Those Who Don’t Learn From The Past

There’s battle lines being drawn
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down

– Buffalo Springfield, “For What It’s Worth”

What’s the saying? “Those who don’t learn from the past are destined to repeat it.” Sort of like the whole idea behind the film Groundhog Day.

Looking back to what was going on in the world of professional cycling a year ago, it’s hard not to have a feeling of “deja vu all over again.” A little more than a year ago, the ASO and UCI were at each other’s throats over the Paris-Nice race and who would and wouldn’t be allowed to start the race. Just four days before the race began, the two sides made an interim peace deal, leaving the heavy-duty negotiating for later — about six months later, to be precise.

In the meantime, Paris-Nice came and went. Alberto Contador won the race, foreshadowing accomplishments to come. The Tour came and went. Only, instead of one doping scandal like in 2006, the 2007 edition had several. Including a couple involving star riders like Alexander Vinokourov (who tested positive for homologous blood doping), and Michael Rasmussen (who was less than forthright regarding his whereabouts, although some of the various stories contradict each other on who knew what, when). Alberto Contador won the Tour, too. Almost by default. De fault of whoever either side chooses to blame for the mess that was the 2007 Tour.

Some of those who thought that the 2006 Tour was the worst thing that could happen to the venerated race found themselves pining for the “good old days” after all the scandals that cropped up in last year’s edition.

Having dissed the 2006 champion so publicly during the presentation of the 2007 course in October 2006, could the additional scandals last year have been nature’s way of bitch-slapping the Tour’s organizers? Interesting thought, that. But back to the present. With less than 48 hours before the Paris-Nice race begins, this year’s brinksmanship looks to be a failure on many different levels.

Where last year it was possible to bring the two sides to the table and work out a compromise, this year it seems that neither side is willing to budge. And both sides are digging in their heels. The UCI says they will begin disciplinary hearings against Jean Pitallier and the French Cycling Federation, Eric Boyer (of the Association of Professional Cyclists). Pat McQuaid, the UCI’s president, has called on Boyer to resign his seat on the ProTour Council.

And McQuaid has said that he will bring disciplinary actions against any teams and cyclists who participate in next week’s Race to the Sun. And, to top it off, McQuaid published an Open Letter in the French newspaper Le Monde addressing the current situation. (Full text at Trust But Verify.)

The closer that Sunday’s start gets, the more entrenched each side appears to be. I’m certainly not holding out much hope that peace, love and understanding will overcome the two warring sides between now and then. Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong, the more this infighting goes on, the more damage they both do to the sport.

Sure, cycling fans will probably tune in to watch who races and who wins. But how many will be wondering in the back of their minds: What kinds of sanctions will the UCI try to impose on the participants? If all the teams invited show up, and all of the racers scheduled to do so participate, will the UCI really suspend 160 riders for a period of six months? Will they really sanction what amounts to the entire ProTour (with the exception of Astana, who were mercifully — it now turns out — not invited to participate).

The UCI is certainly trying to protect its authority over the sport. If everyone shows up on Sunday, what does that say about the UCI’s influence and the teams’ and riders’ respect for their authority? Not much. And if the ASO succeeds in running their events under FFC sanction, rather than the UCI, will the teams be deterred from participating? Or, if they’ve already been banned for six months, will they participate because those are the only races open to them?

And the ASO is fighting tooth and nail to preserve their own autonomy in regards to who will be invited to participate and who won’t. The FFC, in some ways, seems to be caught in the middle. From what I gather, under French law, they pretty much have to sanction Paris-Nice if the ASO asks them to. Which they have done. Punishing the French Cycling Federation for making the only legal choice allowed to them seems out of line. And yet, they are going against the UCI’s wishes by sanctioning the race. So what’s the international federation to do?

If it were only French UCI continental teams participating, and perhaps a few teams from regions bordering France, then the international federation wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, even under their own rules. What’s got the UCI’s knickers in a twist is that ProTour and Pro Continental teams that would be excluded from a “national calendar event” under more regular circumstances will actually be racing, which goes against the UCI’s rules about such races.

More and more, it seems to me that neither side is going to budge. Caught in the middle are the teams and the riders. The teams need to race in order to justify the huge investments made by the sponsors. Those sponsors won’t be too happy if “their” cyclists are sitting out a race, rather than providing a rolling billboard for the company’s wares. And the cyclists need to ride. After all: No ride, no paycheck. Makes it pretty difficult to put food on the table for your family if you can’t do your job.

While the two 800-pound gorillas of professional cycling fight it out, those who actually make their living from racing are caught in the cross-fire. Not a good place to be. And the season has barely just begun.

Where will all of this lead? Heaven only knows. Perhaps, when the dust settles, the UCI’s ProTour — which was a good idea in theory, but got off on the wrong foot — may be scrapped and a new system crafted by everyone from the organizers to team management to the riders to the international federation will implemented in its place.

If that happens, perhaps the UCI can emerge intact — changed and chastened, perhaps, but still intact. On the other hand, if that outcome doesn’t occur, the UCI and their authority over cycling may lie in a smoldering heap of rubble. If that’s the case, does the ASO have any idea of how the sport should be governed? Or are they only looking out for number one, and the rest of the sport be damned?

As the season progresses, we’ll get a better picture for how this is all going to shake out. In the meantime, it looks like we’re in for one heck of a show. Even if no one gets on a bike to race on Sunday, the fireworks between UCI and the ASO are going to be going off for quite some time to come.

For the moment, it seems to me that the lesson Pat McQuaid and his counterparts over at the ASO took from last year’s events was that they need to dig in their heels more firmly in order to get what they want. The reality is that doesn’t work for kids. And it doesn’t work for “adults,” either.