Hell no was my answer. I told her that I remembered playing photographer at the Murad road race in 2008, where I was watching Catherine race. Specifically, I remember taking pictures of the absurdly ripped calves of racers at the start line. I was a fair-weather Cat 5 at the time, watching Cat 3 racers toe the line.
So showing up at the Tech Center in Bowie, Maryland yesterday - for the second annual Dawg Days circuit race - was quite a contrast. I'm at the end of a satisfying stint as a Cat 3 racing in the Cat 1/2/3 field with a few local heavy hitters, and I was returning to the venue where I first won a bike race.
Some of these guys lined up next to me in the first two rows, like Tim Rugg, came up through the categories with me (or maybe a bit quicker). Others next to us - Chuck Hutch, Jared Neiters, et al. - have been hammering through the local races for decades, with stints on the national and international amateur scene here and there.
That being said, I wasn't too surprised when the teams of Rugg (Harley) and Neiters (Haymarket) took off from the start, a bloc. I'd started in the second row of the big field. Throughout the first lap I was swarmed into the field like I didn't exist. After a string of road races and time trials, it took some testicular fortitude to give myself a crash course (probably not the best word choice) on hectic pack navigation.
Once I hit the front, I found myself off the front getting schooled by Ruggles in an accidental counter-attack. The phrase "What the hell am I doing?" ran through my mind a few times, but there wasn't much time for repetition. Tim's turbo shredded my lungs and I was swallowed up. A bunch of other attacks went back and forth, but everything was frantically chased down by every team. DC Velo in particular did a good bit of locomotive work.
That was the first few laps. The only dry ones, really.
After being off the front, I went straight to the back. That's something I'll have to get used to resisting in the more aggressive peloton. When I finally reached the front of the peloton, the skies opened up in a downpour. Within minutes, there was standing water everywhere.
Fogged up glasses. Horizontal rain. Gritty rooster-tail spray from the wheel in front that you desperately didn't want to relinquish an inch too.
I saw Dan and yelled at him, "We gotta move."
In our first race together in 2008, a training Cat 5 race at Chantilly Cold Toes, Dan and I fought through similar standing-water torrential mayhem. Now we were fighting the elements in a Cat 1/2/3 field. Though we haven't raced every weekend together, we've both helped each other win races. We've come up through the Cat 5-4-3 ranks together. And now we're here - in another thunderstorm of low-visibility pain. For some reason, though, that was okay. There's always solidarity in suffering, between teammates and competitors alike.
The misery was okay right up until I hit the wind on the downhill, anyway. It was easy to move up on the outside (left) through the start finish. Moving at 30+ MPH with the oncoming rain at its most violent gushing, though, was like hitting a wall of needles. But we had to move up. If a big split were to occur, it could happen with the click of one eager racer's gear, or the slight touch of the brakes.
Surprisingly, it was easier to move around the pack for me after the downpour started. The pace had eased from what-the-f*ck to tolerably tough. Our team, along with Harley's equally large roster, had a constant presence up front shared by the entire roster. Each racer was soaked and miserable; it was beautiful.
Gauging my efforts near the front was another part of the learning curve. In most Cat 3/4 races I'm darn resilient to the incessant surges of a peloton. Not so with the big boys. Each time I'd make a serious effort up front, I needed a breather to reset. Heck, at one time I was chasing a half-dozen strong break and couldn't close the gap. I really wasn't used to being fodder, but ignored the suckage. Creating gaps was equally challenging, though: someone was always reacting to be on your wheel when you'd surge to the front or try to bridge.
For the second prime, I was on the wheel of Jared Neiters, from Haymarket. I figured with a lull in the pace he was a good racer to be behind for the mid-race glory. Up the hill, sure enough, he bolted. He's small, but I'm tiny, so I sat in his draft for the attack. He pulled off pretty early and I hit the wind. I was not about to drag him to the line for a prime (even though it was 2-place) and I wasn't too confident in the legs. That hesitation meant the peloton caught up quickly. I found myself "stuck" at the front.
So I stopped pedalling.
Like clockwork, though, my teammate Jeff bolted and was gone. He wasn't alone, though - Ruggles held his wheel to take the prime. Then Ruggles hung himself out to dry (not quite the appropriate metaphor for the rainstorm) some more.
With about a dozen laps to go, the rain had eased a bit, but thunder and lightning cut the race short. We flew by the start finish and the speakers and spectators were chantings "two laps!"
Just like that, the jockeying was on. I was near the front on the left side - easy to sustain positioning - and had two teammates in front of me. I was talking to them and through the next lap we fought the inevitable shuffle. With about one-and-a-half to go, I passed another teammate and asked, "Wanna move up?" Negatory - we couldn't make that happen.
Hearing the bell, though, the stars and bars aligned. We got about four of us lined up; I was the pointy end of the spear.
Ramon B (Harley) was causing a late raucous on the inside, but not making much distance. Through the bottleneck after the line, I heard a bunch of yelling behind me that just I interpreted as "go!"
With four guys behind me, I obliged. I've usually got about 7-800 meters of I-hate-myself-for-this speed, and usually I'm using that to fly solo near the end of the race. Now, it was probably fewer meters with the conditions and fatigue, but twice the adrenaline.
From the first turn to the first traffic circle, I was the peloton's bitch, for better or worse. I drained the tanks as if the finish line was whenever the little nitros dial hit EMPTY. As my teammate Paul came by me, so did Tim Brown (Harley).
Like Columbia to Garmin, their late-kick engines trumped ours. Duh - Even with four guys I should have seen that coming and waited for a later surge before sticking my front wheel into the wind so early.
I not-so-casually moved to the right to avoid pissing guys off. One of my guys in the back of the NCVC line yelled, "jump in front of me!" but I was cooked well done before the second traffic circle.
I really have no idea what happened at the very end to give Harley the 1-2 punch, but I did have a nice chat with referee John K - on his motorcycle - before crossing the line in what I think was second-to-last place.
It's by far my worst finishing result in a race - ever - but also some of the stupidest, toughest, and messiest fun I've had racing this year (not to mention most dangerous...). And in each higher category event I have done, I have learned a heck of a lot more about bike racing.
- -
Thanks for reading, and while you're at it take a peak at Nick's Blog for the Cat 4 excitement. That was a super fun race to watch and I'm glad NCVC could defend that Cat 4 title from last year. I know it's reverse-chronology, I'm going to post a write-up on my nut-crushing experience at Church Creek tomorrow. I hope your shoes have dried off after Dawg Days, though. Mine stink.

15 comments:
Great write-up.
It's a shame there wasn't an exclusive Cat 3 field, but you're right--riding with the 1/2s is a great experience.
Love those rain pics from Marcus, too.
Definitely a disappointment that there wasn't a Cat 3 - I would have loved to double up at Dawg Days.
Of course, silly BAR categories like the "Men's 35+ 3/4" have sucked time off the clock for, you know, all the real categories this year.
Big kudos to Erin Silliman for riding away from the girls and then finishing in a downpour with the men's 1/2/3 field.
Maybe you should be 35...then you could have doubled up :-)
I was disappointed to see the rain. Wanted to check you guys out up close while I warmed up in the opposite direction.
My race backfired on me when I missed Nick's bridge move while I was recovering from one of my many attacks. And I also knew how to win the pack sprint because I was stupid enough to watch you make your move without following last year...but I got hung up behind a crash on the back straight and got separated from the pack...*sigh*
Or maybe more of the 35+ 3/4 masters should HTFU and race their category. Or double up because at least THEY had the opportunity.
This is bike racing, not triathlon. We have categories for a reason. If you can't stand the heat of your category, get out of the kitchen (downgrade).
Dude you gotta let that thing go.
Without Masters 35+ 3/4 guys, there would be no MABRA.
Without the race organizers, if that's what you mean - because most organizers fit that demographic. I get that. They can race Cat 3 and Cat 4, however, so why take away from the other guys?
Siggy your conclusions sound pretty subjective. make a more convincing argument here with some data. A few key questions:
How many 35+ 3's & 4's are there in our region?
How many senior 3's and 4's are there.
Who registers for more races?
What's the delta between the two groups?
If you think you have a validate argument quit bitching and expose the data as to who really defines these races as successful in promoters eyes. The promoters are going off what they think. Back your argument with numbers and invoke change. Both should be avail from MABRA or USCF.
I'd love to do that research, where the heck do I start? Google "age" and words related to cycling races and you find irrelevant info, but I'm doing exactly that. As organized as MABRA is, it's like duck-duck-goose on a möbius strip searching for real statistics. And I've started perusing results but those don't show registrants (just finishers).
How hard is this to understand my real point though? Here's an objective statement: All Masters racers HAVE a racing category (fact). That means they are a subset of cat 3 and cat 4 or whichever number is on their license. If you compare masters cat 4s to ALL cat 4s, for example, there are more in the whole. Age to age, the comparison is unbalanced - that's obvious. Why be more self-serving and exclusive when you're including the majority?
The 50+ guys at least have the physiological case, though I get my ass kicked by enough of my elders that I don't buy it for the 35+.
Here's a fun count - just a quick tally of the people that have scored points in different BAR categories (nearing the season's end):
masters 35+ 3/4: 78 racers
masters 55+: 61 racers
masters 65+: 19 racers
category 3: 130 racers
category 4: 138 racers
senior / cat 123: 106 racers
granted, this doesn't take into account that not all racers score points, but I think it would be a fairly similar percentage of those who don't. It also doesn't take into account mid-season upgrades, bu surely it's not 50 of the point scorers.
Point taken. My point is that unless you back it up with data and make a rationale case for change then it's simply whining. As of right now the formula for promoters works which is why they do 35+ races. I won't speculate on motives for racers racing in a 35+ but, I do know those racers don't put on the event. They just show up for it. If you actually want to change something you address the root cause. So details ...
From your point count was there any overlap in the cat3's/cat4's with 35+ ? And, if there was, did you remove duplicates? Technically you would break them into their own grouping as your looking at data sets.
Send me your e-mail address and I"ll see what I can pass your way. This info again should be avail uscf or mabra, granted you'll have to do plenty of heavy lifting but the results will give you the best slice of actuals (who is doubling up, finishing, finishing in the double up - prime audience as promoters would get the most value from them)
I think you've got an interesting point and really for promoters it makes economic sense to figure this out eventually. As much as we go by stats with watts, cals, etc it's funny that nobody has done the data deep dive on the economics. So MABRA board, USCF results and perhaps take the top 20 and model out for overlap, etc. Not easy but back of the envelope math won't cut it here.
Once you show the data of who shows up for what race it'll lend some transparency and perhaps credence to what your saying. But, if we talk about need we're looking at a few different goals.
In your case there wasn't a 3 race which you may have done well in vs. your performance in the 1/2/3. Hence your desire for elimination of 35+ let the old guys race against you and see how they fare in a straight 3. Got it.
So by that rationale which could be assimilated as "everybody has a category and we will serve the category based on need equally" here are a few more scenarios we can objectively state there "may" be a need for based on the collective goals of that group.
At the beginning of every season is it worthwhile to have two cat 5 races to ensure we are offering equal opportunity for beginning racers to gain experience and have MABRA eventually become a more competitive field overall?
Should we offer a womens 4 only races to ensure that segmentation continues to grow and develop?
I think in looking at it we can take into account any number of needs or bizzare ideas but the only true rationale is a promoter will only put on an event if they think there's the opportunity to break even (or it has a strong history at which point most are OK losing some money)
So, crunch some numbers and then make change happen.
Siggy send me your contact info to testernote at gmail dot com and I'll show you how to model or structure the data. I can likely dig it up or give you the pathway to doing so.
I don't need the justification for data, first of all. But if you're going to hold me to the fire, shouldn't we do the same for promoters?
For Dawg Days and other events, the "result" is not what I'm worried about (heck I like the experience in 1/2/3s). It's that removing categorized events discourages many non-masters racers from participating otherwise. Unfortunately it's impossible to tell who "would have" signed up.
Also, there's no reason to remove duplicates from my tally of BAR categories - that's half my point. The "old guys" (your words) can race in their category.
The "two cat 5" races comment is exactly on par with what I believe. It's also a different animal, since it is the only category entirely independent of age.
So far on USAC this is all I've found: http://usacycling.org/corp/demographicslastyr.php
When you add 19-24 and 25-34 into a single community of "not juniors or masters", there's not a big lag behind the masters. Definitely not as big as people make it seem.
You have my contact info if you want to unlock this and figure out the rationale/model let me know. Otherwise you're just another opinion on the internet.
You've got mail, Jonny.
For those interested...
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Am--NjEo8GksdEZGTWtKa0FiLXNmSzV0dlMxLVdBSHc&authkey=CIL17aAF&hl=en&output=html
The 19-24 and 25-34 year olds are the fastest growing age demographic in USA Cycling, by far.
Add the total of those two groups together (because neither group can race age-graded events) and you've got a comparable fraction to 35-44 year olds.
One day, Siggy will turn 35, request a downgrade, and exclusively race Master's 3/4. Mark my words.
Post a Comment