UCI and ASO

[doyler78]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[andy_wrx]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Keith Oates]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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]

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"?