SOBs at the UCI need to know about sponsorship

May 25, 2010
149
0
0
Yes you can say cycling provides a great return but when a company has twenty sponsorship options seating on their desk, they might just take the "safe" route.

Quote from Stapleton regarding his sponsorship search for HTC.

“The consistent feedback we get is that they (sponsors) love cycling and the fundamentals, but they’re concerned about the sport, and the non-stop drama around misconduct and doping,” he added. “Be it Alberto Contador, be it Lance Armstrong, be it Riccardo Ricco, whatever. And in a tough economy, with multiple sponsorship choices to make, people will see cycling as a challenging environment."

Unless you've spent hours on the phone, slapping backs and kissing *** looking for sponsorship you have no idea how hard and painful the whole process can be. The UCI just makes it harder everyday.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
Tofino
You have to connect the dots for me. How does the UCI fit into Mr Stapleton's search for a sponsor? Are you saying the UCI is responsible for the doping issues in cycling? Frankly the clinic on this forum probably does more to perpetuate the doping connection than the UCI. Cycling press, the fans, and even the players have more influence over the perception of the sport than the UCI and frankly as much influence as the UCI has it can hardly be responsible for the sports Image from the doping and scandals perspective.
Mr Stapleton seems to argue that the negative publicity surrounding the various doping scandals creates uncertainty among it's possible sponsors.
Maybe if the press started to report on the achievements of the athletes instead of looking for track marks the sport might have a better image. As reported in a couple of articles the German press for example broadcasted %20 of a race and %80 on the doping scandals.
Maybe you can elaborate on the UCI's part in the problem or maybe what you think they can do to improve it?
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
The problem is that the UCI and Stapleton understand that as 'we want less bad publicity' rather than 'we want less doping'.

Given the old chargers that Stapleton employs its pretty clear which side of the fence he stands when it comes to doping.
 
May 23, 2011
977
0
0
I suspect that the UCI's move to "go big" has priced many potential and traditional sponsers out of the market. The teams are large and very expensive. The need to satisfy the big money sponsors has led to a bidding war for star riders, and now there seems to be a large number of riders on million euro or more contracts. I hear the cost for bike sponsorship is upwards of three million dollars for a Pro Tour team. The costs have radically increased but has it been balanced with a similar increase in media exposure?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Master50 said:
Tofino
You have to connect the dots for me. How does the UCI fit into Mr Stapleton's search for a sponsor? Are you saying the UCI is responsible for the doping issues in cycling? Frankly the clinic on this forum probably does more to perpetuate the doping connection than the UCI. Cycling press, the fans, and even the players have more influence over the perception of the sport than the UCI and frankly as much influence as the UCI has it can hardly be responsible for the sports Image from the doping and scandals perspective.
Mr Stapleton seems to argue that the negative publicity surrounding the various doping scandals creates uncertainty among it's possible sponsors.
Maybe if the press started to report on the achievements of the athletes instead of looking for track marks the sport might have a better image. As reported in a couple of articles the German press for example broadcasted %20 of a race and %80 on the doping scandals.
Maybe you can elaborate on the UCI's part in the problem or maybe what you think they can do to improve it?
Sorry to break it to you - cycling has a reputation for being a doping sport because a lot of cyclists have doped.

You want the media to "report on the achievements of the athletes instead of looking for track marks the sport might have a better image."
The media adopted that policy for many years (fueled by the lies from the UCI) which is exactly the reason why Bob Stapleton struggles to find sponsors.
 
Mrs John Murphy said:
The problem is that the UCI and Stapleton understand that as 'we want less bad publicity' rather than 'we want less doping'.
That's how I read the quote.

Bit hard to tell without the full context though, do you have a link to your source, tofino?
 
May 25, 2010
149
0
0
Source and UCI

Ferminal said:
That's how I read the quote.

Bit hard to tell without the full context though, do you have a link to your source, tofino?
The source was Velonews.

In regard to the UCI I'd hope that they would actually kick some more **** in regard to testing and fines. Even if the team directors choose to hire some questionable riders its up to the UCI to create a system that would not reward riders (or teams) for doping. They keep blowing smoke up the public's a@@ in regard to that. Life time ban for some doping products (even at the first offence) might make some people think twice.

But than its the question of separation that starting to get mentioned, the UCI which makes its money from cycling is supposed to police cycling. Does not make sense.
 
Aug 4, 2009
1,056
0
0
There are only a few sports that are as tough as road cycling and none of them tough endurence sports are as flamboyant. most other sports dont gain as much from doping as cycling.

So cycling is in media sights because it looks good sells news and stuff the sport they dont care as long as it sells news.

would it be better to show the viewers the true side of pain and suffering that riders go through then they may understand why some dope to get through it.

What about all the big crashes how many are hurt and still dust them selves off and get back on the bike and chase with blood and guts all over the picture.

why not splash a bit of blood on the TV camera.

So I am in pain can I have a pill to kill it . NO

It comes down to media parinoid about drugs and missing the whole aspect of the sport.

Its not the UCI making it hard to sign sponsors.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
brianf7 said:
There are only a few sports that are as tough as road cycling and none of them tough endurence sports are as flamboyant. most other sports dont gain as much from doping as cycling.

So cycling is in media sights because it looks good sells news and stuff the sport they dont care as long as it sells news.

would it be better to show the viewers the true side of pain and suffering that riders go through then they may understand why some dope to get through it.

What about all the big crashes how many are hurt and still dust them selves off and get back on the bike and chase with blood and guts all over the picture.

why not splash a bit of blood on the TV camera.

So I am in pain can I have a pill to kill it . NO

It comes down to media parinoid about drugs and missing the whole aspect of the sport.

Its not the UCI making it hard to sign sponsors.
It is true that the media & fans discussing the issues of doping help some sponsors in extracting themselves from the sport. But at the heart of the matter are the teams, riders, federations and ultimately the UCI.

The UCI has a history of ostrich impressions at best and corruption at worst.

They have had numerous opportunities to actually do something about the problem for decades but have either lacked the balls to do it or have not wanted to take a short-term hit in their pockets.

The Riviere and Simpson incidents in '60 & '67, the numerous cases during the 80's, the advent of EPO, Festina etc, etc. Yet they have merely sought to manage the fall out and not confront the problem head on.

We have at the head of the UCI a man that has shown himself to be contemptuous of sporting rules to the extent that he was given a lifetime ban from the Olympics in 1976, yet he is on the IOC.

A governing body that, rather than deal with a problem, colludes with its participants is as guilty of the crime as they are.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Sorry to break it to you - cycling has a reputation for being a doping sport because a lot of cyclists have doped.

You want the media to "report on the achievements of the athletes instead of looking for track marks the sport might have a better image."
The media adopted that policy for many years (fueled by the lies from the UCI) which is exactly the reason why Bob Stapleton struggles to find sponsors.
Like I don't know that? The question is what does the UCI actually have to do with HTC sponsor problem? Sponsors see cycling in two lights. An attractive sport and a tainted sport. So when the Sponsor decides to take on a sponsorship commitment they chose a safer sport, Maybe even a lower profile sport that would give a smaller return because those sports are perceived to be clean.
The location of this thread is a great example of the problem. It is about how the image of the sport affects the search for sponsors but we discuss it in the clinic. Some forumites post everything in the clinic and to me it is a clear indication of their perception. The UCI gets blame for just about everything troubling the sport and little credit for anything they do well which I can hear being dismissed as it is read. If you want an illustration of poor governance of the sport you could pick on Spain. You want to talk corruption in a sport, look at soccer and athletics. Even with lots of evidence of corruption or doping neither of those 2 sports suffer the never ending scandals like the smallest doping positive in cycling. Operation Puerto would have been a different story if there were no soccer players implicated. About the only people that suffered sanctions were the cyclists.
Yes our sport has a problem and a lot of it is us.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Master50 said:
Like I don't know that? The question is what does the UCI actually have to do with HTC sponsor problem? Sponsors see cycling in two lights. An attractive sport and a tainted sport. So when the Sponsor decides to take on a sponsorship commitment they chose a safer sport, Maybe even a lower profile sport that would give a smaller return because those sports are perceived to be clean.
The location of this thread is a great example of the problem. It is about how the image of the sport affects the search for sponsors but we discuss it in the clinic. Some forumites post everything in the clinic and to me it is a clear indication of their perception. The UCI gets blame for just about everything troubling the sport and little credit for anything they do well which I can hear being dismissed as it is read. If you want an illustration of poor governance of the sport you could pick on Spain. You want to talk corruption in a sport, look at soccer and athletics. Even with lots of evidence of corruption or doping neither of those 2 sports suffer the never ending scandals like the smallest doping positive in cycling. Operation Puerto would have been a different story if there were no soccer players implicated. About the only people that suffered sanctions were the cyclists.
Yes our sport has a problem and a lot of it is us.
Right, why is this 'thread' located in the Clinic?
Because Stapleton said he is having difficulty securing a sponsor because of the ...... say it with me, doping.

The UCI are (part of) the blame for HTC's problem because they say they are cleaning up the sport and then are exposed to be doing very little.

To your last point - cyclings 'problem' is exposed by the police/media - denying its existence and doing nothing means nothing changes.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Master50 said:
Like I don't know that? The question is what does the UCI actually have to do with HTC sponsor problem? Sponsors see cycling in two lights. An attractive sport and a tainted sport. So when the Sponsor decides to take on a sponsorship commitment they chose a safer sport, Maybe even a lower profile sport that would give a smaller return because those sports are perceived to be clean.
The location of this thread is a great example of the problem. It is about how the image of the sport affects the search for sponsors but we discuss it in the clinic. Some forumites post everything in the clinic and to me it is a clear indication of their perception. The UCI gets blame for just about everything troubling the sport and little credit for anything they do well which I can hear being dismissed as it is read. If you want an illustration of poor governance of the sport you could pick on Spain. You want to talk corruption in a sport, look at soccer and athletics. Even with lots of evidence of corruption or doping neither of those 2 sports suffer the never ending scandals like the smallest doping positive in cycling. Operation Puerto would have been a different story if there were no soccer players implicated. About the only people that suffered sanctions were the cyclists.
Yes our sport has a problem and a lot of it is us.
Football & athletics are able to manage their negative press due to far deeper pockets than cycling.

Every time the Tour comes around the British press has doping mentioned in the first few lines of the article. It is depressing when they do this yet wouldn't dare question football or any other "national" sport.

As Dr M just posted, "The UCI are (part of) the blame for HTC's problem because they say the are cleaning up the sport and then are exposed to be doing very little.". To make a big show of "doing" something about a problem yet in actual fact not doing anything is tantamount to making matters worse not better. The UCI are like a pimp slapping make-up on its pox-ridden ***** professional cycling. From a distance she looks good, but get involved & you're sure to get a dose.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ultimobici said:
Football & athletics are able to manage their negative press due to far deeper pockets than cycling.

Every time the Tour comes around the British press has doping mentioned in the first few lines of the article. It is depressing when they do this yet wouldn't dare question football or any other "national" sport.

As Dr M just posted, "The UCI are (part of) the blame for HTC's problem because they say the are cleaning up the sport and then are exposed to be doing very little.". To make a big show of "doing" something about a problem yet in actual fact not doing anything is tantamount to making matters worse not better. The UCI are like a pimp slapping make-up on its pox-ridden ***** professional cycling. From a distance she looks good, but get involved & you're sure to get a dose.
yep i concur with these 2 very eloquently sentences but i would have added the track marks and brusies all over her body. :)
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Benotti69 said:
yep i concur with these 2 very eloquently sentences but i would have added the track marks and brusies all over her body. :)
I did wonder about adding something along those lines, but thought it'd be overkill.
 
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
Master50 said:
Tofino
You have to connect the dots for me. How does the UCI fit into Mr Stapleton's search for a sponsor? Are you saying the UCI is responsible for the doping issues in cycling?
Yes, the UCI is responsible. If the UCI wanted to get rid of doping, it would institute a 4-year ban for first offenses, instead a 2-year ban (which is rarely meted out, even for second and third offenses - see DiLuca case). Their failure to implement a 4-year ban shows the UCI fails to enact what would be a major deterrent against doping.

As it stands, a 2-year ban is a considered a "cost of doing business" for most riders. They prize money, endorsements, and salary they can gain by doping is greater than what they lose without doping, so they opt to dope.

The biological passport is also really nothing more than a way for the UCI to keep the doping problem under the radar buy monitoring riders and giving team management warnings that escape media attention and WADA sanctions.

Let me know if you need any more help connecting the dots to the UCI.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
TERMINATOR said:
Yes, the UCI is responsible. If the UCI wanted to get rid of doping, it would institute a 4-year ban for first offenses, instead a 2-year ban (which is rarely meted out, even for second and third offenses - see DiLuca case). Their failure to implement a 4-year ban shows the UCI fails to enact what would be a major deterrent against doping.

As it stands, a 2-year ban is a considered a "cost of doing business" for most riders. They prize money, endorsements, and salary they can gain by doping is greater than what they lose without doping, so they opt to dope.

The biological passport is also really nothing more than a way for the UCI to keep the doping problem under the radar buy monitoring riders and giving team management warnings that escape media attention and WADA sanctions.

Let me know if you need any more help connecting the dots to the UCI.
Terminator
Maybe you are on to something but you may have to do some more research on the process and who is actually responsible for the penalties and the ability of an international organization to get a rule like that in Cycling.
WADA has a lot of the ownership of anti doping regulations so do the individual federations. Do you think for example that a 4 year ban can be enforced in every country? The 2 year bans are hard to implement in every country. Di Luca ultimately is sanctioned by the Italian federation or the court of arbitration for sport and not directly by the UCI Given that the penalty was less than the prescribed max or minimum do you really believe a 4 year ban is any easier to enforce? I sort of suspect the added cost to set a 4 year ban would only exasperate the costs and reduce the prosecutions just because a rider would be even more motivated to fight the penalty. Often the UCI loses it's authority over these matters pretty early in the process. This is true for almost all Olympic Sports. So your proposed rule change might need a broader scope.
So again you may need some assistance connecting the dots.
The bio passport is a problem but there has been at least 1 case where the passport resulted in a sanction after appeals so while it may be thin it can work.
Short of attaching a person to follow all athletes 24/7 what do you think works? The drugs they take are generally undetectable unless we control at exactly the right moment. Any idea what that would cost to test all riders often enough to catch everyone?
What about the unwillingness of you to accept that the number of dopers are decreasing it won't really matter if the sport is cleaning up since you decided it isn't and further disregard the tests anyway.
This brings us back to the point. What and how is the UCI directly responsible for the perception of the sport and the effect it has on sponsor decisions.
 
Aug 24, 2010
101
0
0
Master50 said:
This brings us back to the point. What and how is the UCI directly responsible for the perception of the sport and the effect it has on sponsor decisions.
here's a few:

Corrupt elections, with little or no transparency, no publishing of the list of voters, and the UCI office favoring their candidates, paying off the favorable voters with perqs and Irish Whiskey

When they control sampling and selection like last years Tour, giving some teams warnings, and not testing the high risk riders (see the WADA independent observer's report)

Saying exactly the wrong things in public whenever doping in cycling comes up: "We're suing Landis for bad-mouthing us", "No interviews for you (to German TV)" (What better chance to talk to the anti-doping audience?) Instead of: "It's a problem and we're dealing with it, but would prefer to have WADA and the NADA's do it so we can show transparency."

Keeping VerDRUGgen around. Holy bad smell. This guy fought the creation of WADA and denied everything they have ever turned up; until they did.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
mtb Dad said:
here's a few:

Corrupt elections, with little or no transparency, no publishing of the list of voters, and the UCI office favoring their candidates, paying off the favorable voters with perqs and Irish Whiskey

When they control sampling and selection like last years Tour, giving some teams warnings, and not testing the high risk riders (see the WADA independent observer's report)

Saying exactly the wrong things in public whenever doping in cycling comes up: "We're suing Landis for bad-mouthing us", "No interviews for you (to German TV)" (What better chance to talk to the anti-doping audience?) Instead of: "It's a problem and we're dealing with it, but would prefer to have WADA and the NADA's do it so we can show transparency."

Keeping VerDRUGgen around. Holy bad smell. This guy fought the creation of WADA and denied everything they have ever turned up; until they did.
Except very recently I cannot recall the last time I saw anything in the general media about the sports governing body. I did watch the Hamilton 60 minutes story.
The doping stories don't refer to the UCI and I hardly think most of the mainstream press even know what the UCI is. Even here on a cycling forum there are a lot of mistakes made about what the UCI directly controls or what their function is in anti doping. What you see in mainstream is "DOPING IN CYCLING" so what ever you as an educated fan think of the UCI this issue is not an issue because the UCI is the governing body.
I don't know where you live but for the next month don't look at a single cycling specific web site or magazine. You will only be exposed to the mainstream media. ABC, CBC, CBS, Fox, The Calgary Herald, and see the issue from the sponsors perspective. The only stories you will get are about doping in cycling and the winner of the tour. If as a sponsor you know or fear your name will be associated with a scandal you chose NASCAR or Soccer or ?
Volley ball needs sponsors but there is no return. Cycling is a growing sport and activity. It is seen as a healthy activity and a vaguely interesting sport in July. Cycling has so much advertising potential but the general perception of cheaters in cycling is the problem. In fact it might be argued that if the bunch of us would just stop making an issue about the drugs it would stop being an issue. We know that all pro sports have performance enhancing drug use in them. Their sport cultures are not shifting against the drugs as cycling has. Baseball paid a little attention to some steroid users but there are hardly any drug controls in baseball.

EPO so changed the rules that we had to change our culture and our attitude. If tomorrow there was found a magic soccer drug that made ordinary pros surpass Pele or Maradonna they might move to change their culture too.
By much of the logic in this thread I think the surest way to change the perception of the sport is for us to dummy up and put the rose glasses back on.

If we agree we want the doping out of cycling, I do, then the bad publicity is going to remain. If WADA, the National Federations, and The Court Of Arbitration For Sport worked their part a little faster and efficiently maybe penalties might be handed out faster. Yes the system has problems but this is the nature of fighting agains cheaters. It is long and protracted, it is hard to catch them, It is expensive to prosecute them when they are caught and it takes far too long. The UCI Role is important and I suppose could be improved but most of the anti doping mechanism is not under their control. Bio Passports are only mandated in the rules because the UCI sought a way to identify cheating in a new and unproven way. The cheaters were beyond detection at the time. Other sports enjoyed the new knowledge but they didn't pay for it. The only way it will stop is if we put our heads back in the sand. How bad the publicity is will depend on us since we are the only ones that really care. I know most of my colleagues at work sure don't care.
Maybe you could stand to visit the clinic less often too.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Master50 said:
Except very recently I cannot recall the last time I saw anything in the general media about the sports governing body. I did watch the Hamilton 60 minutes story.
The doping stories don't refer to the UCI and I hardly think most of the mainstream press even know what the UCI is. Even here on a cycling forum there are a lot of mistakes made about what the UCI directly controls or what their function is in anti doping. What you see in mainstream is "DOPING IN CYCLING" so what ever you as an educated fan think of the UCI this issue is not an issue because the UCI is the governing body.
I don't know where you live but for the next month don't look at a single cycling specific web site or magazine. You will only be exposed to the mainstream media. ABC, CBC, CBS, Fox, The Calgary Herald, and see the issue from the sponsors perspective. The only stories you will get are about doping in cycling and the winner of the tour. If as a sponsor you know or fear your name will be associated with a scandal you chose NASCAR or Soccer or ?
Volley ball needs sponsors but there is no return. Cycling is a growing sport and activity. It is seen as a healthy activity and a vaguely interesting sport in July. Cycling has so much advertising potential but the general perception of cheaters in cycling is the problem. In fact it might be argued that if the bunch of us would just stop making an issue about the drugs it would stop being an issue. We know that all pro sports have performance enhancing drug use in them. Their sport cultures are not shifting against the drugs as cycling has. Baseball paid a little attention to some steroid users but there are hardly any drug controls in baseball.

EPO so changed the rules that we had to change our culture and our attitude. If tomorrow there was found a magic soccer drug that made ordinary pros surpass Pele or Maradonna they might move to change their culture too.
By much of the logic in this thread I think the surest way to change the perception of the sport is for us to dummy up and put the rose glasses back on.

If we agree we want the doping out of cycling, I do, then the bad publicity is going to remain. If WADA, the National Federations, and The Court Of Arbitration For Sport worked their part a little faster and efficiently maybe penalties might be handed out faster. Yes the system has problems but this is the nature of fighting agains cheaters. It is long and protracted, it is hard to catch them, It is expensive to prosecute them when they are caught and it takes far too long. The UCI Role is important and I suppose could be improved but most of the anti doping mechanism is not under their control. Bio Passports are only mandated in the rules because the UCI sought a way to identify cheating in a new and unproven way. The cheaters were beyond detection at the time. Other sports enjoyed the new knowledge but they didn't pay for it. The only way it will stop is if we put our heads back in the sand. How bad the publicity is will depend on us since we are the only ones that really care. I know most of my colleagues at work sure don't care.
Maybe you could stand to visit the clinic less often too.
The UCI is and has been the major stumbling block to anti-doping all along.

What did they do in the wake of Festina? What did they do when EPO was flowing like water through the peloton? What have they done in the wake of the Landis allegations? What have they done regarding Contador? In every case they have managed or attempted to manage the situation. The one thing they haven't done is act decisively to eradicate the problem.

McQuaid's comments in the press are not the comments one would expect from the head of a major sports body.

A gem from 2006-
“There exists today a schism between two cultures. The Anglo-Saxon culture and what I call the mafia-like culture of western Europe (sports.fr assumes this refers to Belgium, France, Italy, and Spain). This western European culture, in a certain way, I wouldn’t say that it condones doping, but it accepts certain practices. The Anglo-Saxon culture, which includes Holland, Germany, England and Denmark, functions in a totally different manner. I believe that it is important that the Anglo-Saxon vision must carry the day. If this is not the case, cycling is dead. ”
Funny that this was in the wake of Landis, Hamilton & Millar being caught!

The mainstream media barely report cycling in the UK unless it is in relation to The Tour, Lance or Dope. When Cav, Wiggo or any other British rider wins outside July it is at best a few lines, or not reported at all. But when a rider the average Telegraph or Times reader hasn't ever heard of gets busted they're all over it.
 
And people are surprised that Germany won't show the Tour live ? We have the current superstar under investigation, the former superstar under investigation and added to that are the likes of Ricco etc........If High Road don't survive, don't blame the UCI. Blame some of the riders, doctors, managers etc for the negative publicity which is killing off even the most successful teams, some of the oldest races and the sport in general. Where is the surprise ? Even though the rules don't prohibit him competing, Contador continuing to compete has just reinforced the negative publicity. Every time his name is mentioned, so is the investigation which is getting more publicity than any of the races themselves.
 
Oct 5, 2010
1,048
0
0
I find I am reading a lot of posts comparing cycling to soccer, tennis, athletic etc ... saying 'they are as bad as cycling but dont get the negative press'.

Sorry - but I disagree. Cycling has the reputation it has because IT DESERVES IT.

Look at our past TdF podiums ... and see how many riders are there who have not been sanctioned or substantially implicated in doping. The UCI or any cycling testing regime has not made the major breaks in this - police or other breaks have. Festina, Peurto, Landis coming out, the whole Armstrong mess ...... none of that is due to cycling investigating its own and cleaning house.

Yeah - there were spme from other sports in Peurto that were covered up, but those sports dont have a very long and well known history of doping, with the majority of its current and immediate past champions being shown to have taken PEDS.

As for this - yes the UCI is to blame. The LA mess shows that corruption at its very heart is CAUSING some of these issues .....

and I agree - Stapleton is much more interested in cycling being SEEN to be cleaner than actually getting cleaner
 
Oct 4, 2010
83
0
0
movingtarget said:
And people are surprised that Germany won't show the Tour live ?
We still have Eurosport, their commentators are much more favoured by the cycling fans anyhow. "Only" our tax-funded stations, who jumped the bandwaggon early in the Jan-career, are now discontinuing the live coverage.

This just for clarification, not that it takes away from the rest of your post.
 
Aug 24, 2010
101
0
0
Master50 said:
Except very recently I cannot recall the last time I saw anything in the general media about the sports governing body.
The scandals the mainstream press covers are because of the UCI's actions. Lame response to Contador? Lots of coverage of Contador. Briber-bribee relationship with Armstrong? Lots of coverage of Armstrong once government gets involved. UCI asleep on the whereabouts rules? Rasmussen hits the front pages. UCI gives out Armstrong doping forms? Equipe writes about what they found. And with the bribes/secret trips for VerDRUGgen to Japan/donations to UCI, and the Swiss mainstream media is writing about the need to tighten the corruption laws for IF's based in Switzerland.


Even here on a cycling forum there are a lot of mistakes made about what the UCI directly controls or what their function is in anti doping.
Maybe, but when the UCI does control anti-doping like at last years tour, even the friendly WADA observer, bending over backwards to be polite and supportive, points out loopholes you can drive a truck through. Why would anyone assume anything else they do is legit?

What you see in mainstream is "DOPING IN CYCLING" so what ever you as an educated fan think of the UCI this issue is not an issue because the UCI is the governing body.
Nope. See above.

I don't know where you live but for the next month don't look at a single cycling specific web site or magazine. You will only be exposed to the mainstream media. ABC, CBC, CBS, Fox, The Calgary Herald, and see the issue from the sponsors perspective. The only stories you will get are about doping in cycling and the winner of the tour. If as a sponsor you know or fear your name will be associated with a scandal you chose NASCAR or Soccer or ?
You might believe it's incorrect, and journalists are lazy. But really, doping is the story about cycling.

Cycling has so much advertising potential but the general perception of cheaters in cycling is the problem.
Agree, on both counts.

In fact it might be argued that if the bunch of us would just stop making an issue about the drugs it would stop being an issue.
Nope. Hein and Pat tried that.

We know that all pro sports have performance enhancing drug use in them. Their sport cultures are not shifting against the drugs as cycling has.
Bull****. Speedskating kicked its biggest star out before the 2010 Olympics based on passport info only. xc Skiiing has tougher testing by a mile. Athletics has had chaperones since the 80's, if not earlier.

Baseball paid a little attention to some steroid users but there are hardly any drug controls in baseball.
True but their top stars are on the block to go to jail.

EPO so changed the rules that we had to change our culture and our attitude.
No we didn't. That's the problem. We had to be dragged kicking a screaming into every major anti-doping initiative by someone else.

If tomorrow there was found a magic soccer drug that made ordinary pros surpass Pele or Maradonna they might move to change their culture too.
I dunno. Their clubs are being raided and suppliers going to jail. How does that suggest we shouldn't have the same?

By much of the logic in this thread I think the surest way to change the perception of the sport is for us to dummy up and put the rose glasses back on.
No, put the real glasses on and kick the dummies out of the UCI.

If we agree we want the doping out of cycling, I do, then the bad publicity is going to remain.
No. Real anti-doping would do nothing but improve the image of the sport. Some 'heroes', DS's and presidents might be bums for a while. Bad PR for them. Maybe that's what you mean? I think you have the two confused.

If WADA, the National Federations, and The Court Of Arbitration For Sport worked their part a little faster and efficiently maybe penalties might be handed out faster.
Jesus ****ing Christ. Cycling fought WADA's implementation. We fought chaperoenes. We fought whereabouts. And it's WADA's fault? Holy ****.

Yes the system has problems but this is the nature of fighting agains cheaters. It is long and protracted, it is hard to catch them, It is expensive to prosecute them when they are caught and it takes far too long.
I suppose it's faster if you warn Contador, like UCI did? That must be it. :p

The UCI Role is important and I suppose could be improved but most of the anti doping mechanism is not under their control.
Nope. See elsewhere.

Bio Passports are only mandated in the rules because the UCI sought a way to identify cheating in a new and unproven way.
Or a way to warn the dopers? Sure looks that way from last years tour. (In a stage whisper, in the hotel dining room) "HEY JOE, I HEAR RADIOSHACK IS SLATED FOR NO-NOTICE TESTING TOMORROW AM. Oh sorry, didn't see Johan sitting there."
The cheaters were beyond detection at the time. Other sports enjoyed the new knowledge but they didn't pay for it.
Huh? WADA is paid for by IOC, governments, and IF's. Every $ spent by IOC on doping comes out of the profits of Olympics dsitributed to IF's. They paid alright.

The only way it will stop is if we put our heads back in the sand.
Pat, is that you?
How bad the publicity is will depend on us since we are the only ones that really care. I know most of my colleagues at work sure don't care.
Any of them have a kid who died in the early 90's epo experimentation phase? Thought not.
Maybe you could stand to visit the clinic less often too.
What and miss this entertainment and education of how the UCI thinks? Never:p
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS