History of women's racing?

[streever]

Hi all,
I apologize if I'm violating any rules of your forum. I've read the FAQ and, while this is clearly a women's cycling forum with a possessive apostrophe, I didn't see any rules or guidelines explicitly disallowing men. If I am correct, please, accept my apology in advance.

I'm posting because I'd like to find good references for women bike racing in a historical sense: who won which races, what were times like, what was the prize, etc. In general, I'd like to know more about women in racing, ways that this sport hampers/helps equal participation, and just in general become more knowledgeable about women's racing, so I'd love any reference suggestions, both print and digital media.

I'm currently working on a series of blog posts about women in racing, because if I'm writing about it, I know I'll be reading it and following the races. I think cycling--like all other aspects of life--can only be improved by having equal access and greater diversity, so I'm trying to increase my awareness of it beyond the male dominated sphere.

Thank you in advance for any help, references, or thoughts. I appreciate any responses!

[Eden]

There's nothing wrong with coming here to ask serious questions.

You want to know more ask women who race... I'm a cat 3 out here in the PNW. I'm 40, so I have no aspirations to make a career out of it, but I can tell you what I know about the racing world. The pros have all the same problems most any pro women's sports encounter. It's thought that for the most part, women's sports don't have the following to support television broadcast, therefore there are fewer sponsors, with fewer dollars, etc. etc.... Most of the women that I know who race pro have a side career... You can barely get your expenses covered as a pro woman cyclist, much less make a living at it. This is unfortunately true even to the top ranks. But then it all starts lower down....

We're very lucky up here to have a large cycling and racing community. We have more opportunity than most other places. We actually have separated women's cat 4 fields, while in most places all the women still race together. This really creates a disincentive for women to race, unless they are particularly strong right out of the gate. Many people try a few races, get dropped right away and that's it for them. The whole idea of having to race with the higher category women scares some people off before they ever even get to the point of trying.

Convincing promoters to separate out the women is certainly a challenge. They have a set amount of time they can run their race in and a certain number of fields that they can run. They look at it as why should I run a women's 4 field that might get 25 riders, when I can run a Master's 40+ field that will fill? It's a money thing for them, but for us it's a chicken and egg problem - if you don't create the opportunities for women to race in a setting that isn't intimidating, they wont do it. We've been lucky enough here to have the numbers to really support the beginner women- most of our races have cat 4 fields and we've even been able to have some separate cat 3 races. It takes a lot of hard work though and women who will get out there and advocate hard. We have a cat 4 and cat 3 prize series that several of our veteran women races work extremely hard at organizing, to encourage women to be out racing. It's a help to use it with promoters to convince them that if they allow their race to be a series race that it will help attendance and justify the separated fields.

Hope that gives you some food for thought. If you have specific questions, I'd be happy to try to answer in more depth.

[streever]

Thank you so much for your detailed and thoughtful reply, Eden, I really appreciate it!

I will read this and come back to ask more questions as I continue. Reading these forums, I saw what seems to me to be a real structural problem around women's racing--there are not the same entry-level opportunities for women that men enjoy (for the reasons you've explained), so there is not a large number of women racing. It is disappointing but not unexpected that (predominantly) male organizers don't realize that the chicken/egg problem is one they invent: by not making women feel welcome or even included, they naturally will only see 25 riders, and nothing will ever change until they start taking down the barriers to entry.

Sincere thanks, and I'll definitely send you follow-up questions. My hope is to write a brief "intro" post about women's racing from a historical perspective, and then start writing a weekly piece about women's cycling right now--as part of that I'd like to profile different teams and racers, and would be happy to talk to you about your team in the future! (That is still a few weeks away, though.)

Thank you!

[velogirl]

Streever, you might be more effective in gathering information if you share your identity. What's your name and where can we find your blog?

Lorri

Hi all,

I'm currently working on a series of blog posts about women in racing, because if I'm writing about it, I know I'll be reading it and following the races. I think cycling--like all other aspects of life--can only be improved by having equal access and greater diversity, so I'm trying to increase my awareness of it beyond the male dominated sphere.

[streever]

Hi Lorri,
my apologies, Streever is actually my name (David Streever)--I use it for everything and didn't mean to be opaque. I didn't post my blog straight-away because I didn't want to be "advertising" or promoting it, and, honestly, it has only one post really (it is pretty sad.) It is at "itsaboutthebike.com".

Thank you for the advice, I appreciate it!

[velogirl]

All good. I actually found you quite easily by putting together your Twitter handle and location and googling that. Looks like you have quite the background in advocacy and transportation. So, why the interest in women's cycling? What do you hope to achieve?

Lorri

[streever]

I think that will be more clear when I finish writing the first post: the thing is, I think that traditionally women are excluded from a lot of sports, by a combination of really systemic issues. Between lack of funding and lack of coverage, women's sports don't draw the same participatory interest that male sports seem to draw.

I don't think I can change that on a global or even regional scale, but I decided that as much as I bemoan societal problems and inequalities, I was as much a part of the problem as anyone else because I wasn't following women's cycling myself--although I enthusiastically follow men's, I simply wasn't paying attention to women's cycling.

My thought was that by setting a concrete goal for myself (write one short 1000 character piece a week) I'd be exercising my writing and also following women's sports. I was also really inspired by a series of articles a good friend of mine wrote--she herself is a woman bike racer, and wrote a series on women athletes preparing for the Olympics which you can read here: http://www.thedailymuse.com/author/pan-pan-fan/.

Basically, I'm hopeful that I can get myself to focus more on the incredibly strong athletes, who work so hard, with so much less glory and money than the people I've typically followed, and hopefully learn a lot in the process. If writing about women in bike racing gets even one other person to have a similar realization to mine, I'd be really happy!

[velo]

To add to what Eden has said, I used to race, but my last race was over 10 years ago. Not much has changed since then, I guess. Some observations from back then, that may or may not still apply (but since you're looking at it historically, it may be relevant)... I was a Cat 3 and was near qualifying for Cat 2 status when I quit. Even at that level, event organizers offered only non-monetary primes for the women. I won things like shoes, jerseys, etc. but locally (midwest), there was not enough participation to warrant cash prizes for the women. This lack of participation was due, in part, to what Eden has said. There is not even a women's master's classification for racing, which means that older women, who may NOW have the time to train are not going to race against young, fast riders. Being lumped all together is a detriment to the sport for women. It's also dangerous for crit racing. Crits are tight, fast, and require good handling... putting rookies in with women who are Cat 1 - 2 or even Pro makes it very dicey.

This is how it was THEN. It sounds like it has not changed, which is very frustrating because I would have thought that it would have in the intervening years, especially with such a rise in the popularity of the sport.

Actually, in the midwest, I would say that Mountain Bike and Cyclocross racing are perhaps more welcoming for women. Mountain biking races I have seen have a little more separation of categories, better participation, and cash prizes, which all make it more enticing (thus better turn out). I was just at a cyclocross race, which had a really nice cash pay-out for women. Good to see that!

[Eden]

I can definitely agree about cash prizes, at least anything substantial... those are pretty rare even in the 1,2 fields - enough so that we still tend to make a big deal out of it when the cash for the women equals the men (the race my team puts on always tries to do this - the team's sponsors put up enough to equal what the promoter pays out to the men). There's Exergy in Idaho who has intentionally set out to promote women and put up the money and Baker Stage Race in Oregon, where a local woman business owner puts up the money to match the men for the 1,2's at least.

There are master's classifications - at least for the state championship races and most TT's. There's a caveat here - the masters are not necessarily *slower* than the non-masters.... If you are given a choice to race master B's or 4's you may find the B's field to be a little stacked with 50+ 1,2's

No one enjoys combined crits - the 1,2's usually make them hot and fast at the beginning to intentionally drop the 4's because they don't usually want them there. The 4's get a couple of laps and get pulled - no fun either. The rare strong ones that can hang, generally aren't experienced enough to handle the tight packs and the cornering and can cause chaos. These are the girls who often get alienated because they get yelled at - a whole lot.... They start thinking that bike racers are bunch of stuck up b*s, just trying to boss them around. I've seen very young ones that are still pretty emotionally immature and still at that stage where they feel like they are immortal, really not understand that they are a danger - they just think the other women are jealous of how strong they are and trying to keep them from winning. It's not rare to see these girls quit too - when they might with a little experience and coaching be able to be quite good.

I think part of the appeal of cyclocross is that no one gets left behind - it may sting a bit if you get lapped, but it's nothing like having that follow car pull away in a road race and then you are on your own. They do have more separation in the categories too (the last one I went to had 1,2's 3's Master 3's 4's, Master 4's Singlespeed - and maybe more to choose from). With timing chips (which we are using out here) it's not too hard to separate out the races, even though they are all out on course at roughly the same time. The promoters can basically run as many fields as they please at 5 min intervals. There's not as many officials needed, no cars and no dealing with time limits on how long roads can be "closed". The prizes for some categories aren't exactly anything to write home about - oatmeal was a series prize, but hey it's something (and I think it was the same for the boys).

[streever]

Actually, in the midwest, I would say that Mountain Bike and Cyclocross racing are perhaps more welcoming for women. Mountain biking races I have seen have a little more separation of categories, better participation, and cash prizes, which all make it more enticing (thus better turn out). I was just at a cyclocross race, which had a really nice cash pay-out for women. Good to see that!

That is good news, and gives me a positive angle to write about in some stories! I like hearing that. I will definitely spend some time looking into cyclocross too!

[streever]

Lorri, I wrote you a response which was held in moderation: I'm not sure why, but I apologize, I didn't mean to leave you without an answer!

Quite simply, I was really inspired by a series of articles a friend wrote for the Daily Muse (I think this is why it got held, so I am not re-posting the link: you can search for Pan Pan Fan, Women Olympians if you want to see it, it is a series of profiles on young Olympians getting ready to compete). I read that, and thought, what a shame that there is so little coverage of women in cycling!

Then I realized that I was part of the problem. By only following men in the sport I love, I was missing out on a lot of bike racing. My thought was that I could at least change myself and my perspective by seeking out women's bike racing. I don't expect to change many peoples perspectives, but perhaps naively, I think I could at least influence a few people to start paying more attention to other participants in the sport!

[Crankin]

I read the article on the professor; I have to say her prior experience was nothing like Evie Stevens. While neither of them trained for cycling, Evie was a serious competitive athlete in more than one sport as a teen. The other woman sounded more like me... I did a little weight lifting and aerobics before I started cycling!