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

"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.

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

"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 à Dos
Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply]

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 à 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

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 à 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.

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

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.

"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 à 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

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...