The Mailbag is a regular feature on VeloNews.com. If you have a comment, an opinion or observation regarding anything you have seen in cycling, in VeloNews magazine or on VeloNews.com, write to WebLetters@InsideInc.com. Please include your full name and home town. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.

---

Foundation rep outlines support for cycling
Editor:
Your recent interview with Gerard Bisceglia (see part one and part two) made some accusations about the USA Cycling Development Foundation. I am one of the initiators of the foundation and I would like to shed some light on the foundation so that readers could have more information.

The purpose of the foundation is incredibly simple: take from the "rich" and give to the "programs." We also take from the near-rich, the not-rich, and any other warm-hearted individuals who respect our mission: "to assist USA Cycling in its efforts to create and implement consistent and sustained development programs for young American bike racers."

The "programs" are primarily the athletic development programs of USA Cycling. Some of the foundation funds indeed support the under-23 program in Belgium, as mentioned in Gerard’s interview, and we are very proud of this successful program, which was just profiled in the May issue of Bicycling magazine. Many of the newest generation of rising pro stars like Dave Zabriskie and Tyler Farrar have progressed through this program.

Foundation funds also support all the other athletic development projects of USA Cycling such as the U23 mountain-bike program, the women’s development camps, the junior-development program and the track resident program. And the funds are spent across the board for elite programs in every discipline including mountain, road, track and most recently, BMX racing.

The foundation contributed about $600,000 to these programs in 2005, and has contributed more than $3 million since its inception. In addition, the foundation makes direct grants to individual athletes who need help with travel, training and scholarship through the Edmund R. Burke Fund, The John Stenner Collegiate Scholarship Fund and other funds. These grants represented an additional $100,000 in foundation funds in 2005. The foundation also helps line up appropriate sponsors for worthwhile programs: for example, introducing the T-Mobile women’s team to its title sponsor.

The $700,000 in support for these programs and grants comes with virtually no services to the donors in exchange for the money. This stands in contrast to membership fees, which are paid with an expectation of service: races, officials, results reporting, insurance, membership cards, travel vouchers, ranking systems, etc. It would be appropriate to look at the respective size of foundation dollars versus member dollars on the basis of "net funds available after services provided to the contributor," in which case the foundation dollars are quite large.

In return for its money the foundation wants three things. One, the money should be spent in an optimal way to improve athletic performance over the medium-to-long term. Two, USAC should be held accountable for the results of those programs. And three, USAC should work to create a healthy "cycling ecosystem" to provide suitable racing opportunities for everyone from juniors to masters at home and abroad. The three USAC board seats give the foundation representation and accountability proportionate to its contribution to make sure these things happen.

I hope your readers will continue to support us with their contributions in cash, in kind, or in love. We will continue to do our best to make their contributions count.

Mick Hellman
Trustee
USA Cycling Development Foundation

Bisceglia’s termination a shocker
Editor:
Wow. I just sat outside a little cafe at the Redlands Classic talking with Gerard Bisceglia for at least an hour. I had recognized him from the "Off Road to Athens" movie and had approached him with a million questions I had regarding cycling in the U.S., NORBA stuff in particular. I would say he was one of the most articulate, kind and intelligent people I had ever met, and thought how lucky we were to have him in our sport. He had no idea who I was and was willing to spent a large part of his afternoon letting me bug him. I'm shocked to hear the news of his termination.

Paul Hubbell
Wrightwood, California

Discovery made the right decision
Editor:
This letter is in response to one posted by Joshua Germany (see Monday’s Mailbag: "Teammates?"). I too was somewhat dismayed by Discovery Channel's tactics in the final kilometers of the Tour of Flanders. However, according to George Hincapie, it was a result of poor communication rather than a conspiracy.

Further, I have replayed the clip of George's Paris-Roubaix crash several times now. Immediately after the crash, Leif Hoste can be seen frantically reaching for his radio. While I've not had the privilege of hearing the conversation myself, I am sure that Hoste was notifying the team car of George's crash, and asking for instructions. Given that George had crashed once earlier, and was complaining of pain in his hand, the team car probably felt that his status was iffy at that point. Hoste and Vladimir Gusev were obviously in the winning group, and the odds were better than not that George was out. But even if he had been able to continue, he could have remounted a spare bike, and then had one of the others drop back to help him bridge up while whoever stayed in the group tried to slow the pace. Either way Discovery had someone in the winning move.

I think it was a sound tactical decision to not have anyone wait on George, until they knew his status for sure. And, quite frankly, I think it really blows that Hoste, Gusev, and Peter Van Petegem were disqualified. How many seconds did they lose just slowing to go through that train crossing? That may very well have cost one those riders the race.

Jeff Wiggs
Western, North Carolina

You don’t play chicken with a train
Editor:
When the lights are blinking red and the gates are down at the railroad crossing, it's not only against the rules, which are clear on this one, but also common sense —you don't play chicken with a train. Imagine the liability! That was a stupid move and deserves a DQ. It could not be more cut and dried.

Bret Martin
Oakland, California

Everyone who ran the crossing should’ve been DQ’d
Editor:
I am repeatedly amazed but no longer surprised by the capriciousness of continental officials' rule enforcement. As a former racer, a current USAC official, and an active race promoter, I can only see one fair ruling from Sunday's race and that is enforcement of the rule as it is stated. If the lights are on, then none shall pass.

The rule was made for the safety of the riders who are "on the rivet" - fully invested in their breakaway or chase. Imagine the devastation if the third rider in either group simply followed wheels and ended up getting hit. Said Juan Antonio Flecha of the official that was able to stop the second group (the same official tried in vain to stop the Hoste group earlier): "I am glad they stopped us because had they not, I would have kept going and it was too dangerous." Considering this, the finish line officials' only mistake was in the failure to disqualify all riders who broke the rule.

Michael Doupe
Lancaster, Pennsylvania

---

The Mailbag is a regular feature on VeloNews.com. If you have a comment, an opinion or observation regarding anything you have seen in cycling, in VeloNews magazine or on VeloNews.com, write to WebLetters@InsideInc.com. Please include your full name and home town. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.