#1
|
|||
|
|||
UCI vs ASO
As much as I dislike the UCI, I stand 100% behind it in its current
conflict with ASO, or, more accurately, I am 100% against ASO. The main point is simple: The UCI represents cycling in general and its mission is to defend the rights of riders, teams, and organisers, and its structure is such that each of these is given a say in decision making (though there is no denying that its handling of this mission has often been less than perfect). On the other hand, ASO merely represents its own interests, and as a private business has no responsibility to accept input from any outsider, that is, riders, teams, or other race organisers, indeed, its accountability is essentially limited to the UCI. For this reason, ASO's challenge of the UCI is an attempt to rid itself of virtually all accountability thus opening the door to the type of abuses which cycling has been trying to eradicate -- a collapse of the Pro Tour system and its guarantees would mean the return of previous horrors such as the Le Groupement and Team Coast fiascoes -- all of which would most directly affect the working conditions of riders. As usual, it is the riders who are suffering most from this conflict, and it will be the riders who will lose the most if ASO wins. As Operation Puerto has shown, a professional bicycle racer is only one unsubstantiated allegation away from exclusion, and with organisers running roughshod, riders will be excluded from the top races at the first sign of rumour. Allowing ASO to dictate its own terms for team participation in its events could result in exclusion of such riders as Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich (if he manages to get a license and team) and these illegal exclusions have already been announced by the organiser of the Tour of Germany. So riders must face some short term consequences in order to maintain the rights that they have struggled to obtain. In fact, it is the rise of awareness by riders and teams of their fundamental rights which is at the heart of the current turmoil in cycling. What we are witnessing now is a result of the exposure of traditional abuses by cycling's power brokers due to a realisation by riders and teams of their fundamental right to due process. Not surprisingly, this has come in the wake of successes by American racers who have not hesitated to use competent legal counsel when necessary. In particular, it was an American team that convinced Ivan Basso that he did not have to prove his innocence to continue racing. This rise in awareness is scaring ASO, which is desperately trying to preserve the cycling tradition of taking advantage of naive riders. ASO's lack of respect for due process and rights of athletes is obvious in its statement that it already considers Oscar Pereiro the winner of the 2006 Tour de France. Their distaste for the United States and all that it represents was earlier made clear by its disavowal of Lance Armstrong days after his last Tour de France win. The wave of annoyingly successful Americans with new approaches to cycle racing disturbs ASO which sees as its mission the preservation of cycling's traditional monuments, from Paris-Roubaix to the Tour de France, and to prevent any intrusion into its territory. As an example, consider the harassment the Women's Tour de France received in the 1980's including successful lawsuits forcing a change of name not only of the event but of the term Yellow Jersey, otherwise used by virtually every other professional and amateur stage race, and the subsequent demise of that event. It is true that ASO has made an effort to move cycling in a new direction by organising the Tour of Qatar. The bizarre choice of running a race in the Persian Gulf is evident when viewing the world's best cyclist racing through the completely deserted streets of its capital Doha. What is the point of such expansion, to some day run a circuit race around Iran's nuclear power plants? As further evidence of the nature of ASO's management, there is CEO Patrice Clerc's recent statement that the UCI has less experience in Cycling than the Tour de France, which in fact was established some years after the UCI. His quixotic remark illustrates the formidable difficulty the UCI faces in establishing and maintaining a dialogue with ASO. Compare this with the UCI. Despite its many faults, the UCI has made extraordinarily successful efforts to develop cycling in many new directions. For example, its velodrome programme at Aigle has resulted in a whole new generation of track riders from developing countries. It appears that many people now agree that the UCI's decision to expand the Pro Tour to 20 teams was wrong, or at least premature. However, that decision must stand, as everyone of those 20 teams spent considerable money and effort to obtain the legal guarantee to race in the most important events in the sport. Disagreement with the current situation is understandable, but violation of the rules is not. And we are not talking about Civil Disobedience a la Martin Luther King, the only thing that ASO is fighting for is the right to do anything it wants. -ilan |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
UCI vs ASO
"ilan" wrote in message
ups.com... As much as I dislike the UCI, I stand 100% behind it in its current conflict with ASO, or, more accurately, I am 100% against ASO. The main point is simple: The UCI represents cycling in general and its mission is to defend the rights of riders, teams, and organisers, and its structure is such that each of these is given a say in decision making (though there is no denying that its handling of this mission has often been less than perfect). On the other hand, ASO merely represents its own interests, and as a private business has no responsibility to accept input from any outsider, that is, riders, teams, or other race organisers, indeed, its accountability is essentially limited to the UCI. For this reason, ASO's challenge of the UCI is an attempt to rid itself of virtually all accountability thus opening the door to the type of abuses which cycling has been trying to eradicate -- a collapse of the Pro Tour system and its guarantees would mean the return of previous horrors such as the Le Groupement and Team Coast fiascoes -- all of which would most directly affect the working conditions of riders. As usual, it is the riders who are suffering most from this conflict, and it will be the riders who will lose the most if ASO wins. As Operation Puerto has shown, a professional bicycle racer is only one unsubstantiated allegation away from exclusion, and with organisers running roughshod, riders will be excluded from the top races at the first sign of rumour. Allowing ASO to dictate its own terms for team participation in its events could result in exclusion of such riders as Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich (if he manages to get a license and team) and these illegal exclusions have already been announced by the organiser of the Tour of Germany. So riders must face some short term consequences in order to maintain the rights that they have struggled to obtain. In fact, it is the rise of awareness by riders and teams of their fundamental rights which is at the heart of the current turmoil in cycling. What we are witnessing now is a result of the exposure of traditional abuses by cycling's power brokers due to a realisation by riders and teams of their fundamental right to due process. Not surprisingly, this has come in the wake of successes by American racers who have not hesitated to use competent legal counsel when necessary. In particular, it was an American team that convinced Ivan Basso that he did not have to prove his innocence to continue racing. This rise in awareness is scaring ASO, which is desperately trying to preserve the cycling tradition of taking advantage of naive riders. ASO's lack of respect for due process and rights of athletes is obvious in its statement that it already considers Oscar Pereiro the winner of the 2006 Tour de France. Their distaste for the United States and all that it represents was earlier made clear by its disavowal of Lance Armstrong days after his last Tour de France win. The wave of annoyingly successful Americans with new approaches to cycle racing disturbs ASO which sees as its mission the preservation of cycling's traditional monuments, from Paris-Roubaix to the Tour de France, and to prevent any intrusion into its territory. As an example, consider the harassment the Women's Tour de France received in the 1980's including successful lawsuits forcing a change of name not only of the event but of the term Yellow Jersey, otherwise used by virtually every other professional and amateur stage race, and the subsequent demise of that event. It is true that ASO has made an effort to move cycling in a new direction by organising the Tour of Qatar. The bizarre choice of running a race in the Persian Gulf is evident when viewing the world's best cyclist racing through the completely deserted streets of its capital Doha. What is the point of such expansion, to some day run a circuit race around Iran's nuclear power plants? As further evidence of the nature of ASO's management, there is CEO Patrice Clerc's recent statement that the UCI has less experience in Cycling than the Tour de France, which in fact was established some years after the UCI. His quixotic remark illustrates the formidable difficulty the UCI faces in establishing and maintaining a dialogue with ASO. Compare this with the UCI. Despite its many faults, the UCI has made extraordinarily successful efforts to develop cycling in many new directions. For example, its velodrome programme at Aigle has resulted in a whole new generation of track riders from developing countries. It appears that many people now agree that the UCI's decision to expand the Pro Tour to 20 teams was wrong, or at least premature. However, that decision must stand, as everyone of those 20 teams spent considerable money and effort to obtain the legal guarantee to race in the most important events in the sport. Disagreement with the current situation is understandable, but violation of the rules is not. And we are not talking about Civil Disobedience a la Martin Luther King, the only thing that ASO is fighting for is the right to do anything it wants. While I understand what you're saying Ilan, I'm still having a lot of trouble with the attitude of the UCI in the matters of the doping controls. They cannot follow their own rules and they feel that trial by accusation in the press is perfectly acceptable practice. I'd be a lot more likely to support them if they had even a hint of ethical behaviour. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
UCI vs ASO
On Feb 24, 2:56 pm, "ilan" wrote:
As much as I dislike the UCI, I stand 100% behind it in its current conflict with ASO, or, more accurately, I am 100% against ASO. The main point is simple: The UCI represents cycling in general and its mission is to defend the rights of riders, teams, and organisers, and its structure is such that each of these is given a say in decision making (though there is no denying that its handling of this mission has often been less than perfect). It's doing a pretty crappy job of protecting riders, and it doesn't own the races that matter. All it has for power is Olympic connections. If the GT's decide to cut ties with UCI and do their own sanctioning, Pro Riders are out of the Olympics and able to stand on their own. That may not be a bad scenario. -dB |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
UCI vs ASO
"dbrower" writes:
On Feb 24, 2:56 pm, "ilan" wrote: As much as I dislike the UCI, I stand 100% behind it in its current conflict with ASO, or, more accurately, I am 100% against ASO. The main point is simple: The UCI represents cycling in general and its mission is to defend the rights of riders, teams, and organisers, and its structure is such that each of these is given a say in decision making (though there is no denying that its handling of this mission has often been less than perfect). It's doing a pretty crappy job of protecting riders, and it doesn't own the races that matter. All it has for power is Olympic connections. If the GT's decide to cut ties with UCI and do their own sanctioning, Pro Riders are out of the Olympics and able to stand on their own. That may not be a bad scenario. You sure got that right McBoggy has perhaps killed cycling, although it is a pretty resilient sport and as Oil Peak approaches, might possibly spawn higher quality local races which attract local tifosi in large numbers But McBoggy will certainly have his place in the annals of cycling history and when he goes to the big bike race in the sky. In the city square at Aigle, they're going to put up a statue inscribed: Ich habe zerstört -- Le vent ŕ Dos Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply] |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
UCI vs ASO
On Feb 25, 10:31 am, Davey Crockett
wrote: "dbrower" writes: On Feb 24, 2:56 pm, "ilan" wrote: As much as I dislike the UCI, I stand 100% behind it in its current conflict with ASO, or, more accurately, I am 100% against ASO. The main point is simple: The UCI represents cycling in general and its mission is to defend the rights of riders, teams, and organisers, and its structure is such that each of these is given a say in decision making (though there is no denying that its handling of this mission has often been less than perfect). It's doing a pretty crappy job of protecting riders, and it doesn't own the races that matter. All it has for power is Olympic connections. If the GT's decide to cut ties with UCI and do their own sanctioning, Pro Riders are out of the Olympics and able to stand on their own. That may not be a bad scenario. You sure got that right McBoggy has perhaps killed cycling, although it is a pretty resilient sport and as Oil Peak approaches, might possibly spawn higher quality local races which attract local tifosi in large numbers But McBoggy will certainly have his place in the annals of cycling history and when he goes to the big bike race in the sky. In the city square at Aigle, they're going to put up a statue inscribed: Ich habe zerstört -- Le vent ŕ Dos Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply] All these responses have something in common, their awareness of the UCI's glaring faults makes them side against the UCI, so, by default for ASO. The problem is that they don't take into account the full consequences of this, which will be total anarchy, or more accurately, oligarchy. This all kind of reminds me of this interesting discussion between Pierre Trudeau and some reporters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7_a2wa2dd4 -ilan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
UCI vs ASO
On Feb 25, 6:27 am, "ilan" wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:31 am, Davey Crockett wrote: "dbrower" writes: On Feb 24, 2:56 pm, "ilan" wrote: As much as I dislike the UCI, I stand 100% behind it in its current conflict with ASO, or, more accurately, I am 100% against ASO. The main point is simple: The UCI represents cycling in general and its mission is to defend the rights of riders, teams, and organisers, and its structure is such that each of these is given a say in decision making (though there is no denying that its handling of this mission has often been less than perfect). It's doing a pretty crappy job of protecting riders, and it doesn't own the races that matter. All it has for power is Olympic connections. If the GT's decide to cut ties with UCI and do their own sanctioning, Pro Riders are out of the Olympics and able to stand on their own. That may not be a bad scenario. You sure got that right McBoggy has perhaps killed cycling, although it is a pretty resilient sport and as Oil Peak approaches, might possibly spawn higher quality local races which attract local tifosi in large numbers But McBoggy will certainly have his place in the annals of cycling history and when he goes to the big bike race in the sky. In the city square at Aigle, they're going to put up a statue inscribed: Ich habe zerstört -- Le vent ŕ Dos Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply] All these responses have something in common, their awareness of the UCI's glaring faults makes them side against the UCI, so, by default for ASO. The problem is that they don't take into account the full consequences of this, which will be total anarchy, or more accurately, oligarchy. This would be a problem if you were talking about a society, but the organization of a big race is a business. Almost all the revenue in cycling is generated by the organizer and the teams and the UCI aren't a major contributor to that. It was presumtuous of the UCI to step in and try to take over direction or demand a slice of the pie (the revenue sharing that teams want). That sounds like a bad marriage. The only reason that the current system has lasted as long as it has is probably because of the socialist attitude in Europe, and we're discovering even that has it's limits. For riders to have a real union (what Bill is always hand-wringing about) they have to been seen as an investment by the major player (ie. employed by te ASO, not contracted by teams). No other major pro sport is governed by a pseudo-democratic amateur sport governing body. The UCI is fine for controlling the amateur and olympic side of the sport, but in the case of say the Tour the ASO is contributing the lion's share to the enterprise, so naturally they are going to expect the entitlement that goes along with it. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
UCI vs ASO
Hiya:
I would have thought the UCI, the three Grand Tour companies and yes, even the Rider's Union would have had more sense, more humility and more interest in the long-term best interests of the sport, it's fans and sponsors than, say, FIDE (the World Chess Federation) and the world of Chess in general. That's right -- I expected bikies to have less ego involbement and more brains than chess players. It's all the fault of Americans -- the folks at the UCI and the Grand Tours have not only watched too many Westerns, they've taken them for models of confilct resolution! It's going to be a gorgeous day today -- time to turn off the computer, lube the chain and go ride. rleone |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
UCI vs ASO
On Feb 24, 5:56 pm, "ilan" wrote:
As much as I dislike the UCI, I stand 100% behind it in its current conflict with ASO, or, more accurately, I am 100% against ASO. The main point is simple: The UCI represents cycling in general and its mission is to defend the rights of riders, teams, and organisers, and its structure is such that each of these is given a say in decision making (though there is no denying that its handling of this mission has often been less than perfect). On the other hand, ASO merely represents its own interests, and as a private business has no responsibility to accept input from any outsider, that is, riders, teams, or other race organisers, indeed, its accountability is essentially limited to the UCI. I guess I can't let this go. What you're saying is true, but the ASO IS a business, and there are tried and tested rules to business. The employees of a business don't have a say on how it's run or share in the revenue. Shareholders on the other hand do have voting rights and are paid dividends. I think my idea is the only workable solution. The GT organizers should merge, sell spots on their circuit for a sum and use the cash generated to buy out all the other major pro races and promote the resulting league to the next level. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
UCI vs ASO
"ilan" wrote in message oups.com... On Feb 25, 10:31 am, Davey Crockett wrote: "dbrower" writes: On Feb 24, 2:56 pm, "ilan" wrote: As much as I dislike the UCI, I stand 100% behind it in its current conflict with ASO, or, more accurately, I am 100% against ASO. The main point is simple: The UCI represents cycling in general and its mission is to defend the rights of riders, teams, and organisers, and its structure is such that each of these is given a say in decision making (though there is no denying that its handling of this mission has often been less than perfect). It's doing a pretty crappy job of protecting riders, and it doesn't own the races that matter. All it has for power is Olympic connections. If the GT's decide to cut ties with UCI and do their own sanctioning, Pro Riders are out of the Olympics and able to stand on their own. That may not be a bad scenario. You sure got that right McBoggy has perhaps killed cycling, although it is a pretty resilient sport and as Oil Peak approaches, might possibly spawn higher quality local races which attract local tifosi in large numbers But McBoggy will certainly have his place in the annals of cycling history and when he goes to the big bike race in the sky. In the city square at Aigle, they're going to put up a statue inscribed: Ich habe zerstört -- Le vent ŕ Dos Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply] All these responses have something in common, their awareness of the UCI's glaring faults makes them side against the UCI, so, by default for ASO. The problem is that they don't take into account the full consequences of this, which will be total anarchy, or more accurately, oligarchy. Anarchy? Until the 1980's the UCI has always been a collection of puppets, directed by Lévitan, Goddet, and a few of their companions, like Torriani or Karel Steyaert. It was the golden age of bicycle racing. And in those years the riders were well aware of theur rights. And they certainly were not powerless. Of course, they were dependent of the Tour organization, but the organization also depended of them. The history of cycling is full of actions - sometimes succesfull, sometimes not - of the riders to defend their rights. For instance, the foundation of the Union in the 1920's, the strikes in the Giro bewteen 1946 and 1954, the strike in the Tour of'1978, etc., etc. However, those times are past and now we have a real power struggle between ASO and UCI for the simple reason that a third man went into play: the government. From the introduction of the anti-doping laws in 1965 and certainly since the Festina-scandale of 1998 political authorities are no longer benevalent spectators anymore, with the result that doping tests and its results have become a very efficient tool in the hand of the UCI in its power struggle with the ASO. All those scandals - Operation Puerto, Landis, etc. - are only harmful for the UCI, if only because it's making them lose money, but not at all to the UCI (they're not losing a cent), and they would happily sweep the unde rthe carpet. And they would have been quite willing to allow Ullrich and Basso to participate to the Tour 2006. Besides, it's not true that the ASO is so anti-american that it is already considering Oscar Pereiro winner of the 2006 Tour de France. On the contrary: the ASO declared to consider the possibility that there will be no winner for 2006. Benjo nd by the way, I don't agree with your assumption that they are anti-american. True, they were not very happy with Amstrong's seven wins in a row, but they were neither happy with Indurain's five wins. But it's not true that they wanted |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
UCI vs ASO
On 25 Feb 2007 03:27:29 -0800, "ilan" wrote:
All these responses have something in common, their awareness of the UCI's glaring faults makes them side against the UCI, so, by default for ASO. The problem is that they don't take into account the full consequences of this, which will be total anarchy, or more accurately, oligarchy. The problem is internal to OCI - they want to play every hand to the end and they can't count chips on the table. Better replace the UCI people at the table with realists. Now, today. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|