Jonathan Vaughters guest appearance

[JV1973]

Both Paris-Roubaix and the Tour TTT were things I won't forget. No one rated us as real winners for either one, so that made it doubly nice. Plus the personality management that went into both of those wins was something Freud would have been proud of.

 

[JV1973]

lostincosmos,

Sponsors already pay top dollar for pro cycling, in comparison to other advertising avenues and sports. And they get great value from cycling. Cycling gets huge viewership world wide, so that is not our problem. we do quite well on that front.

The biggest threat to sponsors is a very subtle one: Teams like Katusha, Astana, or BMC that are not backed by a sponsor, but by a wealthy individual or governments. These teams tend to have "unlimited" budgets, which hurts other teams that rely on corporate sponsorship for funding. Why? Because they raise the cost of having a #1 type team to the point it becomes uneconomical to sponsor cycling for a publicly owned company that has to answer to shareholders. Then their ad dollars go elsewhere.

This is easy to fix, however! Simply put overall budget/payroll caps in place. I'm a big believer in raising the minimum wage in cycling, but having firm total budget cap for all teams. That way fairness is applied to the business of cycling, not just the anti-doping aspect.

 

[maltiv]

How good is Navardauskas on the cobbles? He seems to be in amazing shape at the moment, do you think he can be on the podium in Omloop Het Niuewsblad?

 

[JV1973]

Taiwan,

Shhhh.... That's a secret.

 

[JV1973]

Actually, "that's a secret" is for Maltiv

 

[Daniel Benson]

That draws our Q&A with Jonathan to a close.

Thanks to all those who took part in the event, submitting your questions and reading along. Sorry if your question wasn't posted, we had a lot submitted. A couple crossed over themes already covered.

Finally, a big thanks to JV who gave up his morning - way more time than we expected - to join us.

We hope to bring you more of these in the future.

Dan

 

[Granville57]

That draws our Q&A with Jonathan to a close.

Just a few comments and constructive criticism before I depart CN for good.

The "idea" behind this event was a good one (I'm pretty sure I suggested something exactly like this many months ago), and I understand that there will be wrinkles to work out from a maiden voyage but...

It left me thinking, Does anyone around here have any forum experience?

1. For the life of me, I can't imagine why JV wasn't directly quoting the questions he was responding to. It makes for quite the convoluted read when trying to find the source, thereby giving continuity to the "conversation."

2. Perhaps I'm not that bright (and there's a very good chance of that) but as I far as I could tell, JV's appearance was a good hour or two off from what was advertised.

3. I don't mind so much that my own question wasn't acknowledged, (OK, that's a lie) but when I see questions from a "member" with zero prior posting history, and who has therefore contributed zero to the forum in the past, I'm left somewhat perplexed by the decision making process (although that pretty much sums up my perspective on many things around here as of late.).

Au revoir

 

[ElChingon]

Where it belongs:

And quite frankly, if you think I have fear of being blackballed by the UCI, you need to think again. I could give a ****.

Go find the minutes from any UCI advisory board meeting. There's one ******* that raises his voice over and over again. That guy is definitely blackballed. That guy is me.

So why wait 10 or so years to say anything (although not much), what was the reason? Are those meetings about who is doping, or who is not being tested? Or why the hard facts about what was going on not being followed up on? (Manzano, Jascke, Floyd confessions).

I doubt it.

 

[QuizzicalSwin]

Interesting. That bike looks very "niner-like".