In the ongoing bloodfeud between the UCI and the ASO, who do you think is right, and what will come of it. I hope that in the end this feud will result in a restructure of the UCI ProTour system, and will also drive McQuaid out (I detest him). Although it will turn this season into a mess, I think that this could be a neccesary evil for cycling.
A system similar to the current (or previous years) UCI needs to be given another go. From what i have seen in recent years, the UCI has given some stability to races and selection for bigger races, not only this but they were trying to advance the prevention of drug use, and increase testing. Whilst in the short term, this results in a higher level of detection, i believe its neccessary to rid the sport of the majority of drug abuse (you will never ever make any sport 100% clean when there is the high volumes of money involved in winning). When it comes to the "big three" tours, there should be a selection criteria similar to the UCI wildcard system, but with the ultimate decision resting upon the ASO, RCS and Unipublic with regards to who they invite. For example you have the 18 Pro Tour teams, then the 10 or so Pro-Cont squads with wildcard status (granted upon the proof of anti-doping measures in place) and then out of those 28 or so teams, the organisers get to choose who they invite or not. That way the ProTour teams also can turn around and say, no we don't want to race this or that race, and they can turn around and say, we'd really like to race this race, and to prove we're good enough to make your race worth watching we'll get results in these other races.
Either way, something needs to be sorted out pronto for this year even if its just to let the riders race for nothing, because i can't see the ASO wanting to back down for long even if they have to right now, and i can't see an Irish man backing down either.
I'm just glad its not someone else mucking around with my life and job.
rjc_43 wrote:
A system similar to the current (or previous years) UCI needs to be given another go. From what i have seen in recent years, the UCI has given some stability to races and selection for bigger races, not only this but they were trying to advance the prevention of drug use, and increase testing. Whilst in the short term, this results in a higher level of detection, i believe its neccessary to rid the sport of the majority of drug abuse (you will never ever make any sport 100% clean when there is the high volumes of money involved in winning). When it comes to the "big three" tours, there should be a selection criteria similar to the UCI wildcard system, but with the ultimate decision resting upon the ASO, RCS and Unipublic with regards to who they invite. For example you have the 18 Pro Tour teams, then the 10 or so Pro-Cont squads with wildcard status (granted upon the proof of anti-doping measures in place) and then out of those 28 or so teams, the organisers get to choose who they invite or not. That way the ProTour teams also can turn around and say, no we don't want to race this or that race, and they can turn around and say, we'd really like to race this race, and to prove we're good enough to make your race worth watching we'll get results in these other races.
Either way, something needs to be sorted out pronto for this year even if its just to let the riders race for nothing, because i can't see the ASO wanting to back down for long even if they have to right now, and i can't see an Irish man backing down either.
I'm just glad its not someone else mucking around with my life and job.
sounds like a really good idea, so obviously it will never happen
You're right it will never happen because man is greedy. And to compromise is a sign of weakness apparantly. I couldn't give a monkey's about appearing weak, i'd just want racing to be fair, honest, fast, and fun. If you get that combo right, money will follow because people will want to watch it. Oh well, nothing will happen for good from this year right away i think. It'll take years of pain, and sponsors running before the ASO realise they are crippling the sport. They should just pull out their white flags already, hasn't history taught them they suck at wars?
My idea was for a system in which all of the races in the UCI Protour were rated, and based on their ranking would only have to grant invites to certain numbers of teams.
So for instance a Level 1 Race (Grand Tour) would invite the top 3 teams in the ProTour, a level 2 Race (Milan-San Remo, Paris-Nice, etc,) would invite the top 8, and a Level 3 (Tour Down Under, etc) would invite all the ProTour teams. Only the organizers of the big races are complaning, and this would rectify that situation, along with making the Team Protour rankings relevant.
But then that requires all teams to focus on an all rounder squad. What about the squads which are really good at classics early on in the season, and score highly, they have to go do the Tour, but they don't have many contenders? whereas the good contenders aren't invited because they cant race on cobbles for example. I think with every single idea that any of us make up, there are flaws, but i just expect an organisation trying to give rules to the entirety of cycling that they'd be pretty good at getting rid of flaws. Obviously i'm wrong...
UCI first wanted to take control of ASO, RCS and Unipublic event by taking the charge of managing TV rights for their races. That's where the fuss started.
Then the Pro Tour system showed some serious weakness. Organisers have to accept some teams in their events which are either not motivated, either a pain the arse for their image. The presence of those teams means some teams which would be better (i.e. either more motivated, either more ethical) have to be left out, which sorts of kill them.
That's why GT organisers don't want that system any more.
This pisses teams off, as a Pro Tour licence is very expensive. If it doesn't give you can't ensure you'll be riding all the major big events, why pay so much for a useless and annoying licence ?
This means the death of that fool Hein Verbruggen's masterpiece. Good riddance.
Pro Tour could have been a good idea though, but as most good ideas it was applied despite common sense.
Cycling is not NBA or an "American sport" serie. It has its traditions that you can't change dramatically just because it pleases you more that way.
Of course ASO and likes are private firms, thus their reason to be is to make money (it's, fortunately, a capitalist world we live in) but Pro Tour's objectives were not any different (€€€€+$$$$+££££ !!!), unfortunately, UCI is a sports federation, not a private firm...
Now UCI is trying to bully riders and teams because its senseless project is collapsing. I feel they're going too far, and I do hope it will collapse for good and, hopefully, give birth to a new system making more sense and more respectful of what cycling really is.
This fight has look like realy nasty one..ASO and UC both dont wanna find any solution for the problem..Main power go's for what trick wwill be next to upset opponennt.
The Pro Tour rules were indeed too strict. Foolish to pre invite 20/18 teams in a 21/22 team race. Furthermore, a league with no relegation/promotion is hilarious.
But, without UCI, pro cycling will loose sportive credibility. A (sort of) democratic structure is very important! It's important that juniors and hardcore pro's are a part of the same structure. If ASO has intentions to also organise the absolute top of the pop elite races in the future, seen from a sportive perspective, they need to be a part of the international structure that UCI represents.
The sportive troubles cycling finds itself in these days, and here I'm of course thinking mainly about doping, are a direct consequence of the lack of a common agenda between the various organisations involved in cycling. Historical speaking, the realm of cycling really havent' anything to proud of, when it comes to guaranteing the sportive value of the sport.
I don't think ASO is really trying to get rid of the UCI. I feel it more like they're trying to get rid of the current UCI people, and of their bad rules.
I don't really care about who's right or wrong, I just want to get it solved. That being said, I, of course, thinks there are both positive and negative points about the Pro Tour. The positive is that it "professionalized" the sport. Some races were pointed out as "the races", the ones you just had to watch throughout a season, making it easier for TV companies t"o choose". In the end, I think cycling on TV has increased, although I have no statistics to prove it. Unfortunately, the down sides really drag the idea down a lot. First of all, I don't like the fact that there's no relegation system. I mean, you buy a license, and taadaa, you're now a top team, able to compete in all major events. No, I want them to qualify, I want them to be good enough. Therefore, I'm pro making the organizers able to decide themselves. Another idea would be to lower the amount of Pro Tour-teams, so it's only the top of the top who have a Pro Tour license - and then let the organizers decide the rest of the teams.
I see only solution is at the moment..to team's decide what to do in the future..looks like they would be more intrested about cycling future then ASO and UCI. If they dont understand that they cant sell TV rights and share power..if there would be nothing to share anymore.
Hey even like NBA and NHL (that was salary fight) let's stop that foolish situation and cancel all season...still they have finded any solution.
CrueTrue wrote:
I don't really care about who's right or wrong, I just want to get it solved. That being said, I, of course, thinks there are both positive and negative points about the Pro Tour. The positive is that it "professionalized" the sport. Some races were pointed out as "the races", the ones you just had to watch throughout a season, making it easier for TV companies t"o choose". In the end, I think cycling on TV has increased, although I have no statistics to prove it. Unfortunately, the down sides really drag the idea down a lot. First of all, I don't like the fact that there's no relegation system. I mean, you buy a license, and taadaa, you're now a top team, able to compete in all major events. No, I want them to qualify, I want them to be good enough. Therefore, I'm pro making the organizers able to decide themselves. Another idea would be to lower the amount of Pro Tour-teams, so it's only the top of the top who have a Pro Tour license - and then let the organizers decide the rest of the teams.
Just my two cents right now
Maybe a system with the best 10 teams being called Top Club or something, able to choose which races they take part in, then a second bunch of about 20 teams which could be invited on any race, and a third division of teams which can be invited on the bigger events run in their home country.
Wait, I've seen that somewhere already... Wasn't it that system they had in that sport called cycling before they changed it to the brand new Pro Tour Circus introduced by the magnificent Hein Verbruggen ?
You have 20 ProTour (or whatever you want to call it) teams.
You then have # of teams in an overall continental series (this could be anywhere from 3 to 100)
Races are split into four categories, ProTour, Continental, National, and World
World Races would include the Olympics and World Championships, they would act as they do now
National Races would be ITT and Road Race National Championships, these would also act as they do now
ProTour Races would be divided up into 5 categories- Grand Tours, Grand Classics, Lower Tours, Lower Classics, and All's
The Grand Tours and Classics would have to invite only the top 5 teams in the ProTour, and then fill out the rest of the roster with invites to teams of their choice (ProTour or Continental) This group would include the 3 Grand Tours, along with Classics such as - Milan-Sanremo, Tour di Lombardy, Liege-Bastonge-Liege, Paris-Roubaix, and races of that caliber.
The Lower Tours and Classics would have to invite the top 10 teams in the ProTour, and then fill out the rest of the roster with teams they want to invite. This group would include races such as Paris-Nice, Tour de Suisse, Clasica Ciclista San Sebastian - San Sebastian and races of that caliber.
The All group would have to invite all 20 ProTour teams, with two wild-card invites. These races could include the Tour Down Under, Eindhoven Team Time-Trial(if they were to bring it back), and could possibly include large races that are not in the calendar, so races like the Tour of California or Het Volk.
Grand Races would be worth more points than the lower ones, with The Lower Tours next
There would have to be some restructuring of the schedule to not give bonuses in terms of qualifying for races to any specialist team, such as Classics, GC, or Sprint Teams. Certainly races steeped in tradition, such as the 3 major Belgian Spring Classics, would not be moved, but others could.
The Continental Tour calender would include all races not entered into the ProTour, and the organizers would have the liberty of choosing their participants.
At the end of the year, the three lowest teams in the ProTour team ranking would be relegated, while the top three teams in the Continental tour would be promoted.
So basically you've reinvented the PCM way of making a professional structure?
I cant say i like it though, its too much like the ProTour as it is already. Namely by the fact that would mean there would still be a ProTour like entity.
You have 20 ProTour (or whatever you want to call it) teams.
You then have # of teams in an overall continental series (this could be anywhere from 3 to 100)
Races are split into four categories, ProTour, Continental, National, and World
World Races would include the Olympics and World Championships, they would act as they do now
National Races would be ITT and Road Race National Championships, these would also act as they do now
ProTour Races would be divided up into 5 categories- Grand Tours, Grand Classics, Lower Tours, Lower Classics, and All's
The Grand Tours and Classics would have to invite only the top 5 teams in the ProTour, and then fill out the rest of the roster with invites to teams of their choice (ProTour or Continental) This group would include the 3 Grand Tours, along with Classics such as - Milan-Sanremo, Tour di Lombardy, Liege-Bastonge-Liege, Paris-Roubaix, and races of that caliber.
The Lower Tours and Classics would have to invite the top 10 teams in the ProTour, and then fill out the rest of the roster with teams they want to invite. This group would include races such as Paris-Nice, Tour de Suisse, Clasica Ciclista San Sebastian - San Sebastian and races of that caliber.
The All group would have to invite all 20 ProTour teams, with two wild-card invites. These races could include the Tour Down Under, Eindhoven Team Time-Trial(if they were to bring it back), and could possibly include large races that are not in the calendar, so races like the Tour of California or Het Volk.
Grand Races would be worth more points than the lower ones, with The Lower Tours next
There would have to be some restructuring of the schedule to not give bonuses in terms of qualifying for races to any specialist team, such as Classics, GC, or Sprint Teams. Certainly races steeped in tradition, such as the 3 major Belgian Spring Classics, would not be moved, but others could.
The Continental Tour calender would include all races not entered into the ProTour, and the organizers would have the liberty of choosing their participants.
At the end of the year, the three lowest teams in the ProTour team ranking would be relegated, while the top three teams in the Continental tour would be promoted.
So what do people think of the proposal?
That has the same problem as the UCI's previous system, only further aggravated.
12 teams will get invited to most of the races, the others will get very few invites and will be relegated because of it.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
So basically you've reinvented the PCM way of making a professional structure?
I cant say i like it though, its too much like the ProTour as it is already. Namely by the fact that would mean there would still be a ProTour like entity.
You know what the problem with the ProTour is? each race there are 3-4 teams who are only there because they have to.
You know what the problem with the old system is? The 5-6 biggest races are fully contested and all other races have half or more of the teams going "hi. we're here on a training ride. We'll be going full gas in only about 3 races all season. Exciting, isn't it?"
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Oh well, nothing will happen for good from this year right away i think. It'll take years of pain, and sponsors running before the ASO realise they are crippling the sport. They should just pull out their white flags already, hasn't history taught them they suck at wars? 
