Pro Tour

Howard Cohen said:

Of course the Pro Tour teams will publically support the Tour. They have a
large investment in their team and the UCI could make it hard on them if
they supported the UCI's alter ego.

My guess is that for that reason the UCI will prevail.

plonk

Me said:

Butt wait!! "Assmunch" Me is right up "Me" my ass!! in
second place! i can't help it because i was droped
on my head two many times when i was a baby
2 years ago

that sounds about right.

Howard Cohen said:

Of course the Pro Tour teams will publically support the Tour. They have a
large investment in their team and the UCI could make it hard on them if
they supported the UCI's alter ego.

My guess is that for that reason the UCI will prevail.

Yeah Howard that's pretty much my take too. Since the PT teams have
already made a big extra investment to join the elite club, they are
going to support it. Kinda like all the elite male golfers supporting
Augusta's ban on women members. If your in and privileged, cefend the
status quo.
I wish cyclingnews.com would do an off the record survey with all the
other teams on the outside and see what they have to say without using
names. Bet you'd get a little different result. Publicly they aren't
going to [censored] the UCI for fear of retaliation, but off the record
I'd bet it's a whole different story.
Bill C

Am I seeing a pattern here? Pound criticizes the UCI for doing little
against doping. The Tour (and sister company Equipe) are among the most
outspoken critics of doping. The teams side with the UCI on the
protour, against the grand tours. Now the riders organization jump on
Pound. Are the battle lines drawn for more than the Protour?

If so, which side should we support? It seems to me the grand tour
organizers have a lot to lose by unchecked doping. Polls show a large
majority of European citizens equate doping with cycling. It has to
make grand tour sponsors nervous. What company would want that
association?

What I don't understand is why the team sponsors don't feel the
same. Or maybe they do, but have chosen to 'shoot the messenger',
versus the 'let's try to deal with it' approach of the French
government, the Tour, and Equipe. Undoubtedly the teams and riders
association feel strength in numbers, and the tours are relatively
isolated.

My guess is teams can quickly dump a guilty rider and maintain the
image of honesty for the sponsor. Proving teams organize doping is
difficult. But a race can't dodge the image the sport has brought on
itself, so it has to do something about it. If I'm right, we should
back the Tours and ask our national reps to speak with McQuaid.

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

Quoted message said:

Ok, a couple of simple questions, what happens when the UCI cancels
the licenses for both the riders and teams, and drops the insurance,
and generally starts playing hardball, or even threatening it to anyone
who chose to compete in the alternate GT series? When they make it
clear anyone who rides will be blackballed from all future UCI
ativities for life do you think the GTs are going to have the balls to
go it with whovever isn't intimidated, or are they going to have to
cave in?
The UCI has the teams and riders by the balls unless the GTs go the
whole way and try to set up a complete organizing/sanctioning body,
then they'd have to try and sell it to the national federations too.
Gonna be a tough road.
On the other hand the GTs have a whole lot of the premier races and
not many other cards to play other than trying to convince the small
teams on the outside that they are fighting for them, despite the
limited slots in the races, and the questionable discretionary choices
over the years.

It may not be as simple as the UCI cancelling licenses. I'll check later to
see if I can find a non-compete clause, but I doubt it exists. AFAIK the UCI
could play the card of pulling the GT organizer's races sanctions for their
races. Maybe the GT organizers won't care. I don't think the UCI is a
provider or source for insurance, at least not like USAC in the US.

But in my mind the biggest factor may be European right-to-work laws. They
could nullify the UCI trying to blackball the miscreants. Somebody else
(Sandy?) can tell us if that is the case.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Ok, a couple of simple questions, what happens when the UCI cancels
the licenses for both the riders and teams, and drops the insurance,
and generally starts playing hardball, or even threatening it to anyone
who chose to compete in the alternate GT series? When they make it
clear anyone who rides will be blackballed from all future UCI
ativities for life do you think the GTs are going to have the balls to
go it with whovever isn't intimidated, or are they going to have to
cave in?

Then when they blackball enough riders, the riders go
elsewhere; and UCI dries up and blows away.

--
Michael Press

Bill C said:

amit wrote:

Quoted message said:

Ok, a couple of simple questions, what happens when the UCI cancels
the licenses for both the riders and teams, and drops the insurance,

well anyone can buy insurance. there are lots of non-UCI sanctioned
cycling events which are insured. (carl also covered this).

Quoted message said:

and generally starts playing hardball, or even threatening it to anyone
who chose to compete in the alternate GT series? When they make it
clear anyone who rides will be blackballed from all future UCI
ativities for life

they certainly could (and would if there wasn't an agreement) suspend
riders, but the UCI only has jurisdiction over license holders. but for
life ? why would they do that ? say i never get a UCI license and get
an alternate license, that means I can never ever ever get a UCI
license ? even though the suspension for using EPO is only two years ?

The UCI isn't a god that just hands down rules, the rules are voted on,
and members have the power to change the rules.

the thing you don't realize is that when some group or person does
something or takes a particular stance it's not arbitrary, it's because
they're thinking of their own interests. your scenarios aren't logical.

how is it in the UCI's interest to alienate the organizers of the
highest profile events and the top riders. sponsors pay for exposure,
they don't pay the UCI to sanction races. they could care less who the
governig body is.

Quoted message said:

do you think the GTs are going to have the balls to
go it with whovever isn't intimidated, or are they going to have to
cave in?

it's the GT that have been walkig away from the table not the UCI.
they're not playing hard to get because of their ego. it's not a
question of "balls", it's money.

Quoted message said:

The UCI has the teams and riders by the balls unless the GTs go the
whole way and try to set up a complete organizing/sanctioning body,
then they'd have to try and sell it to the national federations too.

they don't have to. does the NBA care about the national basketball
federations ? no, the governing bodies work to accomodate the pro
leagues. the pro-league could even organize their own championship (the
US already has this USCF/USPRO). it certainly happens in pro sports
like basketball and hockey.

the main thing they stand to lose is the Olympics, but professional
cycling has done fine for many years without the Olympics.

Quoted message said:

Gonna be a tough road.
On the other hand the GTs have a whole lot of the premier races and
not many other cards to play other than trying to convince the small
teams on the outside that they are fighting for them,

i do agree that the smaller teams and races lose out with the protour,
but that was last year's issue. that's not the issue that's the active
debate right now.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sandy said:

But the ringer remains that CH is *not* part of
the EU. At least, not yet. The country has made it clear that it sees its
future in the Union, and that could shake things up.

You mention twice that CH is not part of the EU. Yet if
they do business in the EU they must conform to at least
some of the ways business is conducted in the EU. Yes? No?
Comments?

--
Michael Press