minutes.
Stef: But now Flanders has been on for a few years on Sporza, it’s moving forward. Hopefully Flèche will be the same. You have to remember the difference between the love of the sport in Flanders compared to Wollonie.
Gav: Oh, yes. Flanders, it's so huge.

Developing Women Riders
Gav: What differences do you see in managing a women's team versus a men's team?
Stef: Are, the worst question!
Gav: Ha ha, well, you can skip it if you like! I won't cry ;)
Stef: I'm a man, and I'll never understand a woman. I've been married for more than 6 years. Still don't understand women. So it's never going to be easy.
Gav: I was thinking specifically about the development side, developing riders.
Stef: One of the issues with women's racing is the amount of women that just drop out of the sport. So you can invest a lot of time into developing a rider, and the following year they decide to call it a day, and go to Uni or travel, etc.
Gav: Ah, right. So better structure in the sport - more budget, more clear levels for the teams - that would help avoid some of that wasted effort.
Stef: I think so. There is always going to be riders that don't make it. But with a good structure to the sport, people will know what to expect from a team, and how to get to the next level.
Now you get a lot of riders that'll jump to another team because they think the program will be better....but end up disappointed.
Gav: Right, because you can't tell from the outside what level a team really has or how it's organized.
Stef: Who knows if they'll ever get to be a 'pro'? But if they [the men] know that a team is regarded as a conti team, they know they need to get to 'pro conti' then from there they go 'pro tour'. There is a structure. Now we [the women] just have many teams, in 2 big pools. Pro and non-pro.
Gav: Yeah, it's way more clear for the men, for sure. Covering women's racing, we often run into this - like, what level is that team, really?
Stef: Yeah, someone asked a question on twitter the other day. What level of team are Moving Ladies? Even I found it hard to explain and I know the manager of the team, and several girls.
Gav: Well if you don't know! Dear UCI, Please make this easier for all of us...

The 5% Rule
Stef: Yeah. I've always said the UCI should make all Pro-Tour teams put 5% of their budget into a women's team. It's a tiny %, but would change the sport over night. I've heard others say that now, so hopefully there will be some people listening.
Gav: I agree with that, and we actually recently had a convo on the Cafe about that one. I think it would make a world of difference, especially if it were presented as a short-run thing to build women's cycling. It's certainly in the interest of the cycling industry to have a healthy women's sport! Like, chicks buy bikes and stuff.
Stef: Yeah, and I think 5% represents a fair amount, for the guaranteed return. It would only get bigger in terms of its return.
Gav: it would also be easier than asking them to run teams like Cervélo did.
Stef: Yeah, Cervélo put their necks on the line. And I think they did well. In fact, I think the guys at the top of Cervélo said the same thing about all PT teams having a women's team.
Gav: Yes! Vroomen called for that! I heart that man. He wants everyone to run a women's team. I wonder if he made the women's team a condition of the dealio with Garmin - no way to know though. Garmin's never shown interest in women's racing before, that's for sure.
Stef: I fear it will be a one year thing. I hope it isn't.
Gav: Gah! I will personally fly to Boulder and beat Vaughters about the head and shoulders with my Silca if he abandons the women.
Stef: I'll be there with you. They have a great bunch of riders, and are still getting better all the time.
Gav: I'd love to see Garmin put some of its PR machine behind the women's team too, though I fear that's too much to ask. Vaughters is interesting, of course, because he is involved in the governance side of the men's sport. Someone should grab his ear about women's racing...

Build It
Stef: All we can do is keep blogging away, and doing what we know how. Develop riders, be open, and hope that people in places of power take the sport forward.
Gav: For sure. Build it, they come.
Okay, I should probably let you go. This was super fun, hopefully we can do it again at some point soon!
Stef: Defo, I'm always around online, so look forward to chatting.
Gav: Ciao for now!
Stef: Ciao! Thanks for the chat.
Interview by Jen See.
Photo: On the Drops
85 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Knowing how passionate Stef is...
… I’m surprised you managed to edit it down so much so well. Seriously though, it was this type of chat I had with Stef back in March that had me hooked on the project. Great job in getting that across Gav.
By the way, if anyone has any questions for Stef, myself (or the team) drop an email to podiumcafe@onthedrops.com and we’ll post the question and the reply here.
By "here", I mean
in the next blog post. Oh you know what I mean. Besides, we’d love to get your views.
So don’t be shy, drop as a line.
Even more depressed about l'Aude now.
Reading some of the stuff Stef says above, about only allowing 7-8 day races, about how the race entries are structured (or not structured, by the sounds of it) & worst of all, about there being no real communication with the people who actually run the sport at the coalface makes me wonder if the UCI’s vision for women’s cycling is in fact fat lasses pootling about on Pashleys or something.
I know it’s customary to bash the UCI on these occasions, & I have to confess I know very little about running the governing body of a sport but I do know a bit about running organizations & ones in fairly straitened circumstances at that. & the first thing, as an administrator, you have to do, is remember who you’re doing it for & talk to them & try to facilitate what it is they – who are more expert than you, after all – are trying to achieve.
(Hopelessly idealistic, I know.)
"I was just trying to keep warm" - Ian Stannard on finishing third in KBK
I completely agree
I must annoy a lot of people by going on about general business practice, but it’s true. The successful organisations and businesses seek feedback from those at the coalface. Why this doesn’t happen in cycling (and most sports) is beyond me.
good question for sure
The UCI is supposedly designed to promote the sport, but if they don’t listen to the people who actually do the sport they are promoting, well, then, how can they promote and regulate it? Not very well, it seems. To me, this issue of representation for women’s racing at the UCI level, this is huge, and something that needs to be addressed rather urgently.
Extremely urgently....
…that was the part that jumped out at me as well. I wonder at this point whether the UCI is even really cognizant of the damage that’s been done over the past couple of years with lost high profile events or the state of the sport going forward without some of them.
They clearly don’t have much of a sense that there is anything to ‘do’ in terms of developing women’s cycling. I’d almost say they feel like as long as it exists in some form, that’s great. This definitely feels like a situation where you have to kick the ‘trustees’ in the shins a little to get them to realize that there is something they need to educate themselves about and pay attention to.
Yeah
I don’t think the UCI has really any clue what they are doing with the women’s side of the sport. The rules about limiting races, I think, are a good sign of that lack of awareness. If the governing peeps were more engaged, I think you’d see more, well, governance. Stuff like, team levels, requirements to do the top level races – and identifying which are the top level races – and anti-doping.
I don’t think the UCI has really any clue what they are doingwith the women’s side of the sport.
fixed
DISCLAIMER: Fairly unintelligent, usually unknowledgeable, gullible fool speaking. My views do not necessarily represent those in charge of this blog or most of the known universe. Stride with caution
Quitter's People United member # 42
One may point to their leadership as a main reason
not to label one person out or anything…
DISCLAIMER: Fairly unintelligent, usually unknowledgeable, gullible fool speaking. My views do not necessarily represent those in charge of this blog or most of the known universe. Stride with caution
Quitter's People United member # 42
In some cases, yes.
Though I’d say in the case of women’s cycling, it’s more of an institutional failing than any one individual. I mean, that there is no representation for women’s racing is a failure that goes beyond McQuaid.
Absolutely
blame goes around but a strong leadership is necessary. Maybe the UCI should have a different branch in charge of womens cycling? Not sure how they do it but I feel Patty doesn’t know much about womens cycling.
DISCLAIMER: Fairly unintelligent, usually unknowledgeable, gullible fool speaking. My views do not necessarily represent those in charge of this blog or most of the known universe. Stride with caution
Quitter's People United member # 42
Have I told you my theory re the UCI?
armed revolution, install Marianne Vos as the boss – or Sarah Storey. Marianne as she’s ridden (and won) every single type of cycling out there, and Sarah as she’s ridden able-bodied and Para(llel) cycling. I know, we might need to wait til they retire from racing, but I bet they have amazing ideas, & would be as good for the mena as the women!
by Sarah Connolly on Sep 22, 2010 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
lol
Except we’d have to wait like ten years or more for Marianne to stop racing. Like, she’s going to stop any time soon? ;)
So, Sarah Storey after 2012
until Marianne gets bored with winning things
(not saying Sarah WANTS to stop then, but armed revolution, y’know? We can hold Mr Sarah Storey hostage if she’s not keen!)
by Sarah Connolly on Sep 22, 2010 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
There are times when they remind me of university trustees...
…people who are installed to ‘oversee’ something but in fact know virtually nothing about it except whatever models of good administration they have from their professional lives. One of the huge problems at Unis is getting the trustees to understand what academic institutions are, need, and do. Sometimes the UCI feels analogous.
that 7 day limit is an odd thing
because there’s absolutely no reason to have it in the rule books at all. What it says (from rough memory) is that races are limited to seven days, or however long they were in 2005, then if you can find the 2005 rule book that says seven days or what they were in 1997 and so on. You can fiddle seven days to make eight by adding in a short prologue. The older long races are fine, but you can’t bring in a new one, so Aude, the Giro and the Grande Boucle are the only ones allowed to run longer, and sadly two of those seem to have been lost.
UCI Rule on Duration of Event
Here is a direct cut and paste from the UCI rules:
Elite women’s world circuit
The maximum duration of each event shall be that of 2004. The duration of new events of classes 1 and 2 is limited to 6 days, unless an exemption is made by the management committee.
So perhaps the exemption could allow for a new Grand Tour for women.
The Grand Boucle has been down to 4 or 5 days for a while before it shut down this year. So there were really only 2, being Giro and L’aude.
UCI Rule of Stage distances
Here is the rule on stage distances. I know Gavia didn’t like the shorter stages so much, but perhaps this is the reason.
Elite Women’s world Circuit
Average stage Maximum 100 km
Maximum individual stage 130 km
Maximum ITT40 km
Maximum TTT 50 km
The riders who've talked to us here
say that the limiting of stages means there’s no “warm up” part of the race (was that how Teutenberg put it?) and the riders race from the get-go. Certainly, the attacking-from-the-start (and all the way through – I loved reading the ticker for RaboSter, & the millions upon millions of attacks, whittling down the peloton – & when Janneke Kanis, one of the most junior memers of Nederland Bloeit won the last stage, from a hundred killer attacks, I was cheering at my computer) makes it much more fun tha the men’s stages that are looooooong processionals until the sprint teams bring back the break and it’s a super-exciting last 7 minutes…. I think a lot of men’s races would benefit from that too, as Stef says
by Sarah Connolly on Sep 22, 2010 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
It would be nice to have one or two gratuitously long races on the calendar
The Milan San Remo type thing where it lasts nearly eight hours but there’s no point watching more than the last ten minutes
Longer Races
I think personally, you need to consider the fact that women riders (and their teams) ride based on the race they are in.
If they are short, they are going to ride harder from the start.
Also, in a short race, there is less time to let a break go, and get it back.
Also, if you only have 6 riders in a team, there are less people to do the work of chasing, and lead-outs (Where men often have 8 or 9 riders).
So if there was a long race, the tactics would be different. And if there were more riders per team, there would be a different tactic.
But as teams, we get to choose which races we go to, not how long they are, or how many riders. For me as a DS, I do take into account the ability of my riders, form, the course both in profile and also length, and the balance with other events when I choose an event.
Right
There’s no reason at all. It’s silly. If a promoter can put together the roads and the money to run a 10 day race for women, why shouldn’t they? This one really really bugs me, because I see no sporting reason for it. So, it so totally reeks of patriarchal condescension. Oh, those little girls, they can’t race more than 7 days. Bah!
Rest Days
Perhaps if they added a rest day in that would also help.
In Mens racing, after 10 days, you MUST have a rest day according to the rules.
In women’s racing, there isn’t a race with a rest day……
Yep
The rest day rule is a good one. Really, I’d just like to see the rules between men and women as close to similar as possible. That is, I think the UCI needs to make a case for why they are making a women’s rule different from men’s racing. And if they can’t explain it, then it shouldn’t be a rule.
Funny how different sports play it
I mean, if a woman can run a marathon, why can’t she ride a 1km TTon the track. But coming from an athletics/swimming background, much as I adore track, that part of it is just bizarre to me…
by Sarah Connolly on Sep 22, 2010 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Me too
Because I came from swimming, where we all swim the same events. I do understand in road racing, that a pack of 180 guys is going to cover the distance much faster than a field of 80 women. So, you have to consider that in making the race distances.
indeed..... but
On the track, Vicky Pedleton or Simona Krupeckaite or Anna Meares are certainly not riding hlaf as fast as the slowest male sprinter (or even the fastest) – and Points races etc aren’t set times anyway – or on the road. I am a MASSIVE trackie, but it confuses me, because it’s pretty much analagous to athletics, yet had these BIZARRE rules (plus, in Manchester, a lot of people go for beer/pancakes/ice cream in the early part of the points race anyway, regardless of gender – in fact I’ve seen people skip the men’s completely ut watch the women’s as it has Lizzie Armitstead – so it doesn’t make a difference ;-) )
by Sarah Connolly on Sep 22, 2010 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Whoa
Lot to digest in there… Nice work comrade.
"Good thing I never said out loud that I was pulling for France, before this all started." -Mark Blacknell
by Chris Fontecchio on Sep 21, 2010 6:29 PM EDT reply actions
One other point.
I think the point that it’s in the interest of the industry to have a healthy women’s sport really needs to be hammered home here.
The WSD movement is a fairly clear sign that there has finally been a recognition on the part of the industry that there is this consumer base out there called athletic female riders. If they suddenly discover or are made aware that the UCI is alienating those customers and limiting the degree to which they might pursue the sport (and buy high end bike products to do so), I imagine that a great deal of pressure could suddenly come to bear on the UCI to do something productive.
ja
It’s been a slow evolution from shrink it and pink it, to taking seriously the idea of women buying bikes. I think that evolution still has some ways to go, though definitely the industry is doing better at developing good quality products for women. The next step would be to create an awareness of the connection between supporting the women’s pro sport and selling more stuff to women. That isn’t going to be a perfect relationship of course, as many women are not interested in women’s racing. If they engage in the pro sport, it’s on the men’s side. Obvy, there’s a whole story to be written there, too.
shrink it and pink it
I like that phrase. It may sneakily re-appear when you aren’t looking
Women's Specific Design
This was Trek’s trademark for their women’s line, when they first introduced it. It’s become a kind of shorthand for women’s products in the bike industry, especially bikes.
I'm not sure about the need for a second level of women's team right now
The big problem is still money, or the lack of it. UCI regulations for race organisers (this is what I’ve gathered from various news reports – I wish I could find a copy of that handbook) say that they have to find beds and food for the teams while the race is on, and the requirements go up as you go to a higher level of race, but lots of teams can’t even afford the petrol and overnight stopovers just to get there in the first place. There’s a clear division between the Italian and the Belgo-Dutch peloton for most of the year, i.e. it’s too expensive to fly over the Alps every other week. Red Sun raced Aude but not the Giro, Vos did some races for the Dutch national squad rather than the Bloeit, Horizon only entered one stage race all year, and so on. Teams apply to enter races and the organisers then pick the best on offer, and if say Dolmans, Moving Ladies or Vecchia Fontana were applying then they would probably get the nod ahead of the local and mixed teams. Evidence suggests that they don’t apply. If you could raise the money and put together a reasonable looking team then you can probably expect to be invited to race anywhere you want, without needing to be in the UCI’s official first or second division.
Money
Hi Monty
I sure is about money, but goes a little deeper.
For example, Vos goes to races with the National team as pre-arranged trip for many reason. One being it saves the team money, also it develops the team for Worlds and Olympics and finally it helps develop young riders.
As for mixed team, sometimes these are best thing for the sport. There are a lot of weak-ish teams out there. And when you put them together, it makes a stronger unit for a particular team. Normally it also ensures there are enough staff for the race….therefore the riders get a better experience of races and better chance to perform well.
I totally agree that if you wanted, you could go to any race you wish (Other than where the rules do not allow it i.e. World Cups). But the point I was trying to make was that isn’t perhaps the best thing for the sport. Perhaps it needs to be harder to get in these races. Keep standards high.
Only 2 years ago, you could register a women’s team with no guarantee. Then it went to 20,000 Euro minimum. That stopped a lot of teams, and took a lot of working budget away from others.
Perhaps the 2nd level of team could be a middle ground. A small guarantee. UCI .2 races only. And at the same time inclrease the 1st level of teams to provide higher benefits for the best riders. Like a minimum salary (Currently doesn’t exist for women), and a guarantee they will enter every World Cup. These are just points off the top of my head, but interesting to keep the debate going.
Cheers
Stef
But I reckon that right now the numbers aren't there
Right now there’s a core of about 100 women who can hack it at a top level race (I’ll have a bigger post about this going up in a day or so). Few of them ride every single race, be that down to pacing their season, injuries, getting time off from work/Uni or whatever. That means most races can count on 50-60 riders who are there riding for a win or to help a teammate win, so what do you do then? Go with a small field? Have a ‘B’ field with red numbers (or why not go the whole hog and give them stabilisers, ‘L’ plates, red noses and clown wigs just to warn spectators that they might be a little bit shit)? Or just pack the field with other riders and teams who are riding towards personal targets of some sort, even if that target is just to beat the time cut, and hope no-one notices. The calendar nowadays barely covers the year, but there is almost nothing below that. It’s tough, but until you can get the numbers of competitors up a lot more mixed ability fields is the least bad solution.
Women riders at the Top
Personally, it think there are WELL over 100 women riders that ‘can hack it’.
The problem is mobilisation of these riders, and their teams. if we could get them all in the same place, at the same time, we’d have a different kind of Racing.
This isn’t an overnight thing. It needs planning from the top (By the UCI as per over comments) and structure from elsewhere (Responsible teams, managers, good work from National Federations, Race organisers).
If we had a top tier of racing, with the ‘best’ riders, going to the ‘best’ events, we really would see a different side of the sport.
The other side of this is perhaps we’d see very competitive 2nd tier racing, where less riders are discouraged from racing because they aren’t getting thrashed by Vos and Pooley each week.
Does it matter if there are less riders and teams at an event? That a personal thing. For me it would benefit the sport in the short term. Reduce crashes, improve structure, and potentially increase the pull to the top of the sport for new sponsors.
Ooo, this is a good point...
…you really do need a level where riders can develop and succeed without being beaten by world champs, etc., every time out.
Racing against Vos
This point about young riders being sent out to race against the top girls, yeah, I think that’s a big problem in terms of developing the sport. It really really really sucks to go out and do a race that is way above your ability, where you are doing everything you can just to hang on in the field. Also, riders who are in way above their ability are less likely to finish the races, so less likely to progress and learn to do better. At a certain point, you have to race to learn to race. If you’re getting dropped every week, it’s going to be hard to learn what you need to know. I think a 2nd tier of pro racing would help raise the level all around, because it would give the newer and younger riders a chance to learn the sport more thoroughly, then they can take on the tuete’s and vos’s of the world.
OK that 100 does look a bit out
I did it crudely on those rankings I’m putting together, running down the table until I reached names that I couldn’t remember being regularly at the sharp end of races. I still reckon that the fact that the Alps seem to split the peloton in two for most of the season mean that races can expect a group of 50-60 who are really fighting the race proper. But if you kick off the bottom half of the field and tell them to go somewhere else there really isn’t anywhere for them to go. This year we lost the GP Brissago, the GP Costa Etrusca, the three Canadian races, Nurnberg, the Grande Boucle and the Tour of Bretagne. The Italian domestic calendar has just seven races, the French one five. Read some of the girls’ blogs and twitter feeds and you see that they often end up doing gran fondos or racing with the juniors just to get race mileage. Maybe there’s a case for different classes within the race, like they do at Le Mans for the smaller cars, but right now the situation is just as difficult from the point of view of the race organisers.
And didn’t Bridie tweet something about the younger girls being quietly towed up the slopes by the police motorbikes?
Road race organisers guide
Available from this page of the UCI website (along with various other reports/guides etc)
ja
Agree that some of the top teams don’t apply to all the races, but it seems to me that their should be a more clear progression for teams from club, to second-tier pro, to top level. Among other things, I think it would make it easier to sell the sport to sponsors, if you could say, hey, here we have a top level club team, who is starting to get results, and we need €xxx to progess to the first level in the pro ranks. And if we get those €’s, we can go to these races that we couldn’t ride as a club team. Then, you’re showing the sponsor a clear gain for the extra money you’re soliticiting. If a club team with close to no sponsorship support can ride the same race as Cervélo, then where’s the incentive for sponsors to offer greater support?
My theory
(which is part-stolen from my convo with Sarah Storey, which I’m writing up right now)
having only 1 level is bad for the pros, because the non-pros are more likely to cause accidents, and, as Stef alludes to, can’t keep up (my wrods!) so is dangerous for the pros – but also puts the newbies off, as it’s so damn disheartening. So having 2 levels would mean that new riders aren’t likely to have to risk taking out (eg) Ina Teutenberg, but also that young/new riders have the chance to impress, and get noticed by the (few) teams that pay. And you could run it on the same course, only starting the “pro conti” level 15-20 minutes after the “pro” level, & keep the roads shut for eg half an hour more. It would be relatively easy!
by Sarah Connolly on Sep 22, 2010 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't know the situation on closed roads throughout the world
but there was talk of problems at the US Nats a couple of days ago when the gap between the leaders and the pack was 15 minutes or so. The Italians seem to be able to do it (check out the video I link to in the Giornata Rosa at Nove thread a few days back where they closed the roads for four different women’s and girls’ races on the one day, but even they just split the fields by age, not ability), ditto the Dutch and Belgians, but they race a lot of the time on little tiny back roads out in the sticks.
There is certainly concern
in the peloton about the accidents caused by tyro riders. It’s not so much because the inexperienced are dangerous in and of themselves but they just don’t have a feel yet for how the bunch is going to react in any given situation and do the wrong thing. A lot of new riders have been talent id’ed from other sports and haven’t even done a season of domestic racing before they are thrown in the deep end. Not even so much as a skills session.
What we need is a development program… oh hang on, that’d require some cash wouldn’t it? ;o)
by Creeping Tortoise on Sep 22, 2010 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Mixed Ability
Creeping Tortoise and Monty, you both make really good points there.
I know in the UK there is talk of splitting some races down into different groups.
There are various things that cause the crashes, but before I talk about them, lets remember how many crashes there are in men’s cycling…..loads. So women’s cycling shouldn’t get such a bad press about the level of rider. Riders crash, men and women, it’s part of the game.
The mix of ability is a potential cause of crashes. But this might reflect more on the experienced riders. They assume a gap is there to be taken in the bunch, but it’s their movement that could freak out a less experienced rider, and cause a crash further back.
Having a mix of ability in the group, leads to crashes in other ways. The riders who aren’t going to be going to up there in the finish, generally know that before they start, but that doesn’t stop them from giving it a bloody good go, and fair play to them. They have a number on their back as well. But there is a pattern in races, that after a couple of hours racing, riders are getting tired, and the standards in the bunch seem to drop. Very often after 2 hours, crashes start as these riders are pushing themselves beyond their limits to stay in the bunch.
"The difference in budgets is directly related to TV time."
In the absence of TV coverage (and major media-coverage in general), what is the major thing a team can offer it’s sponsors? How do you argue for a return on investment?
Isn't it the warm glow of supporting s/th they love?
There are sponsors like that in the men’s side too…
(god, I wish there was more of that!)
by Sarah Connolly on Sep 22, 2010 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Getting your name known through results, news articles, reports?
Of course those have to exist for that to be true, but I now know what Movistar do for instance, and they haven’t gotten a second of TV coverage.
By thinking laterally
5% of a men’s team budget to run a good women’s team is pretty minimal. I’ve no idea the figures involved but lets say a men’s team is €1,000,000, then a good women’s team would cost €50,000. In marketing terms that’s a few articles/pictures in magazines a month with a few minutes of TV time. You can then extend that to internet marketing and it’s value.
If a team is sponsored by an Internet vendor, then TV time isn’t too important so make the use of the medium that is important to the sponsor.
I’m a firm believer of sponsors getting a return from women cycling (even in its existing condition) as long as teams work closely with their sponsors to understand their needs.
Re pro tour team budgets
The 18 pro tour team budgets add up to around €142M (using tdf guide figures)
5% is in excess of €7M in toto.
€50,000 is more like 1% of the lowest pro tour team budget
Interesting
Thanks for the figures Andrew. That’s an amazing jump from pro-continental teams which are run between €500k to €1m which I was working with for some easy maths.
€350k per women’s team is a huge budget which is certainly very aspirational as things stand, however the 5% model is a based around the fact that UCI do the right thing by women’s cycling and encourage the sport to grow.
The point I was trying to make is that in this current climate, where there are smaller more prudent budgets, it isn’t too difficult to get a return for any sponsor invested in the team by taking the time to understand the sponsor. This is an area in which cycling is lagging behind other sports.
Maybe womens road cycling doesn't think lateral enough
A 5% campaign is for a whole lot cash, hard to achieve and ultimately may be almost counterproductive in the short term for several reasons. It is also unlikely to suceeed whilst there is no coherent strategy on how it will be spent.
To get a coherent strategy then, as said above, more people need to have input. Where are the womens equivalent of the riders, teams, race organisers bodies that exist for mens teams? If they dont exist then start them and create input and the debatew where such a campaign may ultimately successful.
I completely agree
As Stef mentioned below the 5% figure is more about doing the right thing. I’d like to think that the Pro Tour teams would create a strategy to make it work, they have the existing structure and resource.
As for a bigger strategy regarding women’s cycling as a whole (i.e. race organisers, teams), this is one of the goals of the On The Drops project. What we’re trying to do is help the sport grow by bringing the right people together, but it’s a long-term target as this is our first year and have a long way to go to be in a position where we can help bring together the right people on a political level. So, I completely agree with you and it’s something we’ve given ourselves a specific target on. We’re doing it at a UK level for 2011, so that will give us an indication of how it could work on a larger scale. It may fail, but I think it’s important to give it a proper go.
I'd love it if just one of the French teams could be persuaded to start a women's squad
but sadly they are the ones who seem to struggle most just to find any sponsor.
I'd love it
I have a huge soft spot for the French teams and it’s such a shame they struggle more than most with funding. A women’s FdJ would be an amazing site. It’s good to dream, right?
Maybe if we wrote a letter.
Dear Marc Madiot…
I’m sure it would work. Because you know, all our other letters have worked out so well. I mean, I’m still looking for my Red Pinarello, darnit!
Good point about the numbers.
A relatively low budget pro tour team comes in around €5-6 million. A big team like Saxo is more like €12 million. So, taking 5%, yeah, that’s going to be a big stack of cash.
5% rule
When I started to mumble on about this 5% rule a few years back, I worked on a basis of a Pro tour team having a budget of 7Million Euro.
So that would be 350,000 Euro in a women’s team.
That would give us 18 women’s Pro Teams, with that budget, minimum.
I also said from that there should be a minimum salary to riders, as per Pro men’s racing.
Assuming 10 riders per team, we’d have 180 paid female riders at the top of the sport…..minimum.
If you had a women’s team linked to the men’s, I’d assume they get some benefits like PR assistance, websites, sensible kit design, quality staff, presentable vehicles. All the things that make the men’s sport work.
So it wasn’t really all about the %, or the actual figure, it was more a way to raise standards, in principal, overnight.
sensible kit design?
Has there ever been a better cycling jersey in history than The Monkey. OK Tonton Tapis is close, but …
Whats in it for the Sponsors
There is so much in it for sponsors.
And there is TV coverage to be had. Thats for sure.
If you put your news out there, and are innovative in they that you approach the media and marketing, you can gain a significant return for all sponsors.
We do at my team, and we have so much more planned that we are yet to implement. It’s just not consistently like this with all women’s teams.
I was speak to Gavia about this the other day, that a lot of Womens team are like a secret society. In the mens side of the sport, we here about new teams, sponsors, and rider transfers. Emma J going to Hi-Tech is the first I have heard confirmed this summer….and its nearly World Champs time!
We're all in favour of baseless speculation and unsubstantiated rumours
if only people would share their gossip.

by 


















