Michael Ball

Overall, I think Michael Ball is good for cycling. Here's my reasoning:

On the negative side, the guy is an egotist and is duplicitous. He is against the Slipstream model and sounds like a doping apologist when it comes to protecting his tainted riders.

But here are my thoughts on his positives:

First of all he can help to change cycling's image to "cool" which will especially help raise the public and media profile of cycling (as long as his riders aren't testing positive).

Second of all, I don't believe things are going to change in cycling because all the owners/DS's/riders get together and say that they promise to be clean. It only takes one team to be dirty on the honor system, and the whole house of cards tumbles (and human nature suggests that people will dishonor and exploit agreements for self gain). Cycling is only going to clean up IMHO when controls make doping too risky. If doping becomes too risky, guys like Ball are going to have to play by the rules in any case.

Thirdly, he is against the current powers in cycling that have progressively helped to wreck the sport through weak and corrupt governance.

Fourthly, he is behind the creation of a rider's union which I think is needed to protect the rights of riders against ineptitude and corruption from the powers that hold all the cards at present, and who don't seem to mind burning a few sacrificial lambs for the evils of the many.

Fifthly, the guy is prepared to invest significantly in the sport and take a personal interest, and contribute more than the average sponsor, like a Credit Agricole for instance, which possibly has a Commercial Director who is into cycling and has convinced the company bosses to sponsor a team.

Crankyfeet said:

First of all he can help to change cycling's image to "cool" which will especially help raise the public and media profile of cycling (as long as his riders aren't testing positive).

There's a thin line between being cool and being a tool.

More smokin' hot honeys at cycling events cannot hurt, though.

Crankyfeet said:

Overall, I think Michael Ball is good for cycling. Here's my reasoning:

On the negative side, the guy is an egotist and is duplicitous. He is against the Slipstream model and sounds like a doping apologist when it comes to protecting his tainted riders.

But here are my thoughts on his positives:

First of all he can help to change cycling's image to "cool" which will especially help raise the public and media profile of cycling (as long as his riders aren't testing positive).

Second of all, I don't believe things are going to change in cycling cause all the owners/DS's/riders get together and say that they promise to be clean. It only takes one team to be dirty on the honor system, and the whole house of cards tumbles (and human nature suggests that people will dishonor and exploit agreements for self gain). Cycling is only going to clean up IMHO when controls make doping too risky. If doping becomes too risky, guys like Ball are going to have to play by the rules in any case.

Thirdly, he is against the current powers in cycling that have progressively helped to wreck the sport through weak and corrupt governance.

Fourthly, he is behind the creation of a rider's union which I think is needed to protect the rights of riders against ineptitude and corruption from the powers that hold all the cards at present, and who don't seem to mind burning a few sacrificial lambs for the evils of the many.

Fifthly, the guy is prepared to invest significantly in the sport and take a personal interest, and contribute more than the average sponsor, like a Credit Agricole for instance, which possibly has a Commercial Director who is into cycling and has convinced the company bosses to sponsor a team.

your first assumption's premise is that adding cool will bring new possibilities of participants and change the natural order. I tend to think that is limited, and that it will just cannibalise some of the current cycling adherents.

second, doping is an externality and the ultimate example of a market failure. Here you have a sport, which could quite conceivably have twice the revenue if it was clean. Clean cycling economy = 2x current economy. You need to alter the incentive structure to ride clean. I think it is incorrect to use the current model of deterrence and penalty.

third he is against the duplicity, but maintains a duplicity, and wants doping to go underground. Doping cannot even be put completely underground since it became more than uppers and amphetamines. The policing authorities will do the job the UCI refuses to do, and Ball wishes it returned to, the pre-98 MO.

4th. There is a union. And there is the union you saw in 1999 in the Tour. There is a peloton. That is a union, one needs to realise that is in itself a union. The union that blackbanned Christophe Bassons.

So, you have a union which exists to protect the status quo of doping, and buttress the barriers to entry. The patrone spoke. Believe in miracles.

Ball is great insofar as it is a conservative sport, with little innovation. He offers up the possibilities.

Dont need the BS tho

thunder said:

You need to alter the incentive structure to ride clean. I think it is incorrect to use the current model of deterrence and penalty.

Can you explain any ideas you have of how this could be achieved?

thunder said:

4th. There is a union. And there is the union you saw in 1999 in the Tour. There is a peloton. That is a union, one needs to realise that is in itself a union. The union that blackbanned Christophe Bassons.

So, you have a union which exists to protect the status quo of doping, and buttress the barriers to entry. The patrone spoke. Believe in miracles.

I don't think the "peloton" is a formal union to protect the rights of cyclists. It's informal nature allows it to be abused to protect the rights of the senior "few". Not to say that unions can't be corrupted in any case.

there is a union. Moser and Voigt. The reason it sucks, is because it is fractured and dysfunctional because of doping. Doping undermines the whole operation.

Bro Deal said:

There's a thin line between being cool and being a tool.

More smokin' hot honeys at cycling events cannot hurt, though.

I hear your point, and I think his idea of "cool" is pretty immature for someone his age... but hey...that might be why he is so successful selling to 25 year olds.

I just have a hunch that he will encourage more media attention and television coverage than the average "plain vanilla" sponsor, and as long as he doesn't have his riders doping all over the shop, then it will be good for expanding cycling's profile.

We should remember: in the end he has to play by the rules... he doesn't make the rules.

Crankyfeet said:

Can you explain any ideas you have of how this could be achieved?

you need a new business model.

One that can pay a rider for performances they do not get.

The market is predicated on results and publicity. You get paid for results.

See Casar, might win the Tour if doped. He is almost a nobody clean. You have to pay him for that. You still have to invert the red queen effect. So you still have to get the top riders clean, that is the major predicament. You can do that, if there is a transparency.

Crankyfeet said:

I hear your point, and I think his idea of "cool" is pretty immature for someone his age... but hey...that might be why he is so successful selling to 25 year olds.

I just have a hunch that he will encourage more media attention and television coverage than the average "plain vanilla" sponsor, and as long as he doesn't have his riders doping all over the shop, then it will be good for expanding cycling's profile.

We should remember: in the end he has to play by the rules... he doesn't make the rules.

I was watching the ToC on TV and there was a pretty cool commercial for Rock Racing...if I didn't know all the "behind the scenes" kind of garbage I know about cycling I would have thought it was really cool, probably.

thunder said:

you need a new business model.

One that can pay a rider for performances they do not get.

The market is predicated on results and publicity. You get paid for results.

See Casar, might win the Tour if doped. He is almost a nobody clean. You have to pay him for that. You still have to invert the red queen effect. So you still have to get the top riders clean, that is the major predicament. You can do that, if there is a transparency.

On what planet??

thunder said:

you need a new business model.

One that can pay a rider for performances they do not get.

The market is predicated on results and publicity. You get paid for results.

See Casar, might win the Tour if doped. He is almost a nobody clean. You have to pay him for that. You still have to invert the red queen effect. So you still have to get the top riders clean, that is the major predicament. You can do that, if there is a transparency.

How do you type with a straitjacket on thunder?... :p

I didn't mean to be disrespectful. I can see the logic behind your thinking. I can't see the practicality of it though. How are you going to reward being clean if its not based on performance? Guys won't have to try.

Also, if you can tell someone is clean, then by definition, you can tell if they're dirty. You don't need to reward clean if you have a surefire way of determining if a rider is dirty.

thunder said:

there is a union. Moser and Voigt. The reason it sucks, is because it is fractured and dysfunctional because of doping. Doping undermines the whole operation.

Nope, it's a weak organization and always has been. There are lots of issues that could have been tackled that have nothing to do with doping. It took the ProTour to set standards for minimum salaries, insurance, and such.

I think that even regarding doping, an effective rider union could set standards for the time that doping cases take. It's ridiculuous that FLandis won't get a final ruling from CAS until his suspension is 75% over. There is no consistency whether a suspension starts when the athlete stops racing or months afterward. The UCI has been blackballing riders like Hamilton. The whole situation is a clusterfuck that motivated leadership for the riders could solve.

Crankyfeet said:

How do you type with a straightjacket on thunder?... :p

I didn't mean to be disrespectful. I can see the logic behind your thinking. I can't see the practicality of it though. How are you going to reward being clean if its not based on performance? Guys won't have to try.

Also, if you can tell someone is clean, then by definition, you can tell if they're dirty. You don't need to reward clean if you have a surefire way of determining if a rider is dirty.

straitjacket I believe. No "gh" in the straight.

Bro Deal said:

Nope, it's a weak organization and always has been. There are lots of issues that could have been tackled that have nothing to do with doping. It took the ProTour to set standards for minimum salaries, insurance, and such.

I think that even regarding doping, an effective rider union could set standards for the time that doping cases take. It's ridiculuous that FLandis won't get a final ruling from CAS until his suspension is 75% over. There is no consistency whether a suspension starts when the athlete stops racing or months afterward. The UCI has been blackballing riders like Hamilton. The whole situation is a clusterfuck that motivated leadership for the riders could solve.

I know.

But there still is a union.

Mcewen has to freelance with the UCI and get the race finish chutes passing OH&S standards.

The insurance case, what a [censored] up, Ryan Cox had to borrow money from Hunter and ended up dying because of insufficient recuperative care.

thunder said:

straitjacket I believe. No "gh" in the straight.

Thanks...I thought it looked weird.

PS - I had another look at it and I DID spell it right... 😉 😄

Crankyfeet said:

Thanks...I thought it looked weird.

PS - I had another look at it and I DID spell it right... 😉 😄

yeah, that is why I said "believe" to back me up instead of being a smartarse with dictionary definitions 😄

I still think the technical term is probably without the gh.

However, it has morphed into being acceptable through common misuse. OR, the opposite, the common misuse of straitjacket has made it into the dictionary.

Anyhow, all that matters is "Straitjacket Fits" is without the gh. One of the best bands, if not the best, to come out of NZ, and one of the best bands in my cd collection.

thunder said:

yeah, that is why I said "believe" to back me up instead of being a smartarse with dictionary definitions 😄

I still think the technical term is probably without the gh.

However, it has morphed into being acceptable through common misuse. OR, the opposite, the common misuse of straitjacket has made it into the dictionary.

Anyhow, all that matters is "Straitjacket Fits" is without the gh. One of the best bands, if not the best, to come out of NZ, and one of the best bands in my cd collection.

I can't believe that we are currently in a vibrant PM discussion about how to fix all of cyclings evils (and then cure cancer), and in the public forum here we are arguing over spelling and telling everyone our favorite rock bands and CD's.

I don't have much to add to this forum so I hate wasting anything I say that MIGHT be of any value... 🙄 :p