War, it ain’t nothing but a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Peace, love and understanding
Tell me, is there no place for them today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there’s got to be a better way
As if cycling fans didn’t already know there was a war brewing between the UCI and a certain promoter, Pat McQuaid declared war on the Amaury Sports Organization in an address to the European Cycling Union (full text of McQuaid’s talk is available at Trust But Verify and from the UCI).
McQuaid has drawn a line in the sand and said, “Enough!” From here on out he’s going to enforce the UCI’s rules against those who disregard them — including any riders, teams, federations or others who take part in non-sanctioned events. For McQuaid, the first test of his resolve will be Paris-Nice, which starts on Sunday.
He has threatened to withdraw the ProTour licenses of any team that participates in the event, and to suspend any riders participating for six months. According to CyclingNews.com:
UCI president Pat McQuaid has directly threatened riders and teams with suspensions and fines if they side with the Paris-Nice organiser Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO) and participate in the upcoming race, which is to be sanctioned under the French national federation. In an e-mail sent Tuesday, McQuaid expressed his sympathy with the riders’ situations, but said he was prepared to take action against them.
According to the letter, riders who participate in Paris-Nice face up to six months suspension, a fine of up to 10,000 Swiss francs, the loss of UCI points and “exclusion from participation in UCI World Championships and other events”. Teams were threatened with the suspension of their UCI registration, a fine of up to 10,000 Swiss francs and withdrawal of the UCI ProTour licence or Wild Card label.
Naturally, this isn’t sitting well with either the teams or the riders.
“Our riders received this letter by e-mail today [Tuesday],” Rabobank’s sports director Eric Breukink told AFP. “Our riders are frightened.”
[…]
Herman Frison of Silence-Lotto, said that “I hope that both parties will use their healthy understanding and reach a sound solution. I have had numerous phone calls from worried riders with questions as to what they must do. They hope for one thing, and that is to be able to do their job on Sunday.”
Quick Step’s Wilfried Peeters didn’t anticipate a quick solution, calling it “an impossible matter. The riders sit between two fires. The only thing they want to do is to ride. And our sponsors want to see them ride. That is what they have paid for. They want a return on their investment.”
[…]
Jonathan Vaughters, Team Slipstream manager, had succeeded in scoring an invitation to one of the season’s biggest races, and wants his young team to be able to experience participating in an event of Paris-Nice’s caliber. “This is just another case of how cycling’s problems always fall on the riders. Its a really sad situation,” Vaughters told Cyclingnews. “We don’t have any sponsor interests in France or Europe, but as a new team, we want to race Paris-Nice just because its Paris-Nice.”
“The riders want to do it, heck, its David Millar’s primary goal for the year, so it’s absolutely heartbreaking that I have to tell them they might face consequences for doing a race they have been dreaming about. You have to remember how many young kids we have on our team that have never done these races before. They are excited to get out there and show themselves in the races that they have posters of in their bedroom.”
“Telling them they might be prevented from doing that is hurtful.”
[…]
Nick Nuyens (Cofidis – Le Crédit par Téléphone): “[There needs to be a solution] and preferably as soon as possible. It is difficult to react to the letter from the UCI. Actually, both the ASO and the UCI are right in certain areas, but apparently they can’t come to an agreement.
“The riders seem to be the victims of the game between the cycling federations and the French organiser. Maybe we should stop racing until a solution is reached. Establishing two federations is not a good solution either. Which program do we ride?
“In fact, it is bad that we have our backs to the wall, because it is the riders who make the racing after all? I hope that the big bosses think about the future of the sport.”
[…]
Gorik Gardeyn (Silence-Lotto): “The whole issue continues to escalate. Last year there was the issues with Unibet.com. Fact is it was just the beginning of the misery that now prevails. A power struggle between the big players, a true war, but there are never winners.
“History has taught us that several times, but apparently they always forget that. This power game should have been put behind us last winter.
“We, the riders will again draw the short straw. I hope that water is added to the wine for both parties in order to achieve a proper solution. And it is early days since Paris-Nice departs Sunday. Whether there really is any solidarity in the pack? Honestly I don’t count on it, as regrettable as that may sound.”
The one group of people in all of the fighting who will suffer the most will be those caught in the cross-fire. That will be the cyclists, who would like nothing more than just to be able to do their jobs.
Come Sunday, each and every cyclist on the teams set to participate will have to decide whether to race in Paris-Nice and face possible sanctions from the UCI, or whether to stay home and face whatever consequences team management or the sponsors might impose. Whatever each athlete chooses, there will be a price to pay. Whatever each team chooses, there will be a price to pay. Either pay the UCI piper, or the ASO piper. But you’re going to have to pay the piper, no matter what.
If the ASO wins this round, and most (or all) of the teams slated to take the start line on Sunday show up, the UCI’s power over the sport will be greatly damaged. One likely consequence would be that professional cycling would devolve into a state of anarchy, with no central authority setting or enforcing the rules. Each event would set its own regulations, and they could be as fair or capricious as the organizers wish. And enforcement will run the gamut from fair to capricious, too.
If the UCI wins this round, what will become of all the races that the ASO organizes and promotes? Will they be allowed to continue? Or will the ASO decide fealty to the UCI is not worth the price to be paid and therefore shut down the races, committing the cycling equivalent of ritual hara-kiri?
Granted, Pat McQuaid and the UCI are part of the problem, but so are the ASO. As the old saying goes, “You’re either part of the problem, or part of the solution.” Each side has some points on which they are correct. Neither side has a monopoly on virtue, however. Someone needs to bring these two sides together, in a neutral setting, to work out their differences once and for all.
Can the two warring parties get together in the next few days to settle their conflict? If they do, it will be nothing short of a miracle, given the escalation in tensions apparent from McQuaid’s letter and address to the European Cycling Union.
From where I see it, the whole future of professional cycling may hang in the balance. At least, professional cycling as we know it today. Over the next two weeks, we may get a better idea of just where the sport is headed in the future. The war between these two organizations is getting pretty ugly. I hope that the principals in the conflict will have the foresight to pull back from the brink. But I’m afraid, given the personalities involved, that it may already be too late.
War! Huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Say it again, y’all
” professional cycling would devolve into a state of anarchy, with no central authority setting or enforcing the rules. Each event would set its own regulations, and they could be as fair or capricious as the organizers wish. And enforcement will run the gamut from fair to capricious, too.”
How do you get to this conclusion? ASO has one demand: to be able to invite who it chooses to the races they run. I don’t see any evidence of them wanting to change any other of the rules of the sport. And as for caprice, how is it that Puerto suspects Sevilla, Botero and Hamilton were kept out of the Tour of California, while Puerto suspect Mario Cipollini was welcomed with open arms? And convicted drug cheat David Millar is welcomed back with open arms while convicted drug cheat Frank Vandenbroucke is unofficially (or is it semi-officiously) black-balled? Or compare the different answers Pat McQuaid gave to journalists at a ToC press conference when asked at one moment about Astana and another at Symmetrics.
The UCI seem to be pretty good at running the full gamut just by themselves.
http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza.be/wielrennen/080305_ASO_UCI_toenadering
This link is to a begium newspaper. Sorry I couldn’t find a English article with the same content.
In short it says that Levefre came with the compromise that the UCI let the organizers pick the teams they want in their races and the ASO puts the races on the UCI calendar. The UCI was willing to go for this compromise.
It seems the deal the ASO could like but the next link to “˜de Telegraaf’ shows that the ASO is not willing to take this compromise.
For me is it pretty clear that when the ASO is not willing to take this as being enough than this is primarily about who is king in cycling. And the ASO just not wanting to have the pro tour in place.
http://www.telesport.nl/wielersport/3480356/_Ultimatum_voor_UCI_en_ASO__.html?p=2,1
Jim,
I agree that the current leadership of the UCI has done a fine job of creating a mess and that we already do have some caprice in rules and enforcement in professional cycling. A well-run UCI (perhaps this is an oxymoron?) wouldn’t allow the kinds of rules or cooperate with the kinds of efforts used to keep various riders from competing after having already served their time — regardless of whether they had tearfully confessed or continued to deny what they were accused of.
On the surface, ASO does have one demand, and a rather easy one to understand and agree with. And the whole ProTour concept was bungled from the start, no fault of the ASO or any other organizers. McQuaid may well feel that open war with them is the only option he has left. If so, he bears a large measure of the blame for that.
But when the dust settles, if the UCI is destroyed by the battle, things in cycling could be even worse than at the start. Yes, there’s certain players who are capricious in who they will accept into their races, and rules and enforcement are far, far from consistent. Without a central governing body, we can expect to see more of what happened to Botero, Sevilla and Hamilton, as well as Frank Vandenbroucke.
I’m all for new leadership and new approaches at the UCI by the way. We need that, instead of a war between the ASO and the UCI. The international federation needs a huge overhaul. If they do lose this battle/war, and their authority is one the wane, then change may indeed come — but at that point, will it be too late?
karuna,
Thanks for the links. For those who need translation (me, included), you can view a machine translation of the first article here and the second article here.
Rant and Rantheads –
The articles cited by Karuna seem to be summarized in the latest version of Cycling News, see http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/mar08/mar06news2. The Cycling News report is a lot easier to understand than the machine translation.
UCI seems to have taken an intelligent step, for once. But it does not appear to me to be as sweeping a step as Karuna had first reported here. (1) UCI is not talking about all races, just the Tour de France. (2) UCI is saying that if it is to drop its rule that all Pro Tour teams be automatically allowed to race in the Tour de France, then UCI must first receive a request from the International Association of Professional Cycling Groups (AIGCP) asking for this rule to be eliminated.
My reading is that UCI is NOT necessarily saying that it WILL drop this rule on request of the AIGCP, but that it WILL NOT drop the rule UNLESS AIGCP so requests. UCI seems to be leaving itself some “wiggle room” to impose additional conditions to dropping this rule.
The UCI proposal references a rule adopted by UCI in September 2007 at the request of AIGCP, providing that all Pro Tour teams would have a right to participate in the Tour de France. This is the rule that UCI seems to be willing to eliminate. But remember, even before September 2007, UCI has insisted that all Pro Tour teams had a right to race in the Grand Tours. If all UCI is proposing is that the September 2007 rule be eliminated, this will not accomplish much. It will just return the warring parties to the conflict that existed prior to September 2007.
Well – I wouldn’t be surprised if WADA tries to jump in to the UCI vacuum if they keep following this path to self-destruction.
On the other hand – I don’t see why we should be so upset by it all – all that is going to go potty is the illusion that pro cycling ACTUALLY had a legitimate governing body…
One thing for sure – if the UCI does not get rid of the individuals that are responsible for the state of chaos in the pro-peloton – it only points to the simple fact that it was never about racing or fairness or clean riding… it was about the money and who gets to yank the chain.
The equation is simple.
No ASO races in Pro Tour => END of PRO TOUR => END of PT licences => NO TEAM’s MONEY for UCI
no riders – no racing = ASO is looking like a fool – no UCI – riders can still ride – No ASO – riders can still ride – racing is about riders riding – not about ASO or the UCI
Morgan,
I was just explaining what are the concern of UCI! Why PT is so important for them.
Jean C – I made no “comment” about your comment – I simply wrote the formula differently…I have no comment on yours
Jean C, why won’t the ASO accept the compromise being floated by the teams and being reluctantly considered by UCI? Put the races on the UCI calendar, and give ASO control over who races?
And yes, I understand that you are not responsible for FFC, ASO, etc., and do not speak for them!
If the CAS is asked to intervene, which it appears to be be doing by the IPCT does it not come down to a simple matter of the regulations again, what are the rules and which rules are being broken. Harkening back to a post here a few days ago — as a “national race” protour teams and procontis outside of the region appear to be prohibited from taking part. Seems pretty easy as a matter of regulation.
If this intepretation is correct I am entirely confused by what the UCI can threaten the FFC and ASO with — the only entities at risk appear to be the teams for accepting to ride in an event they are prohibited to do so and the riders, as they will actually ride in the prohibited event. Maybe ASO has some exposure for inviting them, but they can argue the teams are free to refuse. I don’t see how the FFC is at fault at all. It is sanctioning a completely legal race.
I also cannot see how the CAS can come down on the side of letting the teams ride without the possibility of sanctions, it appears the rules are fairly clear. It is going to be extremely interesting but once again the riders and the teams are the ants dodging the elephants.
I have never made any secret of the fact that I come down on the side of the riders – having stated this: I think that in a most perverse justice – BOTH ASO AND THE UCI are putting themselves out before the public and revealing themselves so we can finally see who the “bad guys” really are…at this rate the only real losers will be the two that should lose – ASO for being greedy and the UCI for being corrupt
Please excuse spelling errors.
Everyone talkes about the riders and teams being the unfortunate “ping pong ball” cought in the storm. I for one would say the riders and teams are getting exactly what they deserve.
When individuals and teams involved in a team sport are not willing to sacrafice or stand up for others or teams that are involved in an unfair situation this is the exact sceniro that develops. What you have is a bunch of selfish cowards who cant see past their face (teams, sponcers, owners and riders) and could care less about the misfortune of others as long as it doesnt affect them or their pocketbook.
Well when that attitude is taken eventually it will hurt you more than ever assumed. By showing no solidarity and support for their brothers in arms the ASO, UCI, WADW et all knows they can walk all over thease groups without fear.
The Unibet exclusion by ASO is a great example – exclude pro team and see what teams do. Were not Unibet who cares! ASO wins battle but more importantly they have seen no reaction or balls from other teams, riders, and sponcers. If thease people dont think this impacts how their dealt with and treated in the future shame on them.
Same goes for the UCI – without pro teams they would not exist but thease same teams are absent when someone is wronged. Therefore the UCI has cart blanch to proceed down the same path.
All I’m saying is the riders acctually have more controll of this than anybody else but they are so affraid of putting their neck on the line as a cohisive unit that they deserve what they get.
Selfishness and no concern for others gets people and groups what they deserve. So complain all you wnat about premoters and gov. bodies getting their act together the reality is untill the riders are willing to do whats best for the community as a whole instead of thinking only about themselves things will only get worse for them.
To make things more complicated”¦. or maybe not”¦.. here is a background story coming from de Volkskrant: http://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/article510296.ece/Sporttribunaal_moet_impasse_wielersport_doorbreken
I give you a translation of a second part of the article.
The first part is the same compared to what the cyclingnews article says.
It continues with: Behind the screens it is being tried to brake the power of the TdF. ASO is concerned about that and refuses to go along with the plans of the UCI which enlarge the competition.
Cycling today is very cheap. The investors don’t mind that. Last year ASO accused former UCI president of the UCI, Verbruggen that he tried to make trouble during the TdF to diminish the prize. The IOC member tries to interest investors for cycling. He visited the Rabo bank in this respect.
His first attempt to create an elite class like in the auto sport of soccer seems to have failed with the pro tour. The TdF organization was not very interested since the can stand on their own with a profit of 28 million a year. They have the television rights for the TdF sold to the France Television for 23 million a year. The contract is until 2010.
The last months several investors companies presented their plans to the ICPT. Last year there was the British investments group CVC Capital Partners. After that came the Belgium Ackermans and van Haaren. They were introduces by Wouter Vandenhaute, CEO of the Belgium production house Woestijnvis.
Verbruggen is momentarily in negotiation with Vandenhaute. He wants cycling to be formed like the Champion League (soccer), including among other things the television rights for the big races in one. The UCI would just have the role of a referee.
Today it is the Bristish The gifted group and Rothschild to paint their picture of the future of cycling. The will do that in a meeting of the IPCT.
Van der Aat (Rabobank) says: “It will probably get few attention but this is what it is all about”.
I can’t say that I fully understand what this means, also because the article seems to be shortened which doesn’t make it very easy, but it might give a reason why the ASO seems so determined to get in power.
Carl — I agree with you in some ways, however I think the challange of building solidarity and consensus in a group as diverse as the international peloton is a tall order. When do they organize? They are traveling all the time during the season and then in the off season scatter to the 4 winds. Although they are in large groups during races the groups are changing constantly so getting unifomity of action is hard. There are also different languages and cultures.
To add to that there is fairly strong national loyalties in the riders. I sense the French feel everyone else in the peloton are serial dopers (especially the Spanish)and that the other federations turn a blind eye. Remember last year at the Tour when you had the French and German (minus T-Mobile) teams (I think) staging that protest? So the peloton itself is fragmented.
The teams on the other hand simply want to appease the sponsors that generally have short term deals. To sacrifice an entire season in a protracted labor battle would be pretty hard for a sponsor with a $10M a year sponsorship deal for 2 years. So the structure of procycling is inherently an advantage for the UCI and ASO and the other big organizers to run amuck.
I would love to see the riders tell both ASO and UCI to go screw. Right now they could hold the trump and if they acted in concert they could pretty much dictate their terms.
Larry,
As we have already written, Pro Tour could have been seen as a dream to have a Formule1 were the organisers could be steal by UCI or a Cycling League, could lose their autonomy, and eventually could be ejected after a while. Du déjà vu in Formule1.
Karuna’s post seems to confirm that point, if Verbruggen is selling cycling, ASO will no play that game.
Pro cycling have a value of V > S
Vendor decrease the value of Pro cycling by creating big problem.
Vendor sell it for officially S, and buyers give bribes to vendor for his help.
From Belgian
Karuna,
Thank you for that most vital piece of information. One has to admire the ruthlessness of individuals and groups in their willingness to sacrifice the livelihood of riders, the destruction of a sport – for the almighty Euro/Dollar.
This is the most salient piece of information as to who is actually toying with the entire game of cycling and why they are doing it.
Hey UCI – ASO…how does it feel to be as big of a chump as the riders have been till now? And lest we forget that IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY and devaluing a sport so it can be had cheaply – Dickie and Prudhome – are just mouthpieces for the public to be kept distracted…
Looks like “de Volkskrant” – is actually doing its journalistic homework. Hats of to them.
Maybe my read on Karuna’s post is a bit different, but I see this as confirmation that UCI is trying to bring a more coherent structure to the growing international sport and that effort is threatening the profits of ASO and its centerpience (the TdF). ASO is not concerned about the riders any farther than they can generate profit for their oranization. While the efforts of UCI in this may be flawed, it does not seem like ANY effort would have met with success or for that matter agreement given that ASO would stand to lose money if UCI efforts succeeded.
So…where are we now and how do we proceed? Who do you believe has the overall interest of cycling most prominently in their minds? My vote would be with UCI and the international community and not with ASO.
CAS may not be competent in Paris-Nice dispute???????????????????
“The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been called upon by the International Professional Cycling Teams (IPCT) to decide whether or not the teams and riders could race Paris-Nice without risking heavy sanctions by the International Cycling Union (UCI). But with only three days to go before the start of the French stage race, neither the UCI nor the organiser of the event, Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO) had recognised the Court’s competence to rule on the matter.”
CAS was sure good enough for both the UCI and ASO when it passed rulings on the riders – NOW – they are not COMPETENT??? –
No – there is no justice in “pro Racing Land” – is there? Hey everybody – all Floyd had to do was NOT ACCEPT the rulings of CAS and the UCI and everything would be “hunkie-dorie” — I guess what is good for the goose is not good for the gander, eh?
Ange,
Perhaps it is merely a matter of looking at the present and what has been going on in the past 4 years – with dope scandals being “conveniently held for media” releases – was the UCI’s way of trying to “straighten-out” the chaotic world of pro-racing………..let me think about that…..I’m not buying it.
We have all been wondering at the insane moves the “stars” of this little melodrama have been making – we have tried to come up with rationelle for irrational actions.
The one rational ground that could possibly be beneath the surface of all this stuff is – BIG MONEY trying to buy a piece of property – at a price way below its worth…
But that is only my opinion. You Ange – seem to be much more forgiving for the slaughter then I, but I personally can’t rationalize the last 4 years as the UCI’s way of making Pro-Cycling BETTER!
Morgan, by “competent”, I read that CAS may not have jurisdiction to decide the dispute. A court in Monaco might rule that I have to paint my house purple, but they have no jurisdiction over me or my house.
News flash is that CAS has declined to hear the appeal, and that UCI has begun disciplinary actions against the FFC (French Cycling Federation), Jean Pitallier (FFC President) and Eric Boyer (President of the International Association of Professional Cycling Groups – AIGCP).
UCI announcement: http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?id=NTYzMw&MenuId=MTYxNw&BackLink=%2FTemplates%2FUCI%2FUCI5%2Flayout%2Easp%3FMenuID%3DMTYxNw.
CAS announcement: http://www.tas-cas.org/en/medias/frmmed.htm, click on the link on this page to “CAS 2008/O/1496 IPCT & Quick Step & Rabobank & Liquigas v/UCI & ASO (07.03.2008)”
Larry,
I understand this – but fair or not – couldn’t stop being a “bit sarcastic” – don’t hold it against me…by the way…who will the UCI be using to enforce the disciplinary actions?
Just wondering – you know – like “which” set of rules are using “today?” I’m losing track – sort of….
While the efforts of UCI in this may be flawed, it does not seem like ANY effort would have met with success or for that matter agreement given that ASO would stand to lose money if UCI efforts succeeded.
Let’s return to our motorsports examples. The owners of the most important US open wheel race ended up happy enough when they completely controlled the series that includes their race, and did so by setting up their own sanctioning body and race series. No one will say it was good for open wheeled racing during the war, but the Indy track hasn’t lost attendance and now runs more major events than ever. One must assume Mr. George is happy.
ACO plays with LeMans under FIA control apparently only when they are willing, because if they had followed the FIA completely, it would be over by now.
I observe the Belgian cycling federation’s response to the UCI and EUC today is in keeping with the memories of a nation that has seen its beloved F1 GP at Spa come and go under FIA caprice.
TBV
In an open letter from Pat McQuaid — he states:
“The UCI, is a democratic supranational organisation that represents the interests of all those involved in cycling.”
—Well yeah — as long as it suits them — and it doesn’t include the rights of the individual riders”¦but heck — the riders don’t count — only the “rights of the others involved.”
“ASO have created the belief that they are the Tour de France, and that opposing them is tantamount to attacking the Tour, and that opposing them is tantamount to attacking the Tour.”
—Well yeah — the ASO does own the rights to the Tour de France — but they have been clever enough to spin this into letting everyone in France think that the Tour is what is under attack.
“The Tour does not belong exclusively to the company that organises it: it also belongs to those who love it, and who are its raison d’être, which means, above all, the riders.”
—Oh yeah? NOW THE RIDERS ARE IMPORTANT — somebody get Dickie’s medication along with a bottle of good Scotch to wash it down! — Not to mention that legally those who love it, and the riders have nothing to do with UCI-Lucy and ASO-Benny getting it on”¦but maybe I’m just splitting hairs”¦
“The effectiveness of the anti-doping campaign is also under threat. The UCI has had considerable success in this area, particularly with the biological passport, but it cannot conduct tests in a race that is not on the calendar.”
—Oh yeah? — “Considerable success? — Where and when? I want proof of this!
“Is it right for a responsible politician to become the accomplice of a private organiser that wants to opt out of an institutional framework that has been so carefully set up? These questions are worth asking.”
—Oh yeah! an oxymoron if I ever heard one — “responsible politician” — is it possible to get Dickie up on charges of lying and misrepresentation — he just said —
“the accomplice of a private organiser” — and here is the lying part — “institutional framework that has been so carefully set up.” – yeah but you notice he doesn’t claim that it is fairly set up…or in the interest of cycling…wait – he does!
I think I’m having a “deja vu experience” or a flashback — the media spin is in full swing — I am torn — simply torn — what do I watch — the Tour or Dickie and Prudhomme? Besides this — I think there may be parts to me that feel sympathy for Dickie — that is if I was dropped on my head from a tall building…
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/News_CAS_reject_teams_request_for_ParisNice_article_196711.html
It would seem that Dickie – wants “to work out” the Teams…Yeah – but he means work them out of the UCI….read the article.
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/07032008/58/uci-promise-ban-paris-nice-teams.html
Morgan,
I think you are merging the two issues of PED’s/testing and management of the sport into one blanket statement about the UCI. I too, think that the UCI has handled the “doping” issue incompetently, but then again, I don’t put as much stock into it (doping) as do many.
At this point, punishments are far to lengthy, cases are tried in the media (the term witchhunt comes to mind), and athlete’s rights are nearly invisible.
Use of PED’s have been used for nearly a century and in my opinion will continue to be used. From a sporting perspective (at the professional level anyway), just make it a level playing field and keep the athletes from killing themselves (hct ceilings, t/e ratios), literally, and I will continue to follow the sport.
The overall political/power issue on the other hand, has simmered for years and unfortunately probably has to come to head before anything is solved. Yes, money is at the root of it. I personally like the ProTour concept and with a bit of tweaking, I believe it can bring some needed structure and excitement to the sport. ASO and its allies seem to think that the sport begins and ends with them and it does not.
UCI is far from perfect, but they are the only international governing body. Race directors do not and should not run the show and at this point, you have to choose….UCI or ASO. The other option is to not choose and this would lead to unpredictable chaos and loss of sponsorship interest that could cripple any professional cycling for some time to come.
Now McQuaid can ban the 20 teams who have decided to race Paris Nice. They have voted 15 in favor, 8 abstentions and 0 against.
Alea jacta est.
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves2008/20080307_182613Dev.html
Translation:
http://www.google.com/translate?langpair=fr|en&u=http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves2008/20080307_182613Dev.html
Ange,
I agree with you – Except with my willingness to make a choice between “UCI or ASO”
I do not think I am mixing anything that has not been in the mix way before my commentary – politics, power brokering, manipulation and lying to “control cycling” has been the “issue” in my opinion.
One thing right at this moment – I do not feel is a great need to “straighten out” the present situation. Or for that matter to make it right – Let me apologize to you about my stand and feelings towards the UCI and ASO and the Federations AND EVERY ONE OF THE BUMS who are “messing with” and trying to demolish cycling.
Believe it or not – I do think we need a clear and defined and TRANSPARENT leadership in pro cycling – but not ONLY amongst the racers – that should include EVERY BODY who is responsible for having pro racing – the organizers and the governing bodies…
In my opinion – all we are seeing is the deliberate destruction of “organized racing” – and maybe – just maybe – this is not a bad thing…
I KNOW ONE THING – PEOPLE WILL STILL KEEP ON RIDING – EVEN WITHOUT THE UCI OR ASO AROUND.
Jean C, there are 18 PT teams. How can 15 vote and 8 be absent??? That would make 23 PT teams…
Sorry, but I don’t understand. Google translation didn’t help.
Alea iacta est…
Sara,
It’s AICPT, so it’s more teams than PT teams, all pro teams (PT continental) present has probably voted.
Sorry I wanted to write Pro Tour teams pro continental teams!
Anybody get a good translation of the “Volksrant” peice?
Sara,
“Alea iacta est”¦” – I am not certain but it looks like Latin – the old language.
Jean, do you know how many PRO TOUR team was there voting? That is what all this mess is about! Pro Tour Teams. Not PT continental Teams…
Thanks for the links.
Sara,
I don’t know exactly, but probably all PT which are racing Paris-Nice. Maybe just Astana was absent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alea_iacta_est
yep Morgan, Latin that is, I just corrected Jean’s writing- no offence Jean…
Studied the language for many years.
Well sure Jean Astana was absent, they were not even invited! Duh.
According to ‘de Morgen’: CSC, Quickstep, Liquigas, Saunier Duval, High Road, Milram and Astana did not vote. Rabo bank wasn’t there.
As far as I know is it not sure yet that these teams will start.
Sorry, here is the link (it’s Dutch again): http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/1001/Home/article/detail/198342/2008/03/7/Voorzitter-AIGCP-Wielersport-heeft-gewonnen-.dhtml
I just came up with an analogy the ASO, UCI for an American audience that may amuse you.
Horse racing.
Yes, it is the Visa Triple Crown, and Visa sponsors and “owns” all three races. But they don’t set the entry rules for the Kentucky Derby, or the Belmont, or the Preakness, like ASO is trying to do.
Those rules are made by the racing association, independent of Visa. And they are actually pretty consistent year-to-year, not some weird subjective moving target that can change on a whim.
AJ
Sara,
I just studied Latin 10 hours but the 2 words are used iacta and jacta ;D
BannaOJ
There is 2 main reasons for targeting some teams:
– to have just 18 and better 16 teams as ProTour as requested since the beginning of Pro Tour by GT organisers.
– to force teams to fight doping by himself.
I agree with Ange.
When we make a list of the things ASO or the ASO related: LDNN, L’Equipe, have done we certainly can’t say they are much in favor of the riders.
When I only remember Prudhomme saying: It’s the best that could happen for the Tour (after Rasmussen pulled out of the race), or the lab coming up with a bogus lab result of Rasmussen later on then I can’t see their great involvement with the riders. They are only actors to make their play.
So I don’t really understand why it would okay for them to own cycling.
It will be sure that even when they make a reasonable circuit of races with one set of rules that there will be anything possible like another race, for instance a grand Tour in America, that would give competition to the TdF. If they win now it will take years of fighting to get cycling out of their hands.
With enough races to fill a calendar (and they are close to doing that) and the teams to fill the races how will cycling have the chance to expand?
I just don’t see how cycling could benefit from the ASO being in power. And so far nobody here on this blog or anywhere else came up with something to make me like that idea.
We don’t know what the plans look like of the investors Verbruggen came up with. So we can’t say if that is much or even, any better, than what the ASO plans looks like.
But I do prefer a neutral organization at the top.
The UCI has a very long way to go before it can be called neutral. But at least the money they might get their hands on is not going into the pockets of a couple of individuals. It might, just might give them the opportunity to come up with something good for cycling.
The UCI has showed themselves corrupt up to a certain point. But the ASO is any better?
The ASO is cunning and they have the role of the great race giver. But seen from what they do when you cross the interest of de ASO you think they will come up with a system that will be more in favor for the riders than what the WADA /UCI is doing now?
With the situation in cycling, or better WADA/UCI-ASO, we can’t choose between a “˜good and a bad’ here, we are choosing between “˜bad and maybe not so bad in the long run’.
Many here SEEM to have the UCI as the first and the ASO as the second.
For me it’s the other way around. Could be a European thing or maybe I don’t understand fully. All possible.
Morgan
Is there anything I could try to translate better for you in the Volkskrant piece?
well Jean after your 10 hour studies you should then know how it’s written… lol.
Wish Latin was that easy… but no insult intented, I’ve studied the language for a long time, and it hasn’t been easy… for me at least.
I think cycling has reached the breaking point, it will fall apart now. UCI will not back down, and neither will ASO.
And the riders and fans are the ones who suffer the most from it.
Karuna,
Rasmussen clearly doped, his performance like Contador were stronger than Pantani !
To thing to expand pro-cycling is not a good situation. Just have a look to NBA or football. They are all centralized on a continent because travel for athletes is very damaging. (I know it).
Pro-cycling is what is today because of TDF, Giro, Vuelta and classic, their organisers and their national federation. UCI has no responsability, just to write a set of common rules.
Before Pro Tour, there were the Coupe du Monde and before there were the Pernod trophy.
Because we are speaking of professionnel cycling, it’s difficult to understand that UCI would take the money of the organisers who have done the races as they are now. Sure, it would be good to take the money of every private companies and to share it with everyone! ;D
karuna,
I was looking for a true translation – nothing wrong with yours – but I suspect that there is a lot there that is valuable knowledge about the “behind the scenes” goings on…
I believe that your breakdown of the UCI is too trusting – I cannot see how you can judge them “better” in this case. The UCI is as much a “part of the problem” as is the ASO.
I don’t know how to tell you this – but the reality is – that ASO does own the races it runs – and the UCI’s actions and collusion with the organizers and others – when writing the rules and codes – CREATED THIS PROBLEM in cycling.
The Volksrant piece seems to be saying that what actually is going on is a typical attempt at “power play” by some one or some group that has a lot of money – they want to own cycling – they are even “making plans for it” – but they want to devalue the product so they can buy cheaper – pro cycling – so all this crap for the past years…
There is also the possibility that the “rules” as they are – are as they are because it suits the people behind the scenes to maintain control. But the new players have been very cleverly using this against the old guard.
What has changed is when Landis allowed the public to “see” the “trial” first hand – the imbalance in the system became more and more apparent. Normally – by this point – the UCI or some media would break a”doping scandal” and then you’d hear all this stuff about the riders being the downfall of cycling – notice this ain’t happening, at least not yet…
So to find out that there is a possibility that such a BIG DEAL as the buying and selling of pro cycling is in the works – should make us all “perk up” and start looking a bit farther then what the supposed issues have been.
There is no way you can convince me that the UCI or ASO is for clean cycling or fair cycling – it would not be to their advantage. To have fair and clear cycling you need to have transparency in governance – so no one can “manipulate” the sport without being seen.
Ah – can you show me where the UCI has been transparent in any of this?
@Jean C
Oops I had this discussion about Rasmussen taking (or not taking) doping with a lot of people on another blog.
I don’t say that he didn’t, but for me it is certainly not proven that he did.
And for me that is absolutely necessary to say that he did.
I also don’t see why their couldn’t be more races out side Europe. Tennis player travel all the time. In tennis Wimbledon also can’t choose who they invite for the biggest part. Wimbledon also didn’t fall apart when it got competition from the US and Australia.
And just because it has always been as it was doesn’t mean that it has to stay like that.
I am greatful for a race like the TdF, but I wouldn’t mind the xpansion.
I sure as hell wouldn’t mind a set of rules that the ASO has to take into account.
Because now they seem to think cycling is theirs and the riders with it.
To their opinion it is the race that makes the rider. I really think it is the other way around.
Morgan
About the translation. It may be that my sentences can be a little better. But there are not more sentences. The article looks a little shortened to me. So it is not as clear as I am used from this reporter.
About the UCI.
I agree with you that the UCI itself is not better than the ASO. Sure not.
It’s the principle of a neutral organization as an objective referee I am in favor of.
That the UCI sails on the waves of the public opinion and the demands of the TdF that there has to be -right now- a cycling world without doping, does not make them neutral in any way.
I don’t trust the UCI!
I don’t see a neutral WADA from whom the UCI gets its rules. They are all panicking.
The UCI doesn’t have its own rules, it are WADA rules. The UCI is using them (in a terrible way now). The WADA should come up with transparent rules.
In short, I see two organization (WADA/UCI) who seem to be caught in their own web –to long denial switched to a witch hunt-.
I don’t like it and that is an understatement.
But I don’t think for a minute that the ASO would have more mercy on the riders or come up with more merciful and honest rules.
If the ASO was SO concerned with the doping problem they could have come up with ideas or whatever long ago. They didn’t care as long as it was not hurting their race (read money). They were in the same bed with the WADA/UCI.
I agree that the problem seem to have started with the beginning of the pro tour. An UCI idea.
And now it turns out that it might be a bidding and selling of the big money companies.
Fine, ASO can be one of them. But the ASO wants to be the only one.
Why can’t they compete? With a neutral organization as a objective referee that could be good couldn’t it?
Karuna,
Cycling needs different entities:
-UCI and national federations
-WADA
– organisers because non profit associations are not able to do it.
I don’t forget team and riders…
Sure ASO don’t car about doping until Festina…neither UCI, neither teams, neither sponsors, neither media, neither fans, neither reporters, neither other organisers. WE (ATHLETES or people aware of cycling) WERE ALL INFORMED OF EPO DOPING.
After Festina, french governemnt took strong measures, WADA was born in the same time, requested the help of UCI and WADA.
Since ASO complained of the lack of UCI actions. We have heard in presponse the famous Verbruggen words! “Spectators don’t want to see slower races”. A real clear indication, riders you can dope, it’s good for the cycling business.
Recently (last months), McQuaid stated about doping and Astana that Prudhomme and Clerc could not undertand because they are not old riders. Sure for support or leniency about doping it was easier with Leblanc who was a former pro-rider.
I’m a week behind on the posts & comments but let me just say right now I think that “HooDoo JuJu” sport of TBV’s sounds right up my alley. However, if either the ASO or UCI has anything to do with it, count me out. 😉
Also, you guys may have talked about this before, so please forgive me. But I have some questions on the costs of doping tests. How much does it cost? And I mean ALL costs – from the specimen containers, to the salaries of the people hired to oversee & write on the specimen containers, cost to rent the “doping trailers” at races & cost to pay someone to drive it from stage to stage, cost of transporting specimens to the lab, costs to run the tests AT the lab, salary costs of the out-of-competition specimen collectors & their transportation costs to the various athletes’ locations.
Next question – who actually PAYS for all this? Each race organizer? UCI? Teams?
Next question – have Doping tests at races ever been “sponsored”? You know – let them slap their name on the trailers & have everyone refer to the Doping trailer as the “AMGEN trailer”, just for you know, an example. 😉 Heck, many sports have EVERY little thing sponsored. At the US Figure Skating Championships last month, the “Kiss & Cry” area was SPONSORED! (See where I’m going with this?) Yes, the “P*ss & Cry” area can be sponsored too! Think how much help it would be in offseting the costs for increased testing. And I’m serious about that last part.
Also, Bruce over at Active said that despite the UCI vowing after last year’s TDF mess to do 500 out-of-compettion doping tests, they’ve only done 20. And the UCI’s reason was they “didn’t know where the cyclists were”? Whuh? Has that been written about?
Susie B, with your suggestion of a “P*ss and Cry” area, I’m withdrawing my endorsement of Rant as new UCI President, and re-endorsing you!
No wiggling out of it this time, either.
Susie B,
I’m just a little bit less behind on all the comments than you. 🙂 I think the AMGEN Anti-Doping Trailer is a capital idea. Where were they at the Tour of California? Of course, some wags might say that instead of administering anti-doping tests, they might actually be dispensing information on how to beat the tests. (What? Me cynical?)
In all seriousness, however, there’s way too much material to keep up with these days. Thanks for the reminders of some things I need to get back to when I have some extra time on my hands.
Oh, and by the way, the first annual Rant Sports Organization’s HooDooJuJu World Championships will occur on the first weekend that the mercury exceeds 50 degrees for two consecutive days here in Milwaukee. (I wouldn’t bet on that happening any time soon, however.) 😉 Rules to be determined later, but will definitely be geared towards assuring a victory for the home team.
Susie B, I believe we learned last year when Amgen was irked the UCI had not called for EPO testing at the first ToC what the costes are about:
http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2007/02/saturday-roundup_17.html
QUOTE
The tour lead sponsor Amgen produces a form of EPO for cancer treatment and a spokesperson expressed outrage that this “oversight” occurred. The SanLuisObispo Tribune carries the same piece. It looks like oversight, not conspiracy, or even cost constrained:
Roth said that the organizers of the race would bear the cost of the extra test, about $400 for each urine sample, or $1,600 for each of the race’s eight days.
That roughly doubles the cost of drug testing for the event,
Meaning it costs all of $25,600 to do all the tests for the race, which is not a high cost to insure integrity of the event. As we’ve said before, if organizers (and the UCI) were really serious, they’d run enough tests that everyone in a stage race was likely to have gotten tested at least once. For a three week tour, it means about 10 randoms per stage. For a one week race, it would be about 25 or 30.
ENDQUOTE
TBV
Karuna,
Forgive me if I seemed to take an opposing stance to yours – I believe we are pretty much in agreement. I did not mean to imply your translation of the Volksrant piece was not good – I had actually gone and tried reading the piece in the original – I speak German fairly well – but as you know this is only a little help..(:-))WHAT I should have said AND WHAT I MEANT WAS THAT I WAS ANNOYED THAT no one SEEMS TO HAVE picked it up IN THE ENGLISH MEDIA – and I truly think your bringing it to our attention is fantastic. Why? Because this whole circus with “what is really going on in pro cycling” is seemingly caught between – “the dopers” or the “governing bodies and the organizers.” I happen to think that most of that is spin.
No doubt about it – there is doping and dopers. Cheating has always been a part of ANY COMPETITION where money is involved. What really got my goat is that this was “spun” into a “morality” drama – at the expense of individual rights. And it was made to seem that CYCLING is the only competitive sport that is the main cause of this. At a certain point – I just got fed up and decided not to take it anymore.
The governing bodies and organizers have had a “free hand” to shape cycling any way they wanted. SO FOR ME – THE SITUATION AS IT IS – is their own doing. NOT any of them should be trusted to “do the right thing.” The shaping of the “rules” as they exist should be an indication of just how corrupt or mismanaged the sport has been. (Sorry – I think I was thinking in German there)
As you may see – I do not disagree with your points. My main concern is that we do not go back to the “thinking” that “this is a question of dopers and cheaters” – as it has been portrayed in the media. I think we agree – it is all about money and who holds the strings. The rider is a rider – some will cheat, many will not. There is a history of doping in the pro ranks and now it is not a well-kept secret anymore – I think this will make it a better sport.
But one thing is for certain – NO ONE who is presently involved in “running cycling” should be trusted to be fair or neutral or unbiased…EVERY ONE OF THEM is having their hand out – getting their share of what can be had.
I for one – don’t feel a great need to see this as a situation where the present goings on are reduced to asking – is ASO being unreasonable? Is the UCI wrong? Is WADA to be trusted…hell, man – just look at their actions. In my opinion – what has occurred – is simply this: THE JUGGLERS HAVE LOST CONTROL OF THE BALLS IN THE AIR AND THE BALLS ARE LANDING ON THEIR OWN HEADS. In otherwords – they have lost the ability to “spin and distract us from seeing how the “trick” works.
I am not against a Pro Tour – I am not against an Organizer owning their races – I am not happy with the thought that ANY governing body in cycling has carte blanche
in creating rules that are not “transparent and fair” – lets face it – the way the rules are – and the way they are being applied sucks! It is amazing how well intentioned people can be hoodwinked into taking sides in a completely “fixed” system.
So you see Karuna – I do agree with you.
Susie b – the “piss and grin” staging area is – how can I put this – PRICELESS!
About doping and the current Paris-Nice,
AFLD which is in charge of doping test has decided to do more random testing to avoid the predictability of the testing. Easy to finish second or third for avoid the test. Easy to prepare soap powder or a replacement of urine for the leader jerzey wearing.
Less predictability of who is tested, more OOC , and longitudinal control should be deterrent for most people.
Yes here is to hoping AFLD can do a better job. No doubt, there will still be cyclists with the means to beat the tests, but if you change up the authorities hopefully the vampires themselves will be less biased and more intent on doing the job right. The bottom line for the ASO is reliable testing is pretty much the only option they have to make the races more credible.
Morgan
About de Volkskrant article. Sorry about the typo’s, it was obviously past my bedtime when I wrote it.
I plan on writing an email to the reporter. But of course I can’t expect her to write a long story so I have to think about a few concrete questions.
Only one occurred to me yet: does she know if the plans of the investors mean to rule out the ASO or give the ASO competition.
Maybe you (or someone else) can come up with more or better questions to ask her.
I do know that the meeting she refers to with the Rabo bank already occurred before the last TdF. If I recall correctly it was Vandenhaute trying to buy the TdF. He failed.
I actually wondered during the TdF last year if the attacks on Rasmussen were actually attacks on the Rabo because of that attempt of Vandenhaute (Rabo).
I am also a bit surprised the English media didn’t pick up on this at all.
Okay, so far about the article.
I think we are on the same track.
I also think that I have difficulty staying out of the –yes but the ASO this”¦and”¦the UCI that-.
The content of the whole discussion as it is going on now is (indeed) probably irrelevant when I keep thought about the content out of the picture.
You could be right in your idea that I might be too trusty when it comes down to the UCI. The thought that the people in charge take a role when they join the UCI out of more neutral intentions because they are not working directly for more money in their pockets does not mean that they ARE more objective.
The money to the organization (UCI) means power and that is a very strong motivator too. I see Verbruggen as a good candidate for that line of thinking.
You assume that the whole doping affair is a kind of spin.
That could be the case. One example that MIGHT support that is the UCI coming out with OP right before the TdF. It fits. Verbruggen and McQuaid (of course) gave a different version.
I don’t know, but like I said, it suddenly seems to fit.
How the –not transparent rules of the WADA- fits in this, I don’t know.
Maybe this is separate”¦maybe it is actually difficult to make transparent rules”¦.maybe it was more a way of “˜satisfying the public’ than a real attempt to address doping (the money coming in again)”¦.maybe the rules makers were not capable people.
I vote for the “˜satisfying the public’ (and protecting the money making of sport).
So to summarize this: I have been choosing sides where there is actually nothing to choose because it all the same: money/power.
I get more and more convinced that this is the key of the discussion for already a very long time.
I am not counting out here that the people involved might truly think that their version of the “truth” is the best for cycling.
This line of thinking brought me to questions that might be interesting.
The plans of the invited investors were introduced to the ICPT. They know the content of the plans.
When the teams know the plans then the ASO knows the plans. There will be for sure one of the French teams letting the ASO in on the content of the plans.
The ASO is, to my opinion, very determined this year to get in control. So maybe it is fair to say that they find the plans threatening.
But my questions is about the teams.
Like I said they know the plans. They know it is about power and money.
-So what does it –if anything- mean that they start in P-N? And
-Does it mean anything that the pro tour teams: CSC, Quickstep, Liquigas, Saunier Duval, High Road, Astana and Rabo bank didn’t vote? Only Gerolsteiner voted in favor of starting as one of the teams outside the France/Belgium/Spain/Italy collusion. Not even all the teams out of these countries voted in favor.
Lots of thought like:
-the teams are just not interested too much about the future, they want to ride now for their sponsors.
-the teams are not too thrilled about introduced plans.
-the teams don’t think that the plans have a real chance against the ASO
Taking the last thought. Does it say anything that the UCI is fighting back so hard?
I know that these questions are very difficult to answer, it’s just what occurred to me.
Jean C
To regard of your post of mar 7th, 4.56 pm.
Out of your words I understand that you assume that the UCI is condoning doping. In the past and now.
Am I right?
I surely agree that the UCI was doing that in the time of Verbruggen.
Then WADA came with a whole set of (not transparent) rules.
The whereabouts forms came into play as a part of these rules. But WITHOUT the tests that should have made it a real threat to doping riders. Now the riders had to fill in long forms and invest a lot of time into passing changes in their schedule to the UCI knowing that they were tested with an average of one out-of-competition test a year. Not much of a threat.
Why doing it like this? Condoning doping? Trying to reduce doping without too much positive testing riders? Hoping that the message: we are against doping (now) would come through?
Obviously they failed.
To me it seems like I said before: they got stuck in their one web, or as Morgan says it in a good English: THE JUGGLERS HAVE LOST CONTROL OF THE BALLS IN THE AIR AND THE BALLS ARE LANDING ON THEIR OWN HEADS.
To me it seems the jugglers are not just the UCI/WADA.
It’s happening all through sports.
There seems to have been a sort of compromise between commerce (using doping) and the wish of the people of a clean sport. That meant a condoning of doping.
The compromise got out of hand or maybe better: in cycling it came out (the UCI having a strong hand in that) and the riders get the blame for it.
After that the blame goes to the UCI/WADA, which is correct. But what would have happened to the races when they would have started immediately with a lot of out-of-competition testing?
I don’t think riders would have stopped using just like that. So it is possible that there would have been a great deal of riders testing positive.
What a shock that would have been. Now it’s not better, but maybe they hoped it would get through without too many caught cheaters.
They all should have known better then settling for such a compromise. But it is clear to me that the compromise was good for business (investors/organizers etc) so everybody was part of it.
And still is.
Jean C and Ludwig
I hope I don’t sound too cynical when I say that it only looks good these 60 doping controls. Yes it is almost twice the amount from last year. But how much does it increase the chance of being caught?
There will still be a lot of riders that not will be tested. And how many riders were caught during a race? Not many.
To me it seems that this is an attempt to say: Look, we are doing so much better than the UCI.
While everybody knows that the most doping is being used outside the races.
Karuna,
I really do consider your words and thoughts. When I said you were too trusting – I did not imply this as a judgment – rather a figure of speech. What my aim was really to sort of “point you” to simply ask yourself the question – in the light of the behind the scenes plays going on. But most assuredly not questioning your intellect (:-)
I suppose one can say that cycling is no different then any other sport or BUSINESS – from the point of view of IT BEING A BUSINESS. This aspect seems to be completely missed in most commentaries and the salient points of discussion cause the majority of commentators to actually “take sides” without realizing it. BECAUSE IF WE ONLY LOOK AT PRO CYCLING from the point of “sport” – discuss it only from the point of whether some one is morally bankrupt or a doper – we really are not seeing the whole picture.
In my opinion – one thing we should come away with from these last four years is a realization that there is a heck of a lot more going on then merely the issue of doping and cheating. Think back for a moment and ask yourself – “Why was some of the activity in the doping scandals released – exactly when they were?” You do seem to ask this question in your comment above – but perhaps you shy away from it because it seems too Machiavellian. I don’t think we should discount this. After all – if more of us were to be able to “think” the way some BIG BUSINESS PEOPLE seem to be able – we’d be making money the same way…So it may be easy to use the term Machiavellian but it should be understood that to act in this fashion is quiet another matter.
As to the issue of the rules, and their apparent – slanted nature. Do you think that these rules are so slanted because of “inaptness?” Or Low grade thinkers? I do not take this as an explanation. I think the rules are as they are because the people who write them are in a position to slant them so that they are exactly as “fuzzy” as they are at the present. Why?
Well – some people here write about Omerta – I tend to believe that there are individuals and groups withing the governing bodies that may not be working “for the betterment” of cycling – but to line the pockets of others behind the scenes who handle gambling and controlling the races. Is ASO one such group? Is the UCI such a group? I cannot answer that – but I believe that there are some fingers in the pie, that should be looked at very closely – BECAUSE there has to be a conflict of interest in some of the office and position holders.
Have you noticed – there is really never any discussion of the concept – “conflict of interest” in the reporting media? A small “for instance” – Jim Ochowitz working for the USA Cycling people was doing “advisory work” for some people who were from this side of the Water. When this was “found out” the ENTIRE BOARD got together and proceeded to “rule” that his behavior was okay – as long as he doesn’t do it again the same way – that is “without reporting his “additional income” while working for them….Now – call me paranoid or “overly cynical” – but to me it looks like some one was being covered. To come to the end of this little tale – the boss of Ochowitz – who found out about his personal deal – was tossed out of his position. Draw your own conclusions. But I think there are many more “conflict of interest deals that occur” in the cycling world – that really should be looked at. That is – if we want to stop people establishing situations where cheating and manipulation can take place.
You are aware of the term “follow the money” right? – Let me ask you – why is this not being done? The point that we get fixated about the “doping situation” is blinding us to the very causes why “why such a situation” can actually be running on a scale that it would appear to be!
What gets me really pissed off – is that it is so obvious – that the riders are being used as pawns – in a much bigger game – that has very little to do with them doping. It is all about greed and what people can get away with. that is – as long as we “accept the reality they keep putting out there.”
So yes – I do think we agree Karuna. Now – I can’t wait for the responses where I’m going to be “labeled” – this should be fun….
http://www.brabantsdagblad.nl/sport/article2607460.ece
It’s dutch again because I didn’t find any English article yet.
This article gives a much clearer view of the plans of one the investors: Vandenhaute etc.
The plan is not (any more because they did try to buy ASO) to professionalize the pro tour by making one set of television right for all the pro tour races.
So, Dutch NOS would buy all the pro tour races. That brings more money.
Of the organizers is asked to bring safety for the riders, more prize money and a bonus for the teams.
There will come more pro tour races. The race in China and Russia will be on the pro tour calendar. The ToC probably too.
The company that will mediate; Vandenhaute’s Woestijvis is also in charge of which teams will start in which races.
They perfectly willing to go on with this plan when the TdF is not participating.
Van der Aat said: “all the classics are welcome but we will go on without them”.
As far as I see it now, it’s about bringing competition for the TdF.
More prize money for the riders means less profit for the investors of the ASO.
And in time it is possible of Course that there will come a race which will actually compete with the TdF.
ohhhh I am sorry:
The plan is not (any more because they did try to buy ASO) to professionalize the pro tour by making one set of television right for all the pro tour races.
So, Dutch NOS would buy all the pro tour races. That brings more money.
Should be:
The plan is not anymore to buy the ASO because they have tried that and failed. But the plan is about professionalize the pro tour by making one set of television rights for all the pro tour races.
So, Dutch NOS (the government sponsored television channel that broadcasts the cycling races) would buy all the pro tour races. That brings more money.
So now we know why the ASO is trying to buy up the Vuelta and why it had bought races in Germany and why it is involved with the Tour down Under….
If Vandenhaute etc. “faction” intends to consolidate the Pro-tour in China and Russia will be on the pro tour calendar. The ToC probably too. Then ASO is basically fighting off a “hostile takeover” – in other words – ASO has to fight them off or it will not survive.
Question is – why didn’t ASO go for the Plan to “enlarge” pro racing. On the surface it would seem to be a win-win situation for them also – the one reason they probably didn’t is because the issue of control by the “money men” behind the scenes would be out of their hands. A good possibility.
As it stands in Russia today – there is a great deal of consolidated money there, but a lot of it seems to be under the control of a very few…just a thought. Some of these individuals and groups play very “hard ball” – consider what wound up happening to one of their own “oil giants” – He is still languishing behind bars and is barely to notice in the news.
In my opinion, this part: “Of the organizers is asked to bring safety for the riders, more prize money and a bonus for the teams.” – Is nothing but pablum for “public consumption” – it may happen and some of it will I am sure. You have to have juicy carrots to get everyone going in the “same direction.”
Also – “Van der Aat said: “all the classics are welcome but we will go on without them”. Sounds good don’t it? But how much sense does this make? NOT VERY MUCH AT ALL. The Tour AND the Classics are the foundation of professional cycling races – They have the “highest profile” in cycle racing…so one must assume that this is again only for “public consumption.”
Nice peice of work Karuna – if we keep digging in the business direction – I think we will get a heck of lot “truer picture” of the “troubles” that are haunting cycling. These troubles certainly seem to have only a very small part to do with “doping riders” – as this situation was being put out for public consumption…and all to do with BIG MONEY – WHO CONTROLS PRO RACING – AND HOW TO KEEP EVERY ONE LOOKING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
So what is the destruction of “individual persons” in comparison to the higher “good” of the desires of big money to consolidate their Empire?
Karuna,
Yes, you are right I am saying that head UCI is condoning doping despite the real improvement made by Annie Griper.
The is for years a disagreement with how riders are tested. There is too many trap to escape testing. Look at what was done at ToC and currently at Paris-Nice.
The only predicability which should be is targetting the suspicious riders as we have seen last year. To be more accurate to target longitudinal controls should be set. The current biological passport has still trap becasue he is focused on blood doping. More healt parameter should be monitored to be most efficient, even if their measurement frequency is less than blood monitoring.
Jean C, you are right, but you’re running into a money issue. Blood testing is cheaper than urine testing. To include urine testing in the biological passport, the UCI would need a lot more money.
Larry (or anyone else of course0
Do you know an article or link or what ever about the biological passport?
I still can’t find what the passport includes, parameters, etc.
All the articles I read about it have just the general information.
Karuna,
I haven’t seen anything very specific about the biological passports, in terms of the precise things they will be looking at and measuring. If anyone has the info, I’d certainly be interested, too.
Rant and Karuna –
First of all, I misspoke earlier: the biological passport DOES include limited urine testing – 4 tests a year. That may not be enough testing for any useful purpose, and it’s certainly not enough testing to establish any kind of baseline for the time being. Also, depending on where you look on the UCI web site, the biological passport might not include urine testing for all riders. (see http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MjI0NQ&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=MzIyNzg&.) That’s why I remembered that there was no urine testing – the truth is that, for the moment at least, there is no EFFECTIVE urine testing. In contrast, programs like ACE and the Damsgaard program do two urine tests a month to start and then at least one urine test a month thereafter.
As far as useful discussions of the biological passport (and Karuna, forgive me for only providing links to information in English), probably the best general discussion I’ve seen is on the UCI site: http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTUzNDc.
The best technical discussion I’ve seen is a WADA powerpoint at http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/2008-02-27_Athlete_Passport_AGarnier.pdf.
One thing to note from this presentation is the attention paid to hemoglobin levels and reticulocyte counts as well as to hematocrit levels.
There is also a Q&A on the WADA web site at http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory.id=754.
None of this is as helpful or as detailed as one would like. If anyone knows of better material than this, please post it!
Thank you Larry
It’s no problem that it’s in English. I read English a lot better then I write it 🙂
Karuna –
Your English is terrific. But this is an international sport, where English is not the primary language. So I at least wanted to acknowledge that I was throwing stuff at you based on what *I* am comfortable reading.
I enjoy your participation here.
Thank you Larry, I very much enjoy participating on this blog
Larry and Rant
The next links might provide some more understanding of the blood passport as the UCI is introducing it.
It is pretty technical but not complete gibberish to me. So it might be easy to read for some of you.
1) is the latest article I could find about this subject.
Remark:
-As far as I know is the reticulocytes count introduces by the UCI at 2003 as part of the tests performed when taking a blood sample of a rider.
2) is a earlier article where the ON-OFF score is explained.
3) is from 2004 and lists what was not correct about the 2) article.
1) http://www.haematologica.org/cgi/reprint/91/3/356?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author2=sharpe K&title=third-generation of blood tests&andorexacttitle=or&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=1/1/2006&tdate=12/31/2006&resourcetype=HWCIT
2) http://www.haematologica.org/cgi/reprint/88/3/333?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=gore CJ&title=second-generation blood tests to detect &andorexacttitle=or&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=1/1/2003&tdate=12/31/2003&resourcetype=HWCIT
3) http://www.haematologica.org/cgi/reprint/89/4/ELT05?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&title=second-generation blood tests&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=1/1/2004&tdate=12/31/2004&resourcetype=HWCIT
This is the link to the journal: http://www.haematologica.org/