er, the whole point is that it is run like a business cause it is a business, which is why ASO has every right to choose who will be allowed to ride. It's their product that they're trying to sell to sponsors, advertisers, etc, not the UCI's or anyone else's.IH8LANCE said:And this kind of "screw the competitors themselves, we'll decide who rides based on . . . whatever the hell we decide" -- is one of the reasons that professional cycling is viewed as a 2nd tier, provincial sport. From what I can tell, it seems fairly clear that many cycling fans are OK with that. They hate the thought of their quaint little pastime being run like a business rather than a club. As long as that mentality remains prevalent, the organizers will continue to eat away at the sport from the inside out, like a malignant tumor, playing favorites, acting arbitrarily, crucifying the stars of the sport based on rumor, innuendo, and circumstantial evidence -- and earning the scorn of the general public. Professional cycling is viewed as a farce by even its most ardent fans -- that says a mouthful.
And let's not overlook that it's been the ASO which has done more than anyone involved in cycling to get the anti-doping ball rolling over the past couple of years - sure as hell hasn't been the UCI.
As lim says, it ain't the organizers that are the problem, it's been just about everyone but the ASO that's gotten cycling where it is, most notably the riders who can't seem to stay clean and the managers who continue to promote doping. If you're going to blame anyone for cycling's reputation as a farce or a "second-tier" sport, then at least point the finger where it really belongs. And that ain't the ASO.