# UCI and ASO



## Keith Oates (26 Feb 2008)

Here we go again, it's time a final and satisfactory solution was found in this game of politics. The loser will be cycling and cycling fans.!!

Details can be found in todays cyclingnews edition.


----------



## Renard (26 Feb 2008)

Read it too and had similar thoughts. I do think though if the UCI are willing to disregard as important event as Paris-Nice and risk the TdF they deserve their pro-tour to be ignored by the trade teams and broken up.


----------



## yenrod (26 Feb 2008)

Come on Keith how about a bloody link....


----------



## Keith Oates (26 Feb 2008)

For you Yenners, I'll go one better:

quote

UCI threatens ASO over Paris-Nice actions
UCI president Pat McQuaid 
Photo ©: Roberto Bettini 
UCI president Pat McQuaid has written to all professional teams to inform them that this year's Paris-Nice will not be regulated by the sport's world governing body, warning that there will be "far reaching consequences" if race organizer Amaury Sports Organization continues on its current course of action. The Irishman's letter comes after the French Cycling Federation agreed to a request from ASO, which also organizes the Tour de France, to run the 75 year-old race as a national calendar event "under the exclusive jurisdiction of French law".

McQuaid was clearly upset with ASO's actions, as the war of words between the sport's international governing body and the Grand Tour organizers enters yet another chapter.

"The current organizers are behaving in a very irrational way," McQuaid told Associated Press. "It's about power and it has nothing to do with sport. We cannot allow this to happen." 

Describing ASO's actions as "utterly irregular", the UCI has threatened to have no involvement with the first major European race of 2008. It said that no international or national commissaries would be authorized to work at the event as it will not be governed by the UCI rules if ASO continues to organize the race as a national calendar event. 

"The UCI wished it to be known first of all that, under the chosen format (event on the national calendar, under exclusive jurisdiction of French law), the UCI rules do not permit Paris-Nice to be considered an event on the French national calendar," read a release from the UCI. "Consequently, if the FFC insists on maintaining this position, the race will take place entirely outside the regulatory and organisational structure of the UCI.

"Responsibility for this breach of the rules would therefore lie in the first place with the FFC, which would be contributing to the organisation of a purely private event, with no links to organised sport or to the Olympic movement, of which the UCI is the sole organ of reference for all disciplines of cycling

"The UCI therefore wishes to make it clear that it will not be involved in any way in the organisation of Paris-Nice under the above-mentioned conditions," added the release. "This means that, as far as the International Federation is concerned, this event will have no classification and no winner, and no points will be awarded for it. Moreover, no anti-doping controls will be carried out by the UCI, nor will it be involved in the management of any tests which may be carried out under national law."

The latest political situation in the UCI/ASO power play is a reverse of the events that took place just 12 months ago. Then, the UCI was threatening to ban the Paris-Nice race from the ProTour if ASO didn't comply with the rules of the ProTour by inviting all 20 ProTour teams to participate.

During the 2007 saga, ASO approached the FFC about running the event under its governance as the UCI threatened to cut the event lose. While the dispute was said to be over the organiser's inability to invite Unibet.com to participate in any French events due to the nation's gambling laws, it was widely accepted that the new ProTour team became a pawn in the UCI Vs. Grand Tour battle. Despite the political uproar in the lead-up to last year's race, the event went ahead following a 'crisis meeting' - without the Unibet.com team.

While McQuaid hasn't said whether the UCI would move to sanction any teams participating in the event, he has requested that in the interest of the sport they refuse to take part in the March 9-16 race. "The UCI trusts that, recognising the seriousness of the situation, the teams will refuse to take part in Paris-Nice, as, regardless of the sanctions to which they would be subject, such participation would compromise the image and stability of cycling.

"Given that it is the role of an International Federation to safeguard the general interests of its sport from the influence of commercial groups, the UCI invites all the members of its extended family to stand by it in what will most certainly be difficult times ahead, and to oppose the unacceptable insubordination of ASO and its allies," continued the release. "These irresponsible attitudes threaten to undermine the remarkable efforts recently made in cycling, in particular with the biological passport, which the UCI reserves the right to apply as a priority to those of its partners who abide by its rules."

While tensions had seemingly simmered earlier this year when the UCI proposed a special calendar for the events run by the three Grand Tour organizers, the boiling pot's temperature again rose when ASO announced earlier this month Astana wouldn't be invited to contest the Tour de France, or any of its other 2008 races. While ASO said it would consider the team in future years, McQuaid was upset that the organization had singled out Astana, which has been completely rebuilt under new management since last season, and not French squad Cofidis, which was also thrown off last year's Tour after one of its riders registered a positive doping test.

The UCI closed its statement with a plea to the FFC and French Secretary of State for Sport, asking them to reconsider their decision with regards to Paris-Nice.

"The UCI asks the FFC and the Secretary of State for Sport, as a matter of the utmost urgency, to re-examine and reconsider their decision to support a position taken by a private company with the apparent aim of promoting its own commercial interests, with scant regard to the fair, open and universally respected rules defended by the UCI."

unquote


----------



## John the Monkey (26 Feb 2008)

Here you go Yenrod;

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb26news


----------



## walker (26 Feb 2008)

The only winners out of this will be the Sponsors I think. They will make the riders ride any big ride regardless of the governing body. I can see this spliting the sport in two, just like rugby union and league type of thing


----------



## andy_wrx (26 Feb 2008)

There's a certain sense of deja vu - UCI did the same last year...


----------



## mondobongo (26 Feb 2008)

The UCI are behaving in such a pompus and bombastic manner they can only alienate the Teams and Organisers leading to a split. The UCI should be working to resolve issues not bring up more requesting teams not to attend and implying their may be sanctions if you race hardly the behaviour of supposed grown ups is it?
Sod the UCI am sure that the riders could set up a new governing body with more teeth than the UCI.


----------



## Dave5N (27 Feb 2008)

If it comes to a showdown, UCI will lose. Deservedly.


----------



## mondobongo (27 Feb 2008)

It looks like ASO are going to the wire on this one and are not going to back down having appointed the French doping agency to run Anti Doping at Paris-Nice, article from Cycling News below. Interesting point regarding Anti Doping at the TdF will the UCI cut off its nose?

*ASO appoints French anti-doping agency for Paris-Nice*

_By Mark Appleton and Jeff Jones, Bikeradar.com_
Racing to the sun? 
Photo ©: AFP 

 Paris-Nice road race organiser ASO has, under the auspices of the French Cycling Federation, placed France’s national anti-doping agency the AFLD in charge of doping control at the season’s traditional ‘Race to the Sun’ curtain-raiser. The news will come as a further slap in the face to the UCI, who yesterday said that if the race goes ahead without its doping control officials and commissaires, it effectively enters the realms of a private competition with no international status whatsoever.
However, it appears that the AFLD was well prepared for the call from ASO, perhaps not surprisingly as the story has more than a sense of déjà vu about it, mirroring as it does events surrounding last year’s race. And in an ominous indication of a potential escalation of the clash between the international federation and ASO, the AFLD has indicated that it is ready to take on similar responsibilities for the Tour de France.
ASO's agreement with AFLD is due to be signed on Thursday, with ASO spokesperson Christophe Marchadier saying the French company was simply waiting "for the teams to express themselves" before continuing down its chosen path.
No longer, it seems, is the agency simply viewing itself in the role of a UCI contractor, implementing doping controls deemed appropriate by cycling’s international governing body. Speaking before Monday’s announcement by the UCI which denounced the "insubordination of ASO and it allies," AFLD president Pierre Bordry said. "The first thing we had to consider was our strategy. The UCI’s approach seemed too systematic to us. They test only the stage winners and the overall race leader. To avoid being tested it is sufficient to simply finish down the field. There needs to be more random testing."
Under French law the AFLD can test nails, hair and even skin samples and Bordry has said that it may be necessary for his organisation to undertake testing outside of France in the run-up to the Tour, if indeed they are charged with running the Grand Tour’s anti-doping programme. However, the possibility that the AFLD will take on such a role also throws into question the future of the biological passport programme instigated by the UCI.
"These irresponsible attitudes threaten to undermine the remarkable efforts recently made in cycling, in particular with the biological passport, which the UCI reserves the right to apply as a priority to those of its partners who abide by its rules," the federation said a strongly worded statement yesterday.


----------



## yello (27 Feb 2008)

McQuaid's a dick. I'm sorry, I would like to be more constructive and have reasoned opinions etc but I think my initial reaction best sums up my feelings.


----------



## Keith Oates (27 Feb 2008)

I can understand your feeling yello, but must disagree. ASO are the ones that consider themselves above everyone else and they want to call the tune in professional racing. It's a dangerous path they may eventually regret, if the UCI ideas of getting Australia, America, China, Russia, Malaysia to increase their participation it could mean a lowering of the importance of the TdF, which is the Big One at the moment and rightly so. IMO ASO have not done themselves any favours by excluding Astana and not the other three teams that also caused problems in last years TdF.


----------



## yello (27 Feb 2008)

Understanding a little of the French attitude (in as much as one can say that), I can see that ASO want to run the show. It's a pride thing as much as anything else. The TdF is theirs and they'll oppose anything they consider interference! 

The TdF is the biggest show in town and I reckon they resent UCI trying to muscle in. I can't honestly see it being resolved long term. What that means in reality, I don't know... cycling to become like boxing with several 'world' bodies??


----------



## walker (27 Feb 2008)

The ASO will lose the TdF as we know it. Cycling as a sport isn't big enough to be run by seperate bodies.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (27 Feb 2008)

Darts isn't as big as cycling and it's handled that way. I haven't a clue who will win but agree that riders and fans will ultimately be the ones who pay the price.


----------



## andy_wrx (27 Feb 2008)

Let's see, 
- ASO and allies have TdF, Giro, Vuelta, Paris-Roubaix, a whole set of other classics and stage races
- UCI has a (dwindling) number of other races, the Worlds, the Olympics

If I were a sponsor, which would I rather my team entered, hmmm let me think...


----------



## rich p (27 Feb 2008)

andy_wrx said:


> Let's see,
> - ASO and allies have TdF, Giro, Vuelta, Paris-Roubaix, a whole set of other classics and stage races
> - UCI has a (dwindling) number of other races, the Worlds, the Olympics
> 
> If I were a sponsor, which would I rather my team entered, hmmm let me think...




I agree. 
As I've said before, the Worlds, Olympics and global racing in Asia and Australia etc are relatively small fry. Cycling needs a governing body for coherence but the UCI have sadly failed to show leadership for years which is why we are where we are.


----------



## andy_wrx (27 Feb 2008)

Yep.

The Olympics matter to trackies like Wiggins or Cavendish plus some of the Australians, most of the rest don't bother too much with them
(- but aren't these really trackies who also race in the professional peloton rather than mainstream pro riders wanting to do the Olympics ?)

The Worlds, OK they matter more, but not as much as they used to in decades past.

Asia, Australia, Africa ? Look at the teams who went to TDU earlier this year, or Qinghai Lakes last year. 
Ignoring Australians in their home event, any other big names ? 
- no, the ProTour teams used it as experience for their junior squads, there were more big names in (ASO's) Qatar...


----------



## mondobongo (28 Feb 2008)

The Teams have elected unaminously to take part in Paris-Nice and the Association of Pro Cyclists has a meeting scheduled with the International Cycling Federation to discuss the crisis early next week.

So there we have it the UCI toothless what possible sanction can they take against all the Pro Teams for riding Paris-Nice.

McQuaid's idea of the Teams telling ASO and Co to put their races on the UCI calendar or they will not take part is quite simply misguided and surely does not fall within their role of regulator.


----------



## Keith Oates (28 Feb 2008)

Money talks and the teams have decided that they will stay in their little cosy arrangement and touch the forelock to Rudehomme and his gang. Short term gain but maybe, just maybe, long term loss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## andy_wrx (28 Feb 2008)

Keith Oates said:


> long term loss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



That sounds a fair description of UCI and McQaeda


----------



## Keith Oates (28 Feb 2008)

I agree Andy that McQuiad has now only one option left to him and that is resignation. But the long term loser will be cycling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mac66 (28 Feb 2008)

Never a better proof of the maxim, never mix sport and politics.

I just wish these two bodies would stop engaing in a pi$$ing contest. Next it will be fisticuffs and my dad's bigger that your dad. Pathetic. 

Have to say, that on a completely irrational basis, without having thought things through I vote ASO and the other big tour organisers every time.


----------



## mondobongo (28 Feb 2008)

Have been pretty much in favour of Aso since the politics kicked off, but now that my brain has engaged we could be moving onto thin ice here.
Whilst races are run under the auspices of the UCI, weak though they may be there is a consistency of rules governing the races that its UCI rules. If we move away from this then we could have ASO running races one way RCS running th e Giro totally different.

What if there is a problem we could see harsh draconian punishments handed out on the basis of the organisers wanting to protect their events.
I am coming to look at it that reolving this may not be as easy as it possibly looks.


----------



## andy_wrx (29 Feb 2008)

Have you seen http://www.deraileduk.com/ ?



> The UCI, having proven themselves incapable of running the sport in Europe, are adamant about pushing cycling to emerging markets, where they can presumably mismanage the sport on an international scale.





> The cycling teams were left with a difficult decision to make. Who did they hate the least: The event organisers who wanted the power to pick and choose who could ride their races, and who had already demonstrated that they could destroy a team the previous year during the Unibet saga; or the UCI, who had no races to offer, no specific plan for the future, and who had spent the previous three years alternating between outright persecution of its riders and incompetence in managing their interests? They chose the ASO.


----------



## Keith Oates (29 Feb 2008)

An example of the type of press reporting that is 'really helpful' to cycling and it's image!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## will (29 Feb 2008)

All these world bodies are just full of arrogant corrupt fat old men.

Don't forget the UK won their Olympic bid through last minute shenanigans with tiny nations.

Currently , the FA is scared to offend FIFA and will play a friendly in Trinidad solely because the FIFA (super-corrupt) vice-president is from Trinidad (corruption).

ETC;

Every world sporting body is pretty much a bunch of overpaid, corrupt fools (OK ranting) - but I live near Lausanne where the ex Olympic head - Samaranch - demanded to be called his greatness (or something like that). 

ASO and UCI seem no different.


----------



## Keith Oates (29 Feb 2008)

Very true, will, so much 'officialdom' can and does ruin many sports and other things in life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dave5N (1 Mar 2008)

Difference is AsO are organisers and are in touch with the day to day realities of race organisation, not just regulation.

It started with a spat over TV revenues. ASO will win because the French, italiens, Spanish care a lot more for their races (are a more receptive audience) than the Californians.


----------



## Dave5N (1 Mar 2008)

Ie, Paris - Nice may be less immpressive than California, but it will always* be more important.



* Always= for at least twenty years


----------



## doyler78 (1 Mar 2008)

And in a sport controlled by ASO who regulates it? Who will have the power to stand against them and their dictatorial demands? Who will stand for the fairness and equity of the teams, their riders and their sponsors? What sponsor will want to support a sport whereby the teams/riders they support can be thrown out of events for the mere suggestion of wrong doing being bandied about without any evidence whatsoever to support it?

Regulation is important - it provides a clear, common framework to which all teams, riders and sponsors know their responsibilities and the action which can be taken should the discharge of those repsonsibilities be brought into question.

ASO have shown the contempt with which they are willing to treat teams by their application of differing standards to different teams based more on sponsor origin than any differences between the conduct of teams.

In the long term such an approach can only be devisive as more people find themselves on the wrong end of their dictats and that is not a recipe for long term stability.

Is Pat McQuaid the man for the job? No as he has shown that he doesn't have the temperament for the job - he needs to be more of a diplomat than a dictator because when you set one dictator against anther their only ever tends to be one outcome and that is war and war is what we have got.

Does his inability to properly run the organisation mean that the whole organisation should be so easily pushed to the side - well no that would be very dangerous for the reasons I outlined above. Get rid of McQuaid but don't support ASO taking control of pro cycle racing support a properly run and administered UCI.


----------



## Keith Oates (1 Mar 2008)

Well put doyler78, the UCI is the only way to control the sport. A change at the top could well be the answer but ASO have to be brought to heel first!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## yello (1 Mar 2008)

Keith, your preferred way perhaps but not "the only way" 

Why does ASO need a regulating body? Who regulates the regulating body?


----------



## andy_wrx (1 Mar 2008)

I don't think you understand what DerailedUK is Keith.
It's a spoof, not 'press reporting', helpful or otherwise...

But they said...


> Despite the existence of a variety of long-standing early season races, not to mention the recent addition to the cycling calendar of a multitude of over-hyped training stage races in non-European countries, the pro cycling season doesn't _really_ start until the Paris-Nice.



They're right - the season starts with Paris-Nice and Milan-SanRemo, not TDU, Qatar or California.


And ASO 'brought to heel' - amazing.....it is the UCI which is behaving ridiculously.


----------



## doyler78 (1 Mar 2008)

The point of regulation is that it sets a framework which by everyone knows their responsibities. ASO routinely change their policies from race and race and because they organise large numbers of key races they know they can bully teams/riders/sponsors into signing up to these rules however unsavoury however as a long term strategy it is a disaster to think that bullying will ever provide stability.

The rules of the UCI provide the regulatory framework by which the orgnisation itself is judged therefore there is more balance in this approach than there is with one commercial body with no representation from any national federations, etc. It is their way or no way.


----------



## rich p (1 Mar 2008)

rich p said:


> I agree.
> As I've said before, the Worlds, Olympics and global racing in Asia and Australia etc are relatively small fry. Cycling needs a governing body for coherence but the UCI have sadly failed to show leadership for years which is why we are where we are.




Doyler, I refer the honourable gentlemen to my earlier post - I agree we need an overall governing body but who is it to be?
At the moment the UCI are lacking sense, diplomacy and widespread support and maybe the prestigious tours will have to run their feifdom hopefully in conjunction with each other. It's a start and maybe not perfect but unless the UCI can find someone other than Keith to champion them....


----------



## NickM (1 Mar 2008)

I ride a recumbent. I _like_ seeing the UCI deep in the mire


----------



## Keith Oates (2 Mar 2008)

rich p, I'm not championing the UCI per se, and have stated that it may well be time for a change of the top 'management' but there has to be someone to control all cycling and this can't be the company who's only real interest in cycling is the profit sheet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For all of his faults I'd rather have McQuiad in charge then Rudehomme!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dave5N (2 Mar 2008)

doyler78 said:


> *The point of regulation is that it sets a framework which by everyone knows their responsibities. *ASO routinely change their policies from race and race and because they organise large numbers of key races they know they can bully teams/riders/sponsors into signing up to these rules however unsavoury however as a long term strategy it is a disaster to think that bullying will ever provide stability.
> 
> The rules of the UCI provide the regulatory framework by which the orgnisation itself is judged therefore there is more balance in this approach than there is with one commercial body with no representation from any national federations, etc. It is their way or no way.



Take it you didn't bother to watch 'The Flying Scotsman' or read 'The Hour' then?


----------



## doyler78 (3 Mar 2008)

DaveN yes I did read and watch them. Do I think any organisation is perfect. No. Did I say the UCI was prefect. No. What I said was that the UCI at least has a structure and clear regulations by which all parties know their responsibilities. Does that mean it will always work as it should? No.

What Graeme Obree did for the sport of cycling was to bring much more clarity into the sport. The aims of the UCI at that time were place the abilities of the rider above technological innovation and these are rules which exist to this day. The manner in which they went about it was a disgusting abuse of their power and has done nothing to enhance their reputation but then tell me any organisation which doesn't at times abuse its powers. All we can hope is that the regulations minimise the risks of such abuses.

What the ASO approach does is to make such abuses of power more likely which will increase instability in the sport at time when stability is what is needed. It takes the focus away from dealing properly with the issues that need full attention and all at the furtherance of what?

The rules that ASO are forcing teams to work under these where mere suspicion can be used as means for team/rider dismissal from any event at the insistence of the race organisers. This is an abuse in itself as it sets the interests of the organisers well above the interests of all other parties. What other employee would accept such working conditions? Why is that we accept that this fair treatment when we ourselves would not be prepared to put up with if it were the case in our own organisations?


----------



## Tetedelacourse (3 Mar 2008)

One point of clarification; ASO don't employ the teams. Neither do the UCI. To state otherwise is incorrect.

Doyler - If you organised, promotoed and ran a race and invited people to participate, would you expect the participants to adhere to your rules or to someone else's?

Even if your answer is someone else's (and I can't think why), next question:

If your race became the most popular and successful race on the planet and ran for more than 100 years under your own stewardship, would you then expect participants to latterly adhere to your rules or someone else's?


----------



## QuickDraw (3 Mar 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> One point of clarification; ASO don't employ the teams. Neither do the UCI. To state otherwise is incorrect.
> 
> Doyler - If you organised, promotoed and ran a race and invited people to participate, would you expect the participants to adhere to your rules or to someone else's?
> 
> ...



Surely there has to be rules for the sport, all of the sport? It would be like the SFA and UEFA having different versions of the offside rule. Maybe ASO should take over the UCI but there should be a single governing body or else you end up in the ridiculous situtuation of boxing with up to 4 world champions in each division.


----------



## Keith Oates (4 Mar 2008)

It seems that some sanity still remains in cycling as shown by this report in Cycling news:

European Cycling Union votes against Paris-Nice plans
By Shane Stokes

Racing to the sun 
Photo ©: AFP 
At the L'Union Européenne de Cyclisme (UEC) Congress meeting held on Sunday near Thessalonoki in Greece, the organisation voted against the planned running of the Paris-Nice race outside the regulatory framework of cycling's peak governing body, the UCI.

The UEC also discussed the structure of the UCI ProTour and the problems which have afflicted it since its introduction. The majority of the delegates were against the plans relating to Paris-Nice, while most also called on a rethink of the ProTour.

A resolution was put to the Congress, asking:

a) The UCI to undertake a complete review of the ProTour during 2008, and to bring proposals for a revised structure to the UCI Congress in September 2008, for approval for the 2009 season.

 The FFC not to authorise the Paris-Nice, or any other major international race, outside the regulations of the UCI.

When put to the vote, 18 national federations approved the resolution while seven voted against. This greater-than two-thirds majority was welcomed by British Cycling President, Brian Cookson, who said afterwards that he hoped it would give leverage and help to resolve the current stand-off between ASO and the French Cycling Federation (FFC), and the UCI.

"I think this is a clear and coherent resolution which will help all sides to bring this crisis to a speedy conclusion," said Cookson. "It acknowledges that the ProTour has been a problematic and divisive structure which needs a major re-think, but at the same time, it emphasises that the democratic structures that we have all put in place over the years to govern our sport, must be respected.

"With goodwill on both sides, we can now avoid a major breakdown in our sport, and move forward together to address the other serious issues and develop our great sport in all its many facets".
Let's hope that this is a starting point where the fighting can stop and cycling can take some benefit from the actions that are being taken by the UCI, ASO, and teams to overcome the drug related problems.


----------



## doyler78 (4 Mar 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> One point of clarification; ASO don't employ the teams. Neither do the UCI. To state otherwise is incorrect.
> 
> Doyler - If you organised, promotoed and ran a race and invited people to participate, would you expect the participants to adhere to your rules or to someone else's?
> 
> ...



I know that the ASO do not employ the the teams. They organise and event to which teams participate however the idea that you can devolve the rules from the impact on the teams and the employees of the teams, the riders, is much the same concept as a fashion retailer claiming they have no control over child exploitation in China. The decisions of ASO have a direct impact on the rights of the teams and their riders, protections which they sign away when they operate outside the structures of UCI. That is dangerous.

I believe as a sportsman or woman you are entitled to be treated equally and fairly and that as a professional rider that you have the right to compete unless you have done something which would bring your sport into disrepute. I think ASO's contradictory enforcement of its own rules stops teams and riders from making an income for which both have spent large of amounts of time and money in persuing. ASO's approach to dealing with problems and its abuse of its power as the organiser of major cycling events brings cycling into disrepute as much as any other scandal. The fact that the tour de france champion is not going to be able to defend is title because they feel Astana have brought shame on their sport. Can their be any team more guilty of that than Cofidis. It was they that brought the sport to it knees first and have continued to have a problematic time since including last years removal.

Cycling is more important than ASO, or the UCI for that matter, and because ASO have control of so many key races doesn't mean that they have right to act in their interests only without regard to the wider implications. It is only the very arrogant that believes that they have an absolute right to act at will without reproach.

Reform of the UCI is much easier to achieve and much easier to bring pressure upon for change than it is to start to rewrite the whole regulatory framework with a new organisation who's main tasks over the years has been to organise cycling events. If only cycling was that simple anymore. It isn't.

What ASO affords in the short term is a stick with which to beat teams because as a race organiser it can choose who wants to ride its races. As a long term strategy how does that help anyone. Teams cannot be sure that results will mean being able to ride events therefore sponsors may not be so ready to sponsor as they cannot be guaranteed that the successes of the team will be recognised, unless of course your a french team or sponsor, and this is my whole problem from the start as it is an approach which lacks balance and that can only be a disaster in the longer term as more a more teams find themselves on the wrong end of ASO, and other race organisers, whims.

I agree ASO as a race organiser needs to be able to ensure the integrity of its events however it also needs to accept that it is also part of the wider sport of cycling and that what it does needs to be done with clarity and command the support of cycling itself. When acts in the manner in which it has done then its devisive. How you reconcile ASOs need to have some control with the UCI's desire to have some sort of pro-tour calendar with a clear set of rules governing the races is difficult however none of these things are insurmountable. What it does need is tact, patience and diplomacy. Neither ASO nor the UCI have shown that. It was obvious from last years debacle that this was going to happen this year again and for the UCI to blindly carry on as if nothing had happened was foolish on their part as someone who doesn't organise most of the best known and loved events it was always important for them to hold out the olive branch. They are not in a position of strength that's why diplomacy was so important.


----------



## NickM (4 Mar 2008)

QuickDraw said:


> Surely there has to be rules for the sport, all of the sport?


Ah, but what _is_ the sport? Is it "cycling", or is it "cycling using bikes which meet with the approval of the UCI"?


----------



## NickM (4 Mar 2008)

If ASO feel capable of thumbing their noses at the UCI, why should the opinion of the FFC bother them?


----------



## Keith Oates (5 Mar 2008)

doyler78, You response is, in my opinion, very good, detailed and balanced I only hope that it somehow reaches people in the UCI and ASO so they could also know what cycling fans think about their respective actions in these troubled (for cycling) times.


----------



## Dave_1 (5 Mar 2008)

Keith Oates said:


> Here we go again, it's time a final and satisfactory solution was found in this game of politics. The loser will be cycling and cycling fans.!!
> 
> Details can be found in todays cyclingnews edition.



Hi Keith
I feel ASO are absolute bullies and used L'equipe to do a number on Armstrong in 2005, having journos breaching anonymity of samples etc...so, I think , in all this, I support the UCI and if they have to bring Paris Nice to a halt, then,I would support that. ASO are a law unto themselves as they have a monopoly on the pro racing.

ps. was in Hk and in Canny Man during 4 days stay on Feb 10th...good memories, the girls at Canny Man were asking about you :-)


----------



## Keith Oates (5 Mar 2008)

Hi Dave_1

Good to hear from you again, are you staying out this way or returning to the UK.

I didn't know you were in HK, I passed through on Feb 10th but only at the airport.

BTW regarding your posting I agree with your assessment of ASO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dave_1 (5 Mar 2008)

Dave_1 said:


> Hi Keith
> I feel ASO are absolute bullies and used L'equipe to do a number on Armstrong in 2005, having journos breaching anonymity of samples etc...so, I think , in all this, I support the UCI and if they have to bring Paris Nice to a halt, then,I would support that. ASO are a law unto themselves as they have a monopoly on the pro racing.
> 
> ps. was in Hk and in Canny Man during 4 days stay on Feb 10th...good memories, the girls at Canny Man were asking about you :-)



Yes, we are at 1 on ASO eh...they are like Microsoft...need broken up, or broght under control as we see now. 

ps. I only decided at last minute to do 4 days in HK before starting work on Feb14th in Scotland...should have mailed you, sorry. I'll be back in China later this year..miss it too much :-)


----------



## Tetedelacourse (5 Mar 2008)

Well reasoned response Doyler (even if you avoided answering my questions).

OK, here's the thing. Do the 3 grand tours need support from any other organisations eg UCI in order to continue to be successful? They clearly think not. I tend to agree but have been influenced by your points, inasmuch as that to be run fairly they should adhere to a commonly agreed set of standards / rules.

Trouble is that they see the UCI as toothless, mismanaged, disorganised and whimsical (whilst ASO are clearly guilty of the latter too). Not representative of the sort of ideals and values which you draw attention to.

At the same time, it's worth pointing out that ASO _do_ have a right to try and protect the image of their product, which is what they're trying to do. Yes there are examples from the past of double-standards, and yes the staff at Astana have changed hugely, but you can't dispute the fact that in the world of cycling that team name is badly tarnished, and arguably tarnished more than any other. Possibly even the biggest since Festina. ASO themselves admit to failings in the past but they're trying to take action to sort out the problems now, and at a team level as opposed to rider level, which I think is also more appropriate (but probably another debate entirely).


----------



## doyler78 (5 Mar 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Well reasoned response Doyler (even if you avoided answering my questions).
> 
> OK, here's the thing. Do the 3 grand tours need support from any other organisations eg UCI in order to continue to be successful? They clearly think not. I tend to agree but have been influenced by your points, inasmuch as that to be run fairly they should adhere to a commonly agreed set of standards / rules.
> 
> ...



I didn't directly answer any questions because I feel that they are the position that ASO would put in any opening negotiations with regard to a change in the structures and therefore only amount to an opening statement.

What I did do was then to reason why there is a need for ASO to take a more global view of their position and the responsibility that position brings with it. A successful resolution will require compromise by both parties instead of the current inflamatory responses which both organisations have adopted. Crying to the media rarely makes for a quick resolution and they both need to catch a grip.

I believe there needs to be a separation of powers and therefore I couldn't support any structure which was ASO dominated as that distorts balance and makes abuse of that power more likely.

I don't believe there is such a huge gulf between everyone its just that the views have become entrenched and therefore no one is really willing to now back down and as the whole situation has become more polarised and more inflamed if any were to back down it could be seen as the fatal blow that permanently damages either organisation. That's a bitter pill to swallow however the decision will be made for them if they don't try to resolve it and try to do so in a manner which can help both sides save face. I say made for them as what will happen is that team, sponsors and riders will align behind one and that would likely be ASO as the teams and their riders want to ride the classics & grand tours.

ASO are great at organising well run races but are they really in a position to take on all the other functions of the UCI? What are the administrations skills like? What relationships have the developed with other sports organisation such as the Olympic Committee? They are not equipped to do this therefore to permanently try to damage the UCI when you can't provide a full alternative would be destabilise cycling and could threaten its very ability to properly function.

It's not that I love the UCI its just that I fear more a total breakdown of the regulatory and administrative framework which can't be so easily repaired. I think what you say about ASO view of the UCI is not far of what many see however proper leadership can largely sort those problems.


----------



## rich p (6 Mar 2008)

doyler78 said:


> It's not that I love the UCI its just that I fear more a total breakdown of the regulatory and administrative framework which can't be so easily repaired. I think what you say about ASO view of the UCI is not far of what many see however proper leadership can largely sort those problems.



Well that's all right then as we all appear to agree. We would all like the UCI to be well run, tough on drugs and provide a coherent umbrella (without the Protour) but therein lies the rub. It hasn't done so and doesn't appear to be about to do so which is why ASO have taken the steps that they have. Not ideal but inevitable.


----------



## Mac66 (6 Mar 2008)

Keith Oates said:


> It seems that some sanity still remains in cycling as shown by this report in Cycling news:
> 
> 
> "With goodwill on both sides, we can now avoid a major breakdown in our sport, and move forward together to address the other serious issues and develop our great sport in all its many facets".



Precious little good will around if you ask me and without wishing to tar an entire nation with the same brush, I think we know how stubborn the French can be once they have dug there heels in, for fear of loosing face.


----------



## mondobongo (6 Mar 2008)

I think Gentleman we have an Impasse! Aso as Mac says dont want to show weakness by backing down the UCI continue to make threats. Whether they would implement heavy sanctions as they threaten its already having an impact as Wiggins and Cav are now riding in the Tirreno-Adriatico rather than risk being banned from the Olympics which was always their target for this year.
Reports are that the Court of Arbitration for Sport has been asked to mediate but will they resolve things for this year leaving problems to rise again or can they resolve things completely.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (6 Mar 2008)

Yep CAS have been asked by the cyclists to get involved. It's difficult not to think that yet another level of bureaucracy has just come to the table.

Who would be a pro cyclist in the current climate? Not me.

Actually, on second thoughts, it still beats what I do day in day out!!


----------



## Keith Oates (6 Mar 2008)

The cyclists do seem to be getting the rough end of the stick but it was the ones that resorted to taking drugs that really started the whole thing off, so they must take most of the blame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mondobongo (6 Mar 2008)

If the UCI had done their job properly years ago and come down hard including introducing longer bans on the dopers rather than looking the other way and hoping those naughty cyclists would go away we would probably not be in this mess. ASO would not be throwing their toys out of the pram in pursuit of drug free racing and the UCI would be seen as a tough governing body not to be crossed and therefore no pushing and poking on the part of ASO to see how much they can get away with, with the UCI.

The Cyclists could then get on with the job in hand racing bikes.

Keith I agree if the Pros had behaved and not doped things may be different but it was allowed to go on for far too long, things should have been sorted out when Simpson died.


----------



## Keith Oates (7 Mar 2008)

If only!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (7 Mar 2008)

We're not just dealing with single pros cheating here. Whole teams had institutionalised doping regimes remember, so it's more complicated than simply chastising the riders.

I used to think like that to be honest, but I genuinely take my hat off to the likes of Sinkewitz who tried to expose the real problem, admittedly only after he'd been caught!

Last year was the first team-level expulsion at the tdf in a long time (I wait to be corrected on that!) and I think this is the way forward. A while back, someone here suggested some sort of clemency (reduction in length of ban, not let off the hook obviously) for riders who are caught but give details of the practices, names etc involved in getting the gear. I think that's what should be happening.


----------



## NickM (7 Mar 2008)

mondobongo said:


> ...Wiggins and Cav are now riding in the Tirreno-Adriatico rather than risk being banned from the Olympics...


Gosh! At this rate they'll make the Olympics open only to _amateur_ athletes 

At which point it might (just might) become worth having again...


----------



## mondobongo (7 Mar 2008)

It just gets better and better, other sports must be wetting themselves watching this. 

Because neither the UCI or ASO have agreed to accept the jurisdiction of the court before it can even start it has to rule on whether CAS itself is competent to make a ruling. Absolute farce the decision should one be made is completely opposable so probably better off not making one.

Cycling Australia has warned its riders that the UCI have every intention of enforcing sanctions and for its riders to take note of the UCI instructions.

Union of Cyclists International not a chance they are about to take the sport into a Civil War.


----------



## Dave5N (7 Mar 2008)

Once again McQuaid and the UCI are making it up as they go along. Their own rules specify a ban of 1 month for riding in a prohibited race, not 6.

Don't forget McQuaid himself got banned for riding in Apartheid South Africa.


----------



## mondobongo (8 Mar 2008)

CAS bottled it ruled that they did not have jurisdiction to get involved. So its down to the Teams then.


----------



## Keith Oates (8 Mar 2008)

And the loser is.................................cycling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mondobongo (8 Mar 2008)

On this one I agree 100% Keith. Lets get the racing on the go and see what the prunes at the UCI come up with.


----------

