Doesnt you kinda contradict yourself Levi4life? You are saying that american sponsors should sponsor teams who mostly race in Europe instead of american teams.
Also the UCI ban would mean more races would benefit from trying to reach a higher rating to make the top teams able to race.
All your reasons for why UCI is hurting you actually seems like good points on why it is a good decision by the UCI to include the us in the rule together with all the other countries and in the long run it should mean an upswing for american riders.
I don't think I contradict myself. I was saying that American companies that sponsor a team in the USA in order advertise their brand, and who's major market is the US, are less likely to sponsor a team if that team can only race 3 races all year in the US. Then those companies will take their money out of the equation. The team gets a European company to sponsor it and races in Europe, now there is ANOTHER European team racing and 1 less in America, which is not, in any way, shape or form, helping to develop cycling world wide.
Most races in the US do not have the cash to be big UCI races, like California and Missouri. Georgia lost its sponsorship and is discontinued, Philly week is only 1 race this year instead of 3, and the 1 is still very iffy. If big name riders show up to Gila(for example) then there will be a lot more attention drawn to the race and therefore more attention drawn to the race's sponsors. More attention to the sponsors means more money, which means better UCI rankings for the race, which means more top level riders in the future. This rule hobbles races, not only in America, but all over the world, by not allowing the sort of upward mobility necessary to become a California, or Langkawi, or Paris-Nice etc etc.
The simple fact is that this rule hurts races, it hurts racers, it hurts teams and it hurts cycling. Its not just an American issue, its an international problem.
I call bullshit on those(you know who you are) who think we American's are making a big deal about this simply because its Lance. I couldn't care less if Lance races or not. I want to see some good racing. If Lance, Levi and Horner show up and duke it out with the biggest domestic team's in the US there will be good racing, and maybe, just maybe events like Gila will be televised in the future. We don't get a whole lot of race coverage in the US, except in July. On some Sundays we may get the Vuelta compressed into an hour, or that weeks racing in the Giro compressed into half an hour, or the ardennes classics(2 of the 3) in an hour long segment with the illustriously bizarre Bob Roll commentating alongside the aging Phil Ligget.
No aspect of this rule makes sense to me. Bad Job UCI.
Edited by Levi4life on 28-04-2009 01:46
Levi4life wrote:
n obscure rule which is largely ignored in the US which bars UCI Pro-Continental and Pro Tour teams from racing in small races. Pro Tour and Pro-Continental riders race national level events all the time.
The rule has always been enforced elsewhere. ProTour teams can't ride national races. Ever. Anywhere.
If it wasn't enforced in the US before, that was fault that's finally been corrected.
Edited by issoisso on 28-04-2009 07:29
Seems like what you are really mad about is american sponsors not wanting to put in money. The problem with your reasoning is that they havent been putting money into the sport while the rule havent been enforced and now you are saying this rule will lead to the same thing. I think you see how that doesnt make sense. Why not make a change and see what will come from it cause i can tell from your post that you are unhappy with how things have been.
After all it seems like in the countries where the rule been enforced they dont have the same problem.
And about the contradictions you went about it again. Isnt it better that an american corporation interested in the american market sponsor an american team who mostly compete in the US isntead of a Pro Tour team. That means more sponsor money to the national teams instead of the international ones. It helps the national growth of cycling.
It seems like you need to work on getting cycling more popular in the US so that tv stations will want to air it. Again you put blame on the rule but the truth is that it hasnt been enforced for a long time and it hasnt been helping the popularity it seems.
So far you only been making a lot of statements but you are unable to back most of it up with reasoning and the times you have it has instead been more logical to use it against your cause like i have already shown.
I understand you might be upset that you cant see them race live this year or if you are a rider yourself you will not be able to ride with them but you shouldnt let your own selfishness stand away for the progress of cycling. If that is not the case then i apologize.
Perhaps it makes sense in Europe but I just can't see it from the US perspective. I just don't see what benefit it gives anyone (UCI, the races, whatever) to do this... at least not in countries like the US that don't have a strong cycling base.
Perhaps it forces races that do have a following to pony up money to the UCI to get the best racers... but you have a catch-22 when the money isn't there in a country like the US.
Not enforcing this kind of rule has allowed US cycling to reach what it has... which granted isn't all that great but it's something. Choosing to enforce this rule now... with the economic situation so bad... will likely force all of these races to go away.
My bet is that two years from now the racing calendar in the US will consist of the tour of california, the tour of missouri... and the national championships. It was iffy on any other races surviving the economy even with draws like Lance or Levi showing up. Now... it's hard to see any of them surviving as commercial ventures. Cycling just isn't high enough up to survive in the sports entertainment industry without some help... and UCI isn't helping.
KurtinSC wrote:
Can someone explain the point of this rule?
Perhaps it makes sense in Europe but I just can't see it from the US perspective. I just don't see what benefit it gives anyone (UCI, the races, whatever) to do this... at least not in countries like the US that don't have a strong cycling base.
Perhaps it forces races that do have a following to pony up money to the UCI to get the best racers... but you have a catch-22 when the money isn't there in a country like the US.
Not enforcing this kind of rule has allowed US cycling to reach what it has... which granted isn't all that great but it's something. Choosing to enforce this rule now... with the economic situation so bad... will likely force all of these races to go away.
My bet is that two years from now the racing calendar in the US will consist of the tour of california, the tour of missouri... and the national championships. It was iffy on any other races surviving the economy even with draws like Lance or Levi showing up. Now... it's hard to see any of them surviving as commercial ventures. Cycling just isn't high enough up to survive in the sports entertainment industry without some help... and UCI isn't helping.
The reason for the rule is to give other riders a chance to win, it's not fair if astana just send riders to every race in the US and hence win them all, it's the exact same reason why you have age group raceing, and categories for amateurs, to allow people to compete with riders who are at the same standard to themself.
How would you like it if your aim was to win a race, you peaked perfectly and had your whole team beside you, then the entire protour turned up and as such you got nowhere near.
[url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182]Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
KurtinSC wrote:
Can someone explain the point of this rule?
Perhaps it makes sense in Europe but I just can't see it from the US perspective. I just don't see what benefit it gives anyone (UCI, the races, whatever) to do this... at least not in countries like the US that don't have a strong cycling base.
Perhaps it forces races that do have a following to pony up money to the UCI to get the best racers... but you have a catch-22 when the money isn't there in a country like the US.
Not enforcing this kind of rule has allowed US cycling to reach what it has... which granted isn't all that great but it's something. Choosing to enforce this rule now... with the economic situation so bad... will likely force all of these races to go away.
My bet is that two years from now the racing calendar in the US will consist of the tour of california, the tour of missouri... and the national championships. It was iffy on any other races surviving the economy even with draws like Lance or Levi showing up. Now... it's hard to see any of them surviving as commercial ventures. Cycling just isn't high enough up to survive in the sports entertainment industry without some help... and UCI isn't helping.
The concept behind it is simple, and I feel it makes sense:
To a ProTour rider, these races mean little. It's not going to make or break their careers. If they were to be allowed to race, they would mostly use these races for training only.
So, they would be robbing the places of riders of lower teams who need these races to make a living: to earn pay, to show service, to show results, to enhance their reputation and get noticed.
All of that would be gone for those riders, who are replaced by "big names" who would show up to roll in the pack and wave at fans.
Seems like what you are really mad about is american sponsors not wanting to put in money. The problem with your reasoning is that they havent been putting money into the sport while the rule havent been enforced and now you are saying this rule will lead to the same thing. I think you see how that doesnt make sense. Why not make a change and see what will come from it cause i can tell from your post that you are unhappy with how things have been.
But American companies have been putting money into the sport here in America. We have a decent calender, most of which you only hear about through American cycling outlets like VeloNews. Were is the motivation for more companies to put more money into a sport were the top riders cannot advertise to a companies target crowd?
Does m reasoning make sense to everyone else or is it coming out in some weird, unintelligible manner
After all it seems like in the countries where the rule been enforced they dont have the same problem.
And all those countries are in Europe aren't they?
And about the contradictions you went about it again. Isnt it better that an american corporation interested in the american market sponsor an american team who mostly compete in the US isntead of a Pro Tour team. That means more sponsor money to the national teams instead of the international ones. It helps the national growth of cycling.
then the money runs out at a certain point. That would create an artificial glass ceiling, for riders, teams and sponsors. The really good riders will go to a European team were they can make more money. The races suffer because those riders can't race at home, because the UCI has a silly rule, soon Sponsorships are drying up because main stream audiences do not have big names to "ooo and ahhh" about, now there is less interest from corporate America in a sport with no following in the US and everybody is fucked. now teams have no money, and the team's disband sending riders to the unemployment line.
It seems like you need to work on getting cycling more popular in the US so that tv stations will want to air it. Again you put blame on the rule but the truth is that it hasnt been enforced for a long time and it hasnt been helping the popularity it seems.
Cycling has become way more popular. Lance spiked interest in the late 90's-05, then it dipped off a bit when he retired. With races like California, Georgia(RIP), Missouri etc etc popularity is again on the rise. local races frequently sell out spots and even open new fields. For example Copperopolis Road Race was run on the 11th here in Calfornia. The race registration sold out for most categories beforehand. the permits for the race were iffy though, until Leipheiemer signed up. Look at the Tour of the Battenkill, never heard about it until big name team's committed to racing it, and I sure as hell was following it when I heard Scotty Nydam was racing.
So far you only been making a lot of statements but you are unable to back most of it up with reasoning and the times you have it has instead been more logical to use it against your cause like i have already shown.
no
I understand you might be upset that you cant see them race live this year or if you are a rider yourself you will not be able to ride with them but you shouldnt let your own selfishness stand away for the progress of cycling. If that is not the case then i apologize.
This rule stands in the way of progress in cycling. Only Isso has made a cogent argument in favor of the rule, but I am still not convinced. Bike racers are bike racers, they race their bikes. They aren't going to take it easy just because its supposed to be training and it won't be easy for them to win. back to copperopolis; Levi did NOT win Copperopolis, Ben Jacques-Maynes did, ahead of Scott Nydam and Andy Jacques-Maynes.
When a pro rider, with Astana, BMC, Bissell etc on their jerseys shows up to a race they become marked men. My buddy Tim Farnham is a Neo-Pro at Bissell, and every race he does he can't blow a snot rocket without people shitting themselves.
If 3 guys from a pro tour team want to race Gila, then they have to go up against full team's of Domestic pro's on an increasingly level playing field. 3 guys from Astana show up I'm sure that the race organizers would open up a couple spots for them, so as not to be detrimental to those who already were to sign up anyways. Remember these aren't invite only races, these are races were Pro's Cat 1's and even 2's race together, the only requirement being they sign up in a timely manner.
If you make a good argument you can get any race organizer to open new spots for your squad. My team did it at San Dimas Stage Race (the field filled in a matter of hours, and we delivered the goods, KoM, 3rd and 7th overall and 3 stage podiums.
The benefits of allowing big riders to race smaller races seem to outweigh what some would call "bad" effects by a huge margin.
I was ratehr shocked when I got home today and read the sport news on tele-text, where a head line was, "Basso dopingtested in his own home". The text said that he had wrote on his twitter that had been tested this morning. The article actually maked it sound like it was uncommom and outrageus that people are being tested out of competition. The article ended with theese words, "he has also been tested in Milano - Sanremo and on a traing trip in spain". And was the fact that Nick Nuyens was being tested at a resturant even mentioned any where? no!
BenBarnes wrote:
Thor wears a live rattlesnake as a condom.
wow that is pretty biased. Made me feel dirty and had to take a shower after reading. Please note i would have showered anyway cause i usually do that in the morning.
To say that it works in Europe and not in the US makes no sense. It just shows how little americans know about Europe. Like pointed out before in this thread Sweden got even less events then the US that the swedish pros can participate in.
Clearly it havent been working to build all cycling around one person. Work on changing that instead of trying to make excuses that everyone in the world hate Armstrong and americans. Sometimes you have to look at what you can do to make things change instead of putting blame on others. After all it works out for countries in the same situation.
A company that only sponsor so they can use Armstrongs name isnt a very good sponsor. There is something wrong if one sport is only build up around one person. And that is actually the point. Spread the wealth and glory around so other cyclists got a chance to make a living and get a shot at becoming stars too.
That glass ceiling thing makes no sense. It is a nightmare scenario that you earlier spoke about already happened. You make claims that speak for it happening after Armstrong being gone from cycling (again). If others in the US think as you and the person writing that article i do understand why cycling in the US is going under.
But it is all so confusing cause first you say noone likes cycling in the US and it is impossible to watch it on tv. Then you say it has become more popular. You say there are no sponsors and then you say there are more money from sponsors. It is very hard to understand. Seems like you sway depending on if it fits your agenda and claims at the time. To me it just makes all you say into guesses and make belief.
Last of all i dont see how you bragging about your team and people in racing you know got anything to do with this. Good for you though.
wow that is pretty biased. Made me feel dirty and had to take a shower after reading. Please note i would have showered anyway cause i usually do that in the morning.
I don't really think it was particularly biased. Clearly, like most people, Neal Rogers believes that the rule should not be applied to pro continental team's. Pro Tour Team's are understandable, but there is that 3 rider limit loophole which the UCI "interpreted" for Gila. Clearly the attitude at the UCI is that the rule is dated and poorly worded.
To say that it works in Europe and not in the US makes no sense. It just shows how little americans know about Europe. Like pointed out before in this thread Sweden got even less events then the US that the swedish pros can participate in.
As a country the United States is home to more than 300 million people(around 320 million if you count those who aren't kept track of in a succinct manner(illegal immigrants, workers on Visa, students, etc). Sweden is considerably smaller in population, and therefore has fewer pro's, AND is part of Europe, which, as pointed out earlier, is were the rule does not present such a big problem, because of the abundance of UCI races.
Clearly it havent been working to build all cycling around one person. Work on changing that instead of trying to make excuses that everyone in the world hate Armstrong and americans. Sometimes you have to look at what you can do to make things change instead of putting blame on others. After all it works out for countries in the same situation.
I'll ignore this bit(well maybe I won't), because I am hardly an Armstrong advocate. The people who lose out as a result of this ruling, as pointed out in the article, is any rider/team that wants to race on the Pro-continental and above level, i.e. BMC/Garmin/non-European team's/riders. This rule Forces riders of that caliber to race were the apropriate UCI races are, Which is predominantly in Europe. Europe is hardly a hop and a skip for North Americans, South Americans, Africans, Asians, Australians and dare I say it, **Antarcticans.
(** I kid)
A company that only sponsor so they can use Armstrongs name isnt a very good sponsor. There is something wrong if one sport is only build up around one person. And that is actually the point. Spread the wealth and glory around so other cyclists got a chance to make a living and get a shot at becoming stars too.
You missed the mark here. Armstrong isn't the point.
That glass ceiling thing makes no sense. It is a nightmare scenario that you earlier spoke about already happened. You make claims that speak for it happening after Armstrong being gone from cycling (again). If others in the US think as you and the person writing that article i do understand why cycling in the US is going under.
Cycling in the US is growing in popularity. Armstrong gave it a big boost, and is continuing to boost, but Cycling as a sport in the US would get bigger under its own steam. The glass ceiling metaphor does make sense, you are just getting hung up on the Stereotype that the cycling world holds, that all Americans are hyper-sensitive about anything anti-Lance, which simply isn't true. That stereotype is an easy fallback position which is a fallacy.
But it is all so confusing cause first you say noone likes cycling in the US and it is impossible to watch it on tv. Then you say it has become more popular. You say there are no sponsors and then you say there are more money from sponsors. It is very hard to understand. Seems like you sway depending on if it fits your agenda and claims at the time. To me it just makes all you say into guesses and make belief.
No. Maybe much of what I say is lost in translation. In America, there is a solid cycling community, and it is growing at a fast rate with the growing popularity of events such as the Tour of California and Missouri. The TV coverage though, is largely shit, but it has been getting better. For the first time this year we got live coverage of the tour of California. We have always gotten live coverage of the Tour de France. We are now getting major classics/pro tour stage races, even if it is only clips and highlights.
However events which are very important on a national level( such as Cascade, Utah, Gila, Redlands etc) all we get is what velonews.com gives us after the fact (written reports and the occasional highlight real)
If those races are so important to us (and quite frankly i'd like to see more Redlands than Qatar, more Gila than an hour of the Vuelta) why are they not UCI races? Answer: They can't pony up the cash, because of a lack of sponsors.
If a high profile rider races an event like Gila, he draws attention to the race, which gets more sponsors, which can then become UCI status, which then gets bigger and better teams, which then gets more media attention, which leads to happier fans, which means more sponsors. In Short big name riders riding a smaller race makes everyone happy: Riders can do their job(race), spectators see a good race, Sponsors are happy because lots of happy spectators are watching an event sponsored by them, the race organizers are happy, and therefore the UCI is happy, because cycling is furthered, which is the mission of the UCI.
Last of all i dont see how you bragging about your team and people in racing you know got anything to do with this. Good for you though.
Its called an example, that rarely is cycling set in stone. Race organizers are prepared to be flexible if it makes for a better event.
Edited by Levi4life on 30-04-2009 07:34
Thank you. Now you say that cycling in the states is strong enough to thrive without the stars. Something that was your main point at the start. I was a bit blunt in my last post on that part thinking you would probably retract to saying that and it worked. Nice job. I think you made enough points to hold valid that racing in the states will benefit for keeping the pros away from smaller competitions.
It is interesting that you think for example sweden has it different then the states. You made a strong argument before about sponsors not wanting to sponsor if the pros dont ride in that country. Swedish sponsors of course mostly aim for swedish market and therefor have no interest if there are many races in europe cause there target audience is in sweden. How is that different from your arguments for America? still cycling in sweden is doing pretty good. We have had some teams lately and got a good generation of riders coming out.
Since you seem to use Europe as one of your strongest arguments and it only makes sense towards around 10% of the countries in europe of wich follow this rule it comes across as pretty weak.
The bias of the article is the same bias that you show in your post. You say it is a witch hunt of Lance. That people are after America or that should get special treatment and using directly faulty arguments mostly based on ignorance and a lack of knowledge. Since you are both biased in the same way i do understand that you do not see it.
