Changing the Business Model of Pro Cycling

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
MarkvW said:
The federations choose UCI management.

ASO was sucking wind a few years back. Right now it has the power, but I suspect successful bike racing promotion is a very delicate thing. Building much on the TdF alone is probably a risk that nobody wants to take. But a breakaway league would need to work a deal with the ASO that's a better deal than ASO already has with the UCI. That seems like it would be a problem.
The more I think about it... Only "solution" I can come up with is the federations pulling their support to the UCI... Desolve the damn thing and start over.. There has been a few opportunities where such action could be warranted.. Now of course there's a change of "attitude" from the UCI leadership and peleton... Hmm seem to be experiencing a déjá vu here...
Next time, I hope someone dares to stand their ground...
One thing I like from the OP origin is that they seem, yes "seem" to have no other interest other than help this sport out of it's misery...
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
mrhender said:
The more I think about it... Only "solution" I can come up with is the federations pulling their support to the UCI... Desolve the damn thing and start over.. There has been a few opportunities where such action could be warranted.. Now of course there's a change of "attitude" from the UCI leadership and peleton... Hmm seem to be experiencing a déjá vu here...
Next time, I hope someone dares to stand their ground...
One thing I like from the OP origin is that they seem, yes "seem" to have no other interest other than help this sport out of it's misery...
Cookson didn't win in a landslide. McBruggen still retained very substantial support. I'd argue that the UCI is what it is because of the federations.
 
mrhender said:
The more I think about it... Only "solution" I can come up with is the federations pulling their support to the UCI
Why would they? The UCI is richer than it has ever been. Ever. The shrinking calendar will squeeze more bribery money out in the form of consulting fees. They seem to keep the IOC happy too.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
MarkvW said:
Cookson didn't win in a landslide. McBruggen still retained very substantial support. I'd argue that the UCI is what it is because of the federations.
Maybe because "mcBruggen" was someone you could "reason" with..
Never underestimate the power of consistency and predictability...
That's why I say someone should stand their ground.. I do believe that if change is set in motion it will be easier applicable... Cookson got elected right? they could have chosen a different path, who knows how much support a dissolvement of the UCI in it's current form would get...
I would be happy if they hust seperated every anti-doping effort from those promoting the sport (UCI).. Cookson claims ignorance to doping cases but yet he doesn't fail the opprotunity to polish his glory as the father of clean cycling.. UCI should be strictly limited to handling the sporting side of pro cycling.. realistic? No, probably not... But you have to plant the idea before it can take shape right?
 
mrhender said:
Maybe because "mcBruggen" was someone you could "reason" with..
Never underestimate the power of consitency and predictability...
That's why I say someone should stand their ground.. I do believe that if change is set in motion it will be easier applicable... Cookson got elected right? they could have chosen a different path, who knows how much supoort a dissolvement of the UCI in it's current form would get...
I would be happy if they hust seperated every anti-doping effort from those promoting the sport (UCI).. Cookson claims ignorance to doping cases but yet he doesn't fail the opprotunity to polish his glory as the father of clean cycling.. UCI should be strictly limited to handling the sporting side of pro cycling.. realistic? No, probably not... But you have to plant the idea before it can take shape right?
While I share many of your opinions, the IOC and the UCI do not and the golden rule applies perfectly.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Why would they? The UCI is richer than it has ever been. Ever. The shrinking calendar will squeeze more bribery money out in the form of consulting fees. They seem to keep the IOC happy too.
If willingness (for real) to invest in anti-doping was there. we probably wouldn't be discussing this at all.. I think we are focusing too much on limitations;
This can't be done, this is worse than now, they are happy with current state of... etc. etc.. etc..

So let's imagine for a moment that it could be possible to remove all anti-doping influence/efforts from those who promote the sport...
Wouldn't it be a good thing?

What i'am saying is that you have to have something to aspire to, before you can consider/decide the means to get there..
 
Mar 27, 2014
202
0
0
Unfortunately your utopia of removing doping from the UCI has other implications
Probable explosion of doping positives and removal of all major sponsors from the sport killing not only the UCI but also ASO and RCS and putting all the riders back onto the dole queue and returning cycling to an amateur era.

Now while I know there are a lot of people out there who would like this there are unfortunately far too many companies and organisations in the world with too much invested in the sport to let this happen.

As I have said before - Cycling is now in the hands of the money men and as long as that is the case all of your discussions and deliberations about "clean cycling" are as useful as a snowball in hell.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
robertmooreheadlane said:
Unfortunately your utopia of removing doping from the UCI has other implications
Probable explosion of doping positives and removal of all major sponsors from the sport killing not only the UCI but also ASO and RCS and putting all the riders back onto the dole queue and returning cycling to an amateur era.

Now while I know there are a lot of people out there who would like this there are unfortunately far too many companies and organisations in the world with too much invested in the sport to let this happen.

As I have said before - Cycling is now in the hands of the money men and as long as that is the case all of your discussions and deliberations about "clean cycling" are as useful as a snowball in hell.
Thanks for the lecture dude....¨

Here's some clever words from our fellow poster DW in another "change" thread I started:

Dear Wiggo said:
There are countless stories down through the years of people saying, "hey why don't we ---------" and getting shouted down or told it can't be done yadda yadda BORING.

It's so easy to pick flaws in things. Simple. So much easier to tear something down. Much more difficult to create something, to grow something. To innovate. See beyond the obvious.

In this thread, I really don't care for or about the, "that won't work because" responses. It's not helpful, or useful. Pretty sure OP is saying the same thing. If you can't see something, then great. But if the possibility is not even allowed to be entertained, due to constant negativity, there's no avenue for discussion at all.
Now what is your contribution?
 
Mar 27, 2014
202
0
0
mrhender said:
Thanks for the lecture dude....¨

Here's some clever words from our fellow poster DW in another "change" thread I started:



Now what is your contribution?
Basically As i have said before on here that there is an answer but it is one that is not going to work because of the inexorable march of the money men taking all sports to the ultimate conclusion of them being entertainment and no longer true sport.

The answer would be to remove the UCI, Every past dope positive, all past soigneurs and doctors and directors who have ever been involved in doping, where there is proof for that to happen.
Then you bring in lifetime bans from the professional sport for anyone caught in future, and withold 50% of career winnings for three years until the rider has proved clean after the fact. So you have three years to back test for new drugs.

Now to do that you would need to change the business to ensure that the teams and riders were able to function without the large amounts of money needed right now to have mega teams who need to compete all over the world and that would be a challenge, you would also need to ensure that the testing personnel are paid a suitable sum of money to prevent them being able to be bribed, so you would need to utilise an outside agency to do this and pay them handsomely to do so.

Now here is where it all falls down because you are then left with the question of who would fund such an enterprise, answer only people who would expect serious results and success for the amount of money they would need to invest and given the monies for winnings may be witheld they would not see much of a return.

And then we get back to the original point which is you will attract people who will require you to do whatever it takes to win and ensure that their money is going to generate those returns.

Business is business and it is about profit and success, it will not tolerate failure or losing - this is why business go bankrupt, now we are seeing football clubs either being bought up by mega rich people or allowed to fail as a business. - this is what happens when you mix business and sport, as the IOC has long since known and why they are the worst offenders in doping complicity and cover ups, they have too big a business and too powerful backers for there to be any losers in the game.

So back to cycling, as long as the ASO and RCS's of this world and the UCI are happy to have big business come to the party and plough in lots of money, and as long as those businesses threaten to walk away should they even think they will get tarnished reputations, we will keep the status quo.

Until the cure tastes better than the disease human beings are incapable of curing themselves.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
robertmooreheadlane said:
Basically As i have said before on here that there is an answer but it is one that is not going to work because of the inexorable march of the money men taking all sports to the ultimate conclusion of them being entertainment and no longer true sport.
I disagree with the notion that how you define Pro-Cycling should determine wether or not it can be relatively clean... To be clear I'am under no illusions that you can eradicate doping in any sport. And to be honest, I don't really care if people define it as sports or entertainment,it is a personal choice which maybe only matters some in individual perception, or as in this case (forum debate) it can work as a screamer. For me cycling has always been both... Some argue that doping is transforming pro-cycling to a decimated circus of pure entertainment. If to play along with this premise I'd say that it takes more than doping to do that. You have to take into account how the sport handles itself, as in how do the authorities handles this problem. Over the years we have seen countless incidents of inconsistent, and in my opinion political -if not merely corrupt case developments as in tampering with results both pre-during and after races.. This is destroying cycling as a sport, at least as much as doping is..

The answer would be to remove the UCI, Every past dope positive, all past soigneurs and doctors and directors who have ever been involved in doping, where there is proof for that to happen.
Then you bring in lifetime bans from the professional sport for anyone caught in future, and withold 50% of career winnings for three years until the rider has proved clean after the fact. So you have three years to back test for new drugs.
Actually I wouldn't remove the UCI. Cycling needs a strong promoter, but the key is to completely seperate the policing of anti-doping from those who may have conflicting interests ie the UCI... I would find it extremely unfair to remove all those caught in the web from the sport.. This would only mean that you retained the clever cheaters with means to avoid this ultimate concequense. I would argue that 50% of anti-doping efforts/staff should include former dopers (with careful supervision though) I'am all for harsher punishments but the stick needs to be combined with carrot... I'd argue that a career doper could do much more damage(good) if they where only persuaded to participate in the process...

Now to do that you would need to change the business to ensure that the teams and riders were able to function without the large amounts of money needed right now to have mega teams who need to compete all over the world and that would be a challenge, you would also need to ensure that the testing personnel are paid a suitable sum of money to prevent them being able to be bribed, so you would need to utilise an outside agency to do this and pay them handsomely to do so.

Now here is where it all falls down because you are then left with the question of who would fund such an enterprise, answer only people who would expect serious results and success for the amount of money they would need to invest and given the monies for winnings may be witheld they would not see much of a return.

And then we get back to the original point which is you will attract people who will require you to do whatever it takes to win and ensure that their money is going to generate those returns.
I won't do that..

Business is business and it is about profit and success, it will not tolerate failure or losing - this is why business go bankrupt, now we are seeing football clubs either being bought up by mega rich people or allowed to fail as a business. - this is what happens when you mix business and sport, as the IOC has long since known and why they are the worst offenders in doping complicity and cover ups, they have too big a business and too powerful backers for there to be any losers in the game.
If business will not tolerate failure then how do you define current state of pro-cycling... German television won't even air the damn TDF.. 80 million people in the heart of europe....... Is that a success?? You argue that effective anti-doping cannot take place as it will remove funds from the sport/entertainment... I'd say that it is quite the opposite.. Why do you think that the sport in the last two decades has been promoting itself as a clean(er) version... The answer is money...
Clean image equals more revenue.... And Cookson the promoter -and policer knows this...


So back to cycling, as long as the ASO and RCS's of this world and the UCI are happy to have big business come to the party and plough in lots of money, and as long as those businesses threaten to walk away should they even think they will get tarnished reputations, we will keep the status quo.
So let them walk... Id' argue that current state of cycling leaves a minor field of money-strong companies as potential sponsors than a real belief in the sport would.. Cycling is currently a cheap way of getting your brand out compared to other "major" sports.. The price would go up if the product was enduring a higher repute and a lesser risk...

Until the cure tastes better than the disease human beings are incapable of curing themselves.
Mostly true this, however I do think that the cure is going to be hard stuff for some time, but in the end it will taste a lot better, and become a much better business than it is now...
 
Mar 27, 2014
202
0
0
OK lets be clear of the outcome we want as you seem to be changing your mind on various things as you discuss my case

Outcome would be: to have as clean a sport of cycling as possible and for it to be successful enough to keep its current professional status and olympic status.

Now there are a few basic assumptions that I made which you disagreed with
Cycling as sport or entertainment
OK for me as a distinction I would look at wrestling, when I grew up there was saturday afternoon and olymipc wrestling and one was slightly scripted entertainment and the other was sport, add serious money to the equation and we now have the WWE as entertainment and olympic wrestling is the sport.
You can either have a professional peleton that is there for entertainment or you can have one that is there for sport - we are moving inexorably towards the former.

OK you wouldn't remove the UCI - but would you keep any of the cronies and gravy train crew who currently staff it or would you have a whole new set of people? and of those you keep how do you know they are not corrupt? And why would you not get rid of the prior dopers? you get more people coming in knowing they are up against a terminal penalty if caught and you can focus more on the old guard to get rid of remaining dopers. Currently you have a system where dopers get away with it for years then bring long drawn out legal case and get slapped with a few months off the bike and then if they do it again move into consulting or team management and "retire" thus keeping the system intact and the omerta strong.
And you want to get dopers to come over and start working with the anti doping brigade, which is great until the next gen of drugs comes around which they are not familiar with and therefore their usefullness is now redundant.
Or you want them to explain how the teams keep things quiet and tell all on the whole system, Well 100 years of cycling hasn't got anyone to do that yet and I'm guessing as long as the power brokers are in charge you may struggle with that one.

You wouldn't do what ? Keep the pro tour as a worldwide set of events needing large teams and infrastructure - or allow the teams to bring in large corporate sponsors? Not sure what your point is here.

Business does not tolerate failure: in this regard I am not suggesting that failure is one country turning off the TDF because it's largest star of the previous decade was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and made them a laughing stock,
Failure in the current context is to have a plethora of big names caught up in another peurto of festina scandal. So the powers that be keep the positives to a manageable level in conjunction with the teams.
Just Like the IOC does to protect it's brand
Yes Cookson knows this and this is why the UCI have been complicit in covering up positives and protecting teams and riders to protect their business - but you dont want to get rid of them so how do you change this?


So you are happy to let the ASO and RCS and their major backers walk away from the sport. OK so you think cycling can survive with no Paris roubaix, no milan san remo, no gent whevelghem, no tour de france, no giro, no tour down under or tour of california. Because if you think the companies that own those races are going to walk away and let you run them instead then think again, or you could perhaps buy the rights to them but then you will need to find someone with probably close to 500 million euros to do that. So we get back to the money men again.

The fact is that with money going up and up in cycling and people having millions of euros to lose each year there will always be a culture of doping and cheating, Whether it is agreeing to fix races, whether it is the UCI being politically motivated to send out positives of a team it doesn't like but hush up those from it's favoured teams. or whether it is teams bringing in sponsors that can help them out in terms of pharmacology, or bribing testers.

Cycling is and will be synonymous with doping as long as the money is greater for the winners than the UCI and WADA can spend on catching people, How many times have we heard of the death of cycling sponsorship after each scandal, and yet new companies are still willing to step up and make a big investment, why?
Maybe because they have a certain agreement that they wont be shown up by positives from the management or the organisation who are trying to stay on their gravy train.

Your argument that brand value goes up when cycling is clean and attractive is i'm afraid naive - The brand value of cycling is not in the people on this website or cyclists in general, otherwise you would have more cycling brands sponsoring everything. It is in the hundreds of thousands of people who watch one or two prestige events in certain parts of the world, or it is to get a brand into a different part of the world than it currently is.

Even with doping the TDF will attract some 2 - 3 million spectators and a bigger tv audience which brands can exploit even without germany.
And the same is true of some of the classics and some of the far flung races.
Yes cycling is cheap which is why over the years we have had obscure companies as sponsors, and why when you get a superstar you get a big name brand behind it. SKY are only in it due to promises made by British Cycling and Dave Brailsford and the ability to win the biggest race on earth.

Cannondale have sagan, Tinkoff has contador etc. are they there for cycling or for the star name and the ability to win.

I'm afraid as cycnical and unsavoury as it sounds there is no way that sport and money can co-exist without adding the third element of corruption, whether that is corrupt results or organisation or athletes, it will always be there and the sooner people can just accept that the easier it will be to tolerate it.

No amount of meddling with the UCI or the teams will change what is there now - After all todays drugs are no worse than riders being mugged and beaten and left for dead at the side of the road as they were in the very early years of the TDF - which would you rather have?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
I didn't read your wall of text but would like to inject a certain level of... "business" for the most part is doing it wrong. Just because it's all pervasive and the largest influence in our lives (and that includes the businesses of religion and government) does not mean it's the right way or best way of doing things.

Good grief and now I read a bit more. You must be an absolute god send for people at work trying to solve problems - nah we can't, it's rooted and will never be fixable.
 
Mar 27, 2014
202
0
0
Actually what i do at work is to solve problems

And I am not espousing that business is good for the sport - far from it, I would love it to be separate and for the sport to stay true

But my point is the powers that be in GLOBAL sport are lured by the money of big business and so that is the beginning of the downfall of sport and so cycling,

and until you look at that as the root of the problem everything else is simply tinkering around the edges.

I'm not saying you can't do it

I'm saying you are looking in the wrong place

Look to take the money out of the sport and you will take away the main driving factor behind the cheating and the corruption.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Cookson insists WorldTour reforms will be in place for 2017

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/cookson-insists-worldtour-reforms-will-be-in-place-for-2017

Some familiarities re: the OP
Will be interesting to see how this plays out..


The planned reforms

Details of the proposed reforms to professional cycling have never been formally published or presented to the media and cycling fans. However leaks have shown the changes could be dramatic.

The aim is to modernise professional cycling by shaking up the race calendar and team structures. A new WorldTour calendar has been hypothesized, with two races never held at the same time, the Vuelta could be cut from three weeks to just two and other races will be cut or even removed from the current WorldTour calendar.

The number and size of the WorldTour teams is also expected to change. The most recent proposal suggested 16 "A" WorldTour teams of 22 riders, with a second division of eight "B" teams and a system of promotion and relegation in place. The eight "B" teams would be like the current Professional Continental teams that fight for Wild Card invitations to the major races. They would be guaranteed 50 days of racing in the new WorldTour system. All 24 teams would have to run a development team but not a women's team.

A salary cap could also be part of the reform to create more financial equality between the teams. Some teams, backed by wealthy individuals or state-controlled sponsors seem to have virtually unlimited budgets, while others are limited by commercial returns of sponsors and short-term contracts.

Rider safety is also a key with improvement in course designs and a clear protocol for extreme weather conditions to protect the riders. This would hopefully avoid the situation that occurred at this year's Giro d'Italia, when confusion reigned at the snow-covered summit of the Passo dello Stelvio.

Riders would also race less to protect their health but hopefully face their biggest rivals more often. The reforms could allow team leader to compete in all three Grand Tour, as Tinkoff-Saxo has recently proposed.
 
Mar 27, 2014
202
0
0
I like the idea of a salary cap
a funding cap would be a definite bonus to allow for a level playing field even more

Potential progress - although by the looks of the news today no agreement with teams or race organisers though

That will be the tough sell - how do you limit their earning potential and get them to agree to it
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Broader proposals needed to help cycling grow

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/opinion-the-uci-worldtour-is-a-failing-brand

For those interested.

Steve Beckett on various themes..

Long article..

Here's a minor subtract to get an idea of what is discussed:

But this vision would be better coming from the UCI, the custodians of the UCI WorldTour. In sport, a whole that is greater than the sum of it parts is a maxim best applied to the likes of the English Premier League, the NFL and Formula 1. It can’t be applied to the UCI WorldTour; a stagnating brand over shadowed by its constituent events and teams. The pro cycling calendar is still dominated by the Tour de France (an incredible event but generating (€120m direct revenues per annum) and in the big scheme of things how many sports fans and sponsors are aware of the UCI World Tour brand? Answer: not nearly enough.

This situation came to a head in early October when the UCI announced only 17 applicant teams for 18 available World Tour licences. This under demand at the top level of cycling is embarrassing for the sport and is perhaps the best illustration of a governing body that struggles to make sense of the market forces available to cycling. On one hand, the UCI needs to use the WorldTour brand to generate direct revenues. On the other hand, it should use the UCI WorldTour to facilitate a bigger and better sport for all other stakeholders. At the moment it doesn’t do either very well.

The final details of a reform plan for the World Tour (2015-17) will be shared with stakeholders at the UCI’s WorldTour Seminar in December. We already know the key themes:

• Fewer WorldTour race days (from 150+ to c120)
• No overlap in World Tour events
• Fewer WorldTour teams (from 18 to 16) and riders (from 30-22)
• A 1b division between WorldTour (1a) and Pro Conti level, consisting of 8 teams who are permitted to race c50 days of the WorldTour
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Certification of riders/teams etc.

http://www.theouterline.com/changing-the-business-model-4-a-new-approach-to-anti-doping/

Theouterline is ready with their newest piece...

introduction below.

A New Approach to Anti-Doping

There is no greater threat to the future of pro cycling than the continued lack of a consistent and defensible anti-doping system. Athlete testing and punishment is often inequitable or inconsistently applied, the testing methods themselves are sometimes analytically inconclusive, and the responsibility and coordination between different governing agencies is often absent or unclear. The shortcomings of this system have been felt across the entire sport – from its shaky financial situation to the growing demand for fundamental structural and governance reform. Real progress and a more effective solution to the doping dilemma would allow the sport to attract more sponsors, generate more revenue and flourish in the future.
Over the past several years, there have been hundreds of articles and editorial pieces criticizing the current anti-doping procedures in pro cycling, and decrying the wide spectrum of failures, inequities, and unintended consequences; even proclaiming the end of sport. But few observers have had any concrete suggestions for new approaches to deal with the problem. In this article, we suggest some new ideas about anti-doping, and propose a broad conceptual outline for the application of the professional certification model – and the creation of an independent Cycling Certification Program (CCP).
 
Here's my actual reaction:

On paper, of course it is sound. But where is the money going to come from? Where are the personnel coming from? The Andy Schlecks of the world looking for a desk job? What is their leverage for teams and individuals that don't want to comply? The UCI won't hand over licesnsing, or any path that would financially penalize teams. Unfortunately, so many editorial ideas are just rearranging faulty parts.

There there is the fallibility of their own controls. We already have the triathalon org. using lie detectors to certify clean athletes. (Although, at least that is a step above bike pure). The MPCC is similarly nice on paper, but what is stopping any team from not signing on? Or stopping a team from shredding their agreement?

Some sponsors may say they care for a clean image, but just as many are willing to fork over cash to makes sure there is a clean image. This certification wouldn't be any meaningful incentive for teams.
 
Mar 27, 2014
202
0
0
It would help if anyone set out with a clear goal for the sport

You don't have a direction or strategy and so you cant have a clear target operating model to build towards.

2 options are available as far as I see it.

1 : financial success and global brand recognition and development

2 Clean doping free sport

1 is easy - bring in some decent senior figures from the likes of football and potentially a couple of franchise owners from the USA type sports model.
Build the brand and bring in some big names from the middle east to throw money at the sport and build the big races even bigger and make the smaller races into larger ones.
Potentially you could have separate tables for one day riders, grand tour riders and combined, etc, etc, and then have large paychecks for the winners and overall season winners.
Make it spectacular and make it earn money and become a second tier sport as opposed to a fifth tier sport it is today.

2 simple really - take away the money and make the prizes not worth cheating for and introduce lifetime bans for two offences (which means from any cycling related activity and management position)
Of course this would mean getting everyone to agree that we will go back to being second class citizens on the roads as no one will care about cycling or cyclists and there will be no coverage of any race at all on tv other than a 1 hour highlights package on the entire tour de france once a year.

Sports and drugs are no so inextricably linked due to the money involved it is not really worth having the argument any longer.

Until we get over the issue and let the sport get on with being a sport like rugby, football, and all the others we will always be stuck in between the two options above and no progress in either direction will be made.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
More Strides than Rides said:
Here's my actual reaction:

On paper, of course it is sound. But where is the money going to come from? Where are the personnel coming from? The Andy Schlecks of the world looking for a desk job? What is their leverage for teams and individuals that don't want to comply? The UCI won't hand over licesnsing, or any path that would financially penalize teams. Unfortunately, so many editorial ideas are just rearranging faulty parts.

There there is the fallibility of their own controls. We already have the triathalon org. using lie detectors to certify clean athletes. (Although, at least that is a step above bike pure). The MPCC is similarly nice on paper, but what is stopping any team from not signing on? Or stopping a team from shredding their agreement?

Some sponsors may say they care for a clean image, but just as many are willing to fork over cash to makes sure there is a clean image. This certification wouldn't be any meaningful incentive for teams.
I think it is perfetly fair to question suggestions as these...

But let my just ask..

Why is it always about debunking an idea, or refusing it because.....just because...?

Cycling is in a poor shape, right?

So i challenge you to perfect the ideas, or modify them rather than just saying no...!

This is not specifically aimed at you..

But I'd like to see some posters trying to make the best of things rather then the opposite....

It might be bad ideas, I dunno.. I'am not the master Yoda of cycling..

I'am only trying to post some ideas/things that i can't see posted here..
But that doesn'tmean that i take it at face value..

I'am not taking ownership to this, but it seems that every new idea posted is to be debunked as quickly as possible..

That approach is not going to cure cycling imo...
 
mrhender said:
I think it is perfetly fair to question suggestions as these...

But let my just ask..

Why is it always about debunking an idea, or refusing it because.....just because...?

Cycling is in a poor shape, right?

So i challenge you to perfect the ideas, or modify them rather than just saying no...!

This is not specifically aimed at you..

But I'd like to see some posters trying to make the best of things rather then the opposite....

It might be bad ideas, I dunno.. I'am not the master Yoda of cycling..

I'am only trying to post some ideas/things that i can't see posted here..
But that doesn'tmean that i take it at face value..

I'am not taking ownership to this, but it seems that every new idea posted is to be debunked as quickly as possible..

That approach is not going to cure cycling imo...
I was pretty negative, wasn't I.

The right rebuttal to my post is, just like you ask, "What would you do about it?"

But the answer is frustrating: I won't do anything. Even if I tried, I couldn't do anything. The only thing I can do is spend money one way or another. I am not a part of any organization, team or club. I am not a stakeholder in any way. I've posted before about trying to avoid brands with disreputable sponsorships, but all that really amounts to is not buying Powerbars.

Not to get all nihilist, but none of us matter. The closest we can come is to influence the stakeholders, which is incredibly difficult to do: either they are not interested in us (by which I mean message board opinions), they are not interested in our money, or are so fossilized in their beliefs that they won't change anyway.

(None of this is directed at you, just generally airing grievances.)

The above poster was correct in anchoring any discussion around the goals for cycling. Globalizing the sport means alienating its current hardcore base. Growing the sport means alienating some fans who want the sport all to themselves. Revolutionizing the sport means changing what anchored its hardcore fans for so long (look at Cookson's proposed reforms and the reactions for examples of all of these). Cleaning up the sport means stopping investment in all of those until it is cleaned up right (and also threatening the job security of its leadership if cleaned up right, so it will never happen).

I forget what point I was trying to make. I've also just put myself into a negative and existential train of thought.:(

Maybe I'll edit tomorrow with something more useful.:eek:
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
More Strides than Rides said:
I was pretty negative, wasn't I.

The right rebuttal to my post is, just like you ask, "What would you do about it?"

But the answer is frustrating: I won't do anything. Even if I tried, I couldn't do anything. The only thing I can do is spend money one way or another. I am not a part of any organization, team or club. I am not a stakeholder in any way. I've posted before about trying to avoid brands with disreputable sponsorships, but all that really amounts to is not buying Powerbars.

Not to get all nihilist, but none of us matter. The closest we can come is to influence the stakeholders, which is incredibly difficult to do: either they are not interested in us (by which I mean message board opinions), they are not interested in our money, or are so fossilized in their beliefs that they won't change anyway.

(None of this is directed at you, just generally airing grievances.)

The above poster was correct in anchoring any discussion around the goals for cycling. Globalizing the sport means alienating its current hardcore base. Growing the sport means alienating some fans who want the sport all to themselves. Revolutionizing the sport means changing what anchored its hardcore fans for so long (look at Cookson's proposed reforms and the reactions for examples of all of these). Cleaning up the sport means stopping investment in all of those until it is cleaned up right (and also threatening the job security of its leadership if cleaned up right, so it will never happen).

I forget what point I was trying to make. I've also just put myself into a negative and existential train of thought.:(

Maybe I'll edit tomorrow with something more useful.:eek:
It's a good post, valid points.
In my opinion you shouldn't edit it..

I'am short on time now, but would like to reply to it later..
 
It is difficult not to be negative, when any serious reform would send so many of the current players packing. They will fight it to save their jobs. A coalition of the unwilling that would require huge leverage to defeat it. This is why I was interested in a guy like LeMond to be prez of the UCI. He is popular, has name recognition, both in the English speaking world and in the old powerhouses of cycling in continental Europe. He can get away with saying and doing things that others can't, IMO.

The article made some interesting suggestions, such as holding teams a lot more accountable. I like the certification idea. So how about:

1. A 32 Team franchise system, NFL style. They can line up for any WT race, so that limits riders to 7 per Team to keep the peloton at m/l 200 in a race.

2. Creation of a player union, again NFL style, with a pension system based on years at pro-level. That is also NFL style. The system is sound in American football: if doping exists (and it is widespread) it's due to the clear objective of entertainment vs. sport, new age gladiators, the bigger/faster the better. I truly believe that unless the sport stops treating non-famous riders as cattle, with low wages and no job security, the incentive will be there to go from have-nothing to have something by means of cheating. Since job security is based on performance, the minimum salary has to be there IMO.

3. Restoring the credibility of the sport. More anti-doping efforts. Where would the $ come from to finance a larger scale anti-doping program? Some of it from the huge fines that teams would pay if a rider is caught. Also, retroactive testing of all race winners, big or small, with the rider losing his pension/retirement if caught, and more fines to the team. A two-strike system, but after the first strike, you lose the opportunity to be associated with pro-cycling after retirement, whether as part of a team, or in jobs such as TV anchor (in your face Jaja :p). You can do that by refusing to issue passes/credentials via the ASOs of the world. Lie-detector's testing? Why not? Reserve me a seat when Vino gets on stage then :D.

4. Not growing the sport at the expense of traditions. I don't mind races in Dubai or Beijing, the US, Canada, or the TDU. It's great. But don't mess with the classics calendar, or move the Dauphine or the Tour de Suisse. Moving the Vuelta to the fall a few years back was a good idea. It saved the Vuelta IMO. But let's be careful and respectful.

Just of couple of thoughts here.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY