Tour Of Missouri 2010 (Columbia, Armstrong, Cave: insurance, hotels, home)

[Northwoods Voyager]

Please help support this exciting venture:

Missouri News and Announcements - Support The Tour By Randy Henson

"We need your support in making the Tour of Missouri 2010 happen. We need to let Governor Jay Nixon know that this event is important for the tourism industry and is an absolutely great way to show the WORLD that we are a wonderful place to visit. The Tour of Missouri also promotes exercise and health by getting people throughout the state aware of the joy and excitement that cycling brings to someone who gets into the sport."
Quote, Randy Henson

[ShadowCaver]

Thanks lady of the northern woods... Sent my letter this morning

For those interested:
http://z.about.com/d/bicycling/1/0/G/2/-/-/tour_map.JPG
Tour of Missouri News :: Tour of Missouri 2007 Wallpaper (http://mobikefed.org/tourofmissouri/2007/09/tour-of-missouri-wallpaper.php - broken link)

2008 Host Cities - Tour of Missouri 2009 - Tour of Missouri 2009
Home*-*Tour of Missouri 2008

Tour of Missouri 2009
Save The Tour of Missouri

As a scientist/engineer, I love, respect, and welcome honesty & critical thinkings... therefore, there is this side to the mix also to consider:
Taking A Closer Look At Tour of Missouri Economic Impact Estimates | Fired Up! Missouri
MPNblog.com | Missouri Political News: Tour of Missouri economic argument based on flawed Georgia economic impact study (http://www.mpnblog.com/2007/09/tour-of-missouri-economic-argument.html - broken link)

[cyrano]

I have to be counted among those who think this is an economic boondoggle, and I sincerely hope Columbia doesn't buy into it. The original Tour was sold on very inflated economic assumptions. I read the original study prepared by an agricultural economist at MU whom I happen to know. The economist's name is mentioned in ShadowCaver's second negative link. It fell apart upon close reading-- it assumed that many people were coming to watch the race in multiple locations from outside the state, were traveling from town to town to watch it, and spending hundreds of dollars in hotels and meals (I recall something like a $70/day average meal assumption, per person). It's not as if the cities get this benefit visited upon them for free. In exchange for hosting, they have to provide free or low-cost hotel rooms (and meals?) to the racers, their teams, and other Tour functionaries. Then there was the whole thing about someone deciding that they needed to hire models from Georgia as eye candy-- and they ran up some pretty impressive bills as well, aside from what they were paid. FiredUp Missouri, admittedly not a site that's going to love things Peter Kinder does, did a lot of coverage on the Tour.

Especially given that neither Lance Armstrong nor any other bike racer I had ever heard of rode in this year's Tour, I just don't see the benefit of continuing it, and definitely don't want my home town to shell out any money hosting a stage.

[Silvermouse]

Originally Posted by cyrano

I have to be counted among those who think this is an economic boondoggle, and I sincerely hope Columbia doesn't buy into it. The original Tour was sold on very inflated economic assumptions. I read the original study prepared by an agricultural economist at MU whom I happen to know. The economist's name is mentioned in ShadowCaver's second negative link. It fell apart upon close reading-- it assumed that many people were coming to watch the race in multiple locations from outside the state, were traveling from town to town to watch it, and spending hundreds of dollars in hotels and meals (I recall something like a $70/day average meal assumption, per person). It's not as if the cities get this benefit visited upon them for free. In exchange for hosting, they have to provide free or low-cost hotel rooms (and meals?) to the racers, their teams, and other Tour functionaries. Then there was the whole thing about someone deciding that they needed to hire models from Georgia as eye candy-- and they ran up some pretty impressive bills as well, aside from what they were paid. FiredUp Missouri, admittedly not a site that's going to love things Peter Kinder does, did a lot of coverage on the Tour.

Especially given that neither Lance Armstrong nor any other bike racer I had ever heard of rode in this year's Tour, I just don't see the benefit of continuing it, and definitely don't want my home town to shell out any money hosting a stage.

I'm with you, cyrano.

[DinsdalePirahna]

I posted this on the 2009 Tour of Missouri Thread:

I am a cyclist and I love these bicycle races but...

quite a few states run these Bicycle Races, each thinking they have something unique. None generate the revenue streams that they promise. Most rely on public sector funding.

These events should all be run by the private sector, with government support provided at cost (Insurance, medical, police, street closures, etc) to the racer organizers.

That being said most of the American events are third tier events in the world of cycling and caters to an audience that doesn't understand cycling. The only peope that real care about these tours are the communities where the tour passers through, and a few hardcore bike fanatics.

A better approach would be to steal Iowa's idea and do a ride across the state. Or create a "hip" event like the Rosarito - Ensenada Fun Ride or the Solvang Century. These events should be pen to anyone that will abide by the rules, and pay a small registration fee.