# A line in the sand...



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

The UCI has removed their support for Paris-Nice. From Velonews:

"... if the FFC insists on maintaining this position, the race will take place entirely outside the regulatory and organizational structure of the UCI."

http://www.velonews.com/article/72868

The moment has come when the ASO must decide if their events are bigger than the rest of the sport.


JSR


----------



## JustinTur (Mar 4, 2006)

*I wonder...*

how long before some some Kazakh consortium is going to put in a hostile bid to take over Éditions Philippe Amaury! Maybe nobody gave them the idea yet!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

JSR said:


> The UCI has removed their support for Paris-Nice. From Velonews:
> 
> "... if the FFC insists on maintaining this position, the race will take place entirely outside the regulatory and organizational structure of the UCI."
> 
> ...


It's funny. Asatan was not invited to post danmark rundt despite their interest in participating. Why did the UCI not do anything about that? Surely it's the principle and not because it's ASO that is not allowing Asatan to start?

Nevertheless, it's not just ASO they are threatening, it's indirectly also the giro organisers and anyone else that would not want astana at the start line. 
The UCI might find themselves with a very short list of highly ranked races.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

den bakker said:


> Nevertheless, it's not just ASO they are threatening, it's indirectly also the giro organisers and anyone else that would not want astana at the start line.
> The UCI might find themselves with a very short list of highly ranked races.


Yes, true. But what would the organizers tell their sponsors if nobody lined up at the start? In this Olympic year, loss of UCI accreditation by a national federation would be very bad news. French road racers, track riders, mountain bikers, male and female, could all be excluded from participating.

Until the ban extends to RCS and others, the question is whether the TdF (and other ASO races) is more important than the Olympics.

JSR


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

JSR said:


> Until the ban extends to RCS and others, the question is whether the TdF (and other ASO races) is more important than the Olympics.
> 
> JSR


For cycling, I think the answer is yes.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

JSR said:


> Yes, true. But what would the organizers tell their sponsors if nobody lined up at the start? In this Olympic year, loss of UCI accreditation by a national federation would be very bad news. French road racers, track riders, mountain bikers, male and female, could all be excluded from participating.
> 
> Until the ban extends to RCS and others, the question is whether the TdF (and other ASO races) is more important than the Olympics.
> 
> JSR


I would love to see UCI try to explain why they put restrictions on ASO but not on RCS. 
An olympics without the french and italian would be a rather dull experience and UCI probably knows that. And yes, for road cycling TdF is for most people I know more important than the olympics, YMMV.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

There is no doubt that the TdF is the most important road race, by far. If there were no other considerations, the ASO could just walk away from the rest of the world and run their races the way they see fit.

But if the FFC were to lose their credentials by supporting the ASO, the other cycling disciplines would be affected, too. For French track riders, mtb'ers, and women the Olympics is the most important event. It's one thing to have big organizations fighting it out, but something else again when a relatively unheard of track rider is excluded due to a clash of titans. The political fallout would be tremendous.

This is the time for the UCI to play its cards. If they can assert themselves, using their accreditation of cycling federations and riders as incentive, they can revive the ProTour concept, or something similar, and make it stick. This is their last shot. If they can't organize the resistance and make a firm agreement, the ASO could go their own way, becoming a de facto ruling body. They might want to cut loose the other disciplines to the UCI, or something that would rise in its ashes, for the next Olympics, but they could control road racing.

I'm not trying to make judgements of right and wrong here. It's really a question of power and money at this point. 


JSR


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

I support ASO in this one. How can a sanctioning body force a race organizer to invite who it wants? I'd say the ASO has done a pretty damn good job making the Tour what it is. Not to mention Paris-Roubaix, which is arguably the biggest one day race as well.

Olympics don't matter to road cycling, but I think they are the highlight for Track riders, and maybe even Mountain Bikers.

I think the UCI is going to lose this standoff, especially if RCS voices support for ASO. No way the UCI wants to do with out Tour, Giro, MSR, PR, and others.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Why would the FFC lose their ability to send riders to the olympics? They don't support the TDF, at least to my knowledge.

I think one piece of leverage the UCI has is that they could try and exclude riders from the Olympics if they participate in non-UCI races. Certainly riders like Bradley Wiggins or other pursuiters would have to think about skipping the TDF to do the Olympics instead.

For most of these guys, the olympic road race is just not that important an event. I know Bettini won the last one, some Portuguese guy came in 2nd and I have no idea who came in third. The TT is even less relevant.


----------



## mh3 (Mar 8, 2006)

If I read it correctly, this is specifically about how the ASO has chosen to run Paris-Nice under French jurisdiction. This is why non of the other non-invites are relative to this specific statement from the UCI.

Quote from the AP article: 

He blamed the impasse on the ASO’s decision to manage the March 9-16 Paris-Nice “under the jurisdiction of French law.”

“This measure is utterly irregular and will have far-reaching consequences for all parties involved,” the UCI said in a statement. If France’s cycling federation “insists on maintaining this position, the race will take place entirely outside the regulatory and organizational structure of the UCI.”

 Link to the piece. .


----------



## funktekk (Jul 29, 2006)

Finally pro cycling finds a sub plot to overshadow doping, unfortunately the sub plot is that pro cycling is biting its nose to spite its face.

The UCI should realize they have no real leverage. The money lies in sponsorship. Sponsorship goes where the viewers go. The viewers go to TdF, PR, and PN. 

Folks I think we are witnessing the warning shots of a cycling civil war.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

I think the pertinent sections from the UCI rules are as follows (heavily edited to get at the good stuff):

2.1.001 UCI ProTour events are entered on the world calendar by the UCI ProTour council.

2.1.005 ME UCI ProTour World - UCI ProTeams, compulsorily- UCI professional continental teams with the label wild card and upon invitation

2.1.008 The management of the national calendar, its structure, the classification of national races and the participation rules are the responsibility of the respective national federations, subject to the provisions below.

2.1.009 Only the UCI continental teams of the country, regional and club teams, national teams and mixed teams may participate in national events. Mixed teams may not include riders from a UCI ProTeam.

So, if the TdF is run under the auspices of the FFC as a "national event", without regard to the UCI mandates for "world" calendar events, ProTour teams are excluded from participation. Additionally, the way I read this, the ProTour Council alone determines which races are on the "world" calendar. If the ProTour council declares your race a "world" event you must invite all the ProTour teams. If your event is a "national" event you can not invite them.

At least that's the way it looks to me. 

JSR


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

funktekk said:


> Folks I think we are witnessing the warning shots of a cycling civil war.


I think the waring shots have all been fired over the last few years. What you're hearing is the heavy artillery.

JSR


----------



## footballcat (Jul 8, 2004)

its just imploding... run now


----------



## mh3 (Mar 8, 2006)

It's fairly reminiscent of the open wheel racing split between the IRL and Cart. The organizers of one race thought their event was bigger than anything else, and created their own racing league. 13 years later after both bodies lost fans and millions in sponsership money to Nascar they finally pulled their heads out of their behinds and reconciled. It remains to be seen if open wheel racing and what used to be the biggest one day racing event in the country will recover to what it once was.

Moral of the story. If organizers of premier events wish for their events to remain the biggest and best, they need the best teams and athletes to draw sponsers and fans. You can only run on the name for so long before something else takes your spot.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

JSR said:


> I think the pertinent sections from the UCI rules are as follows (heavily edited to get at the good stuff):
> 
> 2.1.001 UCI ProTour events are entered on the world calendar by the UCI ProTour council.
> 
> ...


That's the way it was written up, however I'm pretty sure that earlier this year, or late last year, the UCI and ASO/RCS agreed that their races are not subject to the original Protour agreement. The UCI agreed, and now complains when ASO makes a decision they were told they could make.

IMHO the UCI/WADA have bungled things long enough. Let 'em all become laughable like the sport of professional boxing. There are better things to worry about.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> For cycling, I think the answer is yes.


without question. I think there's a quote from landis in his VN interview discussing the relative worth of olympic participation to a pro cyclist in which he makes it pretty clear it's a waste of time.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Einstruzende said:


> That's the way it was written up, however I'm pretty sure that earlier this year, or late last year, the UCI and ASO/RCS agreed that their races are not subject to the original Protour agreement. The UCI agreed, and now complains when ASO makes a decision they were told they could make.


The ASO and RCS races are definitely not on the ProTour calendar for this year. It would seem, though, that the national federations, the riders, and the teams are obligated to abide by the UCI rules, including ProTour stipulations.

So the UCI gambit would seem to be to let the Grand Tours go, but keep the rest of the organizations to their agreements. This would mean that, according to 2.1.009, the TdF could invite only French UCI Continental teams, and a maximum of three foreign teams (rule 2.1.010). I guess the foreign teams could be of the "regional and club teams, national teams and mixed teams" varieties.

JSR


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2008)

JSR said:


> they can revive the ProTour concept,
> 
> 
> JSR


Oh gawd I hope not.

The Pro Tour was a stupid idea to start with and has gone down hill from there.

It has homogenized racing to the point of utter boredom, making it irrelevant. It has led to these quarrels.

I can only hope the pro-tour is dead and gone.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

hmmmm if there's no UCI in Paris-Nice then that means everyone can race with aerobars, disc wheels, and non-traditional frames. Heck! Someone could legally field a team of recumbents


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

CabDoctor said:


> hmmmm if there's no UCI in Paris-Nice then that means everyone can race with aerobars, disc wheels, and non-traditional frames. Heck! Someone could legally field a team of recumbents


I'm sure whatever rules it will be run under (FFC rules?) are probably quite similar to UCI, just like USAcycling rules are for the most part, same as UCI rules.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Finally, the UCI grows some balls. Someone has to run and control cycling, and it shouldn't be the race organizers.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Finally, the UCI grows some balls. Someone has to run and control cycling, and it shouldn't be the race organizers.


Right, it definitely shouldn't be the people that own, organize, and secure financing for each race.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Finally, the UCI grows some balls. Someone has to run and control cycling, and it shouldn't be the race organizers.


I am still confused of what UCI rule ASO has ignored by not inviting astana


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

den bakker said:


> I am still confused of what UCI rule ASO has ignored by not inviting astana


The UCI seems to be taking the position that ASO has broken no rule. They can invite who they want, but UCI ProTour teams and riders are banned from participating at the risk of losing their licenses. The FFC can preside over the legalities - doping controls, course marshals, rules interpretations, etc. - only if it's a "national" race; sanctions could apply if ProTour teams are allowed to participate.

JSR


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Einstruzende said:


> Right, it definitely shouldn't be the people that own, organize, and secure financing for each race.


Good point. I forgot that management of any large organization is always done best by many disparate groups of people, each with their own goals and agendas and insistence on calling the shots. That's always a recipe for success. Someone should write a book.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

den bakker said:


> I am still confused of what UCI rule ASO has ignored by not inviting astana


That is a separate issue from this one, although definitely related in the background.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

edit: never mind


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

den bakker said:


> This makes no sense whatsoever. ASO can invite anyone they want as long as the UCI approves? Either you can invite who you want or you can't.
> It's not a protour event so no team has a birthright to participate.


ASO can invite who they want. UCI members can not accept every invitation they get. It is specifically stipulated in the UCI rules, as noted above, which races can have which kinds of teams.

The UCI can not sanction ASO for inviting ProTour teams, but they can sanction ProTour teams for racing in "national" events. They could also sanction riders and the FFC. 

IMO, the reason the argument has reached a critical stage is this: The UCI is gambling that their threat of sanctions is more important than a hoped-for invitation by the ASO. Any ProTour team that participates in ASO events is essentially turning its back on the UCI. Any ProTour team that fails to accept an ASO invitation is turning its back on the TdF.

If the ProTour teams move en bloc in either direction, they could influence the final outcome. If they decide to accept ASO's invitation terms, the ProTour crumbles and the UCI structure is severly weakened (I was about to type that it's in chaos, but I'm not sure it goes that far). If they stick together with the UCI, the TdF and other ASO events must go on with national teams only, or any Continental Pro teams willing to break with the UCI.


JSR


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> That is a separate issue from this one, although definitely related in the background.


Right. It does add dramatic effect, though! 

The ASO exerts its right of invitation by excluding the team with the defending champion.

THe UCI plays trumps with the right to sanction.

Astana is strong and influential, but not politically well positioned among the teams. 

Answer me this. If you were Patrick Lefevre would you back Astana, and the UCI by extension, or ASO and their excellent race calendar? That's where the next big play will come from, IMO.

JSR


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> Finally, the UCI grows some balls. Someone has to run and control cycling, and it shouldn't be the race organizers.


The UCI was running and controling cycling before, this all stems from their attempt to control access to the important events in professional cycling. Essentially the Pro Tour is an attempt to force teams to apply and pay the UCI for access. They are trying to position themselves as middle men so they can take their cut between the race organizers, who actually have the product with value to sponsors, and the teams who want to be in the races to satisfy their sponsors.

It only makes sense that ASO and RCS don't want to play ball. Why should they give up their power to the UCI? Especially in light of the fact that the UCI has done a piss-poor job in protecting the sport's image by letting doping run wild 10 years longer than they should have.

Last year Unibet was sacrificed, this year it appears to be Astana so that ASO/RCS can show UCI who has the power. Didn't we go thru this same thing last year with Paris-Nice and the UCI backed down at the last minute?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

The ProTour was an attempt to save cycling by keeping sponsors. It was about making sure that the big teams got into the big races, so that the races could keep their TV contract, which mean that the races <u>and the teams</u> were much more attractive to sponsors. Before the ProTour, even big races were dying. Paris-Nice was barely on life support. Remember the Midi-Libre? Now the race organizers are turning on the system that has saved them.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> The ProTour was an attempt to save cycling by keeping sponsors. It was about making sure that the big teams got into the big races, so that the races could keep their TV contract, which mean that the races <u>and the teams</u> were much more attractive to sponsors. Before the ProTour, even big races were dying. Paris-Nice was barely on life support. Remember the Midi-Libre? Now the race organizers are turning on the system that has saved them.


Funny, the argument normally heard is that the small races were killed because of the pro-tour. Now instead of supporting the national race, a pro tour team was forced to send their riders to an extremely important team time trail in Eindhoven or to Poland for the classic of classics Tour of Pologne. 
To take the death of a race as "evidence" for anything is suspect at best.


----------



## ms6073 (Jul 7, 2005)

While I have not been a supporter of the UCI's Pro Tour concept, I am not thrilled with ASO's politics in terms of the list of invitees for this years tour. I find it interesting that despite the house cleaning/reorganization done at Astana, the ASO did not invite Astana citing the reason as the damage the team did to the sport and the sponsors of last years tour. Of course the ASO did not even bat an eye about extending an invitation to Cofidis - a french pro-tour team that had to exit last years Tour for the exact the same offense as Astana after one of Cofidis' riders tested positive for Testosterone! :mad2:


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

ms6073 said:


> Of course the ASO did not even bat an eye about extending an invitation to Cofidis - a french pro-tour team that had to exit last years Tour for the exact the same offense as Astana after one of Cofidis' riders tested positive for Testosterone! :mad2:


Is it really surprising that the ASO would have more interest in promoting a nominally French team over a Luxemburg/Kazakh team whose big riders (Vino and Kash) are now suspended for doping? Astana is the perfect sacrificial team for so many reasons.


----------



## Lumbergh (Aug 19, 2005)

Psssssssssss

That's the sound of UCI's relevance pissssssing away...

"Cmon you guys, pay attention to me! Manbearpig is real! I'm super super cereal!


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Last year Unibet was sacrificed, this year it appears to be Astana so that ASO/RCS can show UCI who has the power. Didn't we go thru this same thing last year with Paris-Nice and the UCI backed down at the last minute?


Yes we did. The difference is that Paris-Nice was on the ProTour calendar then. They dodged a bullet last year, but look set for a showdown this year. 

JSR


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Of course the small races would feel that way. But the fact remains, that if the big races are dying, how could the small ones survive? Everyone seemed pretty happy with the ProTour when it was created, and it was only afterwards that the ASO decided it had better ideas.

Also, the ProTour also mandated that teams carry a lot more riders. I believe the number is 27 or 28 riders. This means they can (and have to because of PT overlap) run multiple races at the same time, so there is no good excuse for PT teams have to avoid smaller races.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

ASO hasn't ignored any rule, simply exercised their right to invite who they like. McTwat, Heiny's little lapdog, is continuing Verbruggen's doping apologist agenda. But let's not forget that there is zero love lost between WADA and the UCI and this is ostensibly about doping, and excluding a team who has sullied the sport through doping. Who will WADA side with - a national federation doing doping controls and supporting anti doping initiatives or a governing body trying to shoe horn a 'doping' team back in to races it would like to control, but doesn't? 

Besides, McTwat tried this last year and he blinked first - if he let's ASO have their own way and run their own race then he has lost, Olympic accreditation or not. And he's most likely to get Olympic accreditation withdrawn from the entire sport for being incompetent and running it so badly.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> The ProTour was an attempt to save cycling by keeping sponsors. It was about making sure that the big teams got into the big races, so that the races could keep their TV contract, which mean that the races <u>and the teams</u> were much more attractive to sponsors. Before the ProTour, even big races were dying. Paris-Nice was barely on life support. Remember the Midi-Libre? Now the race organizers are turning on the system that has saved them.


What evidence is there that big races were dying?

Paris-Nice has certainly garnered extra attention in its position as protour season opener and the first event for all the big teams, but I was more interested when Vino won 2 for his fallen countryman Kivilev.

I think it is natural that all but the biggest races wax and wane in popularity. It's not necessarily a bad sign for cycling that we don't have Paris-Brest anymore, because some other race has taken its place. Would I be worried if the Giro or Tour couldn't find sponsorship dollars? Yes, bigtime, but that hasn't been the case.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

*Eric Boyer chimes in on behalf of AIGCP*

From VeloNews:

"For the moment I'm consulting with all of the teams so that we can unanimously define which direction we are going to take," Boyer told AFP Tuesday. "After that I will be asking for a meeting with Pat McQuaid to inform him of our intentions. 

"Our decision will determine how we will race (other events) the rest of the season," added Boyer, referring to the events run by ASO, RCS and Unipublic. 

http://www.velonews.com/article/72883


----------



## TWD (Feb 9, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Is it really surprising that the ASO would have more interest in promoting a nominally French team over a Luxemburg/Kazakh team whose big riders (Vino and Kash) are now suspended for doping? Astana is the perfect sacrificial team for so many reasons.



I think you're right. 

On the surface, one would think that Astana having the defending chanpion and 3rd place from last year would be a good reason NOT to sacrifice them. 

However, being as that the second Contador was in yellow until this day, there have been whispers of operation puerto involvement. It doesn't matter whether he was really involved or not, the perception is that he MAY HAVE BEEN INVOVLED. To ASO, all that matters is perception, and how it impacts their profitability.

After the shame and scandal of Floyd, then Rasmussen, then Vino, what ASO really wanted in 2007 was to say "In the end, the best guy won, and he's clean". 

They didn't get that with Contador, plain and simple, and therefore, why would they want him back? It would have been better for ASO if Evans had won. 

The Contador-Puerto baggage got carried over to Astana, along with a bad taste in their mouth from Johan Bruyneel. Bruyneel with his fiasco of hiring Basso, not to mention being inseprable from Lance Armstrong for 7 years. 

I cringe to even mention "The Lance", but I think ASO had felt he had worn out his welcome by the time he was finally gone (remember them completely erasing Lance from the Route Presentation for the 2006 tour). I'm sure there's still some resentment there, and Bruyneel is the perfect punching bag for them to get in their shots.

Then there is Kloden. You never really hear him being implicated in any doping, BUT being a star rider of the T-Mobile team where systematic doping was carried out and confessed to, then transferring over to Astana with its systemic doping problems. Not saying he's a doper, but if you stand next to the fire long enough, you're going to smell like smoke, and in the publics perception "Where there's smoke...there's fire."

Astana may have mostly cleaned house, but the guys they brought in (Bruyneel and Contador, Kloden) don't have perfectly clean reputations. 

Think of it from ASO's perspective. They have EVERYTHING to lose by inviting Astana, but nothing to gain. Think about these scenarios: 

1. Astana gets an invite, and Contador wins again. He's still got the Puerto rumors lingering, so he can't be held up as the shining example of a clean winner. 

2. Astan gets an invite, and Contador wins again, and fails a doping test or Puerto is reopened and he's "firmly" linked (which of course would happen just prior to or during the tour for dramatic effect). Once again, the ASO gets the black eye of a doping scandal involving the Tour winner. It'll be a firestorm of the 2006 and 2007 Tour scandals combined. 

3. Astana gets an invite, and any one of the team fails a doping test during the tour. Astana leaves the race disgraced for the second year in a row, and ASO looks like a bunch of idiots for inviting the same team back to tarnish their reputation a third year in a row (nobody even bothers to note that they used to be Liberty Seguros any more). 

4. Astana gets an invite and Levi wins or finishes on the podium. This is better for ASO, but there are still plenty out there that would dismiss it as "It's just another one of Bruyneels tainted Lance clones." 

5. Astana gets an invite and Kloden wins or gets on the podium. The naysayers will say "Well, Kloden's never been caught, but we know he's been on two teams with major doping programs....blah blah blah...."

6. Astana gets an invite, and Contador, Levi and Kloden ride like crap and finish off the podium. Then people say "see, that proves they were doping before, and now they have spent 400K Euros on internal doping controls and have had to clean up their act."

In ASOs mind, inviting ASO is all risk and no reward.


----------



## slowdave (Nov 29, 2005)

When will see a pirate type organiser who effectivly buys all the riders in the teams they want and set up against the UCI, it has major president in other sports, Cricket IPL, and Kerry packer in the late 70's with one day games, Also happened in MTB in Australia when the australian branch of cycling (forget what they call themselves) were playing bully boy, a group went on there own and took most riders with them. The UCI will lose this battle IMO, the ASO have breached no rules that i can see, it is there race and they choose who they want/ think will be best for their race. ASO will be supported by RCA etc and the UCI will be left with tour down under, tour of poland etc etc 
and want that be a great series of races.


----------



## funktekk (Jul 29, 2006)

mh3 said:


> It's fairly reminiscent of the open wheel racing split between the IRL and Cart. The organizers of one race thought their event was bigger than anything else, and created their own racing league. 13 years later after both bodies lost fans and millions in sponsership money to Nascar they finally pulled their heads out of their behinds and reconciled. It remains to be seen if open wheel racing and what used to be the biggest one day racing event in the country will recover to what it once was.
> 
> Moral of the story. If organizers of premier events wish for their events to remain the biggest and best, they need the best teams and athletes to draw sponsers and fans. You can only run on the name for so long before something else takes your spot.


This is a great analogy!

Could North American continental racing be the NASCAR in this fight?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

funktekk said:


> This is a great analogy!
> 
> Could North American continental racing be the NASCAR in this fight?


 I've been kind of day dreaming about this scenario. 

TWD's list could use an addition:

7. ASO invites a bunch of teams to race, somebody gets busted doping. Whoever wins is suspected of doping for beating the guy who got busted.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> Why would the FFC lose their ability to send riders to the olympics? They don't support the TDF, at least to my knowledge.
> 
> I think one piece of leverage the UCI has is that they could try and exclude riders from the Olympics if they participate in non-UCI races. Certainly riders like Bradley Wiggins or other pursuiters would have to think about skipping the TDF to do the Olympics instead.
> 
> For most of these guys, the olympic road race is just not that important an event. I know Bettini won the last one, some Portuguese guy came in 2nd and I have no idea who came in third. The TT is even less relevant.



Merckx = bronze


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

*AIGCP sides with ASO*

From Velonews: "After having consulted all the teams, the International Association of
Professional Cycling Teams (AIGCP) have decided unanimously to compete in the
Paris-Nice race," announced Eric Boyer, who as well as being Cofidis team
director is also president of AIGCP. 

http://www.velonews.com/article/72909

The UCI is now isolated. So what do they do now? Go on a sanctioning rampage? Roll over and play dead? Howl at the moon?


JSR


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

What the UCI should do is announce that the ProTour is now dead and the UCI will no longer pursue the goals of the ProTour. It's back to the old way where everyone is on their own, for better or for worse, and everyone has to settle their own disputes. Race organizers are now totally responsible for providing their own officials, doping controls, etc. Good luck.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

JSR said:


> From Velonews: "After having consulted all the teams, the International Association of
> Professional Cycling Teams (AIGCP) have decided unanimously to compete in the
> Paris-Nice race," announced Eric Boyer, who as well as being Cofidis team
> director is also president of AIGCP.
> ...


I vote for plugging their ears and shouting "LALALALALA I DON'T HEAR YOU!"


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> What the UCI should do is announce that the ProTour is now dead and the UCI will no longer pursue the goals of the ProTour. It's back to the old way where everyone is on their own, for better or for worse, and everyone has to settle their own disputes. Race organizers are now totally responsible for providing their own officials, doping controls, etc. Good luck.


Is this supposed to be a threat or a promise?

After the Rasmussen debacle last year, don't you think ASO would be thrilled to have doping controls in their hands instead of letting the UCI continue to botch things?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> Is this supposed to be a threat or a promise?
> 
> After the Rasmussen debacle last year, don't you think ASO would be thrilled to have doping controls in their hands instead of letting the UCI continue to botch things?


I'm not sure how the Rassmussen debacle could have been prevented by the ASO having doping control in their hands. That doesn't make a lot of sense. In fact, the worst possible situation is for a race organizer to have doping control in their hands, especially the ASO. The UCI will tell race organizers to use the national ADA and to coordinate with multiple national ADAs when their race leaves the home country.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

It certainly couldn't have been any worse than the UCI supposedly co-ordinating all this, then concluding long afterwards that they should've talked to the ASO before the tour started. Oops.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

mohair_chair, I'm guessing you don't remember the old World Cup, and before that season long contests like the Super Prestige Pernod that included the top one day and stage races - they all ran absolutely fine without the UCI throwing its weight around.

The problem was that Heiny wanted to secure his legacy, and do so to the highest bidder. He ignored the GT organisers who wanted the flexibility of being allowed to choose wild card teams - some of whom, gasp, shock, horror, might have been smaller French/Italian teams getting the chance to develop by riding in the very biggest races - and created instant discord. The mess we have now is down to Verbruggen's greed and corruption during his tenure as the head of the UCI - his real legacy is the doping farrago that afflicts the sport, something to which he - and his successor McTwat - have continued to turn a blind eye or even, in McTwat's case, defend.

As to the FFC coordinating the dope testing at Paris-Nice? They're delighted as they say they'll now get the opportunity to run far more random tests and not be bound by the UCI's 'testing lite' regime of stage winner/race leader.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Well, sounds like things have come to a head. Is the UCI all bark and no bite? I bet yes.

To whomever posted the IRL/Nascar analogy, I must say at first, I was buying it. But after some thought, I don't think so. 

The reason is that at this point and time, no one is talking about creating a race to compete with PN, PR, or the TdF. And I also assume that aside from Astana this year, we'll still continue to see the biggest names at the Tour. As long as the vast majority of "class cyclists" continue to show up for the ASO races, they will continue to be huge events they are.

Of course if ASO decides to get really cute and start cutting out any team that has a hint of doping, then they might be in trouble in 5 or 10 years. It would take time to lose the prestige they have though.

I also think if Astana keeps it's nose clean for the next year, and Contador is definitively cleared of OP, then they have to be invited next year for the ASO to not look bad.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

McQuaid is now saying 'The UCI doesn't have power as such - we have authority and we regulate, but we don't have power over the teams.'

And this is the man in charge of the sport - sitting in his multi million pound office (seems that building flash premises were more important than developing and governing the sport in an appropriate manner) and whining.

All because he wants his buddy Bruyneel to get a ride in the Tour - because Astana deserve a chance. And this in the light of his persecution of Mayo last season. He is an unprincipled hypocrite who shouldn't be in charge of a primary school fun race let alone the sport of professional cycling.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> McQuaid is now saying 'The UCI doesn't have power as such - we have authority and we regulate, but we don't have power over the teams.'


And it appears once again the teams have sided with the organizers and not the UCI.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

*McQuaid states the obvious after the ship has sailed:*
"I would like to impress on you the following. The signing of this contract would mean that your team would put itself completely outside the UCI,” McQuaid wrote. "By signing the contract you would be joining a private circuit controlled entirely by ASO for the benefit of its commercial interests."


*But fails to assert any rules or protections:*
"You would be abandoning the protection afforded by rules of the UCI which are designed to give teams and riders rights and not simply protect the interests of organizers." 

What a wimp. If he fails to act now it will be a real mess. Not only will ProTour die, but the structure if International, National, World races will all be meaningless. The structure of ProTour, Continental Pro, Elit, etc. will all be meaningless. What a joke.

A thought re: doping controls. Surely AFLD, FFC, and ASO can conduct effective in-race controls. Arguably better than what UCI did. It's the OOC controls I wonder about. ASO complains about UCI failure to notify about Chicken's missed controls. If they go their own way how will they manage OOC tests? Will a stranger knock on the door, demanding a sample? Under what aouthority? Who will pay? Will ASO/RCS/Unipublic each have their own system, in addition to UCI, in addtion to national federations? Could any of them show up at any time?

JSR


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

"You would be abandoning the protection afforded by rules of the UCI which are designed to give teams and riders rights and not simply protect the interests of organizers." 

Let's remember there would be no problem if the UCI had stuck to it's traditional role. The problem is that "teams...rights" for the UCI has come to mean a guarantee of participation in the "big races" (and a bunch of meaningless races they would like to turn into big races) to certain teams that pony-up the money to them.

And if it ever comes to fruition, they would then have some power as they would control which races get the big teams/star riders. Then they could turn the screws on the organizers in multiple ways, not the least of which is big fees to be PT events.

I'm sure this was a move to restructure cycling to more resemble Formula 1, where the overseeing body has the most power and makes immense money as a result.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> And if it ever comes to fruition, they would then have some power as they would control which races get the big teams/star riders. Then they could turn the screws on the organizers in multiple ways, not the least of which is big fees to be PT events.
> 
> I'm sure this was a move to restructure cycling to more resemble Formula 1, where the overseeing body has the most power and makes immense money as a result.


No doubt the F1 model was firmly in their sights. While the promoter in F1 may not have the freedom they would want, the product they get is top notch. The result is a successful series of successful events.

Your point about "turning the screws" is also well taken. But, it would also be an expectation that there would be a lot more money in the pot. Asured access to a list of hightly visible races would theoretically bring in more sponsorship.

I defend the theory of ProTour, but it sure is hard to defend the UCI practice of it. I'm not an insider, but my reading of press reports makes me believe that a compromise two years ago on the number of teams would have kept the plan alive. Instead we have - this mess.

JSR


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

JSR said:


> No doubt the F1 model was firmly in their sights. While the promoter in F1 may not have the freedom they would want, the product they get is top notch. The result is a successful series of successful events.
> 
> Your point about "turning the screws" is also well taken. But, it would also be an expectation that there would be a lot more money in the pot. Asured access to a list of hightly visible races would theoretically bring in more sponsorship.
> 
> ...


The PT plan is also fundamentally flawed in that it didn't respect the significance of many races, and sought to "make" races important that lacked any prestige. Not too dissimilar to the old World Cup which had a few micky-mouse races too.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> The PT plan is also fundamentally flawed in that it didn't respect the significance of many races, and sought to "make" races important that lacked any prestige. Not too dissimilar to the old World Cup which had a few micky-mouse races too.


But in the WC, you could just choose not to show. Sure you might loose some points but just as for the portour, there are only really 3-4 people riding to win the general point competition. 
in the Protour, you are forced to a windy field around Eindhoven with all your TT junk shortly before the tour de France.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

den bakker said:


> But in the WC, you could just choose not to show. Sure you might loose some points but just as for the portour, there are only really 3-4 people riding to win the general point competition.
> in the Protour, you are forced to a windy field around Eindhoven with all your TT junk shortly before the tour de France.


Didn't they use to make the "Division 1" teams participate? I seem to remember many of the northern classic world cup races with disinterested Kelme and Euskatel teams.

Let's face it anyway. Pretty much the only reason the teams like the PT is because of the automatic admission into the TdF, and then maybe a few other races depending on where the team and it's sponsors interested were.

It was a bad decision to have so many PT teams and force them to race all the PT races. A "local" team interested in animating a race is much better than a big team sending a bunch of B riders or just using a race as a training ride.


----------



## ghostzapper2007 (May 22, 2007)

Bottom line is that the ASO has not broken a single rule in keeping Astana out. They have exercised their right to invite whom they choose to invite. And the way the UCI has handled things for the past decade I'd hardly look to them as an example of a well run sports governing body. I think its great that the guys organizing the event and financing it are choosing who gets in and who doesn't. If they choose wrong they punish themselves and if they choose correctly they are rewarded. With Astanas past shenanigans and damage they have done to the TDF credibility , good for the ASO to tell their ownership to FOff.

The only thing the UCI has proven in the past decade is how incompetent they are, kinda like our current President, hows that for a thread diversion? LOL


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

"...fundamentally flawed in that it didn't respect the significance of many races, and sought to "make" races important that lacked any prestige"

..."you are forced to a windy field around Eindhoven with all your TT junk shortly before the tour de France."

These are good points that show how the UCI over-reached its grasp. They demanded that too many teams participate in too many races. IMHO, if they would have just dialed it back a bit, they could have gotten a toe-hold sufficient to prove whether more money would come into the sport. If the theory proved out they could have expanded indrementally - more countries, more races, more teams, more riders.

20 teams was just too much, especially for a TdF which has a good reason for wanting a few other teams in the mix. It may also be that by identifying fewer PT races, more "second-tier" races would have used the space in the calendar to thrive. 

Oh, it just occured to me. The purpose of Eindhoven was supposed to be a showcase for what a PT event could be. IOW, the UCI was trying to deploy all their marketing and organizational methods, with a view to educating promoters and teams on new techniques, while also showing potential sponsors the future of the PT environment. I never went to Eindhoven, so I don't know if it succeeded on those fronts.

JSR


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Didn't they use to make the "Division 1" teams participate? I seem to remember many of the northern classic world cup races with disinterested Kelme and Euskatel teams.
> 
> Let's face it anyway. Pretty much the only reason the teams like the PT is because of the automatic admission into the TdF, and then maybe a few other races depending on where the team and it's sponsors interested were.
> 
> It was a bad decision to have so many PT teams and force them to race all the PT races. A "local" team interested in animating a race is much better than a big team sending a bunch of B riders or just using a race as a training ride.


I might misremember but I seem to remember that was one of the complaints about the PT that some belgian cobble classic would have 120lb mountain goats being blown out the back instead of some lower ranked specialised teams that could actually compete in such a race.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

*Cyclingnews interviews McQuaid*

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2008/mcquaid_aso_feb29_08

"There will be grave consequences for the French Federation, for teams and for riders if Paris-Nice takes place with a full field outside of the UCI regulations and structure. For now, I don't want to go into the details of what those sanctions might be." 

However one possible sanction has been decided against. "The UCI doesn't want to touch the riders who would be going to the Olympic Games in August, because I don't think that [French] riders should be the victims of the disgraceful decisions made by their president and his board, nor indeed of a private organiser such as ASO. However the consequences could relate to World Cups and World Championships."

He seems to be focusing on the fact that not everyone in cycling is actively rubbing his nose in crap at this point. His threat to exclude French riders from UCI events, but not the Olympics, seems weak to me. If he wants to get control of cycling he's got to put the hammer down. 

JSR


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The best most succinct statement about why ASO, etc. are opposed to what the UCI is trying to do. From today's CN:

"The UCI is in the sport to make the rules and to enforce them, not to become an economic and financial partnership," statement by the president of the French Cycling Federation (FFC), Jean Pitallier.


----------

