11 major teams considering plans to break away from the UCI

[Race Radio]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/11-major-teams-considering-plans-to-break-away-from-the-uci

The UCI has never tried to clean up the sport. They were forced into change by WADA but they did so kicking and screaming. They have no desire to do anything to the likes of Lefevre, Brunyeel, or Gianetti. The only people that get burned are the riders, but the DS' that encourage doping stay in the sport to pollute yet another generation and insure the top brands and good management will stay away.

F1, F1, F1, F1....it is the mantra of the sport. The reality is cycling has little in common with F1. There are 19 events in F1....All the Grand Tours are longer then this. Ultimately F1 can teach cycling two things

Working together can produce a great product and benefit all stakeholders
Good management is key to success in all parts of the sport

There is a huge amount of distrust between the events, teams, riders, and UCI. This is understandable. It was little publicized at the time but the entire ProTour was little more then an attempt by McQuaid to take all the TV rights away from the events and put them into a holding company controlled by Verbruggen. It was an stupid, greedy move that poisoned the well for close to a decade and insured that none of the stake holders trusted each other....and would not for years.

Chaos favors the toxic element. In order for the sport to move forward in a unified manner there needs to be a purge at the top level of the UCI. None of the stake holders (Teams, events, riders) will ever trust McQuaid. He is a cancer that needs to be removed and replaced with a legit leader (Patrice Clerc?) that can gain consensus of all the stake holders.

In order for the sport to attract larger name sponsors there needs to be more professional management. Currently there is little. The top level of the UCI is a toxic, corrupt, joke. Professionals, like Ann Gripper, flee from this chaos. Only 2-3 teams (Garmin, HCT, SKY) are run professionally and the rest are a joke. The large events are super professional, well run, and have all the power.....and they will give up none of it as they see that rest of the sport as little more then a bunch of monkeys tossing **** at each other.

Of course we can talk about international expansion and cameras on bikes but until the chaos ends it will just be more of the same.

 

[Arnout]

So the teams that speak English and thus spread their word of wisdom frequently in the English speaking press are the only professional teams. Surprising...

 

[Parrulo]

So the teams that speak English and thus spread their word of wisdom frequently in the English speaking press are the only professional teams. Surprising...

ya that

are you saying a team like saxo isn't "professional"?

 

[Mambo95]

Ultimately F1 can teach cycling two things

Working together can produce a great product and benefit all stakeholders
Good management is key to success in all parts of the sport

Agreed.

But there are two other things it can learn:

If your product is marketed and broadcast properly, it doesn't really matter how interesting the racing actually is.

The rule-making and disciplinary side of a sport is best separated from the commercial side.

 

[Cobblestones]

How is F1 a good example? I noticed the same talk in the JV discussion.

You Europeans do realize that F1 is considered one of the lamest events ever. The last time it made the news here was when IIRC most of the teams pussied out and the whole 'race' was among a handful of cars, most of which belonged to the same two or so teams? All because of a few raindrops.

Apparently it is popular in Europe. Maybe because it resembles so much congested highways so people can relate? I heard passing other cars is frowned upon?

Why on earth would you like to emulate this trainwreck of a sport?

 

[Jancouver]

UCI should be to cycling what FIFA is to soccer....organize the World Championship and let the rest of the races independent.

Or create a "Champions league of Cycling" (™ by Jancouver) and invite only the top teams. Even create new races etc.

 

[roundabout]

How is F1 a good example? I noticed the same talk in the JV discussion.

You Europeans do realize that F1 is considered one of the lamest events ever. The last time it made the news here was when IIRC most of the teams pussied out and the whole 'race' was among a handful of cars, most of which belonged to the same two or so teams? All because of a few raindrops.

Apparently it is popular in Europe. Maybe because it resembles so much congested highways so people can relate? I heard passing other cars is frowned upon?

Why on earth would you like to emulate this trainwreck of a sport?

Short answer - it's pretty global in terms of TV coverage. However, over the last few years i'm also starting to wonder why a sport like this is so easily sold to TV stations.

 

[online-rider]

How is F1 a good example? I noticed the same talk in the JV discussion.

You Europeans do realize that F1 is considered one of the lamest events ever. The last time it made the news here was when IIRC most of the teams pussied out and the whole 'race' was among a handful of cars, most of which belonged to the same two or so teams? All because of a few raindrops.

Apparently it is popular in Europe. Maybe because it resembles so much congested highways so people can relate? I heard passing other cars is frowned upon?

Why on earth would you like to emulate this trainwreck of a sport?

Because it has a secure financial structure and doesn't need to make victims out of individuals like cycling does to succeed (?)

 

[Race Radio]

So the teams that speak English and thus spread their word of wisdom frequently in the English speaking press are the only professional teams. Surprising...

You are absolutely correct, My apologies....I was writing fast.

Add Saxo, Movistar, Rabo to that list

 

[Mambo95]

Why on earth would you like to emulate this trainwreck of a sport?

Because it's incredibly successful, well run and popular despite being really quite boring most of the time. A trainwreck it certainly isn't.

 

[happychappy]

LOL

NASCAR. Drive round in circles all day ya'll!

 

[ergmonkey]

Who wants to bet that a newer, more "professional" league will not be plagued by any positive drug tests?

Nonetheless, this should be fun to follow. McQuaid's approach to things is obviously a losing one and totally unsustainable in the long run. The only person who can get away with the bullying McQuaid attempts is the head of the Tour de France...and a new professional league will present the perfect opportunity for him to do this, if so inclined.

 

[Race Radio]

Short answer - it's pretty global in terms of TV coverage. However, over the last few years i'm also starting to wonder why a sport like this is so easily sold to TV stations.

Agreed. People point to F1 all the time as they were successful in packaging and selling a sport on a global basis.....even if that sport can be incredibly boring at times.

 

[Cobblestones]

Because it's incredibly successful, well run and popular despite being really quite boring most of the time. A trainwreck it certainly isn't.

Successful? Not on my continent.

I think before the last trainwreck I was referring to, there was an incident here where the leading rider let someone else pass him in the final lap? I don't remember why or the precise circumstances, but that's the stuff to turn people off.

Ah and circles? Not so much. You see, they're called ovals. :shakes head: Educate yourself before you talk about NASCAR (I can't believe I just said that).

 

[El Pistolero]

NASCAR. Drive round in circles all day ya'll!

NASCAR is for the poor and stupid. That's why it's so popular in the USA.

(obviously making a reference to something and not insulting anyone, it's a joke)

 

[hrotha]

Cycling and F1 are too different. I could see a comparison with tennis/ATP, but F1? No way.

 

[ergmonkey]

From Wikipedia: List of world's largest companies by revenue. Until I see a bicyle frame, chain lube, or energy drink manufacturer on this list, I'm going to have a hard time believing that cycling has anything important in common with F1.

1 WalMart
2 Exxon Mobil
3 BP
4 Royal Dutch Shell
5 Saudi Aramco
6 Toyota Motors
7 Japan Post Holdings
8 Sinopec
9 Vitol (Raw material)
10 Total S.A. (Oil and gas)
11 State Grid Corporation of China
13 Volkswagen Group
14 Chevron
15 ING Group
16 ConocoPhillips
17 General Electric
18 PetroChina
19 Glencore International Raw materials
20 Allianz
21 Berkshire Hathaway
23 General Motors
22 Daimler AG Automotive

 

[Race Radio]

The F1 comparison has nothing to do with the sport or the size of the entities but the stakeholders. Teams, Riders, Events, and the UCI.

The reason why F1 is popular is that they were able to get all of their stakeholders to work together. Hard to do that in cycling as nobody trusts the UCI

 

[Jamsque]

F1 isn't some model of stability. I remember just a few years back they had the exact same situation of teams protesting rule changes and threatening to start a breakaway league. Big teams, too.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Jamsque is right. That was in 2009, in fact, when they tried to address the fact that it was totally biased in favour of big budget teams by imposing budget restrictions. Pretty much all the teams threatened to break away.

All that resulted of it was crisis management and a new deal being struck. A bit like how the disagreements with the ASO, RCS and Unipublic in 2008 led to the restructuring of the ProTour, but this time it's the teams instead of the organisers complaining.

Once again: Cycling is not like F1, where you enter the same events all year, all events are equal in value regardless of the prestige they hold and where it's a travelling circus (where fans and teams are treated like dirt as they follow wherever the money is, racing in big government-sponsored loss-leaders with empty stands and ignoring the traditional fanbases). Riders cannot physically enter all of the World Tour events; even if they were physically capable of that many race days, some of the races are coterminous.

Cycling is like sportscars, where the FIA have their own series, but ultimately the big event is a standalone, invite-only event in France (though there are agreements for a set number of automatic invites) and because that event will always hold more prestige than the rest of the calendar put together, as it's the only time in the year the world's eyes are on sportscars, the teams are more interested in being there, and the FIA have to alter their rules to fit the tune of the ACO.

Sportscars have a number of regional series and series with multiple classifications. It's physically impossible to be in two places at once, meaning you can't do the whole calendar.

Cycling cannot be an F1-style travelling circus without sounding the death knell for a lot of its most important events.

 

[Mambo95]

Successful? Not on my continent.

Ah, the old american introspective view. If it's not a hit in the US, it's not a hit. Just like football (soccer to you). That's a real flop of a sport.

 

[Steampunk]

Cycling and F1 are too different. I could see a comparison with tennis/ATP, but F1? No way.

Perhaps the best corollary is chess. In the 1990s, then-World Champion Garry Kasparov broke from FIDE, the corrupt and inept international body and created the Professional Chess Association. For the best part of twenty years, there was incessant fighting between the two and no real sense of who the real/legitimate world champion was. It was an absolute fiasco. It would be a shame to see a split that meant the world's best riders weren't all competing together, never mind the tradition of the sport. This is not to deny the problems evident within the UCI—I agree with the comments above about a need for better and more transparent management of doping and other controversies—but I worry about what a split could actually mean.

 

[Granville57]

You are absolutely correct, My apologies....I was writing fast.

Add Saxo, Movistar, Rabo to that list

Le0pard Trek?

 

[Mellow Velo]

F1? At least they got the letter of the alphabet right.
I tried to reason an argument against this whole F1 modernization of the sport.
Then I thought, what the heck, what will be will be.
http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/cs-comment-analysing-jvs-10-point-plan-for-cycling/
(for why the F1 module won't work and other counter points)

Nothing I can do about it, if it happens................

Well, other than the fact that I won't follow such a designer sport.
I suspect that I won't be alone.

Vive Il Tifosi (I suspect a big FY Zomegnan) and down with the revolution.

 

[Havetts]

It would be a shame to see a split that meant the world's best riders weren't all competing together, never mind the tradition of the sport. This is not to deny the problems evident within the UCI—I agree with the comments above about a need for better and more transparent management of doping and other controversies—but I worry about what a split could actually mean.

This is what has been worrying me too, great post.