# 11 major teams considering plans to break away from the UCI



## ragweed (Jan 2, 2009)

OMG -- I at first thought this was a joke but it's not April 1st yet.


> Cyclingnews understands that at least 11 major teams are considering the creation of new, more commercially driven and innovatively managed structure to run men’s professional cycling.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/11-major-teams-considering-plans-to-break-away-from-the-uci
McQuaid definitely had this coming given his extremely poor leadership abilities.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

When you are an authoritarian who won't listen to anybody, you give ultimatums and it's "Your way or the highway"....what do you expect? Eventually people are going to revolt.

I personally think it's a good thing and in the end could be very beneficial to teams, riders, sponsors, etc. because it opens things up and becomes a real sports league like the other major sports around the world which could bring sponsorship dollars back to cycling, higher salaries and possibly health insurance to the riders which is something lacking for most cyclists in the peloton.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

GOOD!

The UCI is trying to strong arm teams and manufacturers. 
They want their sticker of approval on everything used in the races....with a fee no doubt. 
They have been holding back new cycling innovations with their old fashioned fuddy duddy rules. The commercial manufacturers feel like slaves for the UCI.

Just ask Graeme Obree about that in the 90's. They made up new rules that never existed just to keep him from breaking records. Cycling depends on out of the box thinkers like Graeme to improve the sport. 

It's about time we did something.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

Wookiebiker said:


> Snipped quote
> 
> I personally think it's a good thing and in the end could be very beneficial to teams, riders, ponsorship dollars back to cycling, higher salaries and possibly health insurance to the riders which is something lacking for most cyclists in the peloton.


 I think most riders in the peloton probably have health insurance, just a few third world countries don't have almost universal health insurance.

It would be a shame, IMHO, to make pro cycling into something like NASCAR...which has plenty of odd ball rules, TV Gizmo tricks, that have nothing to do with racing and everything to do with making money for the "Organization" and the broadcasters.

I don't follow the Soap Opera of UCI vs all the others very closely but I always like to see a race organization that thinks the riders are the most important thing.(OBRA comes to mind) ..and that doesn't seem like a wide-spread attitude in our sport. 

Maybe a change in 'Bosses' would be a good thing.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

"This could result in professional cycling following a similar path to that of Premier League soccer in Britain, the NBA in the United States or Formula 1 motor racing; where the sport is run as a business by a private company rather than under the control of an international governing body recognised by the International Olympic Committee."

This part worries me. As long as it is better than it apparently is now then I guess that I'm okay with it.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

waldo425 said:


> "This could result in professional cycling following a similar path to that of Premier League soccer in Britain, the NBA in the United States or Formula 1 motor racing; where the sport is run as a business by a private company rather than under the control of an international governing body recognised by the International Olympic Committee."
> 
> This part worries me. As long as it is better than it apparently is now then I guess that I'm okay with it.


The people who have the power in cycling are the event organizers. A few years ago the UCI essentially tried to take power from them by creating the ProTour and controlling which teams got to race in the PT events. IOW, the UCI would determine which events mattered. That failed.

These teams pulling out would likely only matter if they could get event organizers to go with them. The UCI would simply not allow them to race in UCI sanctioned events, and there go the sponsors.

The fact that many big races are owned by the same company is to their advantage. If somebody wanted to start a new "league" and make a power play the most sensible group to do it would be the one's who own the TdF, etc.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I agree with most of what has already been said. I think the authoritative beurocracy is getting old. The UCI obviously needs racers, but do racers _need_ the UCI? Perhaps if enough teams move forward and the new league is powerful enough, maybe the UCI will finally "get it". 

As for sponsors, if the new league is high profile enough, I think the sponsors would be satisfied as long as there is enough good coverage of riders.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

skygodmatt said:


> GOOD!
> 
> The UCI is trying to strong arm teams and manufacturers.
> They want their sticker of approval on everything used in the races....with a fee no doubt.
> ...


About 15K per frame, if I remember what I read correctly.

I posted this in the "protest Tour of Beijing" thread too. I'm eternally glad that someone is finally standing up to this asshat, and taking him to task. A league type setup would be th most beneficial to the riders and to the future of the sport, as it would promote dialogue between the organizers and those who ride the events, and know what they would like to see to make improvements. 

As Wookie pointed out, it also opens the door to increased salaries, increased sponsorship, even the possibility of retirement-type benefits for aging riders. Moving away from a despotic figurehead regime is the right move for cycling now.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> The people who have the power in cycling are the event organizers. A few years ago the UCI essentially tried to take power from them by creating the ProTour and controlling which teams got to race in the PT events. IOW, the UCI would determine which events mattered. That failed.
> 
> These teams pulling out would likely only matter if they could get event organizers to go with them. The UCI would simply not allow them to race in UCI sanctioned events, and there go the sponsors.
> 
> The fact that many big races are owned by the same company is to their advantage. If somebody wanted to start a new "league" and make a power play the most sensible group to do it would be the one's who own the TdF, etc.


You're right, 100%.

The article states that Zomegnan has been spending many lunch hours and having many coffees with different people discussing this. For the teams trying to break off from the UCI, having his support would be crucial. Bring one grand tour and a bunch of high profile Italian races and you're much more likely to pull the ASO and such with you.


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

im not all that up to speed on the structure of the uci and all the pro tour events, but this reminds me of when a group of indy teams decided they didnt like what the indy500/irl was doing and stated their own race on memorial day. 

seems more like a threat and opening salvo to negotiations than actionable. but i am pretty ignorant when it come sthis kinda stuff.


----------



## LauraM (Oct 27, 2010)

*Doping*

I am not surprised by these turn of events and am not a fan of the UCI or McQuaid. However, I do wonder what will happen to doping if this change occurs. I don't trust this sport, though I love it, and the cynical part of me thinks this change will allow a lot of people to revert back to old ways and get away with it.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

LauraM said:


> I am not surprised by these turn of events and am not a fan of the UCI or McQuaid. However, I do wonder what will happen to doping if this change occurs. I don't trust this sport, though I love it, and the cynical part of me thinks this change will allow a lot of people to revert back to old ways and get away with it.


because McQuaid has been a true trooper in the fight against doping.....


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

den bakker said:


> because McQuaid has been a true trooper in the fight against doping.....


Bingo. The "well, we're not sure if we should appeal to CAS on Contador" line is getting old.


----------



## LauraM (Oct 27, 2010)

I am not defending McQuaid or the UCI. I have been very vocal in the past about the ridiculousness of them and their antics around doping. But there is a structure for testing right now - yes, flawed as it is. When this new organization is unveiled, as I believe it will be, I will be very interested in their structure around testing.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

LauraM said:


> I am not defending McQuaid or the UCI. I have been very vocal in the past about the ridiculousness of them and their antics around doping. But there is a structure for testing right now - yes, flawed as it is. When this new organization is unveiled, as I believe it will be, I will be very interested in their structure around testing.


Considering we don't even know who the 11 teams are or who the major players may be, this is a little premature...

It seems that the riders are more interested in clean racing than the federations (some of them.) It would not be out of the question for this new group to defer testing to the national groups (AFLD, for example in TdF) and allow the WADA to determine all punishment.

Frankly it would work better than sanctions coming from national federations.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I'm _thinking_ they'll deal with doping appropriately in order to be taken seriously. I think the main difference will be how quickly they decide. What's the verdict of Contador and Mosquera? Oh wait, the UCI are still working on them.  I'm thinking/hoping this new cycling body would simply say, "gotcha. See ya in 2 years."


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

den bakker said:


> because McQuaid has been a true trooper in the fight against doping.....


What did cycling in, was the UCI submitting to WADA in order to remain in the Olympics. The UCI has basically been trying to manage a crappy situation ever since then due to the fact that there was an endemic culture of doping in the sport and the contingency of there being a highly effective doping drug (EPO) that essentially made it necessary to dope to have any noteworthy success in the sport at the time.

Once WADA became involved the UCI was simply trying shut the door after the horse was out of the barn. I'm not sure they handled it the best way but practically anything they would have done would have looked poor simply because the cat was out of the bag about the doping problem in the sport.

Any sensible person running a new league would avoid WADA so that they could manage the problem themselves but that will almost assuredly lead to a return to the good ol' days of turning a blind eye unless absolutely forced to do otherwise.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

spade2you said:


> I'm _thinking_ they'll deal with doping appropriately in order to be taken seriously. I think the main difference will be how quickly they decide. What's the verdict of Contador and Mosquera? Oh wait, the UCI are still working on them.  I'm thinking/hoping this new cycling body would simply say, "gotcha. See ya in 2 years."


I remember it not being such a bad thing back when it was "only the dumb ones" that failed drug tests


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

Perhaps we could find a middle ground somewhere.. Boot the current leaders of the UCI and create a partnership between the pro teams and their governing body. Instead of it being a dictatorship give the riders and teams equal rights. No more McQuaid dictating what happens.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

"Follow the money": This is all about what the sponsors want.

1) Sponsors pay big bucks because they want exposure. This requires TV and, to a lesser degree, other media and live spectators. There are really no other significant revenue sources for the sport. 

2) Sponsors can pay for races, teams, or both. I'm not aware of any official sponsors for the UCI; they get their revenue from fees charged to teams, riders and events. Plus a few "donations"

3) Sponsors only care about doping and "fair racing' to the extent that it helps / hurts their brands. As we see in other sports, (the NFL, NASCAR etc) cheating in all its forms is ignored with a wink and nod and occasional wrist-slapping for cases where the public eye can't be avoided.

4) Sponsors do care about "spectacle" - the more awesome the event, the better the viewership; and also about personalities - guys like Lance and Fabian bring new fans, new fans mean ROI.

5) So far, the only value proposition I can see for the UCI tax, is that they already have the operation in place, and the rogue organization would have startup costs and hiccups - not insurmountable by any means, it's been done many times all over the planet. 

So the net-net is, it comes down to the sponsors and can the teams/events convince sponsors that they get better ROI without the UCI?


----------



## bwhite_4 (Aug 29, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> About 15K per frame, if I remember what I read correctly.
> 
> I posted this in the "protest Tour of Beijing" thread too. I'm eternally glad that someone is finally standing up to this asshat, and taking him to task. A league type setup would be th most beneficial to the riders and to the future of the sport, as it would promote dialogue between the organizers and those who ride the events, and know what they would like to see to make improvements.
> 
> As Wookie pointed out, it also opens the door to increased salaries, increased sponsorship, even the possibility of retirement-type benefits for aging riders. Moving away from a despotic figurehead regime is the right move for cycling now.



Richard Sachs paid 500 swiss francs and says it was a relatively painless process.
http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/f2/approved-uci-labels-atmo-19884.html


Every other sport has "approved" or "official" equipment. This really isn't all that different.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

bwhite_4 said:


> Richard Sachs paid 500 swiss francs and says it was a relatively painless process.
> http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/f2/approved-uci-labels-atmo-19884.html
> 
> 
> Every other sport has "approved" or "official" equipment. This really isn't all that different.


Then why were there reports of Specialized paying somewhere between 10 and 15k?

Scaling based upon company size?

Edit:

Nope, no scaling on company size...

According to this:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?id=NzI1MA&MenuId=MTI2Mjc
Full processing is 5K swiss francs, per frame. For a company like Specialized, that could be three or four frames just for a ProTeam, and more if you take into account cheaper models. It COULD be upwards of 15K per ProTeam, or up to 50K for the company to certify a bunch of frames. 

Velonation breaks it down well:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7...e-of-frame-approval-Mavic-Rotor-and-Sidi.aspx

Monocoque TT Bike: 5K
Monocoque Road: 3K
Tubular bike: 500


Talk about a racket. And that doesn't count the cost for wheels, bars, etc etc that are supposedly coming soon.


----------



## TWD (Feb 9, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> The fact that many big races are owned by the same company is to their advantage. If somebody wanted to start a new "league" and make a power play the most sensible group to do it would be the one's who own the TdF, etc.


Exactly right. 

If there was a split, it would die on the vine without ASO. 

If ASO splits, then the UCI has a major problem. ASO, with TDF, P-R, L-B-L, CI, P-N and F-W, (not to mention Dauphine, Paris Tours, Avenir, Qatar, and ties with ATOC) has some major power, and I can't fathom the other GT organizers ending up on the opposite side of a split from ASO. Especially since ASO has a 49% stake in the Vuelta. RCS brings Giro, MSR, T-A, and Lombardia to the table. So if ASO and RCS go, you have all three GTs, 4 of the 5 monuments, a host of the best shorter stage races and much more thrown in for good measure. 

In the event of a split, I presume UCI would retain all world championships and any ties to the Olympics. 

The combined weight of the GTs and their associated events far outweigh the Olympics and Worlds, but I still don't see a split as a good thing for cycling on the whole, regardless of the fact that the UCI does need to pull their heads out and start working with the riders, teams, organizers and manufacturers rather than against them.

Saying there was a split though, I can see the UCI drawing a clear line in the sand that teams and riders can only participate in UCI events or face sanctions. Same goes for national federations. 

I don't see a split being good for cycling in the US either. USAC surely won't go against the UCI (regardless of the little rift with race radios) in that they can't lose the Olympics.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

TWD said:


> Saying there was a split though, I can see the UCI drawing a clear line in the sand that teams and riders can only participate in UCI events or face sanctions. Same goes for national federations.


USAC / USCF actually used to do this back in the day - fer instance when MTB's first came along, if you raced in that startup NORBA federation, you risked getting your license suspended. 

They don't seem to care anymore, as evidenced by OBRA, ATRA and other thriving alternative governing bodies here in the US. 

My guess as to why is, they finally realized they were going to lose the battle anyway.


----------



## baker921 (Jul 20, 2007)

*The Sport needs a better UCI*

Having many of the biggest pro races run by 11 team managers might be good for them and their backers but it fails to look after anybody else's interest.
The UCI should look after the interests of all the sports participants (particularly riders pro and amateur) and promote the sport universally. There is a shortage of money and the leadership of the UCI comes across as greedy dictatorial empire builders.
When a promoter runs a sport without reference to a governing body you don't get the Premier league but WWE!


----------



## TWD (Feb 9, 2004)

Creakyknees said:


> USAC / USCF actually used to do this back in the day - fer instance when MTB's first came along, if you raced in that startup NORBA federation, you risked getting your license suspended.
> 
> They don't seem to care anymore, as evidenced by OBRA, ATRA and other thriving alternative governing bodies here in the US.
> 
> My guess as to why is, they finally realized they were going to lose the battle anyway.


I was thinking more along the lines of UCI sanctioning a national federation for having any dealings with teams/races that broke away, but you're right it could go the other way as well if the national federations fall in line with UCI, the would likely not allow any teams/riders to participate in "breakaway" events at the UCI's insistence. 

Either way, it would be a mess. Not to mention how it might impact other cycling disciplines.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

The teams running the sport would be a disaster. Vaughters, Riis and Bruyneel in charge of the pro tour? That's got to be a joke, right? last I checked most teams can't run their own operation well, so I suppose let's just give'em a promotion. Makes a lot of sense. Anyway, from the linked article they want nothing to do with anything but the top international pro races, so amateur racing, track racing, cyclocross, mtb - never mind, not interested. Those folks get shafted. That's supposed to be a move forward? A sport run by a committee. Lol.


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

This needs to move along as it will either cripple the UCI (good!) or force them to give huge concessions such as more team input, a riders union, and hopefully a stronger and more fair anti-doping program (also very good!). Based on what Vaughters is saying, I am excited that a potential new league would be driven by a marketing based approach as opposed to the political whims of old men. Yes, there will be some tacky elements that will offend purists but I like that people are thinking about raising the profile of cycling with big ideas rather than staying stuck as a mostly Euro affair out of tradition.


----------



## carlosflanders (Nov 23, 2008)

The teams have no interest in internationalising the sport. Nobody wants even to go to the US or Australia where most of the sponsors have no footprint. Forget about tours in China and Russia. Any league would be based in France/Italy/Spain/Belgium with maybe a token visit to California.

I'm sure they would do as good a job at anti-doping as the NFL or MLB. Sponsors don't want their star riders suspended. A four week suspension for the third offence sounds about right.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

Cycling is Euro based because it's a sport centered around tradition and more importantly Europe is where the fans are. Folks forget that they've tried many times to export international pro cycling to the US and its been a commercial flop. The US public isn't interested. It's the same story with F1 and soccer in the states. 

Fwiw, I can't think of any sport that's gotten better as the result of a split at the top level. People think it can't get worse, but that's not true at all. Just look at the status of IndyCar and Sports Car racing today after they got fixed.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

AdamM said:


> Cycling is Euro based because it's a sport centered around tradition and more importantly Europe is where the fans are. Folks forget that they've tried many times to export international pro cycling to the US and its been a commercial flop. The US public isn't interested. It's the same story with F1 and soccer in the states.
> 
> Fwiw, I can't think of any sport that's gotten better as the result of a split at the top level. People think it can't get worse, but that's not true at all. Just look at the status of IndyCar and Sports Car racing today after they got fixed.


Actually, I'd argue that the AToC is one of the better events on the calendar. For sure, it doesn't have the clout of the Giro d'Italia (which it is plain stupid to stand up against for viewership) but it DOES bring a lot of exposure to US cycling. 

I'm holding my breath that the Quiznos Pro Challenge does the same. It would be nice to have a couple of stage races here in the US (anyone care to bring back the Tour de Trump?)


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

The Teams and Manufacturers want to turn cycling into an elitist sport and do big money deals with SKY and the like.
Money has already ruined, Cricket, Rugby, Motor Racing, Tennis, Golf, Snooker etc

Corporate Greed must be resisted. If the Teams had their way the pathetic anti-drugs controls would be even worse.


----------



## FlandersFields (Jul 16, 2010)

ZoSoSwiM said:


> Perhaps we could find a middle ground somewhere.. Boot the current leaders of the UCI and create a partnership between the pro teams and their governing body. Instead of it being a dictatorship give the riders and teams equal rights. No more McQuaid dictating what happens.


Some people here are unbelievably short sighted. The dictatorship of McQuaid or the wallet of Bruyneel and Lefevre?? (word on the street is, they are the instigators behind the plan.) And although they are fellow Belgians, I don't trust anything they touch.

I'm not pro McQuaid, but I've read enough of of the 'earphone-lobby' on this site to draw my conclusions.

Oh yeah...Nuyens, great win in DDV today. Would have been impossible with your beloved earphones.:aureola:


----------



## CraigFavata9 (Mar 27, 2008)

Lazy Spinner said:


> This needs to move along as it will either cripple the UCI (good!) or force them to give huge concessions such as more team input, a riders union, and hopefully a stronger and more fair anti-doping program (also very good!).


What makes you think there will be a more fair anti-doping program? If the DS' and riders wanted to move away from the UCI, citing a stronger stance against doping would be a very popular way of going about it. And yet they chose to focus on race radios instead... an issue where a lot of people actually agree with McQuaid in that they are not a good thing for the spectacle of the sport. You only have to look at the guys who would potentially be leading a breakaway group to see that doping would probably not be high on the list of their priorities, as it is ours.

These guys still refuse to admit that it's a problem in the sport, so don't expect it to be addressed any time soon under their stewardship.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

FlandersFields said:


> Would have been impossible with your beloved earphones.:aureola:


Not likely. There have been several wins like that in Paris Nice alone, WITH earpieces. If you've got the legs, all the strategy in the world doesn't matter.




CraigFavata9 said:


> What makes you think there will be a more fair anti-doping program? If the DS' and riders wanted to move away from the UCI, citing a stronger stance against doping would be a very popular way of going about it. And yet they chose to focus on race radios instead... an issue where a lot of people actually agree with McQuaid in that they are not a good thing for the spectacle of the sport. You only have to look at the guys who would potentially be leading a breakaway group to see that doping would probably not be high on the list of their priorities, as it is ours.
> 
> These guys still refuse to admit that it's a problem in the sport, so don't expect it to be addressed any time soon under their stewardship.



I see it as a very different tone taken by the teams. They're using radios as a catalyst to say that the UCI doesn't represent their interests, which is very much apparent.


----------



## sab. (Jan 17, 2011)

weltyed said:


> ...but this reminds me of when a group of indy teams decided they didnt like what the indy500/irl was doing and stated their own race on memorial day...



That's not exactly how it went down. Tony George, the president of Indianapolis Motor Speedway, broke off from CART (the racing series the 500 had been a part of, and the only race that got mainstream media attention, kinda like the TdF) and started the Indy Racing League. Naturally, he included the Indy 500, and did his best to keep the CART teams from competing in it (and in 2002, he might've relegated the winner, a CART driver and team, to second behind an IRL team depending on who you ask. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Indianapolis_500#Controversy). In 1996, the first year of the split, the CART teams responded by holding the ill-advised US 500 on the same day as the Indy 500

At the start of the split, the IRL had the Indy 500, and CART had all of the top teams (Penske, Ganassi, Rahal, and Forsythe). By 2003, all of the teams except one had moved to the IRL. After the 2003 season, CART went bankrupt. A group of CART team owners bought it and renamed it Champ Car World Series. In 2007, Paul Newman's team moved to the IRL, leaving Forsythe as the last big team in the CCWS. Before the 2008 season, the two "merged," though the IRL was obviously victorious.

The lesson the cycling teams could learn from this is that if they do split, they absolutely need to be allied with the ASO-just having the top riders wont draw the casual fans who've only ever heard of Armstrong or Contador. Without it they're bound to fail. The major impacts of the CART-IRL split were the steady decline in popularity it caused for American open wheel racing, and the corresponding increase in rival NASCAR's popularity. The teams need to be wary of that, the loss of sponsorship money resulting from a drawn out feud could send pro cycling back to the dark ages.

Car racing has a long history of feuds between teams and sanctioning bodies. The biggest one IMO was the "FISA-FOCA war" in Formula 1 in the 80s. The power structure in auto racing is pretty similar to cycling, except for the Olympic connection. A couple of years ago, the top F1 teams threatened to form a breakaway series, in response to the FIA's decision making process (very authoritarian, much like the UCI) but nothing came of it, I think that's what is going to end up happening here


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

sab. said:


> Car racing has a long history of feuds between teams and sanctioning bodies. The biggest one IMO was the "FISA-FOCA war" in Formula 1 in the 80s. The power structure in auto racing is pretty similar to cycling, except for the Olympic connection. A couple of years ago, the top F1 teams threatened to form a breakaway series, in response to the FIA's decision making process (very authoritarian, much like the UCI) but nothing came of it, I think that's what is going to end up happening here


It would seem to me, and I don't know the details, but the model to follow for anyone aspiring to control professional cycling would be the one blazed by Bernie Ecclestone in taking over F1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Ecclestone


----------

