Bye Bye UCI

[mangaman]

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I don't know much about cycle racing but is this going to mean either a superceded body ala premier league (or repeated elsewhere and in other sports) or split body ala boxing, motorsport etc?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

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]

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]

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

Dave.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Shame.

 

[Keith Oates]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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!