Racing's Real Problems

[Tom Kunich]

As I originally pointed out, the racing business needs three entities to
protect the sport and the participants.

1) They need race promoters who put on races. It is important that these men
JUST PUT ON RACES.

While it is perfectly OK to have an opinion on the drugging problems these
people are not in charge of the riders. They can demand that the rule-making
body make certain rules and they can demand that the rule-making body
enforce these rules in a proper manner but they are should never step over
the line and pretend that they are the ones that enforce the riders
regulations. They are simply too close to the problem and cannot keep a
proper perspective on this subject.

2) They need a rule-making body that covers all of the regulations necessary
for the fair and safe manner of running races.

The regulations of the UCI are actually a remarkably good set of regulations
that cover just about everything. The problem is that they started allowing
the enforcement of their rules to get out of their hands and that could only
end up with no one knowing who is supposed to enforce the rules.

3) A rider's union that intercedes for the riders on the promoter's side to
maintain rider income. And on the rule-making side to make sure that all
riders are treated fairly and equally.

This is the group that especially hasn't been living up to its requirements.
The honest riders can only see that the dishonest riders are doing them out
of wins and destroying their careers. That's completely true - that's why
drugging etc. is so pernicious. However, the honest riders do not understand
that if the dishonest riders are nevertheless dealt with completely fair and
above board, you can't tell whether they were dishonest riders honestly
caught or honest riders dishonestly caught.

My take on what's happening is this:

Although the ASO probably means well, they are completely out of line
putting on any races outside of the UCI purview. I'm sure that they believe
that something had to be done but destroying the administration instead of
working it out is totally wrong.

The UCI has screwed up by trying to fob off the doping problem onto someone
else (WADA). The fact of the matter is that bicycle racing gains almost
nothing by being an Olympic sport and having to turn over great deals of
authority to such people who couldn't care less about cycling is absolutely
the wrong thing to do.

The rider's union is going to have to buckle down and set a clear and
concise set of rules pertaining to the way drug tests are administered and
administrated. It isn't that we don't want to catch the cheaters, its that
we don't want it to be easy to frame a rider and have all the other riders
look the other way because they don't want to be thought of as supporting a
cheater.

It is looking like the racing this year will provide absolutely no truth
pertaining to who are the good, the better and the greatest riders. Instead
what we're going to see is who can race where, when. The winner, whether or
not it's true, will always be thought of as someone who didn't ride against
the best competition.

And that's unfair to the races, the rule makers and the racers.

[Casey Kerrigan]

In article >, Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:

> As I originally pointed out, the racing business needs three entities to
> protect the sport and the participants.
>
> 1) They need race promoters who put on races. It is important that these men
> JUST PUT ON RACES.
>
> While it is perfectly OK to have an opinion on the drugging problems these
> people are not in charge of the riders. They can demand that the rule-making
> body make certain rules and they can demand that the rule-making body
> enforce these rules in a proper manner but they are should never step over
> the line and pretend that they are the ones that enforce the riders
> regulations. They are simply too close to the problem and cannot keep a
> proper perspective on this subject.
>
> 2) They need a rule-making body that covers all of the regulations necessary
> for the fair and safe manner of running races.
>
> The regulations of the UCI are actually a remarkably good set of regulations
> that cover just about everything. The problem is that they started allowing
> the enforcement of their rules to get out of their hands and that could only
> end up with no one knowing who is supposed to enforce the rules.
>
> 3) A rider's union that intercedes for the riders on the promoter's side to
> maintain rider income. And on the rule-making side to make sure that all
> riders are treated fairly and equally.
>
> This is the group that especially hasn't been living up to its requirements.
> The honest riders can only see that the dishonest riders are doing them out
> of wins and destroying their careers. That's completely true - that's why
> drugging etc. is so pernicious. However, the honest riders do not understand
> that if the dishonest riders are nevertheless dealt with completely fair and
> above board, you can't tell whether they were dishonest riders honestly
> caught or honest riders dishonestly caught.
>
> My take on what's happening is this:
>
> Although the ASO probably means well, they are completely out of line
> putting on any races outside of the UCI purview. I'm sure that they believe
> that something had to be done but destroying the administration instead of
> working it out is totally wrong.
>
> The UCI has screwed up by trying to fob off the doping problem onto someone
> else (WADA). The fact of the matter is that bicycle racing gains almost
> nothing by being an Olympic sport and having to turn over great deals of
> authority to such people who couldn't care less about cycling is absolutely
> the wrong thing to do.

In the U.S. bicycle gets a lot out of being part of the Olympics. Do
you think we would ever see another velodrome built in this country if
bicycle racing wasn't part of the Olympics? If Cycling was dropped from
the Olympics how long would all of our current velodromes remain in
operation? Also the USOC is the larges cash sponsor od USA Cycling.
USOC tends to be the ones who pay for sending teams to the world
championships ( except for Cross and that is why the Cross riders are
always having to pay their own way to Cross Worlds).

Yea at the Pro level of the sport being part of the Olympics may not
mean much. In the U.S.A. being part of the Olympics beings in sponsors,
helps open the door to getting permit for races, helps get velodrome
built and support for the track program ( even as small as that support
currently is) and lots of other benefits.

[Michael Baldwin]

Tom Kunich says

>As I originally pointed out, the racing business needs three
>entities to protect the sport and the participants.
>1) They need race promoters who put on races. It
>is important that these men JUST PUT ON RACES.

>2) They need a rule-making body that covers all of
>the regulations necessary for the fair and safe manner of
>running races.
>
>3) A rider's union that intercedes for the riders on
>the promoter's side to maintain rider income. And on the
>rule-making side to make sure that all riders are treated
>fairly and equally.
>
>This is the group that especially hasn't been living up
>to its requirements.

Well put Tom, especially the point regarding the riders not "living
up". The sport needs high profile _leaders_ from each of your above
three categories.
I would add one other category though to your list. The bicycle
industry needs to be a part of the solution as well.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 10:10 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> As I originally pointed out, the racing business needs three entities to
> protect the sport and the participants.
>
> 1) They need race promoters who put on races. It is important that these men
> JUST PUT ON RACES.

dumbass,

when we put on a race we are raising the money, generating any revenue
and we are taking a financial risk. the racers don't take any risk and
neither does the UCI.

the UCI just collects fees in exchange for services (writing a
rulebook, training officials, putting the race on their calendar,
insurance, discipling and licensing riders etc.).

the UCI also acts as the rider's union and tells us what the prize
purse has to be in order for them to sanction the race.

if i'm not happy with those services, the conditions that go with it
or what they charge for it, i can source them some where else or
develop them myself.

if you are trying to run a business would you voluntarily make
yourself a slave to one of your vendors ? because that's what you are
proposing.

[Tom Kunich]

> wrote in message
...
> On Mar 3, 10:10 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> As I originally pointed out, the racing business needs three entities to
>> protect the sport and the participants.
>>
>> 1) They need race promoters who put on races. It is important that these
>> men
>> JUST PUT ON RACES.
>
> when we put on a race we are raising the money, generating any revenue
> and we are taking a financial risk. the racers don't take any risk and
> neither does the UCI.

Thanks for finally coming clean and demonstrating exactly why you don't seem
to have a clue on how to be a human being.

[Tom Kunich]

"Michael Baldwin" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Kunich says
>
>>As I originally pointed out, the racing business needs three
>>entities to protect the sport and the participants.
>>1) They need race promoters who put on races. It
>>is important that these men JUST PUT ON RACES.
>
>>2) They need a rule-making body that covers all of
>>the regulations necessary for the fair and safe manner of
>>running races.
>>
>>3) A rider's union that intercedes for the riders on
>>the promoter's side to maintain rider income. And on the
>>rule-making side to make sure that all riders are treated
>>fairly and equally.
>>
>>This is the group that especially hasn't been living up
>>to its requirements.
>
> Well put Tom, especially the point regarding the riders not "living
> up". The sport needs high profile _leaders_ from each of your above
> three categories.
> I would add one other category though to your list. The bicycle
> industry needs to be a part of the solution as well.

I don't see how the industry needs to be in this other than the way they
presently are - as sponsors. You should never allow someone whose financial
security is tied to a sport control that sport. This is also why the race
promoters are very bad judges of rule making.

[Tom Kunich]

"Casey Kerrigan" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom Kunich
> <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>>
>> The UCI has screwed up by trying to fob off the doping problem onto
>> someone
>> else (WADA). The fact of the matter is that bicycle racing gains almost
>> nothing by being an Olympic sport and having to turn over great deals of
>> authority to such people who couldn't care less about cycling is
>> absolutely
>> the wrong thing to do.
>
> In the U.S. bicycle gets a lot out of being part of the Olympics. Do
> you think we would ever see another velodrome built in this country if
> bicycle racing wasn't part of the Olympics? If Cycling was dropped from
> the Olympics how long would all of our current velodromes remain in
> operation? Also the USOC is the larges cash sponsor od USA Cycling.
> USOC tends to be the ones who pay for sending teams to the world
> championships ( except for Cross and that is why the Cross riders are
> always having to pay their own way to Cross Worlds).

Track cycling is an entirely different form of bicycle racing than road
racing Casey. I understand your position and while I'm on your side I still
can't see the UCI turning their doping testing over to the Olympics.

At this time the Olympic Committee have completely forgotten the ideals of
amatuer athletics and have become nothing more than another professional
sporting organizer. It isn't truely an Olympics anymore - its nothing but a
demonstation of the top levels of professional sports.

> Yea at the Pro level of the sport being part of the Olympics may not
> mean much. In the U.S.A. being part of the Olympics beings in sponsors,
> helps open the door to getting permit for races, helps get velodrome
> built and support for the track program ( even as small as that support
> currently is) and lots of other benefits.

I have a problem with there being no track racing but I have much more of a
problem with the UCI being ruled from a small group in the Olympic
Committee.

[Michael Baldwin]

Casey Kerrigan writes

>In the U.S. bicycle gets a lot out of being
>part of the Olympics. Do you think we would ever
>see another velodrome built in this country if bicycle racing
>wasn't part of the Olympics? If Cycling was dropped from
>the Olympics how long would all of our current velodromes
>remain in operation? Also the USOC is the larges cash
>sponsor od USA Cycling. USOC tends to be the ones
>who pay for sending teams to the world championships

I think you may be missing Tom's point Cacey. _IF_ the listed
entities could get their collective crap in one pile, your concerns
would probably would be nullified.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[Mike Murray]

"Casey Kerrigan" > wrote:
"In the U.S. bicycle gets a lot out of being part of the Olympics. Do you
think we would ever see another velodrome built in this country if bicycle
racing wasn't part of the Olympics?"

Yes. There is currently a velodrome project here in Oregon with a good
probability of completion of an indoor facility in Salem. Olympics has had
nothing to do with the process.

"If Cycling was dropped from the Olympics how long would all of our current
velodromes remain in operation?"

In the case of Alpenrose there would be no difference in our operations if
cycling was not part of the Olympics. We get no support from the Olympic
movement and never had.

Mike Murray