US Team Selected For UCI Cyclocross World Championships
And a review of the 2021 selection criteria
USA Cycling announced, today, its team for the UCI Cyclocross World Championships that will take place January 30-31, 2021, in Ostende, Belgium. The team includes:
Women’s Elite
Clara Honsinger (Cannondale-Cyclocrossworld.com)
Katie Compton (KFC Racing/Trek/Knight Composites)
Rebecca Fahringer (Kona/Maxxis/Shimano)
Kaitie Keough (Cannondale-Cyclocrossworld.com)
Men’s Elite
Curtis White (Cannondale-Cyclocrossworld.com)
Women’s U23
Madigan Munro (Trek Factory Racing)
The Selection Process
If you’ve followed CXHAIRS for a while you know that the UCI Cyclocross World Championships selection criteria for Team USA are something that I have written about extensively in the past. Nothing is more consistent in cyclocross than the announcement that the selection criteria for Worlds have been reworked, and 2021 was no different. This year, of course, brought new challenges with the pandemic wreaking havoc on the domestic and World Cup calendar. This disruption to racing-challenged athletes and USA Cycling to figure out how exactly to approach the World Championships team selection.
I chatted with Jeff Pierce, USA Cycling Director of Elite Athletics, about the updated criteria and how it differs from years past. Pierce wanted to make it clear from the outset that the intention of USA Cycling is to have consistent criteria across all disciplines. So what we see in mountain biking, road and track will target the same level of performance as what we see in cyclocross.
Pierce explained that Jim Miller, the current USAC Head of Elite Athletics, created selection criteria for multiple disciplines up until his departure from the organization in 2018. Miller left for two years to work for Training Peaks before returning to USA Cycling in 2020.
“The years between when Jim left and Jim came back, it kind of went off in a whole bunch of different directions, for all the disciplines, as Jim's replacement basically allowed each discipline director to have a lot more freedom with the criteria. It was all over the map in a number of ways,” Pierce said. “There were a lot of inconsistencies in how it was written, the timing of it, and then the most disturbing thing was probably the standards were all over the place.”
Pierce and the USA Cycling coaching staff wanted to bring the process back to a “much more consistent place with very high standards.” Pierce believes that “good criteria creates good teams that win championship medals.” He stressed that the end goal for athletes should not be just to make a World Championships team. For Pierce, USA Cycling’s goal is to win medals and teams should only be filled with athletes who can compete at that level. “We're talking about world championships. We're not talking about participation. This is not a participation sport at that level,” Pierce said. “It’s a time when we want to put our absolute best foot forward and send our absolute best athletes.”
To that end, Pierce stressed that USA Cycling believes that cyclocross is “a real discipline with serious athletes and we should be affording them the same opportunities and the same framework and support that we give all of the other disciplines.” This was a bit of a head-scratcher for me because I’m not sure why the impression exists that the cyclocross community, athletes, or media believe anything to the contrary. I know that I’m not alone in trying to get anyone at USA Cycling who would listen to approach cyclocross as seriously as they approach other disciplines. If it is now being treated as such by USA Cycling, that’s a step in the right direction.
Major Criteria Changes
The full athlete selection criteria are available, here. I didn’t do the deep dive side-by-side comparison that I did last year because I think the more telling comparison will come in 2022 or even 2023. But if you look at my past reporting, the 2021 selection criteria is closer to 2019 than 2020.
The most significant change is that there is no longer a different standard applied to the men’s criteria and the women’s criteria. For instance, under last year’s criteria, elite women had to finish in the top three of a U.S. World Cup event to meet the automatic-selection criteria while elite men could automatically qualify if they were in the top 10 of a U.S. World Cup event. The same imbalance existed for European World Cup events, the Superprestige, and the formerly named DVV Troffee series: women had to finish much higher in the standings than men to automatically qualify for the Worlds team.
Pierce said that this imbalance between men and women was an open discussion point and that it was time for the men to “pony up.” He noted that the imbalance was not unique to cyclocross and that women on the road, track, and mountain biking were performing better than the men in those respective disciplines.
“If the guys want to play, they need to bring a stronger game,” Pierce said. “It's fun, but we're not doing it for fun. This is serious stuff and we look at it as all of these athletes being very serious athletes and we want to push them and help them get to the highest levels.” Pierce stressed that USA Cycling was not going to lower the criteria to make it easier for the men. “What we've found in the past is if you set the expectations and you set the standards high, the people get there a hell of a lot faster than if you write it down to them and hopefully they inch up year by year.”
The other major change is that no domestic racing is included in the selection criteria. I did not address with Pierce whether this was a permanent change going forward or a result of the pandemic. For instance, winning a national championship or continental championship no longer earns an automatic qualification. The qualification criteria are based solely on European racing, which of course is all there was for this season. We will have to wait for next year to see if any domestic racing is included, or if only the European-based qualifiers are part of the higher standards philosophy.
This change hit the Junior and U23 racers the hardest. Pierce told me that USAC’s decision not to bring any Juniors to this year’s World Championships was not a safety-based or COVID-related decision but one based on performance. “There just weren't any Juniors that hit the standards, basically, and I get it, because it's tough for them, there's a whole season missing from ‘cross here in the U.S., but ‘cross here in the U.S. is a little misleading as well,” Pierce said. “It's the combination of the racing you get to do here, and then seeing what happens with the athletes when you take them over to Europe. That is where you get the full picture.”
All six members of the team are currently in Europe, which removes many of the logistical problems that U.S.-based racers typically face when preparing for a World Championships trip. Pierce said that there were a few other athlete petitions but only one warranted any discussion. That applicant, according to Pierce, was a younger athlete who “hadn't posted the kind of results or data that would give you any level of confidence that they were ready to race worlds in ‘cross.”
As for the small six-member team that was selected, Pierce said that “we were expecting obviously a much bigger pushback from the ‘cross community because they are used to a very different mindset.” Pierce said the cyclocross community looks at Worlds as “the biggest party of the year, but along with that—and I'm not knocking the athletes who got to go to Worlds, they are obviously all really great athletes—at the world championship level, even at the top levels you're looking at there's a half a dozen, ten guys, that, holy crap, they're so fast that the guys in 15th to 20th place are getting lapped.”
I do not think that Pierce’s characterization of the cyclocross community mindset is entirely accurate. The pushback that has come in the past is the result of the imbalance in the different selection criteria for men and women that I discussed above. That imbalance led to a debate in 2018 over the selection of the Women’s U23 squad and why all available slots were not filled.
Interestingly, Pierce believed I was going to argue with him over the criteria being too tough. “I think one of the disciplines that was affected the most strongly [after bringing standards in line across disciplines] was ‘cross in that there was a little bit more of a mindset that the whole objective was just to get to Worlds,” Pierce said. “It didn't matter if you got to Worlds and got lapped on the third lap [because] you got to ride in the world championships.” Pierce added that this mindset was not in alignment with USA Cycling’s standards for athletics and not in alignment with the standards for how USA Cycling operates all the other disciplines.
I caught Pierce a bit off guard when I told him that I agreed with that assessment. “I was expecting a slightly different conversation,” he said, “more along the lines of ‘hey you're not supporting ‘cross!’” Pierce wanted to emphasize that USA Cycling is supporting cyclocross, “we just expect more from it, that's all."
This demonstrates a disconnect with USA Cycling over the perception of what the cyclocross community believes. This “mindset” that Pierce has assigned to cyclocross sounds as if it is based more on the views of one or two vocal commenters than the major stakeholders in U.S. cyclocross. The conventional viewpoint with these stakeholders is that only those who qualify by meeting the selection criteria should make the Elite World Championship team. If that means we send only one or two elite-level racers to Worlds, so be it. From my experience, that is the “mindset” of elite cyclocross athletes, as well. They are under the impression that cyclocross is as serious as any other discipline and would not expect USA Cycling to treat it otherwise.
That being said, selection for the U23 and Junior teams demands a more open approach and a closer look at the talent pool to make sure nobody slips through the cracks. This in no way should be characterized as a “less serious mindset.” The hope is that for next season, through the Mud Fund, Olympic Development Academy, EuroCrossAcademy, and all of the other privately run development programs, there is an increased focus on opportunities in Europe and the U.S. that will give younger racers the experience they need at that world-class level. Having those additional opportunities and development avenues in place will reserve the World Championships for racers who have proven themselves in these other settings. That being said, having a system in place that allows for the U23 and junior “diamonds in the rough” to have the opportunity to shine through, should be considered in the selection process.
For this year’s squad, many of the available slots were not filled. But this year is an aberration. In a somewhat similar circumstance, next year will also be a bit of an aberration with the U.S. hosting the World Championships. We may see a fully loaded roster because of the geographical circumstances. We will have to wait until 2023 to see how this new set of criteria truly affects team size and who attends the World Championships. Although if history tells us anything, we will most likely have an all-new set of criteria by the time 2023 rolls around.
How The Team Qualified
Each member of this year’s team qualified in the “self-funded” category. Because the squad is much smaller than other years, and because there are no travel costs from the U.S., the athletes are being treated as fully funded by USA Cycling.
Clara Honsinger: Clara auto-qualified by placing in the top 3 of a World Cup (2nd at Dendermonde and Namur). She also qualified by being ranked fifth in the World Cup and sixth in the overall UCI rankings.
Rebecca Fahringer: Becca is 14th in the overall UCI Rankings and auto-qualifies for being in the top 20.
Katie Compton: Katie auto-qualified by being 17th in the overall UCI Rankings.
Curtis White: Curtis is currently 17th in the overall UCI Rankings and auto-qualified.
Kaitie Keough and Maddie Munro are discretionary picks. Maddie’s Junior World Championship podium does not auto-qualify her because she is no longer racing in the Junior category.
Final Thoughts
Throughout our conversation, Pierce repeated his belief that the cyclocross community values participation over performance, the much-repeated “cyclocross mindset.” As I intimated above, it is my experience that this view isn’t accurate. Both values have their place in the sport, but one isn’t placed above the other. They are complementary.
U.S. cyclocross is proudly participatory and needs to continue to work hard to be even more so. We must bring in first-time racers from new communities to continue to grow the sport and break down the remaining barriers to entry. The cyclocross community wants everyone to race and everyone to have a good time.
We also need amateurs to show up and pay entry fees so that we can fund events for elite racers. The community of participating athletes funds our elite athletes. Without participation, we could never dream about being serious about performance at the highest level. Cyclocross does not receive funding in the same way as Olympics cycling disciplines. We rely on the community. And that community commitment is serious.
While we may love a party atmosphere and having a laugh at our local race, characterizing the sport as less than serious when it comes to world-class performance is a misstep. The cyclocross community is 100 percent committed to having the best-of-the-best perform at the highest level. Participation and performance are not mutually exclusive ideals. You can promote a fun grassroots scene and still expect elite athletes to be serious and professional and earn their way onto a World Championships roster. Pitting participation against performance is not understanding U.S. cyclocross.
UPDATE
I had asked Jeff Pierce a few follow-up questions concerning how U.S. Cyclocross Nationals and the Pan-American Continental Championships would factor into the selection criteria going forward. Here is his response:
We do intend to add Nationals back in as we do across all disciplines with just a few exceptions. They were just added back in for road and MTB Worlds. It is an honor to be National Champion and if all our best athletes are at the National Championships it is no easy feat to win.
The Continentals is going to be a longer discussion and we have not made a decision on it yet. As our guiding principals are leading to much higher standards for cross than we have seen in the past the question of an auto spot going to the Conti champion where there are basically just two nations engaged is a good one. It could be construed as lowering the standards or diluting the selection. If we are going to be competitive with the best in the world we need to measure ourselves against the best in the world which is why we see things like the World Championships, World Cups, and the Super Prestige events at the top of the hierarchy for selection. There are 100 UCI points on offer to win Conti’s so still some good motivation to go either way but unlike some other disciplines, the Continental Champion does not get a spot by name in addition to the quota earned by Nations rank.
Clarification: In the technical guide for this year’s Cyclocross World Championships, the UCI notes the Continental Champion gains an automatic spot. It may still be up to the federation to take that rider. (Ruby West is incorrectly listed as a USA athlete. No junior men’s or U23 men’s winners are listed because Andrew Strohmeyer is now a U23 athlete and Gage Hecht is now an elite athlete):
Honestly hard to read what JP is saying. So many people have been working so hard to compete on the world level for so long... My goal since before I was the US national team coach has been to help make a world champion in the discipline of cyclocross. There are many like me. Many who are doing the work of development for US Cyclocross
I've never been involved in elite sports or USAC management so I have no idea what anyone says about athletes at that level, but reading this I wonder if Pierce should have practiced his talking points a bit more before speaking. All the quotes read a bit as shoot-from-the-hip.