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