Reforming the UCI

[Flying_Monkey]

If anything good is to come out of the whole Armstrong debacle, surely, it is that the way in which cycling is governed should be examined and improved.

But how? Is it just about people? Structure? Policies? What could be done better, how and by whom?

NB: This is not a thread for discussion of Armstrong, and where the Armstrong case is mentioned I would like it to only in this context - please don't start trying to side track it into another version of the Armstrong thread, whatever your views on that case.

 

[Chuffy]

Surely it's about people - the likes of McQuaid and Verbruggen. I don't know a huge amount about the UCI, but it does come across as if McQuaid is the UCI. I'm sure there are good people there, but the leadership is dreadful.

 

[thom]

A couple of questions : Who are the formal stakeholders in the UCI ? Pro-teams, national governing bodies, race organisers, pro-cyclists ?
Who elected Pat McQuaid ?

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Here's a brief summary of the UCI and its current organisation (taken from its constitution, with a few comments and interpretations), and some vague ideas for change.

The UCI claims sole global authority over the sport of cycling. In terms of organisation, the UCI is given its mandate by 170 National Federations (NFs) although (just like in football), there are also five Continental Confederations (CCs), which have a rather unclear role. It gets funding from these national associations and from event organisers and teams who have to pay registration fees (which vary depending on the level). However it only represents the National Federations, not event organizers, teams or riders.

Representatives of the National Federations form the UCI Congress. The Congress elects the President for five years at a time. Just like the FIFA elections, this is always a controversial process with allegations of favouritism, bribery, impossible promises etc. etc.

The President is in theory still responsible to the Congress, although in practice he pretty much does what he wants with the conivance of the Management Committee (MC), which is responsible for the day-to-day running of the UCI. There are fifteen full members of MC: ten are elected by Congress, the other five are the heads of the CCs. There are also a few other non-voting members. Finance is dealt with by a nominally independent person selected by the MC. There are also Commissions on particular issues.

Because of the lack of input of event organizers, teams and riders, a Professional Cycling Council (PCC), was set up in 2000. This has ten members: 6 chosen by the MC, 2 by the race-organizer's association, 2 by the teams' assocation and 2 by the riders' association. The PCC is responsible for race rules, but otherwise has nothing but advisory power. As you can see too, despite the sop to riders, teams and race-organizers, the PCC is still controlled by the MC delegates.

In my view, the first thing that needs to change is to increase better balance the role of the National Federations, Race-Organizers, Teams and Riders. My view would be that the PCC should be reformed to include no MC members and more from the other sections and given some kind of power-sharing role with the MC. Both should be able to make proposals to the Congress, for example. Teams, race-organizers and riders should also get votes (somehow) in electing the President. I haven't thought much about how this latter idea would work.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

As you can see from this, the structure of the UCI is biased towards national federations for historic reasons. So it isn't just a matter of getting rid of McQuaid - in fact, McQuaid retains the support of the NFs so it is difficult to see how you would get rid of him at the moment. The structure needs to change.

 

[beastie]

It's a can of worms alright. Mcquaid needs to go, and Verbruggen - irrespective of any structural changes.

 

[johnr]

It seems to me that reform will come as a consequence of change not as a precursor to it. We can see from other sports as well as our own, that the bodies which run them tend to be hidebound, nepotistic and to act as sheet anchors on any process of change.

I saw Stephen Roche commenting on the Cycle Show yesterday on the affair of ' he who shall not be named' (HWSNBN). His view, 'we should put it all behind us'. The establishment was always thus.

There are two pressing questions facing the UCI at the moment: how did HWSNBN avoid detection for so long and suppress results when he was caught, and, who took the decision to line up the UCI behind HWSNBN in his fight with USADA in the US courts and how and why was that decision taken?

An organisation which has the courage to confront issues like these with transparency, learn from them and implement changes to ensure they cannot be repeated will be fit to bring cycling into the 21st century.

And even without HWSNBN, the UCI has presided for years over the farces at the Olympics which, possibly unique among sports, is a shadow of their own world championships.

As this is sport, I shall be watching the money as carefully as we're allowed. In bureaucratic terms that means the teams, the pros and the race organisers. If they themselves are not up to the confrontations needed to clean house, then possibly their own paymasters - the sponsors - will stiffen their spines. And, of course, it could all end in divorce, like many other family rows.

 

[Boris Bajic]

One day, in some mad, fantasy dystopian Utopia (forgive the absurdity) all sport will be fair and properly governed and ethical.

Not a soul will watch it.

I hear people bleating about goal-line technology in football.

It is the same thing.

As soon as things are being done flawlessly and beautifully and consistently, professionally brilliantly, much of the fun will leech out of the spectator's day.

For me, a part of the allure of elite sport is the grubby, unfair, inconsistent, corrupt griminess of it all.

I may not be in the majority in that, but I'll wager I'm not alone.

 

[thom]

Here's a brief summary of the UCI and its current organisation (taken from its constitution, with a few comments and interpretations), and some vague ideas for change.

Thanks - the parallels with FIFA aren't encouraging. A big difference is the lack of cash but both sports seem to suffer from a lack of strong internal governance and I think partly this is because Swiss laws aren't very exacting or comparable to say UK standards in this area.

Anyway, the presidential role seems to have scope to set one's own agenda. McQuaid has been particularly interested in internationalising the sport with obligations on pro teams to go race in China for example. I think the model is to have a system of regional competitions, some of which involve the top tier Pro teams so the highest level of competition is opened up around the world.
It's not a bad idea as such and brings a wider raft of sponsors too but I think the problem in European competions is the lack of local sponsors and cash. Many old races are being merged or closed throughout continental europe, right in the traditional heartlands and I think the biggest cause of this is reputational damage to cycling suffered due to myriad doping scandals. The UCI need to work harder to restore the credibility of the sport here.
McQuaid is possibly a key stumbling block to this in light of recent allegations. In my opinion, he has not done enough in the area of doping and indeed in relation to women's cycling.
So possibly the role is too open ended and that in fact the presidential role ought to be answerable to a defined agenda. What's clear is that amongst pro cyclists and commentators, UCI behaviour is often baffling so there are many relationships that they are not on top of currently.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

McQuaid has been particularly interested in internationalising the sport with obligations on pro teams to go race in China for example.

This is a good example of some of the problems. Just today it was announced that the Tour of Hangzhou is going to be postponed because the organisers haven't got their act together. Meanwhile there are excellent race in Asia like the Tour de Langkawi, which could be upgraded to World Tour status with few problems putting more money into the sport in South-East Asia which is a big market for cycling with existing local stars in Malaysia and Indonesia, which are large and emerging economies in themselves. But McQuaid only wants the richest. So the UCI is concentrating on China.

 

[beastie]

One day, in some mad, fantasy dystopian Utopia (forgive the absurdity) all sport will be fair and properly governed and ethical.

Not a soul will watch it.

For me, a part of the allure of elite sport is the grubby, unfair, inconsistent, corrupt griminess of it all.
.

But sport is at it's best and most watchable and most emotive when it rises above all the grime and the shoot.
Jack Nicklaus at the Ryder Cup.
Derek Redmond and his dad.
Giant killing in the FA cup.
Lionel Messi on top form.
Roger Federer, a beautiful athlete.
Things like these are the best of sport. Not institutionalized doping, not bribing officials. Not win at all costs. I don't want it sanitised but I do want the organisations behind sport to be morally correct. It is a long way off I will grant you.

 

[raindog]

We all know Pat needs to go, but who do we replace him with?

 

[rich p]

We all know Pat needs to go, but who do we replace him with?

Not Stephen Roche should be top of the candidature list.

 

[thom]

But sport is at it's best and most watchable and most emotive when it rises above all the grime and the s***.
Jack Nicklaus at the Ryder Cup.
Derek Redmond and his dad.
Giant killing in the FA cup.
Lionel Messi on top form.
Roger Federer, a beautiful athlete.
Things like these are the best of sport. Not institutionalized doping, not bribing officials. Not win at all costs. I don't want it sanitised but I do want the organisations behind sport to be morally correct. It is a long way off I will grant you.

Yeah I don't buy that point of view either. Good sport is created by clashes of style and personality within the parameters of the game. In cricket and rugby there are great examples as well.
I don't think anyone really think cricket benefits as a spectacle from match fixing for example.

 

[johnr]

We all know Pat needs to go, but who do we replace him with?

Judge Sparkes of course. He's done more to clean up cycling than all their committees