If you are new to the sport, it can feel almost impossible: how can an Olympic host venue go years without a major UCI elite event, beyond domestic nationals, regional racing, and a very healthy masters scene? If you are not new to the sport, you know the answer is not one thing. It is money, geography, governance, calendar politics, and - unavoidably - the reality that USA track cycling has been simultaneously strong (in pockets) and under-built (as a system) for decades.
WHAT CARSON IS (AND WHY IT SHOULD MATTER)
Carson is not a temporary pop-up track or a training shed. The VELO Sports Center opened in 2004, seats roughly 2,450 spectators, and sits inside the Dignity Health Sports Park complex. It has been a US Olympic and Paralympic training site and is closely tied to the national programme identity of USA Cycling.
And it has not been completely quiet internationally. Carson hosted:
- 2004 UCI Junior Track World Championships
- 2005 UCI Track Cycling World Championships
- UCI Track World Cup rounds (2006-2008)
- UCI Para-cycling Track World Championships (2012 and 2017)
- 2017 UCI Track World Cup round (Los Angeles, February 2017)
- 2024 Pan American Track Cycling Championships (3-7 April 2024)
So the better question is not "did nothing happen?" It is: why was the venue not a consistent, reliable stop on the elite international circuit - the way top European venues often are?
LA 2028 IS LOCKED IN - AND IT MAKES THE GAP FEEL LOUDER
In July 2024, the UCI confirmed that Olympic track cycling champions at LA28 will be crowned at the velodrome in Carson. LA28 also lists Carson Velodrome in its venue plan.
This is the point where the comparison becomes uncomfortable: in most major US sports, hosting the biggest event in the world triggers a relentless domestic build-up. Test events. Showcase events. Commercial packages. Talent pipelines. The sport forces itself into the national conversation, at least briefly.
Track cycling, in the US, has not consistently behaved like a sport preparing to peak on home soil.
WHY THE BIG INTERNATIONAL EVENTS DID NOT "STICK"
There is no single villain here. But there are recurring structural reasons:
THE UCI CALENDAR IS EUROPE-CENTRIC (AND RISK-AVOIDANT)
Elite track cycling is still shaped by proximity. Most teams, staff, equipment, and media are based in Europe. A US round adds major freight and travel costs, time-zone disruption, and longer time away from home bases. When budgets tighten, organisers and teams default to the shortest, cheapest, most predictable geography.
Even if Carson is perfect as a building, it sits in the wrong place for a cost-minimised winter calendar.BIDDING, DELIVERY, AND THE ECONOMICS OF "MAKING IT WORTH IT"
A UCI-level event is not just track hire and some banners. It is broadcast, timing, lighting, staffing, accommodation blocks, transport, security, medical, anti-doping logistics, and a promoter willing to carry risk.
Carson is a 2,450-seat venue. That can be loud and brilliant. But it also caps ticket revenue. If you cannot reliably fill the building and sell sponsorship, you are effectively funding a world event for everyone else to enjoy - and that is a tough sell inside a federation that must justify spend across multiple disciplines.
Over recent years, many international track cycling events outside London have struggled to fill arenas. Carson would be different. A major international meeting in Los Angeles, properly marketed, would likely sell out quickly - and that exposes another issue. A 2,450-seat venue may feel intimate for domestic racing, but for an Olympic Games in one of the world’s largest cities, it is modest. Expanding capacity is difficult to justify if the venue rarely hosts elite events. Yet without elite events, there is no commercial proof of demand.
USA CYCLING HAS OFTEN BEEN FORCED INTO TRIAGE MODE
USA Cycling is not unique here, but the US track programme has regularly felt like it is choosing what it can afford to be good at, rather than building a machine that makes excellence inevitable.
When resources are limited, programmes narrow. The women's endurance pathway has delivered world-level results (and that matters), but breadth across sprint, men's endurance depth, and repeatable progression systems has been harder to sustain. The outcome is a national team that can produce stars, but not always a conveyor belt.
FRAGMENTATION: A STRONG DOMESTIC SCENE THAT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY BECOME AN ELITE PIPELINE
The US has a huge cycling population, and on the track it is often most visible in masters racing: deep, committed fields, real disposable income, and a culture of turning up. But masters strength does not automatically convert into junior-to-elite pathways, professional trade teams, and centralised national systems.
The US is also geographically vast. The number of velodromes is limited. Talented juniors can be several states away from regular track access. College, road, MTB, and indoor training options compete for attention. Without an aligned pathway, talent scatters. Some riders thrive anyway. Many simply never get the repetitions, coaching, and race volume that European and Oceania riders take for granted.
"HOME VELODROME" DOES NOT EQUAL "HOME SPORT"
Carson is a national training site, but track cycling is still niche in US mainstream sport. That matters because mainstream sport brings the things that fund performance: sponsors, media, paid staff roles, and cultural pressure to win.
Which leads to our point: what other US sport would tolerate a fragmented system that wastes obvious talent? In swimming, athletics, basketball, even women's football, the US expects structures that find talent and keep it moving upwards. Track cycling has too often relied on individuals fighting their way through, rather than a system carrying them.
THE CONSEQUENCE: A PROGRAMME THAT CAN WIN, WITHOUT BEING "INEVITABLE"
The US can and does produce world champions and Olympic champions. But the feel is different to the dominant track nations. In the best systems, medals look repeatable. They look planned. In a fragmented system, medals look heroic.
Heroism is not a strategy for LA 2028.
USA IS NOT A DEVELOPING NATION - EXCEPT, ON THE TRACK, IT LOOKS LIKE ONE
Let us be clear: the United States is not a developing sporting nation. It is arguably the most powerful sporting nation on earth. It dominates Olympic medal tables. It produces depth across athletics, swimming, basketball, gymnastics, winter sports. The infrastructure, money, sports science and collegiate pipeline are world class.
But on the track, internationally, the picture looks very different.
Yes, there are world-beating athletes: Chloe Dygert, Jennifer Valente, and a women’s team pursuit programme that has repeatedly delivered on the biggest stage. Those achievements are real, and they deserve respect.
But they also expose something uncomfortable.
They look like extraordinary individuals emerging from fragmented structures, not the natural output of an industrial-strength system. They feel like brilliance surviving despite the environment, not because of it. That is not a criticism of the athletes or coaches involved. It is a reflection of structural inconsistency over time.
When a nation of 330 million produces isolated pockets of excellence rather than relentless depth across sprint and endurance, men's and women's programmes, juniors through elite - that is not what sporting dominance normally looks like. That is what a developing structure looks like.
Which raises an awkward but important question: should USA track cycling be treated more like a developing nation within the UCI framework?
The UCI invests heavily in Continental Training Centres in places such as Aigle, Shanghai, Lima and Anadia. These centres exist precisely because some national federations do not yet have the coaching depth, integrated pathways or financial stability to build sustainable high-performance systems alone. They provide structure, education, equipment access and coaching continuity.
It sounds counter-intuitive. But what if the same thinking applied inside the United States?
Colorado already hosts altitude training culture, Olympic infrastructure and a strong endurance sport identity. Could a UCI-backed Continental Training Centre, formally structured and partially independent, provide the coherence that has historically been missing? A centralised, standards-driven environment that:
- unifies coaching philosophy
- embeds international race exposure as default
- creates sprint and endurance depth rather than one-off stars
- removes political fragmentation between regions
If USA Cycling struggles to build that coherence internally, could an externally structured framework accelerate progress? Not as an indictment - but as a reset.
Because the alternative is to continue relying on outliers. And outliers do not guarantee medals at a home Olympic Games.
LA 2028 should not be about hoping that another once-in-a-generation talent appears at exactly the right moment. It should be about arriving with layered depth, repeatable performance models and the kind of system that other nations quietly fear.
The velodrome in Carson is Olympic ready. The question is whether the system feeding into it will be.
WHAT "GETTING SERIOUS" WOULD LOOK LIKE BEFORE LA 2028
If Carson is the Olympic stage, the build-up should be visible and relentless. Practically, that means:
MAKE CARSON A PROPER INTERNATIONAL HABIT AGAIN
Bring the world to the track, not once every decade, but repeatedly.
Commit to hosting a major UCI event in 2026 and/or 2027. Yes, the current Nations Cup calendar is set - but Olympic host venues should not passively accept the schedule. If LA 2028 is serious about momentum, the UCI and organisers should explore adding an additional round or a standalone elite meeting in Carson to build narrative and commercial traction.
Treat it like a commercial product: proper presentation, packed sessions, storytelling, and a reason for non-cycling locals to buy tickets.
STOP LEAKING TALENT BETWEEN "DISCIPLINES" AND "SCENES"
You do not need to kill the domestic masters culture - it is an asset. But you do need a clean pipeline alongside it, regional talent hubs tied to actual track access.
A national calendar that rewards juniors and U23s with real racing volume. Look at T-Town, it is one of the best setups in the world for domestic racing, but what does that actually mean for the USA Track Cycling team?
REBUILD SPRINTING LIKE A REAL PROGRAMME
Sprinting is where fragmentation is most obvious: expensive equipment, specialist coaching, and a high failure rate unless athletes get repeated exposure to elite race dynamics.
Centralise sprint camps, then decentralise access (so riders are not forced to move across the country to be seen).
Create a visible domestic sprint series that mimics international rounds: qualifying, match sprinting, keirin formats, team sprint depth.
USE LA 2028 AS LEVERAGE WITH THE USOPC AND SPONSORS
The pitch is straightforward: the Olympic venue exists. The optics are perfect. The story sells itself. Use that to unlock: longer-term staff contracts (coaches, mechanics, performance support) so knowledge stays in-house. Equipment partnerships that reduce the cost barrier for emerging riders. Athlete support that keeps talent on the track rather than drifting to other disciplines out of necessity
A CULTURAL SHIFT: FROM "NICHE CYCLING" TO "TEAM USA EXPECTATION"
Track cycling does not need to become the NBA. But it does need internal standards that match US sport culture: clear selection logic, transparent progression, and a ruthless focus on turning potential into repeated international performance.
Carson is not the problem. Carson is the mirror.
It has already hosted the world. It will host the Olympic Games. The infrastructure exists. The question is whether the system feeding into it will match the stage.
No other major sporting nation hosts a home Olympics and treats the build-up as optional.
