OT - Time for an Extreme Makeover?

[Michael Baldwin]

My question is. After being in existence for nearly 108 years, are the
aims of UCI capable of hitting a dynamic 21st century moving target?

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

From the UCI websites FAQ's section:

FAQ - What are the aims of the UCI?

The UCI Statutes specify that the aim of the UCI is:

a) to direct, develop, regulate, control and discipline cycling under
all forms worldwide;

b) to promote cycling in all the countries of the world and at all
levels;

c) to organise, for all cycling sport disciplines, world championships
of which it is the sole holder and owner;

d) to encourage friendship between all members of the cycling world;

e) to promote sportsmanship and fair play;
f) to represent the sport of cycling and defend its interests before the
International Olympic Committee and all national and international
authorities;

g) to cooperate with the International Olympic Committee, in particular
as regards the participation of cyclists in the Olympic Games.
------------------------------------------------------

[Fred Fredburger[_3_]]

I'm confused, does the "OT" in your subject line mean "On Topic"?

The UCI should sanction amateur cycling races and leave professional
racing to an organization that promotes professional cycling. I don't
know where that second organization would come from.

I'm interested in seeing if someone thinks the UCI is OK as is and how
they'd support that position.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 2, 5:53*pm, Fred Fredburger
> wrote:
> I'm confused, does the "OT" in your subject line mean "On Topic"?
>
> The UCI should sanction amateur cycling races and leave professional
> racing to an organization that promotes professional cycling. I don't
> know where that second organization would come from.
>
> I'm interested in seeing if someone thinks the UCI is OK as is and how
> they'd support that position.

I agree. Just like the NBA, NFL, NHL, etc.

Joseph

[mtb Dad]

On Mar 2, 9:27*am, "
> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 5:53*pm, Fred Fredburger
>
> > wrote:
> > I'm confused, does the "OT" in your subject line mean "On Topic"?
>
> > The UCI should sanction amateur cycling races and leave professional
> > racing to an organization that promotes professional cycling. I don't
> > know where that second organization would come from.
>
> > I'm interested in seeing if someone thinks the UCI is OK as is and how
> > they'd support that position.
>
> I agree. Just like the NBA, NFL, NHL, etc.
>
> Joseph

Great. Then they could get hauled up in front of Congress like those
jokers. Hell, they should anyway.

[Fred Fredburger[_3_]]

mtb Dad wrote:
> On Mar 2, 9:27 am, "
> > wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 5:53 pm, Fred Fredburger
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> I'm confused, does the "OT" in your subject line mean "On Topic"?
>>> The UCI should sanction amateur cycling races and leave professional
>>> racing to an organization that promotes professional cycling. I don't
>>> know where that second organization would come from.
>>> I'm interested in seeing if someone thinks the UCI is OK as is and how
>>> they'd support that position.
>> I agree. Just like the NBA, NFL, NHL, etc.
>>
>> Joseph
>
> Great. Then they could get hauled up in front of Congress like those
> jokers. Hell, they should anyway.

The thing that keeps that from happening NOW is that no one gives a ****.

[Donald Munro]

mtb Dad wrote:
> Great. Then they could get hauled up in front of Congress like those
> jokers. Hell, they should anyway.

Retard,
One would have thought the US congress should be concerned about an
economic recession, getting out of Iraq and sponsoring gregs
primates rather than wasting its time on attempting to regulate an
entertainment industry. Apart from which most of "they" aren't within the
jurisdiction of the US congress.

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
Donald Munro > wrote:

> mtb Dad wrote:
> > Great. Then they could get hauled up in front of Congress like those
> > jokers. Hell, they should anyway.
>
> Retard,
> One would have thought the US congress should be concerned about an
> economic recession, getting out of Iraq and sponsoring gregs
> primates rather than wasting its time on attempting to regulate an
> entertainment industry. Apart from which most of "they" aren't within the
> jurisdiction of the US congress.

Like it's really important having a bunch of jocks get up and testify in front of
congress (who usually spend much of the time fawning over the jocks).

The good news is that, at long last, we've had the promised showers of flowers and
sweets in Iraq. For Iran's Ahmahdinejad. Heckuva job, Bushie!

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Fred Fredburger[_3_]]

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article >,
> Donald Munro > wrote:
>
>> mtb Dad wrote:
>>> Great. Then they could get hauled up in front of Congress like those
>>> jokers. Hell, they should anyway.
>> Retard,
>> One would have thought the US congress should be concerned about an
>> economic recession, getting out of Iraq and sponsoring gregs
>> primates rather than wasting its time on attempting to regulate an
>> entertainment industry. Apart from which most of "they" aren't within the
>> jurisdiction of the US congress.
>
> Like it's really important having a bunch of jocks get up and testify in front of
> congress (who usually spend much of the time fawning over the jocks).
>
> The good news is that, at long last, we've had the promised showers of flowers and
> sweets in Iraq. For Iran's Ahmahdinejad. Heckuva job, Bushie!
>

pinko fag communist retard dumbass,

Yeah, pretty much.

The thing with the jocks testifying in congress is that many of them
have hot wives who accompany them as a show of support. Having the
athlete's testify allows your friendly neighborhood congressman to drool
with better cause than he normally does.

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 3, 11:39*pm, Donald Munro > wrote:
> mtb Dad wrote:
> > Great. *Then they could get hauled up in front of Congress like those
> > jokers. *Hell, they should anyway.
>
> Retard,
> One would have thought the US congress should be concerned about an
> economic recession, getting out of Iraq and sponsoring gregs
> primates rather than wasting its time on attempting to regulate an
> entertainment industry. Apart from which most of "they" aren't within the
> jurisdiction of the US congress.

Would it be Machiavellian of me to say the more time Congress spends
on harassing athletes -- a totally worthless and retarded endeavor
(typical of guvmint) -- the less time they have to **** up the economy
and otherwise create havoc? Gridlock and chasing ghosts is the best
hope of the amerikan sheeple.

Come on Barry and Roger! Take one for the Team!

[Donald Munro]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> Would it be Machiavellian of me to say the more time Congress spends on
> harassing athletes -- a totally worthless and retarded endeavor (typical
> of guvmint) -- the less time they have to **** up the economy and
> otherwise create havoc? Gridlock and chasing ghosts is the best hope of
> the amerikan sheeple.

So if only your congress had investigated Festina, Iraq would never have
happened (although they might have had to go for regime change in France
to get Festina dragged up in front of congress).

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 4, 10:38*am, Donald Munro > wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > Would it be Machiavellian of me to say the more time Congress spends on
> > harassing athletes -- a totally worthless and retarded endeavor (typical
> > of guvmint) -- the less time they have to **** up the economy and
> > otherwise create havoc? *Gridlock and chasing ghosts is the best hope of
> > the amerikan sheeple.
>
> So if only your congress had investigated Festina, Iraq would never have
> happened (although they might have had to go for regime change in France
> to get Festina dragged up in front of congress).

If only to make fun of Henry Waxman's nose.

[Les Earnest]

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> The UCI should sanction amateur cycling races and leave professional
> racing to an organization that promotes professional cycling. I don't
> know where that second organization would come from.

This is a plausible approach. For those who don't know the history,
we've already been there and done that. I now think we should repeat
that scenario but in a more sensible way. Here is a summary of cycling
history from a U.S. perspective (mine, of course). Unfortunately it is
full of alphabet soup.

The first international cycling federation, called the International
Cyclists Association (ICA), was founded in 1892 by racing organizations
from Belgium, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Holland, and
U.S.A. At that time U.S.A. racing was run by the original League of
American Wheelmen (LAW), which had no connection with the later
organizations that took that name. However ICA was dominated by the
Brits, who arranged to have separate votes to England, Scotland,
Ireland, and Wales.

That imbalance eventually led to ICA's downfall when, in 1900, the
International Cycling Union (UCI in French) was formed by cycling
organizations from Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and U.S.A. The
U.S.A. organization by that time was the National Cycling Association
(NCA), which had come to power in 1898 when clubs in Northern California
initiated the overthrow of LAW. Brits and others were allowed to join
UCI later.

NCA was overthrown by the Amateur Bicycle League of American (ABLA) at
the end of World War 2. NCA had been dominated by commercial interests
that owned velodromes throughout the country and their corrupt control
of six-day racing had resulted in a loss of public interest by the end
of the 1930s, which meant they had no money.

In 1965, UCI formed two subordinate organizations. FIAC for amateur
cycling and FICP for pro competition. Note that this FIAC had no
connection with the modern organization that uses those initials. In
that era the Olympics were supposed to be strictly amateur but the
Eastern Bloc countries soon made a mockery of that and the rest of the
world began cheating in the same ways. As a result the Olympics soon
came to be dominated by pros, just as had happened in the ancient
Olympics 2,000 years ago.

In 1975 ABLA changed its name to United States Cycling Federation (USCF)
based on an alleged offer that it would control both amateur and
professional cycling in the U.S. However that offer was then withdrawn
and the U.S. Professional Racing Organization (USPRO) began developing
pro cycling, though they were losing money big time.

In 1992 UCI reunified the FIAC and FICP, merging them back into the UCI.
Consistent with that, a reorganization of U.S. cycling was initiated in
1993 (by me) to bring the various U.S. cycling bodies together in USA
Cycling. However this reorganization got corrupted in the legislative
process with the result that commercial interests now control USA
Cycling and run it to suit themselves even though a large portion of
their income derives from non-pro riders.

I now believe that it would be in the best interests of the sport to
resegregate pro and non-pro racing. Indeed, that is what I'm working on.
For more on UCI history see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Cycliste_Internationale

-Les Earnest

[Tom Kunich]

"Les Earnest" > wrote in message
...
>
> I now believe that it would be in the best interests of the sport to
> resegregate pro and non-pro racing. Indeed, that is what I'm working on.
> For more on UCI history see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Cycliste_Internationale

I wish you the best of luck Les but history teaches us that the good never
thrive in sports.