• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Implicating the UCI Too Much?

I've been considering the possibility that one of the reasons Landis' breaking the omerta is so explosive is that it reduces cycling to the level of professional body building and entertainment wrestling.

The new and explosive idea that Landis introduces is the role the UCI and DS's play in doping. For me, Landis' allegations suggest the UCI's policy is, "Go ahead and dope because it makes a more spectacular show." After killing a few riders, (Juniors and Under-23's died of heart attacks) the regulations are used to keep riders alive, but go ahead and dope. Right? Wrong?

The last thing the Landis allegations bring to light is the importance of Armstrong corp. to the UCI. It looks like Armstrong is positioned as the conduit to exporting UCI racing to the U.S. It looks like there's a symbiotic relationship where the UCI wants to capture American viewers and therefore the Armstrong corp. gets all kinds of special consideration. The USA Cycling organization wholesale neglect of domestic racing makes sense to me when I view it as an organization whose purpose is to enrich Armstrong inc. and be the UCI's cuckhold.

I'm really shooting in the dark on the last idea, but I wanted some feedback on both.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
i agree with pretty much all of that..

UCI has gotten involved with armstrong/Hog(JB) without realising how big they would get and now they are inter-linked and after Landisgate if 1 goes down the other goes with it...who knows how many of armstrong's team test pos (inc LA) during the years and UCI 'lost' the results....

but yep blood passorts is a rubber stamp to microdose, which keeps cycling fast and furious and the pharmacists rich, the uci rich too

all in my opinion...
 
May 27, 2010
45
0
0
Visit site
A few comments. One, that actually suprised me, was a poll on espn about doping. The poll suggested that Americans (I am one) think that doping is as prevalent in football and baseball than cycling. For some reason, they think it's less in basketball. However, basically none said it would detract them from watching these sports.

Last night I was talking to someone from Italy who just got back to the US after spending 2 months there. We talked about the Giro. Of course, doping came up. His comment was soccer is the worst, there's just more money in it, omerta.... He went on about some soccer player who tested positive for a recreational drug and got an 8 year ban. Aparently, he missed a payment...

Finally, when do we get to see the complete list of athletes from the operation puerto investigation?
 
May 27, 2010
45
0
0
Visit site
Moose McKnuckles said:
Rumor has it ACF has the list but refuses to release it because of his love and admiration for Spanish cycling.

There have been rumors floating around since the beginning suggesting soccer and tennis ties. If I recall correctly, one of the doctors involved was affiliated with real madrid.
 
Sep 21, 2009
2,978
0
0
Visit site
I think that UCI and DS's play a slightly different role wrt doping. DS's play an active role as they want their riders winning races by whatever means without getting caught to secure contracts with sponsors. UCI is just interested in pretending the sport is clean and not having many positives. UCI just plays a rather passive role to keep the business going on without major Festina-like scandals. From time to time they catch a prominent name (Valverde, Pellizotti), but they are careful enough with a few really big names. You know, big names make through the news in the general media, and that means sponsors for teams and races and money into UCI's pockets.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
red_flanders said:
I'm almost wondering if you're serious--it's far from a new idea. There are just more specifics around it now.

Once Weisel started Montgomery-Subaru he set on a course to own the US franchise. Armstrong is his Hulk Hogan and they must have viewed it as a potentially sponsor-rich environment. They've certainly profitted from it in many ways but I wonder if even they thought they'd get big enough to manipulate the UCI?
 
Oldman said:
I wonder if even they thought they'd get big enough to manipulate the UCI?

It's more like their interest are so closely aligned when the UCI wants to do a race in the U.S. they'll have to come through Armstrong/Weisel. The UCI knows that the U.S. is a growth segment for them and with Armstrong they have the celebrity to grow an 'mercan audience.

I would argue Weisel is being personally enriched somehow, very well off the USA Cycling balance sheet. A potential scenario would be at the Tour of Calif., Lance gets an appearance fee, and just it so happens Weisel can deliver UCI certified officials because Lance's most rabid fan runs USAC. Somewhere, Wiesel is made richer for this.

When Lance retires, another Lance shell corporation will import more UCI racers for an event somewhere like Colorado, fleece the sponsors, forbid domestic squads from participating and raise a never-audited amount of money for cancer something-or-another. Lance and Weisel will be made richer for it, but that's about it...

The long term neglect of the USAC membership makes sense to me this way...
 
Jul 17, 2009
406
0
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
It's more like their interest are so closely aligned when the UCI wants to do a race in the U.S. they'll have to come through Armstrong/Weisel. The UCI knows that the U.S. is a growth segment for them and with Armstrong they have the celebrity to grow an 'mercan audience.

I would argue Weisel is being personally enriched somehow, very well off the USA Cycling balance sheet. A potential scenario would be at the Tour of Calif., Lance gets an appearance fee, and just it so happens Weisel can deliver UCI certified officials because Lance's most rabid fan runs USAC. Somewhere, Wiesel is made richer for this.

When Lance retires, another Lance shell corporation will import more UCI racers for an event somewhere like Colorado, fleece the sponsors, forbid domestic squads from participating and raise a never-audited amount of money for cancer something-or-another. Lance and Weisel will be made richer for it, but that's about it...

The long term neglect of the USAC membership makes sense to me this way...

Dude, I think you are over doping...
 
Mar 10, 2009
341
0
0
Visit site
Moose McKnuckles said:
Rumor has it ACF has the list but refuses to release it because of his love and admiration for Spanish cycling.

sorry what is ACF ?

This is something that really annoys me about Puerto. The only names in the public domain are those of cyclists yet we heard when the story first broke that it included players from Real and Barca and other sports too. I guess the other sports pay more and so can hush these things up
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
It's more like their interest are so closely aligned when the UCI wants to do a race in the U.S. they'll have to come through Armstrong/Weisel. The UCI knows that the U.S. is a growth segment for them and with Armstrong they have the celebrity to grow an 'mercan audience.

I would argue Weisel is being personally enriched somehow, very well off the USA Cycling balance sheet. A potential scenario would be at the Tour of Calif., Lance gets an appearance fee, and just it so happens Weisel can deliver UCI certified officials because Lance's most rabid fan runs USAC. Somewhere, Wiesel is made richer for this.

When Lance retires, another Lance shell corporation will import more UCI racers for an event somewhere like Colorado, fleece the sponsors, forbid domestic squads from participating and raise a never-audited amount of money for cancer something-or-another. Lance and Weisel will be made richer for it, but that's about it...

The long term neglect of the USAC membership makes sense to me this way...

I don't think Weisel has made much out of this compared to his overall wealth. He seemed to be a real fan of the sport and thought it could be much more accepted and profitable and he sought to control it. Lance, on the other hand; saw how the Euro Good Ol boy network functioned and saw opportunities to nickel and dime the sport. Own a team, own the DS, control the sponsor money, control team appearance fees and you can make a decent living. That Radioshack was his team allowed him to directly be the face for endorsements and decide who on the team got a cut of that action. That as much as anything could have chafed Contador, Floyd and all the others that moved on.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
Oldman said:
I don't think Weisel has made much out of this compared to his overall wealth. He seemed to be a real fan of the sport and thought it could be much more accepted and profitable and he sought to control it. Lance, on the other hand; saw how the Euro Good Ol boy network functioned and saw opportunities to nickel and dime the sport. Own a team, own the DS, control the sponsor money, control team appearance fees and you can make a decent living. That Radioshack was his team allowed him to directly be the face for endorsements and decide who on the team got a cut of that action. That as much as anything could have chafed Contador, Floyd and all the others that moved on.

I agree with your assessment.

From what I understand, there is simply not a massive pile of money to be made from having a grip on things like UCI officials, and appearance fees. Not when you consider how much money Weisel already has, read somewhere he is a billionaire (with a B).

Winning the Tour is simply the vehicle to squeeze USPS, Discovery, Nike, Trek, and all the rest of the LA sponsors for tens of millions, and to squeeze folks on the charitable side. That, to me, is the next place to dig around for misdeeds and money vaporization.

If anything, all of this is a foundation to facilitate Weisel and/or Lance into a juicy IOC spot. Talk about a corrupt group....
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Oldman said:
I don't think Weisel has made much out of this compared to his overall wealth.

Correct. He did make some cash during the big years and when he sold it to Armstrong, Bruyneel and Knaggs.

Armstrong and Weisel have not been close for years. It will be interesting to see what happens if the finger pointing starts.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
goober said:
Dude, I think you are over doping...

Read and learn........... ;)

DirtyWorks said:
It's more like their interest are so closely aligned when the UCI wants to do a race in the U.S. they'll have to come through Armstrong/Weisel. The UCI knows that the U.S. is a growth segment for them and with Armstrong they have the celebrity to grow an 'mercan audience.

<snipped for brevity>...

You are correct that the UCI looks at the USA as a major target & revenue maker - but the UCI will make little cash out of it..... which leaves it open to others...

Let me introduce you to Shadetree Sports, run by none other than Darach McQuaid.... name sound familiar? He is a brother of a certain UCI President and he was a recent passenger in the Team Radio Shack car at the Tour of California.

The aims of 'Shady sports'... (Seriously!)
"In the Spring of 2011, a professional cycling race in the US will become north America's "Tour de France" and one company could get all the credit"

Darach is(was) organizer of the Tour of Ireland when it went from a 5 day to a 3 day when a certain Texan signed up to start....

Darach also sell's used bikes...but not just any used bikes, ....
Then he says he’s got a bike for sale that Armstrong owned, that he’s going to put it on eBay but he’s willing to part with it for a decent price despite you dancing on Armstrong’s career.

Why spend $100k + on a 'Hurst' designed bike when you can get the actual bike direct from the McQuaids on ebay?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
You are correct that the UCI looks at the USA as a major target & revenue maker - but the UCI will make little cash out of it..... which leaves it open to others...

i have read somewhere that Zomegnan wants to take the giro and cycling to the sates with night time racing and he said that the audience will want more action and speed....

that screams to me his stance on doping and the safety aspect for riders, cause i think he means crashes when he used the word action..

but yeah the only market place for cycling to expand monetarily is usa...and armstrong wants to control that, but i don't see it happening on a large scale...

1 or 2 big races in the calendar year yep, but cycling's fanbase is european and to kill that would be detrimental to the sport....be left with only chinese cyclists:D
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
The notion that the UCI and Us cycling has been cosying up to sell the product in America makes total sence.
As I recollect McQuaids reletationship with american cycling goes back to at least the early 80`s and possibly as far as late 70`s.
Correct me if im wrong but wasnt there a strong Irish contigent involved in races like the "Red Zinger" back then from which Mc Quid( :D) came from?
The market potential in America, the potential budgets available for endorsement, tv rights, promotion and prize funds dwarfes anything Europe can offer.
Tv coverage is the key and I suspect every single one of the recent years changes to the Olympic events and World Championship titles is primerily motivated by the desire to improve the tv viewing.
Mc Quid is and always has been primerly a jouneyman with a keen eye to marketing.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Darryl Webster said:
.....endorsement, tv rights, promotion and prize funds dwarfes anything Europe can offer....

...Tv coverage is the key...

tv is the only way to sell cycling in US. but it needs action and speed, and how are you going to provide that without doping....
 

TRENDING THREADS