Issues, What Issues?

Tom Kunich said:

Has anyone managed to sort out what the disagreement is between UCI and
the grand tour organizers?

The interview with Senor Cordero demonstrated that he appears to be a
very thoughtful and intelligent man. And Pat McQuiacd quite frankly
came off like a nutcase. I mean can anyone suggest why racers in the
middle east who are trying to grow their sport (as important as that
is) have anything to do with the Grand Tour announcements?

Moreover can anyone imagine the spring without the most important of
the races?

Obviously there are two points that are in disagreement - one on money
and the other on power. It should be underscored that the UCI should
have little to say on either case since they are a SANCTIONING BODY and
not a government.

One thing that I really don't like is the UCI appears to, over the last
decade, to be pushing the monetary requirements of the various teams up
and up and up. Demanding that top teams appear at every Pro Tour race
may be helpful to small organizers but it only makes it increasingly
difficult to put together teams since it forces them to seek very large
companies to fund them.

Let's face it, there are extremely limited areas of advertising
potential in bicycle racing. Races are too big, cover too much ground,
pass through areas in which advertising isn't possible etc.

OF COURSE the UCI wants to demand that big teams attend all the races.
That's because they are financially tied to the NUMBERS of riders.
Making big teams attend all the races means that they have to hire a
lot more riders. This appears to be what McQuaid calls "growing the
sport".

Sorry, but I'm not on this track. As far as I'm concerned the top teams
should be required to meet a certain REASONABLE number of races. beyond
that it should be purely at their own disgression.

I agree, but from what I can gather, most of the teams and sponsors
seem to support the UCI position. Why is that? There must be some
kind of direct or indirect financial benefit that they are anticipating
with the Protour, but I'm not sure what it is (unless it is just the
fact that they already plunked down huge amounts of money to join the
Protour and they don't want to see it go under).

Bruce in San Diego

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Has anyone managed to sort out what the disagreement is between UCI and
the grand tour organizers?

The interview with Senor Cordero demonstrated that he appears to be a
very thoughtful and intelligent man. And Pat McQuiacd quite frankly
came off like a nutcase. I mean can anyone suggest why racers in the
middle east who are trying to grow their sport (as important as that
is) have anything to do with the Grand Tour announcements?

Moreover can anyone imagine the spring without the most important of
the races?

Obviously there are two points that are in disagreement - one on money
and the other on power. It should be underscored that the UCI should
have little to say on either case since they are a SANCTIONING BODY and
not a government.

One thing that I really don't like is the UCI appears to, over the last
decade, to be pushing the monetary requirements of the various teams up
and up and up. Demanding that top teams appear at every Pro Tour race
may be helpful to small organizers but it only makes it increasingly
difficult to put together teams since it forces them to seek very large
companies to fund them.

Let's face it, there are extremely limited areas of advertising
potential in bicycle racing. Races are too big, cover too much ground,
pass through areas in which advertising isn't possible etc.

OF COURSE the UCI wants to demand that big teams attend all the races.
That's because they are financially tied to the NUMBERS of riders.
Making big teams attend all the races means that they have to hire a
lot more riders. This appears to be what McQuaid calls "growing the
sport".

Sorry, but I'm not on this track. As far as I'm concerned the top teams
should be required to meet a certain REASONABLE number of races. beyond
that it should be purely at their own disgression.

I agree, but from what I can gather, most of the teams and sponsors
seem to support the UCI position. Why is that? There must be some
kind of direct or indirect financial benefit that they are anticipating
with the Protour, but I'm not sure what it is (unless it is just the
fact that they already plunked down huge amounts of money to join the
Protour and they don't want to see it go under).

Bruce in San Diego

Maybe because it would take major balls for them to revolt. The UCI is
a dictator over top level cycling and trying to take out the dictator
has historically had really ugly results unless you succeed. They would
have to be willing to fight to the death, of possibly the teams and
sport, to fight the UCI. When there isn't a huge benefit for most of
the people they tend to just go along with the dicatator rather than
take the risk. As long as they are being picked off one at a time and
are all fighting each other to be the apple of the dictator's eye they
aren't going to actually grow a backbone unless they see a huge short
term profit in it . This is the Czechs getting run over twice while the
world did nothing because it wasn't worth the risk to support them.
Bill C

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Has anyone managed to sort out what the disagreement is between UCI and
the grand tour organizers?

The interview with Senor Cordero demonstrated that he appears to be a
very thoughtful and intelligent man. And Pat McQuiacd quite frankly
came off like a nutcase. I mean can anyone suggest why racers in the
middle east who are trying to grow their sport (as important as that
is) have anything to do with the Grand Tour announcements?

Moreover can anyone imagine the spring without the most important of
the races?

Obviously there are two points that are in disagreement - one on money
and the other on power. It should be underscored that the UCI should
have little to say on either case since they are a SANCTIONING BODY and
not a government.

One thing that I really don't like is the UCI appears to, over the last
decade, to be pushing the monetary requirements of the various teams up
and up and up. Demanding that top teams appear at every Pro Tour race
may be helpful to small organizers but it only makes it increasingly
difficult to put together teams since it forces them to seek very large
companies to fund them.

Let's face it, there are extremely limited areas of advertising
potential in bicycle racing. Races are too big, cover too much ground,
pass through areas in which advertising isn't possible etc.

OF COURSE the UCI wants to demand that big teams attend all the races.
That's because they are financially tied to the NUMBERS of riders.
Making big teams attend all the races means that they have to hire a
lot more riders. This appears to be what McQuaid calls "growing the
sport".

Sorry, but I'm not on this track. As far as I'm concerned the top teams
should be required to meet a certain REASONABLE number of races. beyond
that it should be purely at their own disgression.

I agree, but from what I can gather, most of the teams and sponsors
seem to support the UCI position. Why is that? There must be some
kind of direct or indirect financial benefit that they are anticipating
with the Protour, but I'm not sure what it is (unless it is just the
fact that they already plunked down huge amounts of money to join the
Protour and they don't want to see it go under).

Bruce in San Diego

Maybe because it would take major balls for them to revolt. The UCI is
a dictator over top level cycling and trying to take out the dictator
has historically had really ugly results unless you succeed. They would
have to be willing to fight to the death, of possibly the teams and
sport, to fight the UCI. When there isn't a huge benefit for most of
the people they tend to just go along with the dicatator rather than
take the risk. As long as they are being picked off one at a time and
are all fighting each other to be the apple of the dictator's eye they
aren't going to actually grow a backbone unless they see a huge short
term profit in it . This is the Czechs getting run over twice while the
world did nothing because it wasn't worth the risk to support them.
Bill C

Or maybe the Riders, teams and sponsors prefer the UCI right now
because of things like the Giro promoters insisting on a double stage
at the end of a three week race. Let's face it if the Grand Tour
promoters win this fight then the teams and riders may get stuck with
things they don't like like more double stages, fewer rest days, longer
stages etc. At least the UCI seems more reasonable in listening to the
riders and being against things like double stages unlike the Giro
promoters.

"Casey Kerrigan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Has anyone managed to sort out what the disagreement is between UCI
> and
> the grand tour organizers?
>
> The interview with Senor Cordero demonstrated that he appears to be a
> very thoughtful and intelligent man. And Pat McQuiacd quite frankly
> came off like a nutcase. I mean can anyone suggest why racers in the
> middle east who are trying to grow their sport (as important as that
> is) have anything to do with the Grand Tour announcements?
>
> Moreover can anyone imagine the spring without the most important of
> the races?
>
> Obviously there are two points that are in disagreement - one on
> money
> and the other on power. It should be underscored that the UCI should
> have little to say on either case since they are a SANCTIONING BODY
> and
> not a government.
>
> One thing that I really don't like is the UCI appears to, over the
> last
> decade, to be pushing the monetary requirements of the various teams
> up
> and up and up. Demanding that top teams appear at every Pro Tour race
> may be helpful to small organizers but it only makes it increasingly
> difficult to put together teams since it forces them to seek very
> large
> companies to fund them.
>
> Let's face it, there are extremely limited areas of advertising
> potential in bicycle racing. Races are too big, cover too much
> ground,
> pass through areas in which advertising isn't possible etc.
>
> OF COURSE the UCI wants to demand that big teams attend all the
> races.
> That's because they are financially tied to the NUMBERS of riders.
> Making big teams attend all the races means that they have to hire a
> lot more riders. This appears to be what McQuaid calls "growing the
> sport".
>
> Sorry, but I'm not on this track. As far as I'm concerned the top
> teams
> should be required to meet a certain REASONABLE number of races.
> beyond
> that it should be purely at their own disgression.

I agree, but from what I can gather, most of the teams and sponsors
seem to support the UCI position. Why is that? There must be some
kind of direct or indirect financial benefit that they are anticipating
with the Protour, but I'm not sure what it is (unless it is just the
fact that they already plunked down huge amounts of money to join the
Protour and they don't want to see it go under).

Bruce in San Diego

Maybe because it would take major balls for them to revolt. The UCI is
a dictator over top level cycling and trying to take out the dictator
has historically had really ugly results unless you succeed. They would
have to be willing to fight to the death, of possibly the teams and
sport, to fight the UCI. When there isn't a huge benefit for most of
the people they tend to just go along with the dicatator rather than
take the risk. As long as they are being picked off one at a time and
are all fighting each other to be the apple of the dictator's eye they
aren't going to actually grow a backbone unless they see a huge short
term profit in it . This is the Czechs getting run over twice while the
world did nothing because it wasn't worth the risk to support them.
Bill C

Or maybe the Riders, teams and sponsors prefer the UCI right now
because of things like the Giro promoters insisting on a double stage
at the end of a three week race. Let's face it if the Grand Tour
promoters win this fight then the teams and riders may get stuck with
things they don't like like more double stages, fewer rest days, longer
stages etc. At least the UCI seems more reasonable in listening to the
riders and being against things like double stages unlike the Giro
promoters.

Come on Casey, you were the head of a revolt and you know damned well that
you ended up with things your way. Do you suppose the promotors of the
worlds best races are going to lose ground?

And as for double stages - I'm sure that was for reasons other than strategy
on the part of the Giro promotors. They simply couldn't turn the money down.
But a RIDERS STRIKE could change the face of that really fast and you know
that. It was the riders and not the UCI that limited double stages in the
past.

In article <[email hidden]>, Tom

Kunich said:

"Casey Kerrigan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Has anyone managed to sort out what the disagreement is between UCI
> > and
> > the grand tour organizers?
> >
> > The interview with Senor Cordero demonstrated that he appears to be a
> > very thoughtful and intelligent man. And Pat McQuiacd quite frankly
> > came off like a nutcase. I mean can anyone suggest why racers in the
> > middle east who are trying to grow their sport (as important as that
> > is) have anything to do with the Grand Tour announcements?
> >
> > Moreover can anyone imagine the spring without the most important of
> > the races?
> >
> > Obviously there are two points that are in disagreement - one on
> > money
> > and the other on power. It should be underscored that the UCI should
> > have little to say on either case since they are a SANCTIONING BODY
> > and
> > not a government.
> >
> > One thing that I really don't like is the UCI appears to, over the
> > last
> > decade, to be pushing the monetary requirements of the various teams
> > up
> > and up and up. Demanding that top teams appear at every Pro Tour race
> > may be helpful to small organizers but it only makes it increasingly
> > difficult to put together teams since it forces them to seek very
> > large
> > companies to fund them.
> >
> > Let's face it, there are extremely limited areas of advertising
> > potential in bicycle racing. Races are too big, cover too much
> > ground,
> > pass through areas in which advertising isn't possible etc.
> >
> > OF COURSE the UCI wants to demand that big teams attend all the
> > races.
> > That's because they are financially tied to the NUMBERS of riders.
> > Making big teams attend all the races means that they have to hire a
> > lot more riders. This appears to be what McQuaid calls "growing the
> > sport".
> >
> > Sorry, but I'm not on this track. As far as I'm concerned the top
> > teams
> > should be required to meet a certain REASONABLE number of races.
> > beyond
> > that it should be purely at their own disgression.
>
> I agree, but from what I can gather, most of the teams and sponsors
> seem to support the UCI position. Why is that? There must be some
> kind of direct or indirect financial benefit that they are anticipating
> with the Protour, but I'm not sure what it is (unless it is just the
> fact that they already plunked down huge amounts of money to join the
> Protour and they don't want to see it go under).
>
> Bruce in San Diego

Maybe because it would take major balls for them to revolt. The UCI is
a dictator over top level cycling and trying to take out the dictator
has historically had really ugly results unless you succeed. They would
have to be willing to fight to the death, of possibly the teams and
sport, to fight the UCI. When there isn't a huge benefit for most of
the people they tend to just go along with the dicatator rather than
take the risk. As long as they are being picked off one at a time and
are all fighting each other to be the apple of the dictator's eye they
aren't going to actually grow a backbone unless they see a huge short
term profit in it . This is the Czechs getting run over twice while the
world did nothing because it wasn't worth the risk to support them.
Bill C

Or maybe the Riders, teams and sponsors prefer the UCI right now
because of things like the Giro promoters insisting on a double stage
at the end of a three week race. Let's face it if the Grand Tour
promoters win this fight then the teams and riders may get stuck with
things they don't like like more double stages, fewer rest days, longer
stages etc. At least the UCI seems more reasonable in listening to the
riders and being against things like double stages unlike the Giro
promoters.

Come on Casey, you were the head of a revolt and you know damned well that
you ended up with things your way. Do you suppose the promotors of the
worlds best races are going to lose ground?

Different battle different tactics. When you are talking about local
racing with local riders the side that has the promoters and the races
wins. At the Pro level of the sport where the number of riders is much
smaller and those riders are use to traveling all over to do races the
side that has the support of the riders wins. Why do you think the GT
promoters are willing to pay off the teams to come to their races. At
the Pro level the riders are the attraction. What happens if the top
teams boycott the GTs? Sure the GT promoters can bring in second and
third string teams but will that draw the spectators and media?

Remember that under the Pro Tour all the top team are assured of
getting into all the GTs. UNder the GT promoters proposal only 14 teams
are assured of getting in and the others have to hope for a wild card
spot. I think the teams and their sponsors would prefer the sure thing
of getting into the GTs.

Well, I respect your opinions and have to give them weight but I
believe that the three big guns in this battle have ALL of the
ammunition.

Essentially ALL of the great races are in their corner.

Of course you're right that the Tour de France with Clyde Dufferbottom
winning isn't going to carry the same weight as a battle between Basso,
Ullrich and Valverde but what chances do you really give of:

1) The UCI holding out
2) If they do the teams NOT attending the great Tours?

BTW - what about the idea of putting on a weekly training cross race
for say C and B in San Leandro next year?

I thought one of the major issues was the lack of an upgrading and
downgrading mechanism. Cordero said soccer doesn't give four year
licences to the Champions league, implying that why should cycling.
(By the way, can this difference be explained by the team vs individual
nature of the sports? Yeah, I know cycling is a team sport, but the
results ares still individual.)

On the other hand, the UCI was trying to make sponsoring a team more
attractive. I.e. if a sponsor bucked up, they could get into all the
big races.

Could the answer be something like fewer compulsory places in each
race, and a upgrade/downgrade system that required teams to either buy
higher ranked riders or perform to stay in the top 14 or 16 or 18?

Casey Kerrigan said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Has anyone managed to sort out what the disagreement is between UCI and
> the grand tour organizers?
>
> The interview with Senor Cordero demonstrated that he appears to be a
> very thoughtful and intelligent man. And Pat McQuiacd quite frankly
> came off like a nutcase. I mean can anyone suggest why racers in the
> middle east who are trying to grow their sport (as important as that
> is) have anything to do with the Grand Tour announcements?
>
> Moreover can anyone imagine the spring without the most important of
> the races?
>
> Obviously there are two points that are in disagreement - one on money
> and the other on power. It should be underscored that the UCI should
> have little to say on either case since they are a SANCTIONING BODY and
> not a government.
>
> One thing that I really don't like is the UCI appears to, over the last
> decade, to be pushing the monetary requirements of the various teams up
> and up and up. Demanding that top teams appear at every Pro Tour race
> may be helpful to small organizers but it only makes it increasingly
> difficult to put together teams since it forces them to seek very large
> companies to fund them.
>
> Let's face it, there are extremely limited areas of advertising
> potential in bicycle racing. Races are too big, cover too much ground,
> pass through areas in which advertising isn't possible etc.
>
> OF COURSE the UCI wants to demand that big teams attend all the races.
> That's because they are financially tied to the NUMBERS of riders.
> Making big teams attend all the races means that they have to hire a
> lot more riders. This appears to be what McQuaid calls "growing the
> sport".
>
> Sorry, but I'm not on this track. As far as I'm concerned the top teams
> should be required to meet a certain REASONABLE number of races. beyond
> that it should be purely at their own disgression.

I agree, but from what I can gather, most of the teams and sponsors
seem to support the UCI position. Why is that? There must be some
kind of direct or indirect financial benefit that they are anticipating
with the Protour, but I'm not sure what it is (unless it is just the
fact that they already plunked down huge amounts of money to join the
Protour and they don't want to see it go under).

Bruce in San Diego

Maybe because it would take major balls for them to revolt. The UCI is
a dictator over top level cycling and trying to take out the dictator
has historically had really ugly results unless you succeed. They would
have to be willing to fight to the death, of possibly the teams and
sport, to fight the UCI. When there isn't a huge benefit for most of
the people they tend to just go along with the dicatator rather than
take the risk. As long as they are being picked off one at a time and
are all fighting each other to be the apple of the dictator's eye they
aren't going to actually grow a backbone unless they see a huge short
term profit in it . This is the Czechs getting run over twice while the
world did nothing because it wasn't worth the risk to support them.
Bill C

Or maybe the Riders, teams and sponsors prefer the UCI right now
because of things like the Giro promoters insisting on a double stage
at the end of a three week race. Let's face it if the Grand Tour
promoters win this fight then the teams and riders may get stuck with
things they don't like like more double stages, fewer rest days, longer
stages etc. At least the UCI seems more reasonable in listening to the
riders and being against things like double stages unlike the Giro
promoters.

Has anyone interviewed the teams excluded from the pro-tour for 4
years how they feel about the UCI, and has anyone asked the teams how
they feel about having to seriously expand their budgets and teams to
meet the Pro-Tour requirements?
I don't think either side really gives a [censored] about the riders or well
being of the teams, and each side is selectively listening to, and
pandering to those teams they think they can reach. This is about
money, politics, and power, just like everything else the teams and
riders are at best incredibly weak playes in this game unless they band
together solidly, and that will split the sport right down the middle.
Take a good look at what happened when the IRL split away from CART
and the massive, immediate negative impact it had on both. CART is
dying, and the IRL is finally recovering, but they're nowhere near
where they were before. A lot of the issues are the same too. The IRL
people were concerned that the sport was becoming formula 1 light, and
teams were folding due to the huge costs, and the talent pool was
shrinking down to basically an F1 farm system based on Euro drivers,
that wasn't going to work long term in mid-america where the core
support for the sport was.
Nascar took advantage of the situation and shot through the roof.
Unfortunately the sponsors for cycling could decided, quite quickly, to
spend their dollars somewhere with less negative publicity.
The pro-tour was incredibly badly thought out and rammed down
everyone's throat by the UCI. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the
P-T teams are privately saying "Why the hell didn't the G-T people step
up before we spent all this cash to restructure and kiss the UCI's
ass?" Those teams have already made the investment and are on the
inside, so it shouldn't come as any surprise that they are supporting
the UCI, but if they are forced to either give up the G-T races, or
desert the UCI, I see them deserting. I think the UCI may very well try
to block the teams from doing those races by threatening to remove
their official standing. This could very well even result in split
governing bodies for cycling. We know that the Olympics are going to
side with the UCI, but the reality is that cycling doesn't need the
Olympics, especially with the controversial cuts to the program.
I'm just hoping that the riders and teams, who have the real power
once they realise it, get together and force a rational settlement.
Bill C

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Has anyone interviewed the teams excluded from the pro-tour for 4

Quoted message said:

years how they feel about the UCI, and has anyone asked the teams how
they feel about having to seriously expand their budgets and teams to
meet the Pro-Tour requirements?

Quoted message said:

The pro-tour was incredibly badly thought out and rammed down
everyone's throat by the UCI. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the
P-T teams are privately saying "Why the hell didn't the G-T people step
up before we spent all this cash to restructure and kiss the UCI's
ass?" Those teams have already made the investment and are on the
inside, so it shouldn't come as any surprise that they are supporting
the UCI, but if they are forced to either give up the G-T races, or
desert the UCI, I see them deserting. I think the UCI may very well try
to block the teams from doing those races by threatening to remove
their official standing.

The UCI could easily say that teams that ride the races that the
owners/promoters of the GTs put on will be banned from riding the rest of the
calender. But the races that the other guys have are some of the biggest of the
year. While it's true that the riders do make the race, those races do have a
pretty big reputation, so it seems hard to believe that too many riders will
pass up the chance to ride them. What Italian doesn't want to ride Milan-San
Remo (for instance)?

Quoted message said:

We know that the Olympics are going to side with the UCI, but the reality is
that cycling doesn't need the Olympics, especially with the controversial cuts
to the program.

Well, road and mountain cycling don't really *need* the Olympics, but I think
that track sort of does. At least it's always seemed to be a big deal for
trackies to go to the Olympics.

Quoted message said:

I'm just hoping that the riders and teams, who have the real power
once they realise it, get together and force a rational settlement.

Let's hope so.

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

From:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/dec05/dec17news

Discovery Channel Pro Cycling team together as one of the key elements
of the nascent ProTour, Johan told us, "It's been a lot of work and
cost us a lot of money for all the new riders we need and new staff we
need to become a ProTour team. But it will be worth it."
Bill C

Duh. If it wasn't worth it, they wouldn't do it.

Bill C said:

amit said:

despite the pressure the protour puts on teams, teams stand to gain the
most from the protour arragement, since it allows them to guarantee
their sponsor exposure at the big races.

From:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/dec05/dec17news

Discovery Channel Pro Cycling team together as one of the key elements
of the nascent ProTour, Johan told us, "It's been a lot of work and
cost us a lot of money for all the new riders we need and new staff we
need to become a ProTour team. But it will be worth it."

reading the rest of the article it's obvious bruyneel reads rbr and
read my post the day before.