So it turns out all of the UCI ProTour cycling teams have decided they would rather spurn the international federation than boycott the Paris-Nice bike race which starts in about 10 days’ time. Pat McQuaid, the UCI’s president, failed in his bid to unite the teams against the promoter of Paris-Nice, the Tour de France, and a host of other pro bike races (as well as a few non-cycling events).
McQuaid’s actions remind me of a story my uncle told me about 30 years ago. Back when he was a boy, my uncle and another boy competed for the affection and attention of a certain girl in their school. My uncle really liked the girl, and he was a bit on the impatient side. One day, he decided that she needed to make up her mind about which of the two boys she would choose as her boyfriend, and he told her that he wanted her to make a decision one way or the other. In his heart, he thought that she would choose him over the other boy. Turns out, things didn’t quite go the way he’d expected. She wound up choosing the other boy, instead.
The point of the story, my uncle told me, was that it’s not a wise idea to back someone into a corner and force that person to make a hurried decision. Very often, the person forced to choose will not make the decision you want.
And so it goes with the attempts by Pat McQuaid to get the ProTour teams to line up in support of a boycott of the ASO’s races. He did manage to get the ProTour teams united. Just not in the way he expected. Instead, they’ve all voted to participate in Paris-Nice. Well, those who are invited to participate will be there, that is. Astana is still out in the cold. I’ve seen a few comments and heard some rumblings that Team CSC might not race, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they show up at the start come March 9th.
McQuaid, in a letter to the teams, warned of the danger that teams or riders could be summarily ejected by the ASO for the merest of rumors that the rider or team was involved in doping. And that there would be no way to challenge such an ejection.
What he didn’t say was that under current UCI rules (see rule 2.15.262, in the previous post), the same thing could happen (and has). The only difference, perhaps, is that the UCI’s rules in this regard provide for an avenue to contest or appeal such a decision. In fact, such appeals can go all the way to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. (And, as an aside, this is how the dispute about Astana being excluded from various races should have been handled, too. At least, judging by the UCI’s rules for ProTour events — both licensed ProTour races and other races included on the ProTour calendar.)
Not having seen the contract that ASO has presented to the teams, I can’t say whether such an appeal exists in their rules or not. McQuaid’s side of the story is that there is no appealing such a decision.
Even were that the case, if an appeal can’t be heard before a race starts (imagine a team being thrown out the evening before the Tour de France started), what good is such a right? Imagine a rider in the maillot jaune being ejected after almost certainly clinching victory based on rumors (well, at that time, anyway), without any sort of appeal. That’s never happened, right? Now, is this Pat McQuaid, who is so concerned about the due process rights of riders and teams, the same one who leaked results of a certain anti-doping test in July 2006? Is this Mr. McQuaid the same person who openly said he didn’t want Michael Rasmussen winning the Tour in 2007?
My, how times change. Now, none of these shenanigans would be going on between the ASO and the UCI if a certain governing body hadn’t decided to muscle in on the race promoters’ territory. The ProTour series of races is a good idea — at least, in the abstract. But the execution of the idea was patently abysmal. I’d go so far as to say a political neophyte could do a better job working things out between the race promoters and the federation than the folks at the UCI managed to do. And that includes the efforts of Pat McQuaid and his predecessor, Hein Verbruggen.
Getting everyone on board could have happened, had the UCI not been greedy, and had they not tried to ram it down the throats of the ASO, RCS, Unipublic and other race promoters. So far, it appears that the creation of the ProTour was less about bringing forth a series ala the World Cup in professional soccer (football to those outside the US), and more about lining the coffers of the UCI.
Exactly what did all that money the teams paid in license fees go for over the last few years? We’re talking about millions of dollars/euros, paid just for the “privilege” of being a ProTour team. Anyone care to guess how much benefit those fees were to the Unibet.com cycling team in 2007? Or to Astana this year? The idea was that such league would guarantee the entry of the ProTour teams into officially licensed ProTour races (for which the promoters had to pay an extra fee, by the way). OK, great idea — as long as the race organizers are on board. Which they weren’t, because the whole idea came off as a way that the federation was muscling in on the promoters’ territory. In effect, the federation was dictating more about how races should be organized than the promoters were comfortable with.
And so, over the last few years, there has been a tug-of-war between the promoters and the federation over who controls cycling. Well, it ought to be simple.
The federation does all the rule making and enforcement, issues licenses and sanctions for races, provides officials, and so forth. The promoters do the work of actually finding sponsors for and putting on races. When the federation tries to take over some of the revenue stream for the promoters, guess what’s going to happen?
The thing is, had the leadership of the UCI been more savvy, things could have worked out a whole lot differently. But because of a certain amount of arrogance and political naiveté, the whole idea of a ProTour was bungled from the get-go. The struggles we see today are a natural outgrowth of what’s gone before. As the old saying goes, “What goes around, comes around.”
As Roger Legeay, directeur sportif of Credit Agricole, told the Associated Press:
“Everyone’s had enough. It’s a conflict that has been going on four years. A solution has to be found.”
Pat McQuaid, in choosing his battles poorly, gets to live with the results. Unfortunately, all of the rest of cycling — both amateur and professional — does, too. Pat McQuaid has proven himself to be an ill-equipped leader for the sport of cycling. It’s time that a new person take over the helm, and right the sinking ship that is the UCI.
Rant –
To help explain the recent business with Pat McQuaid and UCI, you use the story of your uncle and the girl who got away. I think I prefer Mark Twain’s quip about the music of Richard Wagner: “It’s not as bad as it sounds.”
I’d hoping to conclude that McQuaid’s actions aren’t as dumb as they seem on the surface. But it’s a little bit like trying to defend a piece of music based on factors OTHER than how the music sounds.
Consider:
1. McQuaid called for a 20 team boycott of Paris-Nice, apparently without lining up even a single team’s support in advance. McQuaid spent most of last week in VIP tents at various Tour of California stops — certainly he could have struck up a conversation with Bob Stapleton of High Road, Jonathan Vaughters of High Road, or whoever was around from CSC, Quickstep and the other Pro Tour teams racing to Pasadena. Apparently he never thought to do so. It doesn’t exactly take years of study at West Point (or the Ecole Speciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr, for that matter) to know that you don’t yell “Charge!” and run out into the middle of a battle without first checking to see that you have troops.
2. McQuaid is fighting for a cause that some could support: all Pro Tour teams should be invited to race in events on the Pro Tour calendar. This is something that the Pro Tour teams could support, since all teams want to race. The teams need a predicatable race calendar — to attract sponsors, to know how to train, to plan travel and logistics, and so forth. So, “everyone should race” could have been a principle that the teams might have supported. But a boycott is a cure that would be worse than the disease. To fight for the principle that all teams should race, McQuaid proposed that no one should race. So, let’s do the math: ASO proposed to exclude 5% of the Pro Tour, and McQuaid proposed to exclude 100% of the Pro Tour. I’m not an expert in statistics, but if you figure that the teams basically want to race, which side of this dispute do you figure the teams were going to take?
3. If calling for a boycott without lining up advance support is not dumb enough for your taste, then consider that McQuaid coupled his push for a boycott with a veiled threat of legal action against any team that races in Paris-Nice. It doesn’t exactly take years of study at Harvard Law (or a French Grande Ecole) to know that people don’t like to be threatened with lawsuits. Take it from me: threats of lawsuits tend to put people into a bad humor. Also, it never seemed to occur to McQuaid that his proposed boycott would probably have landed the teams in court in any event. The race organizers, race sponsors and the thousands of people who’d put up money and made investments in reliance on a Paris-Nice race would likely have looked unfavorably on all 20 teams pulling out of the race days before the scheduled race start. So, McQuaid’s proposal essentially added up to a choice for the teams involved: race and get sued, or don’t race and get sued. That’s an easy choice for anyone with even half a brain.
4. McQuaid claims to be shocked, SHOCKED, that ASO would pull races from the Pro Tour calendar. He makes a number of arguments (some better than others) that this action is destructive to cycling. You’d almost think that he’s sincere in the belief that pulling races from the Pro Tour calendar is the wrong thing to do. However, as Cycling News pointed out earlier this week (www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb26news), it was just 12 months ago that McQuaid threatened to pull Paris-Nice from the Pro Tour calendar unless ASO included the Unibet team in the race. So … pulling races from the calendar is wrong when ASO does it, but right when McQuaid threatens it. Making McQuaid appear to be both stupid AND unprincipled.
5. Speaking of principles … McQuaid claims to be acting in support of grand principles, such as the rights of the cyclists. That’s a great principle. Unfortunately, no one paying attention could possibly think that McQuaid actually believes in this principle. Remember, it’s the UCI who shopped Iban Mayo’s “B” sample from lab to lab, looking for the result he wanted in violation of a half-dozen rules of the WADA Anti-Doping Code. It was the UCI who tried to ban Alejandro Valverde from the 2007 World Championships because of his alleged connection with Operacion Puerto and who tried to ban Paolo Bettini for refusing to sign an anti-doping “pledge”; Valverde had to appeal to the CAS to get the right to race. The CAS called UCI’s action against Valverde an “advance sanction” prohibited by UCI’s own rules, and ruled that the attempted Valverde ban that failed to maintain “in an adequate manner the rights of the cyclist.” I’d like to think that McQuaid learned something from the Valverde case, but given UCI’s cooperation in the banning of Hamilton, Sevilla and Botero from the Tour of California (under circumstances eerily similar to the attempted ban of Valverde from the Worlds), we can safely conclude that McQuaid does not learn from his mistakes.
6. Speaking of the CAS … McQuaid claims allegiance to UCI’s rules as the basis of fairness and order in world cycling. As Rant has already pointed out, UCI’s rules provide a means to deal with a race organizer’s exclusion of a team from a race: the organizer and the UCI are supposed to take the matter to the CAS. If McQuaid is so strongly committed to the UCI’s rules, then why doesn’t he FOLLOW those rules? Could it be that after the Valverde affair, McQuaid understands that the CAS will not necessarily bend to his will?
7. Let’s return, finally, to McQuaid’s notion that he is the friend of the rider and the cycling team, while ASO is a private company out to make a dollar (or a Euro). Funny, but if given a choice, most sensible people would trust their money to ASO and not UCI. For proof, take a look at the 2/29 Cycling News. In an interview, McQuaid tries to show that the ASO is not really committed to anti-doping. According to UCI, the total cost of UCI’s biological passport program is 5.3 million euros, and about 3.9 million euros of this has been received “from the teams, from the riders and the UCI.” McQuaid is outraged that so far, the race organizers haven’t paid in their share of the passport costs, and he may have a point. However, it does not take a masters in business administration from Wharton (or INSEAD in France) to note two odd points about McQuaid’s statements. First, McQuaid has committed 3.9 million Euros of team and rider money to the biological passport program, without collecting a single dollar (or Euro) from the race organizers. How could he be so … well, STUPID? In a joint venture, you don’t spend ANYONE’s money until you collect EVERYONE’s money … and if you violate this rule, you would not first spend the money of the people you claim to represent. Second thing to notice is that McQuaid says that the biological passport has been funded by the teams, the riders and the UCI, as if all three were in partnership together. But UCI’s money IS the rider’s money and the team’s money, that’s how UCI gets its funding! The biological passport program is money out of the pocket of (for example) Jonathan Vaughters and his partners at Slipstream, and David Millar and his teammates at Slipstream. It’s not money out of Pat McQuaid’s pocket. How can expect us to think that UCI has made the same kind of financial commitment to the biological passport as the riders and the teams? Does he think we’re …
… stupid?
McQuaid’s recent actions are SO dumb, they’re hard to fathom. There’s got to be something we don’t know, to help explain how badly this is going for McQuaid, and how absurdly he’s managed to position himself and the UCI. It’s quicksand: the more McQuaid struggles, the deeper he sinks.
Let him sink out of sight. There must be some corner of the earth where we can send leaders who have proved to be incompetent and unworthy of our trust.
I fully agree with Larry’s words.
But there is something which puzzles me. Could the UCI ever have introduced the Pro Tour in another way?
The Pro Tour is meant to bring one set of rules AND to possibility of globalization, expansion of the sport. That meant from the beginning that the position of the Tour de France might be threatened. The possible new Tour de America is a great example of it. Would there have been a way to introduce that without the opposition from the ASO?
I doubt that.
I think that there was no other way then to force it down the throats of the organizations since they might get competition. Competition is not good for money making. And that is what ASO is about.
So I agree fully that the UCI is doing a lousy job, but I wonder if they ever had the change to do a much better one.
Rant,
Did your uncle ever check to see how the lad or the lady were doing? I can see several outcomes. The lady (cycling teams) had a knee jerk reaction in having to make a decision and after climbing into bed with the lad (ASO) she realised that she had made the wrong decision but she was at least provided with food and jewels. But had she chosen your uncle (UCI) she would have been provided with security but a feckless mate (apologies to your uncle). The lady may have been better off to seek out someone else that could have provided both security and jewels or perhaps those people only exist in fairy tales.
Larry, Very good points but maybe McQuaid thought that the teams would grasp the fact that ASO could exclude any of the teams on a whim and that if the teams provided a united front they would put some order and stability back into this whole affair.
Luc,
I don’t know whatever became of the girl/woman involved in the story. And, unfortunately, my uncle is no longer around to ask. But I’m glad she made the choice she did, as I wound up with the best uncle I could have imagined (he married my mum’s sister). 🙂
Larry,
Well said. Pat McQuaid couldn’t really be that stupid, could he? (Tongue planted firmly in cheek…)
Aside from all of the political crap about this mess, McQ also failed because he was advocating that people NOT compete. These are all young guys with a short career. They all want to win the big races/stages and want to ride to win, not sit at home watching cage wrestling. McQ might have had better luck if he had been able to line up another race of equal value at the same time (of course, such a race does not exist) and used his various means of enticement to get the pro teams in that ride. What McQ really needs to do, if he wants to follow in this path, is get yearly rides associated with, or formed out of UCI (instead of just the once every 4 years olympics) and use these to develop a parallel racing schedule against the ASO tours.
Of course, this is easier said than done.
To say what I don’t like about the UCI would take too long. We have discussed their incompetence as nauseum. But what about ASO’s actions? I think Larry has shown us that they were left with very few options.
I always felt that the exclusion of Astana was capricious. I guess it was. They could have excluded all the teams with doping scandals last year (Cofidis, CSC, Astana, etc. – it’s a long list). That would have been intellectually defensible. But that would have risked forcing the teams to side with the UCI. They could have just accepted the Protour teams. I can’t quite figure the negative to this, but I guess they saw it as a challenge to their manhood. So while I agree that McQ’s incompetence left ASO with few options, they could still have accepted Astana to Paris-Nice, with very little downside. So why didn’t they? Why pick on Astana instead of Rabobank? I’d like to know. . .
Michael,
One could easily argue that Rabobank’s actions last year cast more disrepute on the Tour than Vino’s blood doping test result did. With Rasmussen in the catbird seat, set to win the Tour, pulling him from the race fanned a lot of flames. Of course, those flames were burning bright due to the scandal swirling around Rasmussen at that moment. And for that, it appears that the team’s management has to bear a good deal of the responsibility, too. (ASO and others could well argue that the UCI was in error to allow Rasmussen to start the race, given certain alleged problems with his whereabouts in the days and weeks leading up to the race. Some of which were true, and some of which were not.)
Tagging Astana and not Rabobank seems rather gratuitous, unless there was an element of “We don’t want Bruyneel and his squad to win — again!” added to the mix. Rabobank’s problems went beyond mere suspicion. Most of the controversy surrounding Bruyneel and company seems to be based on more vague, or at least less substantiated, claims. If any team deserved to be excluded, Rabobank seems like the more likely candidate, in my eyes.
We have discussed the rules here as to what, if any, legs each side has to stand on. But I am interested in what powers McQ himself has. I assume, for example, that UCI has the power, under certain circumstances, to pull the sanction for a race, or a PT team license. But does McQ himself have that power, or is there some body with members that has that power. If McQ does not have this power, he really has been playing a big bluff.
Then there’s the question “does McQ has the support of UCI in his actions or has he been on a solo break here?”
To resume the exclusion of ASTANA look at :
http://www.thevirtualmusette.com/posts/2008/2/22/astanagate.html
Michael and Rant –
It was obvious that, if given the opportunity, ASO was going to exclude SOMEONE from the Tour. Astana was the leading candidate.
First, we’re talking about two year’s worth of problems. In 2006, as Liberty Seguros, the team had to drop out of the Tour days before the race started because of Operation Puerty. In 2007, the team had to drop out of the race in the middle. Not a great track record.
Second, we’re talking about multiple riders. Astana lost 4 riders to doping sanctions in 2007, 2 of them for infractions that occurred during the Tour.
Third, there’s a certain lack of transparency at Astana. You can be critical of Rabobank, but they were relatively public in how they did their investigation of what went wrong with Rasmussen. In contrast, I don’t even know if Astana ever did an internal investigation to determine the team’s responsibility for the doping that has gone on there.
Fourth, Rabobank has at least had years when they raced without public doping scandals. Astana is a new team, and have no track record of getting through a whole year without a doping implosion.
Yes, if ASO wants to punish teams for past doping offenses, they could have punished other teams in addition to Astana. Personally, I’m grateful that they only picked one team to punish. There is less collateral damage this way – fewer relative innocents (like team staff and clean team riders) are punished this way.
Yes, ASO should have rules governing who can and cannot race, and ASO could have handled this better. ASO should also find a way for Contador, Leipheimer and probably Kloeden to race.
No wonder that the riders are getting worried…
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/29022008/3/cyclists-worried-possible-paris-nice-comeback.html
I think it would have been intellectually defensible for ASO to have refused admission to the teams caught in Tour scandal last year, Astana, Rabobank and Cofidis without greatly risking the participation of the other teams. They would not have had reason to go beyond those three.
I fhink there are obvious reasons, beyond Bruyneel, to keep Rabobank and Cofidis. Cofidis is a local team, with local impact. Rabobank is also relatively local, being a sponsor with strong presence in France. And both are members of the old-boy network of European cycling.
Astana, on the other hand, is way the heck out in Wherever-stan, without local commercial interest. That makes a perfect whipping boy. Add Bruyneel and you have icing on the cake, because he isn’t loved by the OBN.
Having made and won their point, they could even let Astana back in, late enough to mess up training schedules. All the while bringing attention to the Tour as the most important racing event as controversy flourishes.
TBV
The latest piece of strangeness: the March 1 Cycling News reports that AIGCP (International Association of Professional Cycling Teams) President Eric Boyer is seeking to amend the ASO contract for Paris-Nice, to provide guarantees that the teams will be permitted to participate.
Is Boyer seeking a guarantee covering this race, or all ASO races? And what kind of guarantee can he expect to receive, given that this whole ASO-UCI struggle has been over ASO’s desire to exercise more control over who can race?
We’ll have to wait until more detail is published. Presumably, Boyer’s position will not be the same as McQuaid’s … or will it BE the same? Have the teams abandoned McQuaid because they disagree with the positions he’s taken, or because they think he’s been ineffective in his advocacy of this position?
Apparently Boyer is blowing his own whisle since a few teams were actually contacted by him… not surprising at all…
According to Hein Verbruggen in an interview in “˜het AD'(Dutch newspaper, sorry no reference because it’s a background story and not on the internet) comes the power struggle between the ASO and the UCI down to money and not wanting to have competition also because the ASO then needs to pay the riders in the TdF more money.
Verbruggen says that the TdF makes 29 million euro’s each year real profit. They just don’t want to see that getting less. That amount of profit is more then all the other organizers make all together, according to Verbruggen.
He also intends to go forward with the pro tour. He says the pro tour does not need the TdF.
It is the plan that there will be a company next year taking care of the field of participants of the races and good television coverage.
Verbruggen mentioned in the article that he and Patrice Clerc had an agreement about the ASO participating in the pro tour in the time of the creation of the pro tour. Three days later there was a note from Clerc saying that there could be no such thing as the ASO participating in the pro tour.
Verbruggen suspects a meeting between mister Amaury and Clerc made that Clerc had to come back on his word.
Verbruggen sounds like he is still in charge of the UCI and is very fanatic. He speaks about war and not backing down and so on.
The interview gives ground to my idea that this whole mess is born out of a “˜wanting to keep the power they had’ from the side of the ASO.
No competition was welcome, so no pro tour was welcome.
The issue around “˜which team can participate in their races’ might very have been (and still is) a way to oppose the pro tour all together.
From a business point of view is pretty understandable.
But I have great difficulty in finding anything worthwhile for cycling in this strategy.
This is the calendar for ASO for this year.
January
Le Dakar
February
Tour of Qatar
March
Le Semi-Marathon de Paris РParis-Nice РLe Crit̩rium International
April
Marathon Expo – Le Marathon de Paris – Paris-Roubaix
La Fl̬che Wallonne РLi̬ge-Bastogne-Li̬ge РCentral Europe Rally
May
Le Tour de Picardie
June
La Classique des Alpes
Golf l’Open de France
July
Le Tour de France
September
Le Tour de l’Avenir
L’Étape de légende
Rencontres Internationales des Disciplines Équestres
October
Paris-Tours
Le Tour du Faso
November
Le Tour du Faso
cycling
Le Tour de France
Tour of Qatar РParis-Nice РLe Crit̩rium International
Paris-Roubaix РLa Fl̬che Wallonne РLi̬ge-Bastogne-Li̬ge
Le Tour de Picardie – Le Tour de l’Avenir – Paris-Tours
Le Tour du Faso
L’Etape du Tour
L’Etape de Légende
Motor sports – Le Dakar
Athletics – Le Marathon de Paris – Le Semi-Marathon de Paris
Equestrian sports – Rencontres Internationales des Disciplines Équestres
Golf – L’Open de France
As far as I can see – there should be some questions why ASO is acting the way it is now – and did not act when in February they ran the Tour of Qatar? Just a thought – what was different?
Here is formation that any of you could get if you bothered.
Creator and promoter of global solutions for the organization of sporting events
– Amaury Sport Organisation belongs to the French press group, E.P.A (Philippe Amaury Publications),
– which owns the newspapers and magazine publications l’Equipe, France Football, l’Equipe Magazine, Vélo Magazine, Le Parisien and Aujourd’hui in France.
– The group has also developed an audio-visual branch, with the creation of l’Equipe TV, and new technologies with the web-sites http://www.lequipe.fr and http://www.leparisien.fr, to such an extent that it is today one of the key figures in the French media world.
– A.S.O., created in September 1992, is specialised in the organisation of renowned sports events, such as the Tour de France, the Dakar and the Paris Marathon.
– Over the last few years, the company has expanded, A.S.O. having intensified its activities in the domain of cycling (Paris-Nice, Tour of Qatar, Tour du Faso) and taken up new disciplines, such as golf (the Open de France, the oldest tournament on the European continent) and equestrian sports (creating for the occasion a yearly event christened R.I.D.E : Rencontres Internationales des Disciplines Equestres).
– Behind the range of internationally renowned and recognised events, Amaury Sport Organisation is focused on a precise goal : the design and management of spectacular top flight competitions respecting the sporting code of values and ethics, with long-term dedication.
– A.S.O. is an enterprise organised in terms of «professional skills».
– From the competition design, in conjunction with sports federations and official institutions, to the development of partnership programmes, logistics, the media, publishing, Internet, public relations, and the production and commercialisation of television programmes, A.S.O. marshals all the skills and know how required for creating and organising major sporting events or smaller sports gatherings.
– Each of these events benefits from logistics and methods adapted to its position in the sporting calendar, with a commitment to permanent quality and perfect organisation.
– Cycling, athletics, mechanical sports, golf and equestrian sports, five domains in which the A.S.O teams’ passion for sport is fully reflected”¦
Consider – most of you get your “information” from the media that is owned by ASO
If you take a close look at the “definition of AIMS” that ASO sees itself as – THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE UCI IS “ENCROACHING” ON ASO’s public image…
Amaury Sports Organization – not only owns l’Equipe – but also Velo Magazine – so why are we having such a hard time with finding out – “how leaks occur ” as to the doping scandals?
One thing different about Qatar is that it isn’t France, so FFC sanction was not a possibility. Someone could look to see if there’s a QCF that could have done it locally.
As far as leaks go, there is no direct relationship between ASO and the government agency the AFLD that does testing. While the LNDD and the L’Equipe offices are close, and collaborative lunches may be held, it is by predilection and mutual back-scratching, not ownership interest.
TBV
tvb,
Thanks for clearing that up – It would seem that the UCI is thinking that it has the backing of the IOC – since it doesn’t have much else for leverage going for it to get its way – I wonder though what on earth they can be expecting? Being that the UCI is no “friend” to the riders – no matter how they try to spin their relationship to them.
Morgan, I think it’s official now that UCI is no friend to the riders.
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3272195
Larry,
It would also seem that the IOC is losing some pull with the French Federation too – the UCI has no choice now but to nail the “participants” of the “rogue” races…perhaps that is just the point – to leave the UCI hung out to dry..?
And the Fleche and LBL are in Belgium, so not under FFC jurisdiction either.
Someone else may have already said this but I just read on ESPN that the UCI today (SATURDAY 3/1/08) stated that any riders participating in Paris-Nice could face a 6 month BAN, i.e. suspension. So, they’re not crying Uncle yet.
I back the UCI in this solely because I want the sport to grow BEYOND the few races the ASO owns. I love, LOVE the Tour de France, but I want MORE races of that caliber, not less. The ASO does not care about the sport as a whole & they certainly don’t want OTHER races to compete with theirs for money & prestige.
I am just so disgusted with all these groups. I think the teams are being short-sighted & it is pathetic that the ASO & the UCI/Pro Tour won’t admit how they benefit each other. And the ASO’s races definitely benefit from the level of cyclists competing in their events. Could these riders BE that good with only a few races a year? NO! A Pro Tour with an extended season helps produce riders at such a high level. And without a high level of competition, what would those races be? Amateur races have their place in the sport but I want to see the BEST compete against the BEST. I want the sport to get bigger. Offer MORE money for winning & for salaries. Have MORE races. The ASO does not want any of that! They would LOSE. To them, this is a zero-sum proposition. More for somebody else, less for them. Money, power, control.
The UCI is far from perfect but I believe THEY want the sport to grow. And just on a purely fiscal level, it is ridiculous to side with the group whose SELF-interest will not allow that to happen.
I agree Susie. Just look at the start list at ToC… The sport will grow, no matter how hard ASO wants to fight against it. Cali was an amazing (except the weather) race and will most likely have a PT-status next year, well deserved too.
The fact is that the riders make the races, if le Tour will be without the best teams and riders, it will loose the status that it now has. It’s not anymore all the best cyclists/teams against each other, it’s now the who the organisors want to have as best cyclists/teams againts each other.
Of course it has the “Le Tour” status, but if events like ToC keep growing up, having all the big names in cycling attending, Le Tour will, by avoiding the best athletes race, dismiss the their own race.
sorry for typos…
Sorry if I make comments that are already made. I was occupied for a 6 weeks in a was that I was able to read the posts.
But I agree with Susie.
The UCI makes enormous mistakes, look like amateurs. They don’t seem to be friends of the riders and so on.
But the pro tour itself seems to me as being in favor of the riders.
So this whole mess started with a plan that seemed to be good for cycling and the riders but not for the ASO.
Before the pro tour Verbruggen and the major representatives of the ASO were friends.
Despite the fact that doping was being used. Everybody knew that. Everybody turned a blind eye, WADA, UCI and ASO. It became a problem for the Tour when things started to come out.
It is already being said here, THEN suddenly the Tour (ASO) started blaming the UCI/WADA for not handling the doping problem. They were right but they were not heard from when it didn’t make the news.
I am not trying to make the ASO the bad guys here, or the UCI better then it is.
Or say that I am a fan of Verbruggen or McQauid. Far from that.
But with the introduction of the pro tour there was no EU like Neelie Smit-Kroes has to make Microsoft give up some of their position of power.
There is no regulation for the UCI to back it up.
I am very thing but an expert when it comes down to business but what else could they have done under the circumstances then just try to force the pro tour on the organizers as the ASO?
Maybe the UCI had hoped that the ASO would have found another way to still make enough money from their races. Which probably would have worked when the Tour the France was not SO important to France as a country and thus for the investors even those apart from the TdF.
Again, I am sorry if this is already being said. But the problem now might not just be about cycling and money making/keeping away competition. The position of France in the world might be involved. I love the French but they do have this French arrogance that the world circles around France. Very handy in some situations, but maybe not now.
By the way, McQ said on Dutch television that he has the power to keep riders from the Olympics but is not planning on that (Verbruggen wouldn’t like that ïŠ) but the World championships is something he considers.
I will try to read up fast on the posts I missed.
Sorry if I make comments that are already made. I was occupied for a 6 weeks in a way that I was UNable to read the posts.
Sorry again 🙂
Sara,
No worries about the typos, we know what you meant.
Karuna,
Glad to have you back — and for whatever was going on that kept you unable to read the posts to be over. 🙂
Susie B,
Cycling (and all sports) needs some kind of central authority that sets the rules (and enforces them equally, but that’s another story). The UCI has been around for about 100 years to do just that, born of a desire by a number of players in cycling in the early 20th century for some consistency. Growing the sport is something we can all agree with. The ProTour, in that respect, is a great idea. I think the implementation was a bit amateurish, but at least they tried to do something to increase participation and interest.
With the on-going battle between the ASO and the UCI, one thing we need to be concerned about is if the ASO were somehow able to completely destroy the UCI’s authority. If that happens, the question becomes, what next? Who will be the central authority for rules, etc.? Does the ASO have any sort of thoughts or plans if that eventuality occurs? And if so, what are they?
Would we (cyclists, fans, the general public) trust a company with obvious economic interests to fill the role that the UCI has for the last century? I’m not sure that’s what would help the sport overall.
I do think that the two sides need to settle their differences and get back to doing what they’re here to do. In the ASO’s case, put on great races. In the UCI’s case, provide the rules and and other support to make those great races run. And in the UCI’s case, to try and broaden the appeal and quality of racing throughout the cycling world.
Just some thoughts before I dive into the pool this morning…
John Fahey – WADA president has some very interesting things to say – you can watch it for yourself on:
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/cycling/
Notice that for the first time – the WADA Prez actually states that the rider is not singularly at fault about the doping situation. It is the first time I have heard any “governing body” rep state that the people “behind the scenes” of racing HAD TO BE INVOLVED.
Rant tells us that the UCI is over a 100 years old – so it has been a part of the scene for the longest. It could also very well mean that the UCI is considered by WADA one of the major causes for the doping situation in cycling sports.
Given that in the past two years – WADA has managed to crank up the turmoil between the contesting parties – with “revelations of doping” – conveniently released when any sort of “settlement” seemed to be reached – considering that it has become an “open secret” that the UCI has at times kept quiet about riders that may have had “positives” – WADA appears to be playing a very interesting back game.
Considering that WADA also had to be in “colussion” with the UCI to keep quiet about some doping activities and not others – one is left with a nagging question – who is the target of the day? With the “happenings” of the past few weeks – it would appear that it is the UCI.
This would make some sense to me – When the “decision” was actually made to “clean up cycling” – the IOC backing WADA – had to have known who was or was not playing by the “rules” – How do you get rid of or neutralize long embedded individuals and groups who are “responsible” for the “cheating” going on in cycling.
Why – you set them up to reveal them through their actions. You get them to “commit” to what they are doing. You get them to sign on to the “blood passport idea.” ASO said that no one not part of the passport program could race in their races – the UCI – reacts as it has in the past and keeps it hush hush – but there is a wrench in the works for them and the organizers – the TEAMS get their own profiling programs going…
Every body seems to agree that the “pro-tour” was a good idea – but who controls the pro tour? Who is responsible for making rules that keep the status quo – instead of changing things for the better?
Somebody is playing hard ball and they are using what the old guard had been used to using – the riders, the rules and the testing – but voila! – what is happening with that? There is a large support for the riders now, the rules are being closely looked at by the global viewers and found to be wanting, the “testing” is also being closely watched and nobody is willing to take the word of the UCI just because they say so.
ASO is not a “friend to riders” – they only care about their bottom line – but the organizers are just as much of the problem as the “governing agency” – so what to do…You get them to commit themselves for their own interest and viola! – At this rate – ASO is being hung out to dry – “cut off” from the rest of the world of cycling…
It doesn’t matter if the French Federation “backs ASO” – perhaps the Federations as they are – are numbered?
Somebody is very determined to “change cycling for the better” – it would appear that the “strengths of the old guard” are now their weaknesses.
Meanwhile – we are all kept busy – trying to pick sides – because we are all afraid that our beloved sport is fast going down the toilette. I think it would help cycling a hell of lot more if we demanded that “functioning rules” are applied equally all around – that rules that are in nature vague and favoring one group or another is expunged from the system. That we the viewing public – demand that CAS – act as a proper high court of sport – not the puppet of one agency or governing body.
Who ever is running this show – one thing we may be sure of – they are determined. Lets face it – either cycling changes and gets cleaned up – or it gets permanently fragged to pieces…Who ever is running this show – is willing to kill the patient to make it squeakie clean or destroy it as it has been for the last hundred years…
That’s what I think.
Karuna,
Is 29 million not enough of a profit as some have said?
I don’t think ASO would want, or even can, take over a position as the overall controlling body of cycling. I could see them, however, setting up as an independent “series” such as we have in auto racing. They already have a pretty good collection of races in hand, with rumors of them acquiring the Vuelta, and they could acquire more, and/or promote new races. It is conceivable they could promote enough of a season that riders/teams/sponsors would consider the ASO season enough, especially with the TdF as the “crown jewel”. After all, we have riders who now specialize in the TdF, basing their whole season on that.
On the other hand, ASO might be interested in the formation of a UCE: European Cycling Union, perhaps independent of UCI, or as a powerful subsidiary of a weakened UCI. They might hope that such a UCE would be more favorable to ASO’s ideas on how the sport should be run.
Or ASO might just simply be looking to reduce UCI’s power. Which at this point they appear to have done, unless McQ & co. carry through on the threats to sanction riders who participate in the PN. I doubt that ASO cares much about whether or not the TdF earns any points in some season-long points competition: they existed fine without this for many years.
Of course, all this is mere speculation on my part.
Morgan
Sorry, I don’t really understand your question.
Rant
Thank you for your kind words.
I actually had a great time travelling. The ‘unability’ came from: not enough time and reliable internetconnections.
William, the idea of ASO setting up their own racing series much like Formula 1 racing is an intriguing one. But the lack of rights for the riders if ASO were in control is a scary one. Having said that, the riders don’t seem to have any protected rights under the current system.
Sara, I’ve wondered whether the Tour of California or some similar race could ever compete head to head with the T of F. Would a big enough cash prize get the best riders away from France or is there just too much tradition, heritage and prestige built into the mother of all races?
Rant, isn’t there ice on your pools this time of year?
Luc,
Sure, if I intended to swim outdoors. (I’m not a member of a Polar Bear club.) But there’s a health club with an ozonated pool (no chlorine “perfume” afterwards) just a couple of miles from where we live. So I can swim regardless of the outdoor temperature. 😉
Luc:
I think the ToC is a long way from being able to compete with the TdF. It’s a great race, but only a week, not 3, and doesn’t hit any big mountains. They’ve got’em in CA, but February is way to early to venture high in the Sierras. There are some step hills in GA, as I understand. MO has some steep hills too, but neither state has any altitude, and probably not much in the way of long climbs. CO could also be a good place for a big stage race, remember the Coors, nee Red Zinger?
Then there’s the problem of scheduling, unless you really wanted to go toe-to-toe with TdF in July. Giro’s in May, Tour in July, and Vuelta in September. There have been a few riders to double in 2 of the big 3 in one season, but only the top riders. Much before May and the riders probably aren’t in peak form yet for a 3 weeker; after September they are probably too burned out physically and mentally.
The other possibility would be something of the order of “hey, you Euros can do your thing and us in the Americas will do ours.” There are some pretty good riders coming out of South America and those guys north of the border aren’t any slouches either, if they can put down their hockey sticks long enough. Might be able to get a pretty good series of races, from one day “classics” thru week-long races to a couple of big tours. Enough money, and the odd Euro team might be tempted to cross the pond (especially if ASO is too picky) or at less some Euro riders might sign with NW teams, and vice versa.
But it will take a long time to build up the history associated with the TdF. We’ve seen at least 2 semi-big stage races (the afore mentioned Coors, and the DuPont) come and go, and that doesn’t do much to build up prestige.
Karuna,
It has been said that ASO’s profit for the year was around 29 million – I don’t know about you – but that seems a bit more then pocket change – also – I would want to check this out more – it actually seems a bit low – considering all the business that this group does..
Welcome back!
Morgan
I checked the interview with Verbruggen once more. He states that the ASO makes 29 million on the cycling races. That’s more then the other organizers make all together, according to him.
It sounds like a great deal of money to me, but I am not into business, so I have no idea.
One thing is for sure, not a dime of that money goes back to cycling, everything goes into the pocket of the investors.
Karuna,
Yes – I agree – that is a lot of money to make as profit – but you have to realize – the idea of a lot or a little is relative – ASO is a business…so to expect them to be more human oriented – may just be expecting too much. Neither you nor I can tell a business what they should do with their money…and to be honest – ASO does have a “great show” in the TdeF – how much or how little they pay their performers is a question of how good the “representatives/agents” of the riders are…like in acting – what is their “drawing power” also – can they actually deliver a win? If the ASI is not “reinvesting” in their races – the quality of the races will dip – and the audience will see this and will react…but in the end – only a stupid person “starves” the goose that lays the golden eggs..
29 million d’euros for ASO and TDF
and
15 million d’euros for Armstrong in 2005. For sure, all his team-mates should have received their primes for his victories on TDF.
Morgan
I agree that from a business point of view it is very understandable what the ASO does.
And I also think that the whole of cycling benefits from a great show as the TdF. From that respect I could argue that they give much more than just a great race:, cycling is more important because of it”¦ so sponsors are more willing to invest”¦more riders have a (good) paying job.
All true I think.
Let me first me honest here, because I tend to take (more) the side of the UCI in this case.
Why? Because I like the principle “˜sport before money’ better than “˜money before sport’, no matter how great the races are they bring.
You have said it: ASO is a business”¦so to expect them to be more human oriented – may just be expecting too much.
Exactly, we can’t expect this!!! We shouldn’t! That is why there should be a neutral organization running the show regarding the rules.
The way I see it there should be an organization that makes competition possible.
Also because the teams are also driven by their sponsors interest for exposure/money.
Harold Knebel (new cycling team director of the Rabo team) said Sunday on Dutch television (in short) that the Rabo will ride PN because the ASO can punish them more (keeping them from the TdF) than the UCI can. The Rabo costs cycling 12 million a year and they make 15 million. The exposure in the TdF is very important for making that amount of money.
And no matter how stupid the UCI is operating, you said it again: only a stupid person “starves” the goose that lays the golden eggs..
Well, exactly again! So that might mean that the pro tour was never and will never be accepted by the ASO simply because it might cost them money. They might fight it all the way no matter how much compromising the UCI is willing to do.
http://www.telesport.nl/wielersport/3459215/_Wielerbonden_steunen_UCI__.html?p=2,1
I bit of an update on the ASO-UCI war.
Sorry I couldn’t find an English version yet. But the article says that the majority of National cycling federations will ask the French federation not to support the ASO organizing PN outside the UCI rules.
There also some activity coming from the teams and riders:
http://www.telesport.nl/wielersport/3450581/_Renners_zetten_Tour_onder_druk__.html?p=2,1
The teams find the contract that the ASO wants them to sign ridiculous and want to talk about it.
Levefre (Quickstep) says that when that doesn’t happen there will no rider come to the race.
Hmm
riders of what teams?
We will see.
You probably have this already, but just in the case you don’t:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTk0OA&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=MzgzNzc&
This is the link to the opening speech of McQ to the federations last monday or so.