UCI Capitulates

[[email protected]]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb28news

Speaking prior to the announcement of the AIGCP that the various teams
would indeed go ahead and ride Paris-Nice, UCI President Pat McQuaid
stated that these teams themselves could, if acting in a united
fashion, set themselves up as major players.

"These organisers, and ASO in particular, have power because they have
money and they have an event that the teams want to ride," he told
Cyclingnews on Wednesday afternoon. "So that is power. The UCI doesn't
have power as such - we have authority and we regulate, but we don't
have power over the teams.

"In actual fact, the people with all of the power are the teams
themselves, because they could turn around to the organisers and say
that unless they put their race on the UCI calendar, they will not be
riding it. Even if 10 or 12 teams decided to do that, they could force
things."

Ultimately the teams decided to act otherwise. The move is predicable
as a short-term one, but in siding with ASO it creates an uneasy
situation in the sport. The race and others later in the year will be
organised outside the aegis of the UCI, with the governing body have
no say over the rules and regulations, nor which teams can take part.

-----------------

Which is a good thing. That is how all real pro sports (NFL, NBA etc.)
operate. FIBA doesn't regulate the players or the rules for the NBA
and that isn't a crippling problem for the pro league and it doesn't
affect the Olympic eligibility of the players.

[Hunter]

On Feb 28, 4:51*am, " >
wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb28news
>
> Speaking prior to the announcement of the AIGCP that the various teams
> would indeed go ahead and ride Paris-Nice, UCI President Pat McQuaid
> stated that these teams themselves could, if acting in a united
> fashion, set themselves up as major players.
>
> "These organisers, and ASO in particular, have power because they have
> money and they have an event that the teams want to ride," he told
> Cyclingnews on Wednesday afternoon. "So that is power. The UCI doesn't
> have power as such - we have authority and we regulate, but we don't
> have power over the teams.
>
> "In actual fact, the people with all of the power are the teams
> themselves, because they could turn around to the organisers and say
> that unless they put their race on the UCI calendar, they will not be
> riding it. Even if 10 or 12 teams decided to do that, they could force
> things."
>
> Ultimately the teams decided to act otherwise. The move is predicable
> as a short-term one, but in siding with ASO it creates an uneasy
> situation in the sport. The race and others later in the year will be
> organised outside the aegis of the UCI, with the governing body have
> no say over the rules and regulations, nor which teams can take part.
>
> -----------------
>
> Which is a good thing. That is how all real pro sports (NFL, NBA etc.)
> operate. FIBA doesn't regulate the players or the rules for the NBA
> and that isn't a crippling problem for the pro league and it doesn't
> affect the Olympic eligibility of the players.

It may be a good thing, but it is not analogous at all to big US
sports.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 28, 12:50 pm, Hunter > wrote:
> On Feb 28, 4:51 am, " >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb28news
>
> > Speaking prior to the announcement of the AIGCP that the various teams
> > would indeed go ahead and ride Paris-Nice, UCI President Pat McQuaid
> > stated that these teams themselves could, if acting in a united
> > fashion, set themselves up as major players.
>
> > "These organisers, and ASO in particular, have power because they have
> > money and they have an event that the teams want to ride," he told
> > Cyclingnews on Wednesday afternoon. "So that is power. The UCI doesn't
> > have power as such - we have authority and we regulate, but we don't
> > have power over the teams.
>
> > "In actual fact, the people with all of the power are the teams
> > themselves, because they could turn around to the organisers and say
> > that unless they put their race on the UCI calendar, they will not be
> > riding it. Even if 10 or 12 teams decided to do that, they could force
> > things."
>
> > Ultimately the teams decided to act otherwise. The move is predicable
> > as a short-term one, but in siding with ASO it creates an uneasy
> > situation in the sport. The race and others later in the year will be
> > organised outside the aegis of the UCI, with the governing body have
> > no say over the rules and regulations, nor which teams can take part.
>
> > -----------------
>
> > Which is a good thing. That is how all real pro sports (NFL, NBA etc.)
> > operate. FIBA doesn't regulate the players or the rules for the NBA
> > and that isn't a crippling problem for the pro league and it doesn't
> > affect the Olympic eligibility of the players.
>
> It may be a good thing, but it is not analogous at all to big US
> sports.

I don't see why not. Care to explain why ?

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> On Feb 28, 12:50 pm, Hunter > wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 4:51 am, " >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb28news
> >
> > > Speaking prior to the announcement of the AIGCP that the various teams
> > > would indeed go ahead and ride Paris-Nice, UCI President Pat McQuaid
> > > stated that these teams themselves could, if acting in a united
> > > fashion, set themselves up as major players.
> >
> > > "These organisers, and ASO in particular, have power because they have
> > > money and they have an event that the teams want to ride," he told
> > > Cyclingnews on Wednesday afternoon. "So that is power. The UCI doesn't
> > > have power as such - we have authority and we regulate, but we don't
> > > have power over the teams.
> >
> > > "In actual fact, the people with all of the power are the teams
> > > themselves, because they could turn around to the organisers and say
> > > that unless they put their race on the UCI calendar, they will not be
> > > riding it. Even if 10 or 12 teams decided to do that, they could force
> > > things."
> >
> > > Ultimately the teams decided to act otherwise. The move is predicable
> > > as a short-term one, but in siding with AS O it creates an uneasy
> > > situation in the sport. The race and others later in the year will be
> > > organised outside the aegis of the UCI, with the governing body have
> > > no say over the rules and regulations, nor which teams can take part.
> >
> > > -----------------
> >
> > > Which is a good thing. That is how all real pro sports (NFL, NBA etc.)
> > > operate. FIBA doesn't regulate the players or the rules for the NBA
> > > and that isn't a crippling problem for the pro league and it doesn't
> > > affect the Olympic eligibility of the players.
> >
> > It may be a good thing, but it is not analogous at all to big US
> > sports.
>
> I don't see why not. Care to explain why ?

Because the governance, event ownership, and team owners are effectively
the same. In the NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB, the event ownership and
governance are held by a coalition of not-very-independent team owners.

Indeed, the coalition of owners is such an unusual arrangement that the
MLB and NFL each have some form of antitrust exemption written into
federal legislation.

Cycling has completely separate event organizers, rule-governance, and
team ownership. The bizarre result is pro cycling.

In fairness, the UCI has done pretty much everything in its power to
overstep its actual power, resulting in repeated bouts of what our
Swedish friends would call "putting their foot in the piano."

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[[email protected]]

On Feb 28, 9:55 pm, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
> " > wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 12:50 pm, Hunter > wrote:
> > > On Feb 28, 4:51 am, " >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb28news
>
> > > > Speaking prior to the announcement of the AIGCP that the various teams
> > > > would indeed go ahead and ride Paris-Nice, UCI President Pat McQuaid
> > > > stated that these teams themselves could, if acting in a united
> > > > fashion, set themselves up as major players.
>
> > > > "These organisers, and ASO in particular, have power because they have
> > > > money and they have an event that the teams want to ride," he told
> > > > Cyclingnews on Wednesday afternoon. "So that is power. The UCI doesn't
> > > > have power as such - we have authority and we regulate, but we don't
> > > > have power over the teams.
>
> > > > "In actual fact, the people with all of the power are the teams
> > > > themselves, because they could turn around to the organisers and say
> > > > that unless they put their race on the UCI calendar, they will not be
> > > > riding it. Even if 10 or 12 teams decided to do that, they could force
> > > > things."
>
> > > > Ultimately the teams decided to act otherwise. The move is predicable
> > > > as a short-term one, but in siding with AS O it creates an uneasy
> > > > situation in the sport. The race and others later in the year will be
> > > > organised outside the aegis of the UCI, with the governing body have
> > > > no say over the rules and regulations, nor which teams can take part.
>
> > > > -----------------
>
> > > > Which is a good thing. That is how all real pro sports (NFL, NBA etc.)
> > > > operate. FIBA doesn't regulate the players or the rules for the NBA
> > > > and that isn't a crippling problem for the pro league and it doesn't
> > > > affect the Olympic eligibility of the players.
>
> > > It may be a good thing, but it is not analogous at all to big US
> > > sports.
>
> > I don't see why not. Care to explain why ?
>
> Because the governance, event ownership, and team owners are effectively
> the same. In the NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB, the event ownership and
> governance are held by a coalition of not-very-independent team owners.
>

dumbass,

correct. those parties still have conflicts, but they have resolved a
lot of the fundamental issues that cycling can't get past: revenue
sharing and rights to participate in events.

> Indeed, the coalition of owners is such an unusual arrangement that the
> MLB and NFL each have some form of antitrust exemption written into
> federal legislation.

everyone knows about MLB, but i hadn't heard that about the NFL. there
have been other pro football leagues in the US like the CFL expansion
and the XFL. besides, this is more of a sign of the political/cultural
influence of the league than it is a requirement for it's existence or
success.

i don't think this concept (franchising) is as unusual as you think,
but rather cycling is unusual.

[[email protected]]

Cycling is much more like tennis and the PGA. I believe there are
sanctioned and non-sanctioned events in both of these sports. I personally
believe that an overriding organization such as the UCI would be much better
than letting ASO (that runs a few events) engage in a land grab. ASO is
much more like Tony George who pretty much single handedly ruined open-wheel
racing and let NASCAR become the 800 lb gorilla. there should be an
independent body which controls the ca lender. ASO (or other tour
organizers) should agree to a formula (remember TG wanted to guarantee IRL
teams into the Indy 500 thereby trying to force CART our to business because
everyone would want to join IRL instead - while in the end he got his wish
it was at the expense of his sport) for entrance to their races and not make
**** up as they go.

I fear ASO has a similar stupid idea.

Rick

[Michael Baldwin]

amit.ghosh writes

>i don't think this concept (franchising) is as unusual as
>you think, but rather cycling is unusual.

Well said.

I don't want to spin this thread into another OT- nascar rant/rave
however there are examples (other than pro ball sports) of where other
types pro racing is heading.

Currently NASCAR has _all_ of the power and they plan on keeping it
through franchising.

On the other hand, last fall the American Motorcycling Association
announced they were getting out of the race promotion business and
emphasizing their strengths, the administration of rules and governing.
The AMA has decided a piece of the action is rather than no action at
all.

The UCI should become the worlds bicycle advocacy authority. It's
time for pro cycling and all of it's enities to grow up and become a
business. Drop the drama, raise the ROI. Just my POV.

Best Regards -Mike Baldwin

[TM]

"Ryan Cousineau" > wrote in message >
> Indeed, the coalition of owners is such an unusual arrangement that the
> MLB and NFL each have some form of antitrust exemption written into
> federal legislation.
>

Wrong.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >, "TM" > wrote:

> "Ryan Cousineau" > wrote in message >
> > Indeed, the coalition of owners is such an unusual arrangement that the
> > MLB and NFL each have some form of antitrust exemption written into
> > federal legislation.
> >
>
> Wrong.

Dumbass: I apologize. In truth, all US pro sports benefit from the 1961
Sports Broadcasting Act:

http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/jargon/ljsportsbroadcasingact.htm

The MLB has a specific, separate antitrust exemption which allows them
to control franchise relocation:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/1205/1290707.html

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[[email protected]]

On Feb 28, 11:22 pm, wrote:


> Cycling is much more like tennis and the PGA. I believe there are
> sanctioned and non-sanctioned events in both of these sports. I personally
> believe that an overriding organization such as the UCI would be much better
> than letting ASO (that runs a few events) engage in a land grab. ASO is
> much more like Tony George who pretty much single handedly ruined open-wheel
> racing and let NASCAR become the 800 lb gorilla. there should be an
> independent body which controls the ca lender.

You've made a contradiction here, because both NASCAR and IRL had the
same league structure, the differences in their success has been due
to other reasons.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 29, 12:27 am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

> The UCI should become the worlds bicycle advocacy authority. It's
> time for pro cycling and all of it's enities to grow up and become a
> business.

dumbass,

or it can be the governing body of the sport, like FIBA is, but not be
a stakeholder in the professional league. There's still all the non-
pro cats, track, cross, mtb., the worlds, the olympics etc. to
govern.

The pro and amateur sides of the sport exist for two totally different
reasons(business vs. personal development), and in cycling we see the
two clash all the time.

[Michael Baldwin]

>On Feb 29, 12:27 am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>****The UCI should become the worlds bicycle advocacy
authority. It's
>time for pro cycling and all of it's entities to
>grow up and become a business.
>
>
>dumbass,
>or it can be the governing body of the sport,
>like FIBA is, but not be a stakeholder in the
>professional league. There's still all the non- pro cats, track,
>cross, mtb., the worlds, the olympics etc. to govern.
>The pro and amateur sides of the sport exist for
>two totally different reasons(business vs. personal development), and
in cycling
>we see the two clash all the time.

...ah, ya...I thought that was my point in stating the AMA's recent
change in business philosophy. Basically the AMA is saying to _all_
promoters, "your series, our rules, let's go racing!"
As far as "pro and amateur sides of the sport exist for two totally
different reasons", well that mindset needs to be exposed for what it
is, bunk!
Obviously cycling, unlike ball sports, has the added component of a
_vehicle_. The sooner bike manufacturers _embrace_ the motorsport
adage "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" the better the sport will be for
everyone, amateur and pro alike.
This ain't rocket surgery. Drop the drugs, doping and drama and
support bicycle advocacy.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> The UCI should become the worlds bicycle advocacy authority.

Advocating what? Cycling in general, or specifically racing? And where does
the funding come from?

A curious thought. How much of the UCI's perceived (current) need is based
upon establishing & implementing anti-doping measures?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Michael Baldwin" > wrote in message
...
> amit.ghosh writes
>
>>i don't think this concept (franchising) is as unusual as
>>you think, but rather cycling is unusual.
>
> Well said.
>
> I don't want to spin this thread into another OT- nascar rant/rave
> however there are examples (other than pro ball sports) of where other
> types pro racing is heading.
>
> Currently NASCAR has _all_ of the power and they plan on keeping it
> through franchising.
>
> On the other hand, last fall the American Motorcycling Association
> announced they were getting out of the race promotion business and
> emphasizing their strengths, the administration of rules and governing.
> The AMA has decided a piece of the action is rather than no action at
> all.
>
> The UCI should become the worlds bicycle advocacy authority. It's
> time for pro cycling and all of it's enities to grow up and become a
> business. Drop the drama, raise the ROI. Just my POV.
>
> Best Regards -Mike Baldwin
>

[Donald Munro]

wrote:
> or it can be the governing body of the sport, like FIBA is, but not be a
> stakeholder in the professional league. There's still all the non- pro
> cats, track, cross, mtb., the worlds, the olympics etc. to govern.

So now us fattie masters end up being stuck with paddy and co.

[Michael Baldwin]

>Mike Baldwin proclaimed;
>The UCI should become the worlds bicycle advocacy authority.
>
>And Mike Jacoubowsky asked;
>Advocating what? Cycling in general, or specifically racing? And where
>does the funding come from?
>A curious thought. How much of the UCI's perceived (current)
>need is based upon establishing & implementing anti-doping measures?
>--Mike Jacoubowsky

MB replying to MJ

Actually UCI is to internally dysfunctional to "become" anything more
than it has become.

Again I'll point to the AMA (motorcycles). An established 80+ year old
non-profit entity funded primarily by its membership (250000+) and the
motorcycle industry in general.

Overall cycling needs a single voice on multiple fronts. That's what I
mean when I reference "advocacy / advocate".

As far as UCI and its role in establishing anti-doping measures that's
like having a self proclaimed "reformed" fox guarding the hen house.
I'm sure we'll have chickens in the morning but where did all the eggs
go?

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin