11 major teams considering plans to break away from the UCI

[ultimobici]

Am I right in thinking that anyone riding outside of the UCI umbrella would automatically rule themselves out of any future Olympics?

 

[Lanark]

Yes it's true that the NFL and NBA have labor issues, but...the players in those leagues get more than 50% of revenue. What percentage of revenue do Pro Tour cyclists get? I'm talking about percentage of all revenue, team sponsorship and money taken in by race promoters. I bet it's below 20%, maybe well below. The sport is still run the way things were 50 years ago.

But the UCI has very little to do with this. The ASO is the only major stakeholder in this sport, why would they decide to join a break away league were the rider get a bigger cut of the pie? Any plan to break away from the UCI can only succeed if they have the ASO on board, and to get the ASO on board you have to convince them they can make more money in this new arrangement, not less.

 

[jens_attacks]

Without having read much of the previous posts I'd just like to announce my full support to the breakaway organisation whatever it may be or if it is at all true.

this.

i don't think there are just 11.it's amost most of them minus probably some french.
if vaughters,bruyneel,riis and co will step back,they will lose my respect forever.

 

[B_Ugli]

I thought CN was reporting on a new Star Wars film what with all this talk of renegades and rebels.

Pat (McQuaid) Vader v Jonathan (Vaughters) Skywalker

I like most of the wider public probably dont care how cycling is run so long as for 3 weeks in July there is a race around France going on.

Personally I think they should have a Tour Series (for stage races) and a World Cup (for the classics).

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

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.

exactly.

besides there's no way to break away from uci unless aso join in and that will never happen as aso isn't too kindly on anglophone teams, especially bruyneel and this idea seems to be driven by garmin, sky, htc etc

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

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.

yeah it's hilarious, 280 million people not watching and 6 billion people are, it sucks!!! cuz we can't win it!!!

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Get the RCS, ASO and Flanders Classics on board and you have your breakaway league. Block participation in the World Championships so it becomes a farce, UCI loses a major revenue stream. But no breakaway league will be possible unless you have commitments for TV rights purchase (as a package). Don't just recreate the same model under a new name with no UCI... there needs to be complete commitment to a unified TV deal, and one where teams and riders are guaranteed a considerable slice of the beef.

What concerns me is who will be the power players in the new model. Ownership should be spread across the board, with no one individual or collective having Bernie type control (seems I have to mention F1 to post in this thread). The problem with that may be that by default, the ASO should have a much bigger share than anyone else.

and that will never happen

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

If you see the "10 points by Jonathan Vaughters", you will perceive that he wants a Formule 1 or NBA system. More long-term guaranteed entry to big races for professional teams it's a evident NBA's character, and cameras on bikes, inside cars, helmets and inside team is inspirated in F1, as open radios to the public.

"Equipment innovation to see if the the smartest team wins sometimes, rather than the strongest" is a idea to have a balanced competition like NBA with Draft and salary cap.

Increase the number of TTTs would serve to create rivalry between teams and consolidate the relation team-fan.

Well, I can't say if it would be good or bad for the highest level cycling, but would destroy the medium and small teams and the medium and small races. Good or bad for the highest level cycling, we aren't prepared for a change so drastic.

exactly this is an absolute horrible idea thwt will kill of any chance of seeing teams from colombia in europe, spain, belgium or italy join in because they don't have the money and are more bounded by traditional cycling and races. it will kill of many forms of pro cycling in europe below the pt level and is incredibly egomaniac by that vaughters imbecile.

 

[thehog]

You’re a very smart man. This is excellent post. Most here miss the root of the problem and what Vaughters is attempting to achieve. This biggest problem within the UCI is consistency. You hit the nail on the head in regards to the ProTour. FDJ would love to know what they have to do to get back into the ProTour for 2012. Alas they have no idea what races to ride what financial changes they need to make – nothing. Its very strange. They have a long-term sponsor a good list of riders and appeal to the French public. Compare that with say Radioshack (not going to Lance bash) who have 2 years of sponsorship money then nothing, a sole American sponsor yet they obtain a 4 year licence at the expense of FDJ. I’m not saying Radioshack didn’t deserve their licence but there is no consistency why one team would qualify and the other not. This inconsistency leads into anti-doping. Sometimes the press are notified at A sample time others not. Some spend months on the sidelines awaiting appeals to be heard others not. Frame regulations are changed on a whim and other such regulations can sit in committees for months. When it comes to races no doubt the Euro races are the biggest. There is a place for the TDU, ToC etc. but they should never compete against the Giro – that is ludicrous and an outright threat. Place the Australian/AP and US races on the bookends of the season. Riders will appreciate the low key racing, the prize money and the better weather to the Euro season. I’m all for Vaughers on this one. We need to take cycling into the 21st century but not the way the UCI is trying to do it. They want to keep safe for themselves and not hand too much to the riders, teams nor big business.

Without having read much of the previous posts I'd just like to announce my full support to the breakaway organisation whatever it may be or if it is at all true.

The UCI with its antique view of cycling has been standing in the way of progress in cycling for far too long now. McQuak's open letter almost had me laughing out loud on a few occasions. Ground Control to Major Quak: The Germans really quit the broadcasting because the UCI stands in the way of any major clean up of the sport and they have given up believing in the regurgitation of its same old lies! I'm surprised that other countries haven't followed suit. Or how do you explain the acquittal of Contador versus suspension of Fuyu Li and others? Why did it take more than a month to announce the positive? Why was it hastily announced after a German (surprise, surprise!!!) journo threatened to bust the bombshell?

The UCI not only opposes any changes in attitude of its riders but also advancements in technology. Nowadays they're even forcing manufacturers to have their rigs tested for "compliance" to ancient and arbitrary rules. Why again is it illegal to race the Specialized Shiv in UCI events? Ahh, yeah that's right something about the "nose" being aerodynamic instead of structural. Hello! Wake up it's the 21st century!!! Why does the hour record only constitute a record if it's done on a Merckx era style bike? Where would humanity be if we hadn't constantly used advancements in technology to our advantage?

The UCI repeatedly fails to publish the "rules" to pro team selection. They simply prefer to make them up as they go along. How do you become a pro tour team if you have no idea what the selection criteria are??? Arrrghhhh,…

I could go on but I stop here because it simply makes me angrier the more I think about it. All the UCI does is generate money into the pockets of those in its midst. It's a bit like a communist regime where no opposing opinion counts and any opposition is brutally slain. What we need is democracy in the world of cycling, for the progress of cycling, for the popularity of cycling but first and foremost for the credibility of cycling - VIVE LA REVOLUTION!!!

 

[Ferminal]

and that will never happen

So you think the race organisers are very happy with the current situation and would not be interested in a change which could make their product more marketable?

Or are you trying to say there are inherent differences between the major race organisers which would prevent them from forming an agreement?

 

[auscyclefan94]

I bet Vaughters is the main culprit behind this breakaway league idea. zomegnan has said he has been talking about it (most likely to vaughters) and vaughters said on twitter he had been talking about the future of cycling to prudhomme. A governing body is required like it or not. The UCI are not perfect but the sport can not be controlled by teams. It needs a governing body to govern and provide norms. Race organisers need a bigger say in how the sport is run as they organise the competition.

 

[Lanark]

So you think the race organisers are very happy with the current situation and would not be interested in a change which could make their product more marketable?

Or are you trying to say there are inherent differences between the major race organisers which would prevent them from forming an agreement?

I don't think the race organisers are unhappy with the current situation. I don't see why the ASO would take a big risk in joining a new league, because of some vague promises ('make their product more marketable', how?).

 

[Mellow Velo]

I notice that a number of posters are picking up on the fact that there appears to be no safety net for races (and teams) outside the elite league.
So many races, many of them established, are surviving on a year to year basis, often being bailed out by the local authority etc.

While this consistent, high end sponsorship should secure this new league, the tier immediately below would be threatened by a number of factors, not least, any blanket tv deal.

While the ASO and RCS own the rights to all the events likely to come under this blanket, tv coverage of these events is undertaken by the national tv outlets.

If the right to nationally broadcast "protected historical sporting events" exists, as in the UK, then they cannot be brought into this umbrella coverage scheme.

Were this not the case and the tv rights for the Giro ended up leaving RAI, for instance, would RAI still be able to justify the high cost of televising the dozens of smaller races that depend upon this exposure?

The Hog talks about consistency, but the fact is, pro cycling is like a tree.
Lots of branches and deep roots.
It's hard to mess with the roots, without killing many of the branches.

 

[User Guide]

asylum

Cycling at the present time is like an insane asylum.One where the governor and guards are inept and have a wiff of corruption about them.However do we really want the inmates taking over?
What we need is better, more transparent governance;especially with regard to doping.People can bring in all the "premier leagues" they want, make it more tv freindly all the best marketing etc..... and it wont mean diddly if the casual fan or potential new fans believe cycling to be ped fuelled.Do we trust the people who now run teams, many of whom were active participants and facilitators of cyclings darkest moments to really do the right thing.
Cycling does need a big change just not sure this is the right one

 

[thehog]

Cycling at the present time is like an insane asylum.One where the governor and guards are inept and have a wiff of corruption about them.However do we really want the inmates taking over?
What we need is better, more transparent governance;especially with regard to doping.People can bring in all the "premier leagues" they want, make it more tv freindly all the best marketing etc..... and it wont mean diddly if the casual fan or potential new fans believe cycling to be ped fuelled.Do we trust the people who now run teams, many of whom were active participants and facilitators of cyclings darkest moments to really do the right thing.
Cycling does need a big change just not sure this is the right one

Correct.

Vaughters is also talking about "leagues" and categories. They want to see a ranking system like in football. You have Pro, league 1, league 2 etc. Anti-doping is linked the promotion through the levels - anti-doping will be responsibility of the teams - not the individual riders. Its a master stroke. The rules will be clear not discretionary as they are now. This will happen.

Kerry Paker - Rupert Mudoch they all managed to do it......

...the sport of cycling needs this bad.

If you need further examples look beyond road cycling to the track... now that is a total abortion. I mean seriously they've taken away the pursuit? The kilo?

 

[Finbouy]

Dictators never win in the end. They absolve the failure and loss of power by inflicting more stringent rules and regulations that must be adhered to, and if that fails they create more to control the masses..
it's a common theme excecuted the world over.. and it's failed many many times in the past.
Cycling needs to be a professionally run entity in it's own right, like a business, with independant leaders looking after it's own welfare.
The models are out there, as already stated, all proven to work, all above board and accountable..
seems rather logical to me that cycling will go this way too..
just when is really the only question..

 

[B_Ugli]

I think something needs to change because as others have said the big thing the UCI lacks is consistency.

If you are a manager looking for sponsors the conversation currently goes like this:

Sponsor: What races yield the most exposure for our brand
Manager: Races X, Y and Z
Sponsor: So how do we get to ride those races
Manager: Well you get onto this system called Pro-Continental and if you are good enough will get into the the Pro-Tour which means you might get to ride those races.
Sponsor: So how do they select who goes into the Pro-Tour
Manager: Nobody knows.
Sponsor: And if we actually got into the Pro-Tour that guarantees our guys a ride in races X, Y and Z?
Manager: Well not exactly, its a bit of a lottery really after that with no guarantees whatsoever and no concrete set of rules for us to get an invite.
Sponsor: So let me get this straight you are asking me to shell out a shed load investment into something that has no set of rules by which I can get a return.
Manager: Pretty much.............yes.

 

[Avoriaz]

So cycling to go like Formula 1? Which midget is going to run it?

And will they introduce fake rain in cycling to spice things up like Bernie is considering?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9432232.stm

F1 is really no less a pantomime than wrestling

 

[flicker]

Vaughters won't get the respect needed to be the leader. a) Vaughters is a bad dresser, b) he is American in a European sport, which automatically makes you a chump in the eyes of the powers that be.

Vaughters does have the advantage of being well organized and intelligent, and he is able to attract sponsorship money to the sport. He is also very successful as an individual.

I do not know if the Europeans are ready to get out of the back alleys and get upfront with transperantcy.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

So you think the race organisers are very happy with the current situation and would not be interested in a change which could make their product more marketable?

Or are you trying to say there are inherent differences between the major race organisers which would prevent them from forming an agreement?

the latter. aso don't agree with line of thought of teams at all, just look at the earpieces for instance. besides these ideas from teams will bring in more revenue for teams and riders and less for organisers while under uci; organisers have incredible revenue, it's never going to happen

 

[Astana1]

JV's Ideas and Cycling's New Structure

Having a benevolent dictator (like Bernie Ecclestone) to run the highest level of cycling only works if you have someone who can effectively assume that role and get everything to work. Basically without a Bernie you are lost.

Secondly as has been noted, any split by the teams would only work if the TdF went with the teams. Otherwise you have all the stars but not the sport's biggest stage in fact... the defining stage of the sport. The Teams could snag a few of the monuments, the Giro and some other big races but with the TdF they would be dead in the water. Remember the CART/IRL split in America? CART had the stars and the cars, IRL had the INDY 500. In the end the IRL won a pyhrric victory because they owned the INDY 500 and NASCAR truly won the war.

Without a Bernie, without the biggest race(s) the Teams would be all hat and no cattle.

I think JV's 11 ideas are mostly pretty good, if not self serving for his team and his sponsors. In car cameras revolutionized motorsport on TV. Listening the communication between the driver and the pits did as well.

As if getting rid of race radios wasn't a bad enough idea, not using radios to enahnce the TV experience has to be one of the most ridiculous oversights in sports broadcast history. Not mounting small cameras on the riders and/or bikes has to up there as well. Most of the truly successful TV sports have figured a way to integrate technology into the broadcast. Cycling ain't one of them. Fans want know how fast these guys are going, they even want to know what their heart rate is and what they are hearing from the DS back in the team car, they just don't know it yet.

TV coverage of cycling sucks. I thought I had it bad living in the US, watching the sport on Versus and Universal. I moved to Germany a year ago and the coverage in Germany and on other European networks isn't much better. There is no imagination, nothing just the same old non-innovative production. It really is a shame.

Can cycling become the biggest sport in the world as JV says? Probably not. But the sport is not currently being maximized. That's certain.

 

[thehog]

This has always been the dichotomy; The Tour de France would love all the riders to be fitted with GPS units and have “helmet cam” – imagine being able to know where every rider is, the speed they are travelling etc. A flick to “helmet cam” as they shoot down a decent would be way cool… a shot of Andy Shleck's chain falling off then Contador whooshing past would be champagne TV. Sadly the UCI owns the rules and with that none of these “innovations” can be put in place. When JV compares cycling to F1 what he means is the “presentation” and technology. Not the race formats. Cameras in cars and in the pits etc. have brought new dimension to the sport. Give cycling a chance to really bring itself to the public….

Having a benevolent dictator (like Bernie Ecclestone) to run the highest level of cycling only works if you have someone who can effectively assume that role and get everything to work. Basically without a Bernie you are lost.

Secondly as has been noted, any split by the teams would only work if the TdF went with the teams. Otherwise you have all the stars but not the sport's biggest stage in fact... the defining stage of the sport. The Teams could snag a few of the monuments, the Giro and some other big races but with the TdF they would be dead in the water. Remember the CART/IRL split in America? CART had the stars and the cars, IRL had the INDY 500. In the end the IRL won a pyhrric victory because they owned the INDY 500 and NASCAR truly won the war.

Without a Bernie, without the biggest race(s) the Teams would be all hat and no cattle.

I think JV's 11 ideas are mostly pretty good, if not self serving for his team and his sponsors. In car cameras revolutionized motorsport on TV. Listening the communication between the driver and the pits did as well.

As if getting rid of race radios wasn't a bad enough idea, not using radios to enahnce the TV experience has to be one of the most ridiculous oversights in sports broadcast history. Not mounting small cameras on the riders and/or bikes has to up there as well. Most of the truly successful TV sports have figured a way to integrate technology into the broadcast. Cycling ain't one of them. Fans want know how fast these guys are going, they even want to know what their heart rate is and what they are hearing from the DS back in the team car, they just don't know it yet.

TV coverage of cycling sucks. I thought I had it bad living in the US, watching the sport on Versus and Universal. I moved to Germany a year ago and the coverage in Germany and on other European networks isn't much better. There is no imagination, nothing just the same old non-innovative production. It really is a shame.

Can cycling become the biggest sport in the world as JV says? Probably not. But the sport is not currently being maximized. That's certain.

 

[Fus087]

The other point is we should have some at the helm who can ride a bike. I dont know Pats caperbilitys in this feild but has he ever ridden a bike race himself any one know.

Pat McQuaid was an amateur racer in the 70s. And he didn't take the best or most transparent decisions back then, either:
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/12/1/1849367/blacklegs-in-south-africa

 

[Lanark]

I'm pretty sure the ASO (or the French broadcasting station that shoots the images) can do all those things if they want to. The Deutschland Rundfahrt experimented with a couple of those thing a few years back, cameras on the finish line, a camera on the bike etc. No one has followed in their footsteps, probably because most cycling-fans don't care about that stuff.

 

[Astana1]

The UCI is representing the purist perspective. When you let "purists" dominate then you pretty much fall out of step the demands of the mainstream. The same applies to "radicals" who turn sport into contrived made for TV spectacles.

Purists just don't get it. The use of radios in just about any sport is almost always unpopular with purists. They don't like it in motor racing (it makes the driver into a robot), not in Football (makes the QB into a robot) and in cycling it makes riders into robots and they break has no chance which is utter nonsense. I can't drive a car like Lewis Hamilton, I can't play Football like Tom Brady and I sure as hell can't sprint like Mark Cavendish. Put a radio in my ear and I still won't be able to do any of those things.

Of all of the team sports out there, cycling is the one sport left where the TV experience could be revolutionized by technology.

Just look at what is happening in America with football and baseball. Football has embraced technology and it is absolutely crushing every other sport here. Baseball, which dominated by purists is just now figuring this out and many think it has lost its place for good.

This has always been the dichotomy; The Tour de France would love all the riders to be fitted with GPS units and have “helmet cam” – imagine being able to know where every rider is, the speed they are travelling etc. A flick to “helmet cam” as they shoot down a decent would be way cool… a shot of Andy Shleck's chain falling off then Contador whooshing past would be champagne TV. Sadly the UCI owns the rules and with that none of these “innovations” can be put in place. When JV compares cycling to F1 what he means is the “presentation” and technology. Not the race formats. Cameras in cars and in the pits etc. have brought new dimension to the sport. Give cycling a chance to really bring itself to the public….