Fort Lewis College - Opposed to aero ban

The opposition to the aero equipment ban by USA Cycling in collegiate cycling is growing. My colleague Matt Shriver from the collegiate cycling powerhouse Fort Lewis College has weighed in, and he offers up some brilliant insight. I know of more coaches who will be coming out against the ban in the near future, and if they are willing I'll be posting their response here as well.

I will say I am a little surprised that Lees-McRae College has come out in favor of the rule change, though I do respect Coach Luke Winger's decision. Luke believes it's a good thing, and a few individual riders have come out and said they agree as well. By the same token quite a few individual riders are completely against this ban.

We shall see in the coming months if our concerns will be heard and action taken to reverse this terrible rule. If you want to share your thoughts then please contact the USA Cycling Collegiate Board of Trustees. The names and email addresses of the five members are listed within that link. I highly encourage you to make your voices heard, and of course your voice would likely carry more weight if you were either involved in collegiate cycling now or will be in the near future.

Below is the letter from Coach Matt Shriver of Fort Lewis College:

Dear Collegiate Cycling Board of Trustees & whom it may concern,

I would like to take a moment to express my thoughts specifically on the Rule 7-Aero Equipment change. Although I believe the intentions appear to be good, I feel that this will hurt collegiate cycling rather than help it grow and provide development opportunities. The rule change is bad overall and will bring the level of competition down in collegiate cycling. This rule change is also in conflict with the Collegiate Cycling Mission Statement. Collegiate cycling has been a large contributor to developing talented riders that are also educated and I see this rule change as large step in the wrong direction when developing student athletes.

My experience with collegiate cycling and at Fort Lewis College has been lengthy. I attended Fort Lewis College while pursing my own professional racing career and education. I have been involved with collegiate cycling for nearly a decade now and recently became the Interim Director/Head Coach at Fort Lewis College. Fort Lewis College has long been a model program in collegiate cycling. I have seen this program go from a little Division two program to one of the best Division One programs in the country. We compete in all collegiate disciplines at the collegiate level and our goal is to provide every opportunity to any student that wants to get involved in cycling and develop.

Developmental programs have continually been cut across the country, especially in the mountain bike discipline. Many developing riders and sponsors see collegiate cycling as one of the last and best lines of development and as a launching pad to a cycling career. This rule does not provide new and developing riders a fair introduction to cycling if they are not given the chance to race in similar conditions as elite level racing. Eliminating the use of advanced equipment robs many riders the learning experience needed to compete in non-collegiate events. The sooner we can get riders on the equipment that is used in Elite racing, the faster they will develop into great cyclists. By implementing this rule, it takes out a necessary skill that is needed to compete at the elite level in cycling.

I also fear that this lowers the bar so to speak in collegiate cycling. This makes collegiate cycling look extremely amateur. The Team Time Trial is a unique event and one that should involve specialized equipment. Looking at this from an industry sponsors view and it takes away from their exposure of supporting a program. We want industry sponsors to continue to support collegiate cycling. Removing aero equipment will harm those sponsors' investments. The team time trial will not get as much press because it will be very amateur looking. I really believe that this will be an issue, speaking from experience with current Fort Lewis College sponsors. They like to see the Team Time Trial teams on their TT bikes, helmets and other equipment. Since most riders don't have TT bikes, we have generated funds over the years to provide our 4 men and 4 women with bikes to use at National events. The team time trial is the one event where we can get the majority of riders on sponsors products. This looks great for the sponsors and great for the program. The riders look professional, feel professional and enjoy racing on equipment similar to what they will race on outside of collegiate. It helps keep the industry interested in supporting development programs at the collegiate level. It is up to the program and management, weather students or staff to seek sponsorships and resources for time trialing.
Again I see another direct conflict with section (b) of the mission statement of collegiate cycling. The mission is to enable elite riders to pursue an education while benefiting from development programs. My fear is that this rule will affect the number of elite riders that want to race at the elite level and pursue a cycling career while attending school. This rule will put any elite rider that attends school at a disadvantage to those that don't attend school. Fort Lewis College has a rich history of attracting this type of elite rider and developing them into professionals. We do not want to lose appeal to interested riders that want an education but also to race at a high level. I think many will opt to not go to school because they are being robbed the opportunity of developing as a time trailer. Racing a time trial on a road bike is entirely different on a time trial bike. It takes allot of training in the time trial position on a time trial bike to get good at this and it really is an art. Removing advanced time trial equipment puts a collegiate rider at a huge disadvantage when they go on to compete at the elite level in non-collegiate events.

I also see this rule change as a direct conflict with section (c.) of the collegiate cycling mission. The mission mentions providing growth and leadership opportunities for scholar athletes both on and off the bike. This rule change is punishing to programs that have taken a progressive approach to solving the economical challenges of funding a team. There are creative ways to provide time trial equipment to the team members through sponsorship and community resources. A priority of collegiate cycling is education and educating the student athletes in how to build and manage a program is also important. The programs that are successful are programs that get students involved in a marketing strategy to market the program, finding sponsorship dollars and equipment for the members. Fort Lewis College Cycling is successful due to the involvement of the team members in raising funds, searching for sponsorships, being involved with the cycling community, and college faculty/staff. Developing these relationships with the community and within the industry is part of developing educated cyclists. Fort Lewis College has been a model program for more than 10 years. However, we also still have to beg borrow and steal from our friends and community cycling groups. But through our relationships that we have developed, people have no problem loaning out their gear to us because we are involved in the cycling community. This rule change robs the student athlete of the chance to get involved in growing a program. The rule allows programs to settle for mediocrity rather than striving to provide resources for the members.

I don't think that a fair attempt to reach all cycling programs for feedback was made. The meetings were scheduled at odd times at a National Championship event. I was fortunate enough to attend and represent Fort Lewis College at this past season's road nationals, and I can honestly say that it wasn't well attended and it wasn't a fair representation of the schools that compete. Most that attended seemed to be Board of Trustee's members and I felt that the decision was already made, leaving the argument unproductive. The attendance wasn't because of lack of interest, but lack of teams staff to attend. There was no repeated email correspondence that I can recall. The large response we are seeing today reflects the lack of communication on USAC's and the NCCA's part with the cycling programs.

This rule change has opened a very large can of worms. Where does this rule stop? Is there a ban on Aero Equipment for Track riders as well? The same argument can be made about the Downhill discipline in Mountain Biking. Not every rider or program can afford a Downhill bike. Will they be required to race on a Cross Country bike? Who is going to enforce these rules and where does it stop? Is a time trial bike with drop bars legal? I can guarantee you that riders will show up with a time trial bike with drop bars on it and ride on the tops of the bars without extensions.

Again I would like to state that I think the intentions of this rule were good in seeking to keep some sort of level playing field, but I don't feel it is necessary at this level of athletics. The goal is to develop future educated professional cyclists while providing a fun collegiate experience. We want to keep it fun and enjoyable for everyone, including the elite level riders. This rule will exclude time trial specialists and elite riders from racing at the collegiate level. This argument seems to be bickering about the haves and have-nots, an that is a terrible approach for being productive. I think the solution is not arguing about economics but becoming creative in finding ways to fund programs. Keep raising the bar in collegiate cycling and enticing communities and industry sponsors to get involved. Getting the students involved in finding those resources and keeping collegiate cycling as close to elite level cycling is what I see as being most important in maintaining the prestige of college racing and continuing development.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my response. I only want what is best for the sport of cycling to continue healthy growth. Up to this point, I think that Collegiate Cycling was headed in the right direction. Please consider reversing this rule before the 2010 season. Thank you for your dedication and hard work.

Sincerely,

Matt Shriver
Fort Lewis College Cycling
Interim Director /Head Coach

p.s. - this was posted with Matt Shriver's permission.