# Bye Bye UCI



## Flying_Monkey (15 Jul 2008)

All the teams at the TdF have just announced that they will leave the Pro-Tour as of next year...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jul08/jul15news4

Unless there is some change, this means the end of the UCI as the main body of professional top level cycling, and Pat McQuaid's intransigent attitude will be largely responsible.


----------



## marinyork (15 Jul 2008)

I don't know much about cycle racing but is this going to mean either a superceded body ala premier league (or repeated elsewhere and in other sports) or split body ala boxing, motorsport etc?


----------



## andy_wrx (15 Jul 2008)

McQuaid's idea of charging a fortune of the teams, to force them to race in races they didn't want to go to, in increasingly obscure parts of the world irrelevant to the team sponsors, whilst wrapping-up the television revenues, seems to have come unstuck.

McQuaid has survived because he's been held-up by the votes of the delegates from these obscure parts of the world, but if they now realise he's not going to deliver on his promises to get them big-time races, perhaps his time will have come !


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Jul 2008)

The Pro-Tour already was a 'Premier League' idea, but without a separate management system. What's happened here is that the teams have decided they want the separate management system. ASO has shown it can run the TdF without the UCI, there's no reason why an alliance of important race-organisers and teams can't run the whole calendar at this level.


----------



## piedwagtail91 (15 Jul 2008)

serves them right for what they did to graeme obree. good riddence.


----------



## marinyork (15 Jul 2008)

Ah, I see, well good for them. They weren't trying to get races in India, China, Turkey, Russia etc by any chance ?


----------



## rich p (15 Jul 2008)

There may be a conflict which would affect British riders in that the track racing is run under UCI. I can see a spiteful McQauid and Verbruggen trying to ban from the track anyone who rides in non UCI events.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Jul 2008)

rich p said:


> There may be a conflict which would affect British riders in that the track racing is run under UCI. I can see a spiteful McQauid and Verbruggen trying to ban from the track anyone who rides in non UCI events.



Well, if they do that they will lose everything and not just the pro-Tour. I don't think they were anticipating this announcement, and they are really going to have to stop and think, and hopefully come back to the negotiating table and accept some changes - oh, and McQuaid should resign.


----------



## rich p (15 Jul 2008)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Well, if they do that they will lose everything and not just the pro-Tour. I don't think they were anticipating this announcement, and they are really going to have to stop and think, and hopefully come back to the negotiating table and accept some changes - oh, and McQuaid should resign.



He's just a glove puppet though, isn't he?


----------



## yello (15 Jul 2008)

Darn you FM, I was about to post 'the death of UCI'! (with apologies to Keith)



Bouygues Telecom Jean-Rene Berneaudea said:


> What matters today for my sponsors is a participation in the three big Tours



and there we have it. Love it or loathe it.


----------



## User169 (15 Jul 2008)

BBC: "UCI President Pat McQuaid said the dissidents were now facing exclusion."

Nice one Pat


----------



## yello (15 Jul 2008)

... like some pathetic individual saying 'you are not invited to MY party'... when nobody wanted to come anyway, they were just being forced to!


----------



## Keith Oates (16 Jul 2008)

It looks as if McQuaid will need to go even if the UCI continues and cycling will shrink back into being a European only sport. If that's what the teams and riders want, so be it. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Oyimpics and cycling in the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Renard (16 Jul 2008)

Except that, in road cycling, nobody really cares about the olympics. I wonder how we would fare as a nation if all the money that has been ploughed into track cycling had been dedicated to road cycling instead?


----------



## peanut (16 Jul 2008)

just goes to show how dangerous it is to have non elected people in charge of governing bodies .Its been ruining UK cycling for decades Good riddance ,hope he is treated like the leper he is


----------



## mangaman (16 Jul 2008)

marinyork said -


> I don't know much about cycle racing but is this going to mean either a superceded body ala premier league (or repeated elsewhere and in other sports) or split body ala boxing, motorsport etc?



I think this is an interesting question

The UCI did set rules eg about bike design / weight etc, that the protour teams stuck to

Presumably the new breakaway teams will need a new management structure (probably ASO dominated) with the power to set the rules of cycling
I can see them being much more innovative than the UCI - eg allowing more room for bike development (which I would love)

The UCI will continue to run road races under their rules with continental teams etc

My only worry would be the "premier" league would be like Formula 1, with lots of money and super high tec lightweight bikes, while juniors and up-and-coming riders would be stuck in UCI sanctioned races with a different set of rules which would make it very difficult for continental teams to enter races like the Giro or the Vuelta

Interesting times though - I think it all depends on how robust the management structure is of the new series, or we'll just end up with pro-tour mark 2


----------



## Tetedelacourse (16 Jul 2008)

Can anyone post a list of current UCI-controlled races and non UCI races? Or a link to such a list?

I think the UCI and ASO have been as bad as each other to be honest and the cyclists have suffered. I don't like the idea of a hugely powerful governing body run from just one country as the question of bias would always be at the back of my mind. Also, like it or not, UCI did a lot for the fight against doping, moreso than ASO (in my opinion). So that's bad. I also think pro cycling should be promoted globally as ultimately it will mean more money. OK the way the UCI went about it was clumsy at best but nonetheless a good initiative.

I've kinda been on the side of ASO all along, but I don't think this announcement is all good news.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (16 Jul 2008)

Oh, one other thing. I want to see the best cyclist win, not the cyclist on the most advanced bike. I'm all for advances in technology so long as it benefits all, but if you've got 100+ different types of bike starting the tour how can you judge ability?


----------



## dodgy (16 Jul 2008)

Are we about to see recumbents on flat time trial stages? 

Dave.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (16 Jul 2008)

I'm reading "The Hour" at the minute. Apparently the UCI had to invent categories of the hour record for this very reason Dave. If there's no standard to adhere to, the tour could go the same way.


----------



## dodgy (16 Jul 2008)

Cool, I don't think there's much doubt that the UCI are responsible for much of the stifled development of road bicycles. Yes we have carbon etc, but it's still essentially the same design that they were riding in the 1950s and earlier.

Bring it on.

Dave.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jul 2008)

I don't think this is going to mean anything goes on bike design - the UCI is not really alone on thinking there needs to be rules on this. It will just mean a different way of managing the very top level of road cycling, that is all. I don't think it will stop the development of cycling in other countries either, contrary to what Keith thinks...


----------



## dodgy (16 Jul 2008)

I wouldn't really expect 'anything goes' either, but I would hope for a more forward thinking and creative approach to racing bike development.

Dave.


----------



## mangaman (16 Jul 2008)

I don't think we'll get "anything goes" either really

I was thinking more of subtle rule changes which add up over time until you get a noticeable difference between the "premier league" and the rest

ASO and Unipublic have been quite innovative already with ideas about race radios etc

Slightly OT but I've always felt this about technology in other sports eg cricket / rugby / tennis using TV replays for line decisions

Effectively you're playing a different game until you reach a certain standard when such things are available (ie the top level)


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jul 2008)

dodgy said:


> I wouldn't really expect 'anything goes' either, but I would hope for a more forward thinking and creative approach to racing bike development.



You will be disappointed then - that really isn't what this about at all.


----------



## dodgy (16 Jul 2008)

Shame.


----------



## Keith Oates (16 Jul 2008)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I don't think this is going to mean anything goes on bike design - the UCI is not really alone on thinking there needs to be rules on this. It will just mean a different way of managing the very top level of road cycling, that is all. I don't think it will stop the development of cycling in other countries either, contrary to what Keith thinks...



Cycling will continue in other countries that's for sure, FM, but I think that the better ones will have to come to Europe to be in the top league, much as the Aussies have had to in the past and maybe now in the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## andy_wrx (16 Jul 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Also, like it or not, UCI did a lot for the fight against doping, moreso than ASO (in my opinion).



No, like it or not, I'd have said the opposite, that Verbruggen and McQuaid did a lot to *stifle* the fight against doping.

Both ASO and UCI have realised that doping was the issue that was going to damage cycing, but Verbruggen's and McQuaid's approach was to deny it, to brush it under the carpet and pretend it didn't exist rather than confront it head-on, hence their continual problems with Dick Pound and WADA 
(- isn't McQuaid still trying to go to court with WADA ?)

ASO on the other hand realise that it's their commercial interests which will be destroyed, that it's the one thing which could lead to the death of the Tour if the public see it as some sort of druggie-circus, and hence they have cracked-down on doping, or sent-out the message that they will crack-down, hence their rejection of Astana this year and expulsion of teams and riders testing positive.


----------



## andy_wrx (16 Jul 2008)

Keith Oates said:


> Cycling will continue in other countries that's for sure, FM, but I think that the better ones will have to come to Europe to be in the top league, much as the Aussies have had to in the past and maybe now in the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



The teams have gone to Tour Down Under for quite a few years, and Langkawi and more recently Qatar for that matter, because they're well organised races with good facilities and prize money, in sunny climes at a point when it's out-of-season in wet-and-cold Europe.

They're good training races where they could enter their junior teams for experience.

Putting TDO in the ProTour didn't make a lot of difference to that - the big-name riders there were almost all Australians in their home event.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (16 Jul 2008)

andy_wrx said:


> No, like it or not, I'd have said the opposite, that Verbruggen and McQuaid did a lot to *stifle* the fight against doping.
> 
> Both ASO and UCI have realised that doping was the issue that was going to damage cycing, but Verbruggen's and McQuaid's approach was to deny it, to brush it under the carpet and pretend it didn't exist rather than confront it head-on, hence their continual problems with Dick Pound and WADA
> (- isn't McQuaid still trying to go to court with WADA ?)
> ...



ASO's rejection of Astana and not eg High Road seems whimsical at best. Just like Boonen's exclusion and Schumacher's inclusion. UCI came up with passports. FCF's track record in doping is questionable too. I'm not saying UCI were (are?) perfect, but have been less in denial than ASO who have a vested interest in keeping a lid on the doping, precisely because of their commercial interests! It's all a matter of perspective though. I can't deny though that McQuaid and Verbruggen have been a pair of royal chumps throughout!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (16 Jul 2008)

Good to see you here BTW Andy.


----------



## andy_wrx (16 Jul 2008)

Ah, float back from time to time.

Sticking to Race, Road&Sportives, Know How forums though, not going anywhere near Soapbox, Commuting or Politics
- I want to talk about cycling & bikes, not debate the BBC licence fee or speed cameras and trade insults...


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jul 2008)

andy_wrx said:


> - I want to talk about cycling & bikes, not debate the BBC licence fee or speed cameras and trade insults...



Hence the entirely bike-related and non-political avatar then!


----------



## Dayvo (16 Jul 2008)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Hence the entirely bike-related and non-political avatar then!


----------



## Keith Oates (17 Jul 2008)

andy_wrx said:


> The teams have gone to Tour Down Under for quite a few years, and Langkawi and more recently Qatar for that matter, because they're well organised races with good facilities and prize money, in sunny climes at a point when it's out-of-season in wet-and-cold Europe.
> 
> They're good training races where they could enter their junior teams for experience.
> 
> ...


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Jul 2008)

The UCI have reacted in a predictably aggressive and stupid way, by threatening to sue all the teams for breach of contract and loss of earnings. 

Even the UCI's defenders must admit that this is going to be immensely counterproductive and, as with the decision to try to take legal action against WADA, just a bizarre and ridiculous use of the resources which are supposed to be dedicated to promoting cycling. The UCI had never had the clear moral high ground but now it appears to be sinking even lower.


----------



## Keith Oates (17 Jul 2008)

McQuaid is a very hurt man and has lost the plot so says the first thing that comes into his head and very often that's not the best thing to say. I think he took over a mess that was made by Verbrugen (sp) and still has him in the background pulling the strings. I think he has also come up against some people who got a doctorate in the University of dirty and inderhanded tricks. I hope he does better in his next job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## andy_wrx (17 Jul 2008)

McQuaid 'took over' from Verbruggen at an election where Verbruggen told people to vote for McQuaid...Verbruggen stayed-on as UCI Vice President....

So yes, blame McQuaid for being a clown, but most of the blame for this whole sorry mess should be with Verbruggen.

I can't see McQuaid resigning, he doesn't seem to think like that, he hasn't resigned after all sorts of almighty cock-ups he just gets 'off on one' and blames someone else, like WADA, ASO, teams, riders, press, various governments, etc.

Most of the European nations voted against McQuaid recently but he was propped-up by votes from other nations keen to get his ProTour races. They might abandon him next time.

But if he goes either by resignation or by being voted-out, it would be no good unless Verbruggen also goes - properly goes.


----------



## NickM (17 Jul 2008)

dodgy said:


> ...I don't think there's much doubt that the UCI are responsible for much of the stifled development of road bicycles...



Let this be our battle cry: Remember 1934!! 

I cannot see why there should not now be an Open national tour, in which faired recumbents will win the time trials, unfaired recumbents the stages with downhill finishes, and uprights the stages with hilltop finishes. Now that would be a spectacle worth seeing, in contrast to the circus we are fed now. What combination of rider and machine would win overall is anybody's guess.

But "Oh" they all bleat, "that would be _impure_ - a battle between engineers, instead of one between athletes."

So, entirely unlike the current battle between pharmacists, then?


----------



## Keith Oates (17 Jul 2008)

When I go out for a ride I can relate to the riders and bikes that I admire and get some fun out of that, I'd hate to have to ask someone to bring along a brace of 'bents' so I could get the full affect of imitating the top riders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cookiemonster (17 Jul 2008)

Excuse my ignorance here but what did they do to Greame Orbree?


----------



## NickM (17 Jul 2008)

Keith Oates said:


> When I go out for a ride I can relate to the riders and bikes that I admire and get some fun out of that...


I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't continue to do that.

Just that some of us would like to know what would happen in a less restricted race between human-powered machines. Why should there not be races in both categories?


----------



## Keith Oates (17 Jul 2008)

Fine if that's what you want, but don't confuse it with bicycle racing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dayvo (17 Jul 2008)

cookiemonster said:


> Excuse my ignorance here but what did they do to Greame Orbree?




In a nutshell, they presented every bureaucratic, theoretical obstacle possible to prevent a 'non-cyclist' (someone who was a COMPLETE unheard of from outside the world's elite) take such a prestigous title.
See the film/read the book for a better explanation!


----------



## NickM (17 Jul 2008)

Keith Oates said:


> Fine if that's what you want, but don't confuse it with bicycle racing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



This _isn't_ a bicycle?


----------



## Keith Oates (17 Jul 2008)

Not in my book, it's a recumbent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## NickM (17 Jul 2008)




----------



## andy_wrx (17 Jul 2008)

It's possible to buy and ride on the road motorbikes which aren't very far from those raced by the pro's.

But F1 racing cars don't bear much relation to roadcars.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Jul 2008)

NickM said:


>


You'd end up with a technology race Nick, not a bike race. I can see why you'd be frustrated but I can also see why the UCI's dogged conservatism keeps the focus on the riders and not what they're riding.

Has anyone said 'it's not about the bike' yet?


----------



## NickM (17 Jul 2008)

Chuffy said:


> You'd end up with a technology race Nick, not a bike race.


And what we have now is a pharmacology race, not a bike race. One that, in the minds of its emotionally-attached fans, still clings to its last tattered shreds of "genuineness" no matter how often it is revealed as bogus.

And professional cycle racing _is_ bogus. It only takes the presence of a few cheats in a race to invalidate its result, regardless of whether a cheat wins.


----------



## mondobongo (17 Jul 2008)

NickM said:


> And what we have now is a pharmacology race, not a bike race. One that, in the minds of its emotionally-attached fans, still clings to its last tattered shreds of "genuineness" no matter how often it is revealed as bogus.



No its a bike race given that not everyone is charging up if they were then it could be called a pharmacology race.

So following your logic if we had a big race with HPV'S driven by Pro Hpvers then that would be bogus.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Jul 2008)

Nick, you are very naive if you think that being able to ride recumbents would stop people taking drugs - it would just be a pharma-techno-race. 

And besides, as has been pointed out several times, this isn't really the issue here - the teams are not leaving because of the UCI stance on bike development.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Jul 2008)

NickM said:


> And what we have now is a pharmacology race, not a bike race. One that, in the minds of its emotionally-attached fans, still clings to its last tattered shreds of "genuineness" no matter how often it is revealed as bogus.
> And professional cycle racing _is_ bogus. It only takes the presence of a few cheats in a race to invalidate its result, regardless of whether a cheat wins.


Riiiiiight....
Cheating is a fundamental problem in all human activity sport Nick. By your logic, no sport can be valid if anyone involved is cheating (drugs, match fixing, ball tampering, whatever) and I defy you to point me towards a sport where cheating is impossible. If HPVs were admitted to UCI sanctioned events, do you honestly believe that the problem would suddenly vanish? We'd have a double whammy of who had the best drugs _and_ who had the best tech on their vehicle. If you think that's less bogus then you're more naive than I ever thought.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Jul 2008)

Cross-posted with FM! Great minds, blah, blah, blah....


----------



## NickM (17 Jul 2008)

Chuffy said:


> ...Cheating is a fundamental problem in all human activity sport Nick...


Yes, I'm sure you are quite right. Show me where I have said otherwise. It makes no difference whatever to my point... which is that the constantly reiterated insistence that UCI-limited professional cycling is somehow a _more_ legitimate sport, drug cheats and all, than unlimited cycling would be is quite bafflingly devoid of logic.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Jul 2008)

NickM said:


> It makes no difference whatever to my point... which is that the constantly reiterated insistence that UCI-limited professional cycling is somehow a _more_ legitimate sport, drug cheats and all, than unlimited cycling would be is quite bafflingly devoid of logic.



It is actually entirely logical. When throwing the javelin, you aren't just allowed to throw any old javelin, but one that has particular dimensions and weight. Poles in pole-vaulting have particular allowed materials and standards. This means that the sport is conducted on an equal footing. You can't compare what is legally allowed as the basis for a fair sport to what people are doing illegally. Nor can you argue logically that a technological free-for-all is fairer than controls on technology. 

And besides no-one is stopping anyone organising an international recumbent racing league... and once again, this isn't what this discussion is about.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Jul 2008)

NickM said:


> Yes, I'm sure you are quite right. Show me where I have said otherwise. It makes no difference whatever to my point... which is that the constantly reiterated insistence that UCI-limited professional cycling is somehow a _more_ legitimate sport, drug cheats and all, than unlimited cycling would be is quite bafflingly devoid of logic.


Because unlimited cycling would have the same problems. The guys in the TdF are riding bikes which are pretty much interchangeable. One of the most fundamental parts of the playing field is flat. We can focus on the issue of the athlete's performance, not on the performance of his vehicle. Do you want to see cycling turning into F1?


----------

