So Who is to blame?

[supercameron]

i blame the ethnocentric UCI because they have been so upset with lance winning so many tours they are trying to go back to keeping it in europe

 

[ingsve]

i blame the ethnocentric UCI because they have been so upset with lance winning so many tours they are trying to go back to keeping it in europe

Either you are being ironic or you haven't payed much attention to the UCI.

 

[ingsve]

The system is set up as a chicken before the egg problem except that in this case it's the chicken, egg, and rooster problem. A new team wants the license that will get them into the big events, but those licenses are not given out until well after the prime time to sign riders. The riders want to sign with a team that will get starts to the big events, but the new team does not yet have a license. The sponsors do not want to sign on until the team has secured good riders and the team is assured of riding the showcase events. So the team management is forced to lead everyone on, assuming that everything will come together at the end.

I think that's only true for teams that want it all right away by buying together a team but that's not the only way of going about it. You can also go the way of Vacansoleil and BMC who have not had the same problems that you describe simply because they didn't rush with getting into the PT.

In fact I would almost go so far as to say that the problems you describe are only problems if you have the wrong type of sponsor (who drops out if there is no PT license) or if the team management isn't clear with everyone about the situation. If the riders are aware of the chance that the team might not get invites and still wants to sign then that is not a problem. If the sponsors are aware that the team might not get into the PT right away but still wants to sponsor then that is also not a problem.

I think that ultimately problems boil down to unrealistic promises being made that the team then fails to live up to. Sure it can be a gamble to try and buy your way into the PT but taking a gamble is not a problem if everyone involved agrees to those circumstances.

 

[Tuarts]

So nobody is at fault?

Did I say that? How about you try to analyse and discuss the situation without trying to proportion blame onto a person or entity.

I
Isn't it just the thread title? What if it was "who is responsible?" It's good to discuss responsibility - something which people don't take enough of these days - in order to figure out where things went wrong behind all the smoke and mirrors.

It's not just the thread title though is it? Responsibility is a long way from blame. You are right of course, no one wants to accept responsibility (in anything it seems) these days which is why they blame all the time. Just read a newspaper or read an on-line news site for examples. Like I said in response to ACF, analysis and discussion of 'why' things went wrong is fine and yes, a lot of it has to do with Chris White but instead of most of this dialogue people are content with pointing fingers and 'ITYS' jibes. Its not all posters here but you can see who does and who doesn't.

 

[L'arriviste]

It's not just the thread title though is it? Responsibility is a long way from blame. You are right of course, no one wants to accept responsibility (in anything it seems) these days which is why they blame all the time. Just read a newspaper or read an on-line news site for examples. Like I said in response to ACF, analysis and discussion of 'why' things went wrong is fine and yes, a lot of it has to do with Chris White but instead of most of this dialogue people are content with pointing fingers and 'ITYS' jibes. Its not all posters here but you can see who does and who doesn't.

Fair enough, and I haven't voted in ACF's poll precisely because I don't know. I'm interested to hear what happened from the UCI pov. McEwen's laid into them already via Twitter. I hope we don't just get a bland (i.e. no details) restatement of the decision.

 

[BroDeal]

I think that's only true for teams that want it all right away by buying together a team but that's not the only way of going about it. You can also go the way of Vacansoleil and BMC who have not had the same problems that you describe simply because they didn't rush with getting into the PT.

Vacansoleil hasn't had any problems? They had a hard time getting race starts. The staff that came over from Unibet knows all about problems; their old team folded because the sponsor did not get what it expected. Vacansoleil have been lucky that their sponsor has been patient. They are also lucky have gotten a ProTour license, which easily could have gone to another team.

BMC does not have sponsorship problems because it is a pet project of the BMC company. It is completely different from someone starting a team and juggling the potential sponsors, potential riders, and potential license.

In fact I would almost go so far as to say that the problems you describe are only problems if you have the wrong type of sponsor (who drops out if there is no PT license)

It is hard enough to find any sposor let alone one that will put up with years of below par riders being shut out of the meaningful events.

 

[Archibald]

I'm going to sound like an apologist now, but...

Normally, I'd be the first to beat the UCI with a filthy stick, but I don't see this in the same way. The UCI told White and it gave him a few days to inform riders and to try to do some housekeeping. By being thoroughly shoddy, the already bureaucratic UCI has put itself in a position where every press release needs to be checked a million times before going out, so it wouldn't surprise me if it took them that long to hammer out a line anyway.

Chris White went public with the info right away, that was his choice. What I don't like is how the UCI took the same approach with the Contador case, something which benefits nobody in an honest way.

no need to apologise.
i'm just highlighting the unprofessionalism of the UCI in this situation. I just think it's poor that they can't give the decision and the reasons together at the same time.

as for CW, he's had to put all his eggs in one basket and unfortunately that basket is now on the floor with some shattered eggs... as to whether he dropped it or the UCI or sponsors knocked it out of his hand...

 

[Spare Tyre]

I usually assume causality to be a complex thing, so I suppose in this instance the same thing applies and causality lies with the chicken/egg/rooster situation, the UCI, Pegasus management and sponsors.

However, I voted Chris White for the purposes of this poll because it seems widely accepted by those in the know that he's a tosser and BS artist who has a history of stuffing people around. Call it the "he might as well be totally responsible" vote.

 

[ingsve]

Vacansoleil hasn't had any problems? They had a hard time getting race starts. The staff that came over from Unibet knows all about problems; their old team folded because the sponsor did not get what it expected. Vacansoleil have been lucky that their sponsor has been patient. They are also lucky have gotten a ProTour license, which easily could have gone to another team.

No, I wouldn't say that vacansoleil has had any real problems. Not getting to ride every PT race comes with the territory of being a professional continental team but the team hasn't been in any real danger because of that. They have taken the slow and steady approach and have now been awarded for their hard work with getting a PT license. Pegasus could have taken the same approach but they instead wanted it all right away.

It is hard enough to find any sposor let alone one that will put up with years of below par riders being shut out of the meaningful events.

Well, the truth of the matter is that there is a limited amount of places in the top races and that will always be the case. This means that it will never be sustainable for teams to primarily attract sponsors that want the Tour exposure. Sure it might be harder to find sponsors like Vacansoleil that are willing to stick with a team even without a PT license but it will always be more beneficial in the long run.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Voted other....it was Alberto...

There were stories published that stated a potential main sponser pulled out because of the Alberto Scandal.

then how is that alberto's fault?? more like the sponsors fault for giving up after such things. what a lame *** sponsor that would've been then never to be taken serious again.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Well, the truth of the matter is that there is a limited amount of places in the top races and that will always be the case. This means that it will never be sustainable for teams to primarily attract sponsors that want the Tour exposure. Sure it might be harder to find sponsors like Vacansoleil that are willing to stick with a team even without a PT license but it will always be more beneficial in the long run.

Plus it becomes increasingly easier to attract additional sponsorship once you are established at a certain level, and are delivering what you promised sponsors, riders, etc. If you are making steady progress along a plotted and realistic time line.

They knew they would have "problems". The sort of problems all new teams have on the pro-circuit. Those aren't problems, it's what you should expect, or certainly should project to your investors as part of the potential route to ambitious goals.

They were up front with their sponsors, they were realistic in their ambitions yet aimed for the same great end goals, and they delivered delivered most of its stated goals bang or target, or even ahead of schedule (with the possible exception of pleasing Dekker_T ).

No con-artists trickery involved. There is a route for non-gamblers and instant-result-seekers to take. It's the route along which everyone can actually learn to rely on the competence of management. Ambition coupled with trust and competence are very attractive to investors. Ambition coupled with a more get-rich-quick attitude attract mainly the type of investor that will only settle for a quick pay-out, or who are easily blinded by seeing stars before their eyes, and who lose sight of the real game they are in.

If you want to join the top-league, but you or yours sponsors don't have the staying power to hang around for 1 or 2 years, you probably shouldn't be involved with the sport, but invest in sex-dating sites and hedge funds instead.

 

[Francois the Postman]

It is hard enough to find any sposor let alone one that will put up with years of below par riders being shut out of the meaningful events.

The Pro-Tour set-up doesn't make that easier, as the sponsors that would be willing to accept that, and have been candidates in the past, would probably mainly be looking for more local exposure anyway (happy with some big local races and local "minor" ones), when they are increasingly forced to see their jersey trot off to places in the world that mean nothing to them.

I actually think that the Pro-Tour is a failure for that reason, that we are making the sponsor pool smaller than it could be.

But it is arguably also harder to attract a serious sponsor if your ambitions are smelling a bit ott.

 

[dancing on pedals]

The Pro-Tour set-up doesn't make that easier, as the sponsors that would be willing to accept that, and have been candidates in the past, would probably mainly be looking for more local exposure anyway (happy with some big local races and local "minor" ones), when they are increasingly forced to see their jersey trot off to places in the world that mean nothing to them.

I actually think that the Pro-Tour is a failure for that reason, that we are making the sponsor pool smaller than it could be.

But it is arguably also harder to attract a serious sponsor if your ambitions are smelling a bit ott.

i tend to agree - the Pegasus situation reminds me of the Linda Mccaartney fiasco of a few years back , which gave Downing a serious career break through no fault of his own.
In other words no natural progression as a team but wham bang - straight into the big league.
I agree the Pro Tour is a total failure - i liked the old system of points and the world cup classics (with the emphasis on worlds i.e the classics with a variety of events) and all Tours levelling out to what made each race economically viable in terms of team selection.
thanks

 

[Race Radio]

As much as I would like to know about the reasoning behind the situation I would assume that, like most business agreements, there is some form of NDA in place that limits what information the UCI can disclose. In this case their app was was reviewed by a rather high level accounting firm and found to be lacking. Hard to fault the UCI for this.

Perhaps Mr. White tried the "Fake it till you make it" approach and this time it did not work

 

[Anonymous]

Guess we know the answer to this one now
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=399978&postcount=1048

 

[craig1985]

After all these years Chris White's true self has come to fruition. He is the only one to blame for this.

The guy is as shafty as a mine and couldn't organise sex in a brothel.

Zing! We have a winner...