Garmin GPS Bike Computers with Free Shipping

UCI trying to kill CX in the US?

It’s a good thing the Utah Cyclocross Series isn’t sanctioned, or we’d be fucked too … nothing like taking an obscure rule that no one knows about and which has never been enforced and then stating that not only is it going to be enforced next season, but oh, because you didn’t get approval in 2009, you can’t have your series in 2011.


Word came in early this evening that the VERGE New England Cyclocross Championship Series and the North American Cyclocross Trophy Series (NACT) would be “banned” for the 2011 season. Other series around North America similarly face an uncertain future based on a little known rule put in place by the UCI and USA Cycling. NECCS director and all around cyclocross wizard Adam Myerson sheds some light on the situation.

Visit for more Videos

via North American Cyclocross Series Face Uncertain Future: WTF? | The World According To Adam | Cycling Dirt.

And from

Code 1.2.026 retroactively enforced for 2010-2011 season

The North American Cyclo-cross Trophy Series (NACT) and the Verge New England Championships Cyclo-cross Series (NECCS) are facing suspension for not following an obscure and previously unenforced International Cycling Union (UCI) rule.

Adam Myerson, the NECCS promoter and former member of the UCI Cross Commission, and Brook Watts, the promoter of Cross Vegas and race director for the NACT series this year, were caught by surprise by the ruling. The rule (1.2.026) requires each series to apply for UCI inscription, but was housed in the general rules of cycling and not in the cyclo-cross specific document, and to their knowledge has never before been enforced.

“Kelli Lusk of USA Cycling informed us yesterday as soon as she got the notice from Peter Van den Abeele [the UCI’s Cyclo-cross Technical Director -ed.] by email,” Myerson said. “I was given one sentence that said these series were banned. They said they would make an exception and allow the individual races to continue but the series were banned.”

With the compromise, the ten races in the NECCS series, those in Green Mountain, New Gloucester, Northampton, Sterling and Warwick as well as the NACT races in Washington, Gloucester and Boulder can continue, but it leaves the USGP as the sole remaining national series consisting of UCI races.

via NACT And VERGE Cyclo-cross Series Face Suspension From UCI |

Other articles and reactions from around the interwebs:

11 Comments on "UCI trying to kill CX in the US?"

  1. A little drama, brought to you by the drama king os the east coast. Only dumb part Is the fact that everyone thought it was ok to break the rule, then get up in arms when rule is enforced. The races will happen and the elites will get there uci points. Whether I agree with the rule or not it is a rule. Meh.

    • A big issue is that the UCI has made many, many exceptions to various rules for different races in the US … the problem isn’t that the rule is going to start being enforced, but that they announced yesterday that because nobody paid any attention to it in 2009, these two particular series are banned as a UCI series in 2011. Why wasn’t the Mid-Atlantic Cross (MAC) Series also banned? They didn’t follow the rule either … and could potentially still apply to be a UCI Series for 2011.

    • From a marketing and sponsorship standpoint, it has a huge impact on the promoters, and can potentially have a seriously negative impact on dollars.

      On the other hand, I like Jerry Chabot’s solution … fuck the UCI, keep the series as a series … make the 5 pros that need UCI points for call-ups and starting position at the late season Euro races and Worlds use their travel budgets and keep the NECCS as a regional series to develop up-and-coming riders, for whom a spot on SERIES podium can help gain a contract; like it did for Jamey Driscoll after the 2008(?) series.

  2. And this has zero effect on anyone but the elites, but wait, no it doesn’t effect them either, cause there will still be a ridiculous number of uci races in the us in 2011

  3. YouCanCupMeUCI | 3 December 2010 at 04:32:11 |

    But isn’t this rant by Bob completely outside the sprit and logic that we all hope/expect/wish for? I doubt anyone is putting on races, UCI or otherwise, in the US, for any reason other then they love the finished product. I see the power play of this rule to be just that – a power play, not something that’s out to either better the sport by streamlining the system or by cracking down on deviate rule breakers.

    I’d think that the UCI would be in effect reducing their revenue stream by doing this, which is an odd move.

  4. I expect others to be ‘banned’ which is an incorrect descriptor. Someone has a Christ complex.

    • From the email sent by Peter van den Abeele (at the UCI) to Kelli Lusk (at USAC), as posted by Kelli Lusk to the USAICO mailing list (for organizers of UCI-sanctioned CX races in the USA):

      Series must be approved by UCI according to Art. 1.2.026., in addition Series must not comprise off more than 8 rounds.

      Other Series in the US exist but did not ask an approval toward the US, those are:

      – NACT (North American Cyclo-cross Trophy Series)
      – VERGE Series

      Series that violated the rules in the 2010-2011 season will be banned as a Series for the 2011-2012 season, according to the rules they should even be banned from next year’s calendar.

      They will exceptionally still be accepted on the 2011-2012 international calendar but as independent/stand alone events and provided they met the UCI regulations during the 2010-2011 season. But they cannot have a general classification or a leader’s jersey linked to their events.

  5. anyone who knows me, knows i am anti organizing body.

    Is it really healthy for the US to have 50+ UCI CX races a year? UCI Point welfare.

  6. Chabot just said what I feel, cater to the masses, not the 6 or so racers who need points.

  7. There are only something like a dozen UCI C1 races, which have the big points like the Super Prestige and/or GVA Series (albeit less than the points offered in the World Cup) … almost all of the rest are C2 or C3.

    Except for the true Pros, the only purpose for UCI points is call-ups at nationals … so the Verge Series could very well do well as a non-sanctioned series. Sure, they’d likely lose Tim J. and the rest of the Cannondale crew, but it would give a healthy Justin Spinelli the opportunity to shine. And they could use the extra money saved from not having to pay the UCI fees towards more equitable prize lists for the men & women.

    Let Tim J. and Jamey D. jet all over the country to chase points if they want them that badly (and since Cannondale picks up the ticket) … or better yet … send them to Europe to race more than just a couple of races right before Worlds; get them on the Page program … but with better public relations teams.

  8. flahute, the cannondale boys generally skip the verge series anyway. TJ showed up in VT and Powers showed up at Sterling. TJ was there probably to test his bum ankle more than anything. JPow was probably there because it fit his schedule and allowed him to stay home for Thanksgiving. None of them are competing for the Verge overall title. JPow skipped the races that were literally in his neighborhood (Northampton) and Driscoll seems to be sent to the mid west more often than not.

    Also, the equitable prize lists for men and women at most Verge races seems unfair to the men! There were 33 men and 18 women in the latest round. I’m all for making things equal, but only if there is equal (or even close to equal) participation/attendance. The fact is, there just are not as many elite females racing (plus they pay $5 less than the men anyway).

Comments are closed.