Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning

Forum guidelines BT super discount
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2012-10-09 4:04 PM

User image

Elite
3277
20001000100100252525
Minnetonka
Subject: Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning
I've been reading about a few races dropping their USADA Sanctioning so Lance Armstrong can race in the event.  What are the pro's and con's about this?  I can see where at the moment, Lance will be a big draw and generate a lot of money for the event and what ever fund raiser might be associated with the event.  What is a race losing by dropping the sanctioning?

2012-10-09 4:07 PM
in reply to: #4447055

User image

Member
5452
50001001001001002525
NC
Subject: RE: Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning
USAT ranking points for the participants.
2012-10-09 4:08 PM
in reply to: #4447055

User image

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning
Liability insurance.
2012-10-09 4:09 PM
in reply to: #4447062

User image

Member
5452
50001001001001002525
NC
Subject: RE: Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning
the bear - 2012-10-09 5:08 PMLiability insurance.
Can't they source that directly?
2012-10-09 4:11 PM
in reply to: #4447063

User image

Elite
5145
500010025
Cleveland
Subject: RE: Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning

Goosedog - 2012-10-09 5:09 PM
the bear - 2012-10-09 5:08 PMLiability insurance.
Can't they source that directly?

 

Yes, that's what Rev3 did with the Half Full... they just got their insurance elsewhere and accepted that their participants wouldn't have their results count in USAT standings.

2012-10-09 4:18 PM
in reply to: #4447063

User image

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning
Goosedog - 2012-10-09 4:09 PM
the bear - 2012-10-09 5:08 PMLiability insurance.
Can't they source that directly?
Of course. But it comes with sanctioning, and the question was what do you lose if the race drops the sanctioning. Big races/race companies can maybe afford to buy seperate policies, but that is cost prohibitive for your average race.

2012-10-09 7:51 PM
in reply to: #4447055

User image

Expert
1394
1000100100100252525
Wilmington, NC
Subject: RE: Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning

SoberTriGuy - 2012-10-09 5:04 PM I've been reading about a few races dropping their USADA Sanctioning so Lance Armstrong can race in the event.  What are the pro's and con's about this?  I can see where at the moment, Lance will be a big draw and generate a lot of money for the event and what ever fund raiser might be associated with the event.  What is a race losing by dropping the sanctioning?

 

USADA does not sanction events per say. A federation sanctions the events ie USAT, USATF etc etc. Those federations are signatories of USADA. You can't drop USADA sanctioning, you drop the National Federation sanctioning of an event.

2012-10-10 9:29 AM
in reply to: #4447055

User image

Champion
7136
5000200010025
Knoxville area
Subject: RE: Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning
depending on which side of the fence you are on... allowing LA to race is the major pro/con.
2012-10-10 10:35 AM
in reply to: #4447063

User image

Regular
589
500252525
Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning

the bear - 2012-10-09 4:18 PM
Goosedog - 2012-10-09 4:09 PM
the bear - 2012-10-09 5:08 PMLiability insurance.
Can't they source that directly?
Of course. But it comes with sanctioning, and the question was what do you lose if the race drops the sanctioning. Big races/race companies can maybe afford to buy seperate policies, but that is cost prohibitive for your average race.

How do small, local, YMCA-type tris afford it then?  Just curious, since the majority of the races I do are unsanctioned.

2012-10-10 10:46 AM
in reply to: #4448052

User image

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning
Swimbikeron - 2012-10-10 10:35 AM

the bear - 2012-10-09 4:18 PM
Goosedog - 2012-10-09 4:09 PM
the bear - 2012-10-09 5:08 PMLiability insurance.
Can't they source that directly?
Of course. But it comes with sanctioning, and the question was what do you lose if the race drops the sanctioning. Big races/race companies can maybe afford to buy seperate policies, but that is cost prohibitive for your average race.

How do small, local, YMCA-type tris afford it then?  Just curious, since the majority of the races I do are unsanctioned.

YMCA is a fairly large entity, I'm sure they have ongoing liabity coverage that encompasses events like tris. I'm referring more to independent RDs who produce races at locations they do not own. My venue, for example, requires that I provide a certificate of liability coverage.
2012-10-10 10:46 AM
in reply to: #4448052

User image

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning
Unsanctioned tris around here, for example, are run by the university, a large health club, and a large non-profit, all of which (I assume) maintain liability coverage for their normal operations that would cover races and other events.

Edited by the bear 2012-10-10 10:51 AM

2012-10-10 9:28 PM
in reply to: #4447880

Veteran
867
5001001001002525
Vicksburg
Subject: RE: Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning

Leegoocrap - 2012-10-10 9:29 AM depending on which side of the fence you are on... allowing LA to race is the major pro/con.

 

After Lance signed up for Superfrog particitpation sign up increased 30 %.  I would say for most races that is a plus.  Besides a few haters I am sure most just don't care or maybe they just can't stand how the witch hunt went down.

2012-10-10 9:56 PM
in reply to: #4449227

User image

Regular
988
500100100100100252525
Westfield, IN
Subject: RE: Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning
peewee - 2012-10-10 10:28 PM

Leegoocrap - 2012-10-10 9:29 AM depending on which side of the fence you are on... allowing LA to race is the major pro/con.

 

After Lance signed up for Superfrog particitpation sign up increased 30 %.  I would say for most races that is a plus.  Besides a few haters I am sure most just don't care or maybe they just can't stand how the witch hunt went down.

I think 2 people also dropped out. Seems like more of a benefit than a cost to me.

2012-10-10 10:56 PM
in reply to: #4447063

User image

Master
1890
1000500100100100252525
Cypress, CA
Subject: RE: Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning

the bear - 2012-10-09 2:18 PM
Goosedog - 2012-10-09 4:09 PM
the bear - 2012-10-09 5:08 PMLiability insurance.
Can't they source that directly?
Of course. But it comes with sanctioning, and the question was what do you lose if the race drops the sanctioning. Big races/race companies can maybe afford to buy seperate policies, but that is cost prohibitive for your average race.

My guess (illustrated by the SuperFrog example) is that if you can get Lance to appear at your race and promote that properly, you can pull enough additional registration and sponsorship to cover the liability insurance.  But for a small race it wouldn't make sense to drop USAT sanctioning just on the possibility that LA might want to show up...

On the bright side, if you drop USAT you can avoid all the people p1ssing and moaning about the 1-day membership fee.



Edited by tjh 2012-10-10 10:58 PM
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Pro's and Con's of official sanctioning Rss Feed