The ongoing power struggle of the UCI

[CrazyCanuck]

I wonder how any union around the world would feel/react if they were told that their work force is going to be reduced by 26% (30 --> 22) and even more if you include the reduction of WT level teams. Total numbers of profession cyclist affected is much smaller than other jobs like manufacturing but a reduction of this percentage is huge.

Unless they make exception for stagiaire or Neo Pro then I see it hurting young riders and force many pro's into early retirement.

A smaller reduction + exception for stagiaire and/or neo would work best. Hopefully, this should eliminate some riders that shouldn't be at the WT level. It will be more of a domino affect for these riders, they'll be forced go down to pro-conti level and push other guys down further etc etc.

 

[Mellow Velo]

How is the French calender in a bad state?

Well, they aren't in such a steep decline, but the French calendar has been losing approximately one week per year for the past six seasons.
Hardly ideal.
It is also true, that the major cause for this decline, outside economic constraints, is down to changes already enforced by the UCI.

I totally agree with what Afrank has posted about the shortening of races.
Six days for the historical stage races in daft. Often it means losing part, if not all of a weekend.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

Don't think it's a "Cookson-problem", more a general UCI problem.
But then don't think the breakaway leagues, the Velon project, Vaughter's "give us a share of the money" (maybe if the teams start paying for the races that aren't profitable) etc etc have been any better. 10 4 day tours with 1 sprint, 1 TT, 1 classic and 1 mountain stage, or what was the fantastic proposal by one of these incarnations of the famous reform&breakaway thing?
Let ASO run the whole thing? Not sure that's better... during the UCI-ASO/RCS war their proposal TdF reform threat wasn't really great either. 20 teams, 8 riders to save money on accomadation... invite this and this team for sure (would have turned out to be Savios outfit, probably that made it easier for ASO to make peace with the UCI too )

Let the UCI manage it, after all they didn't do SUCH a bad job overall. The UCI is no worse than any other sports federation.

The first problem now IMO is that there is no real goal for the reforms, it just seems to be reform for reforms sake. When the World Tour was first introduced at least there were clear goals:
- Security, guarantees for the sponsors. If you are in the WT you're going to participate in the most important races (the appeal being the TdF guarantee obviously)
- Security, guarantees for the riders. The sponsors are in for the long term. Somehow this didn't work out....
- Good participation for the WT races.
- Money for the UCI!
- Globalization

It was mainly the money point that made it not work, the whole ASO/RCS vs UCI fight in the end was about TV rights and money, since the UCI thought that they could take that over. Obviously the answer was no. And it became a huge fight in which everything was mentioned, except the main point, the TV rights, money.... was about Doping (which has nothing to do with the WT), about the closed NA sports type nature of the WT (about which nobody cared, except the fans). And since then all the reform talk has never really been about reaching a goal, just about reforming because there are huge problems. Not that we're told what those huge not really noticeable problems are exactly, but....

Anyway, some of the original goals were sensible. Guarantees for sponsors? You sponsor a team, then left out of the TdF? (ASO's invitation policy before the WT wasn't all that great at times) Not good. WT team, has to be there, makes sense. Get good sponsors keep them. Guaranteeing TdF and the other main races participation is a good way. Give out 16 to 18 WT licences, 1-4 years, no WT licences for first year teams though, let them earn their licences. Sporting criteria? Of course has to be taken into account, but the automatic one up, one down isn't perfect either, since it takes away the guarantees given to the sponsors. Take the sporting criteria into account when you hand out the licences. And if a 4 year licence team isn't in the top 20 teams of the World for 2 years in a row, then revoke the licence, but no automatic promotions. Ah, and to make the licences worth something, put a limit on what non WT teams can participate. Max 2 GTs, max 4 monuments, etc. Not like Cervelo or BMC a few years ago, who got everything without being in the WT.

Guarantees for riders? Ok, here maybe the deposit has to be bigger? Or the licence only gets the length of the commitment by the main sponsor. Not really sure what to do here.

Then for the calendar right now the UCI is going in the completely wrong direction. Less races in the WT? Wrong. Put in more. Add PT obviously (not sure why they are not back in, contract expired during the ASO-UCI war, then somehow they never put PT back in, not sure if ASO didn't want or the UCI said there is no place.) But then add Utah or Colorado, put it closer to Québec and Montréal, add 2 one day races in Australia after or before the Tour Down Under. Add Qatar or Oman. See if you can get South Africa to pay for a stage race and 2 one day races... see if you can get things moving in Colombia, or if not somewhere else in South America. If they pay get the Chinese back in, but somewhere where smog is not SUCH a big problem as it is in Beijing.
And add more one day races in Europe too. Tre Valli (who in theory are interested, just lack the money, make it cheaper then maybe), Emilia, some english new race to get money from the now cycling loving brits (who knows how long it lasts) etc etc.
But then give the teams the option not to participate in some of the races. The oversea racing blocks? Right now Australia and Canada, would be better to have 4 or 5 of them as I said. Give a maximum of 4 teams per race/race block the option NOT to participate. UCI Team classification of the previous year decides the order in which they can chose. Ideal would be 16 teams WT, 4 oversea blocks of course....
Similar option, but maybe for a maximum of 3 teams and they can miss 2, for the European stage races (except GTs), and again the same for European one day races. Monuments have to be ridden, but all other races can be skipped. The number depends on how many are in the calendar, would say 2-3 most likely. A team like Euskatel... ok, maybe make it possible to skip monuments too, they made no sense in PR, a tiny little bit in RVV.... but at least them them skip E3 and whatever else they want. Again, here max 2 or 3 teams can miss the same event, the order in which they chose is the UCI team classification from the year before again.

Like this the WT would add race days, but in the end the teams wouldn't have to race more, the same or even less (haven't done the math). The WT licence would be more attractive, you have the GTs and monuments guaranteed, non WT teams can't ride all, but at the same time the disadvantage of having to go to all 2/3 of Down Under-Canada-(Beijing) is gone, you can skip one, save money. And having to go there was a disadvantage of the licence.

Money.... of course some sort of tie up "TdF-other races" would be good for the sport. You buy the TdF rights, you have to buy other stuff too, and you have to show it live, increasing the audience for lesser races, but then of course ASO wants to keep the full rights to the TdF TV rights. So in the end there I don't see a good solution. The whole breakaway idea that there is loads and loads of money lying around, that the UCI and the organizers just aren't getting... forget it. ASO and co. aren't charitable organizations either. Could ASO get more for the TdF? Probably.. .by selling it to Canal+ instead of France 2. Pay per View instead of free TV. Thanks Vaughters, Pay TV for the fans, TV money share for the teams, yeah, we love it. Not. (Actually not sure if they can, think I once read in an italian forum that the Giro has to be shown on free TV, so even if a PPV channel buys it, it has to show it free) Ah, and before the WT teams got their share at times. "Lesser" races paid to get the big teams... maybe Vaughters then is ok to go that to that model.

Anyway... the great 2017 plan, that doesn't have all that much to do with Cookson IMO, will still undergo lots of changes and become the 2020 plan most likely. Let's just hope it will be the right changes.

 

[Arnout]

@Fridge.

The thing is everytime changes are discussed it is pointed out that ASO gets to keep TV money. But let's not forget that they don't: they provide for the teams from that money for starters. More importantly the teams greatly benefit from the ASO. ASO organizes a race and because of that race sponsors pay money, I don't see how that fits in the ASO takes all narrative. Cycling is a unique sport in many ways and one of the elements is that we call teams by their sponsor name. ASO basically organizes a race in which teams can enter for free (or even earn a bit of cash with price money) but at the same time allows any kind of sponsor, apart from the Unibet story back in the day, to advertize.

Compare that to FIFA or UEFA tournaments where only official sponsors are shown and competing companies that sponsor a national team or whatever are banned.

I am well aware of the downsides of ASO as a party of power, but let us not forget that they were the major voice against doping before 2007, that they're in the sport for the long term and that they have no real interest other than organizing the biggest cycling races as attractively as possible. To be honest, from a fans perspective I am happy and relieved that ASO (and RCS) are still the barrier against all kind of outlandish ideas.

 

[personal]

Each and every one of those plans is absolutely fricking stupid and shows absolutely no common sense, respect or understanding of the history or tradition of the sport.

There should not be any compromising. Each one of these stupid ideas should be thrown on the scrapheap of history along with the other borderline *** ideas that have dogged a number of sports over the years, like the idea to split football matches into quarters and have 35 yard shootouts modelled after hockey, gold silver and bronze medals at F1 races or the biathlon supersprint.

Back when the Cookson/McQuaid election stuff was going on, I said that in some ways McQuaid was kind of preferable simply because "better the devil you know". I couldn't have foreseen that Cookson's ideas would be this ridiculous.

That said, I don't like the alternative idea of split stage races for the Vuelta either. Frankly, sorry, but I think it's an absolutely horrible idea and arguably worse than Cookson's. The three GTs should always follow the same format as one another. Yes, the Vuelta is the runt of the litter, but if it isn't the same format as the Giro or Tour, it isn't a GT anymore, and then it isn't sacrosanct, and just turns into a long stage race that eventually becomes raped and mutilated like the Volta a Portugal has been where people are saying they should "temporarily" reduce the length again, knowing full well if it shortens it will never recover those racing days. What you propose is to turn it into a stage racing version of the Challenge Mallorca, a race where people care about the individual race days, but the actual GC is nothing more than a token trophy for the few riders who bothered to take the startline in all of the races. That would kill the credibility of the Vuelta far more than taking two or three race days off it.

That said, what's the problem with there being two prestigious races simultaneously? Nobody is going to enter all 120 race days under Cookson's pathetic idea anyway*. Even with 22 riders a team (in a sport struggling for sponsors in many key markets already, is it really smart to be making more riders unemployed and cutting down the race days where teams can benefit from their sponsors getting coverage?!) there's scope for 5 injuries/illnesses and teams still to field a team at a GT (9 riders) and another front-line stage or one-day race (8 riders). Is it really necessary to try to kill a race that's been going since the 1930s so that it doesn't clash with the fricking GP Quebec? I mean, I like the Canadian one-day races, they've been a lot better than I anticipated, but they do not need to harm the Vuelta: there's a good niche going on at the moment with both races simultaneously.

A maximum of 6 days for stage races is an insult to races like the Tour de Suisse, and makes a joke of a race like Paris-Nice, which now either throws in massive, objective-ruining transfers or is highly limited in parcours to going almost as the crow flies, and eliminates the possibility of TT mileage. All so that there isn't a period where we can watch two races on the same day with two completely different pélotons, because you know the French teams will still target Paris-Nice, and what Italian teams are left (you know, because the sponsors are hæmorrhaging away from the sport) will still target Tirreno-Adriatico. And the endless shortening of races takes away the factor that is recovery - it is often the fatigue of athletes that causes the most interesting stages towards the end of such stage races. Way to ruin that. Evelyn Stevens did 16 or 17 consecutive race days in 2014 (11-day Giro followed immediately by Thüringen Rundfahrt), so it's not like it can't be done. And that's in women's cycling, where the difference in depth between the top and bottom rider in the group is much bigger and the number of domestiques is greatly reduced too.

If this is the idea for the future, then count me out, and the sooner we get a head of the UCI who actually has some respect for the sport the better. The ASO should not stand for this, and in fact if they don't tell Cookson to stick his ideas somewhere painful I will be deeply disappointed in them.

*except possibly Adam Hansen.

What he ↑ said.

 

[IndianCyclist]

Just unfortunate that after 2008 the fighting between the organizers and UCI still continues inspite of cycling's precarious state with sponsors disappearing. These people they never understand that for the good of cycling they have to drop their egos and come to a consensus quickly for the benefit of all. On top of it you have David Lappartient voting against the reforms that he only helped draft. Just plain pig headedness and vested interests. I think cycling is always going to be a chaotic sport with all stakeholders pulling in different directions.

 

[avanti]

WT teams should have the option to not compete in some events - this would reduce team costs and avoid having sponsors support races in regions where they do not conduct business.

 

[Red Rick]

Can we have the McQuaid idiot back?

I got a ban for death wishes once, so I won't do it again.....

 

[BostonRob]

The present calendar is a mess, so i don't see a problem in making a few changes. If they don't want overlapping they should make the one-week races max 7 days. Cutting a day from 8 to 7 won't make a big difference and then they could have Paris-Nice in one week and Tirreno the next, the same with Dauphine and Suisse. TDU has to go since it's place in january is awful and noone takes it siriously bar the australians. It should be the big event in the Oceania tour.

The classics are good as they are, but i would add Strade Bianche and make them every wednesday and sunday to give them a 5 week consistency period:
Last week of march - Wednesday Strade Bianche - Sunday Milan-San Remo
Next week - W E3 - S Tour of Flanders
Next week - W Gent-Wevelgem - S Paris-Roubaix
Next week - W ----- (???) - S Amstel Gold
Next week - W Fleche Wallonne - S Liege-Bastogne

As for the Grand Tours, keep Tour and Giro 3 weeks, but cut Vuelta to 2 and have it start in the beginning of september so that there is a full month between Tour and Vuelta. Maybe move one of Catalunya or Basque from spring to be a warm-up event like Dauphine. Since they wan't to cut the racing days Pologne should go back to the Europe tour. Everything else seems ok.

 

[KyoGrey]

Re:

The present calendar is a mess, so i don't see a problem in making a few changes. If they don't want overlapping they should make the one-week races max 7 days. Cutting a day from 8 to 7 won't make a big difference and then they could have Paris-Nice in one week and Tirreno the next, the same with Dauphine and Suisse. TDU has to go since it's place in january is awful and noone takes it siriously bar the australians. It should be the big event in the Oceania tour.

The classics are good as they are, but i would add Strade Bianche and make them every wednesday and sunday to give them a 5 week consistency period:
Last week of march - Wednesday Strade Bianche - Sunday Milan-San Remo
Next week - W E3 - S Tour of Flanders
Next week - W Gent-Wevelgem - S Paris-Roubaix
Next week - W ----- (???) - S Amstel Gold
Next week - W Fleche Wallonne - S Liege-Bastogne

As for the Grand Tours, keep Tour and Giro 3 weeks, but cut Vuelta to 2 and have it start in the beginning of september so that there is a full month between Tour and Vuelta. Maybe move one of Catalunya or Basque from spring to be a warm-up event like Dauphine. Since they wan't to cut the racing days Pologne should go back to the Europe tour. Everything else seems ok.

Fleche Brabançonne organisers had a reported interest in joining the World Tour.

 

[gunara]

Re:

There are 22 WT teams with up to 30 riders each, and there are still hundreds of riders going without contracts. There need to be more race days, not fewer.

I have to disagree. Cycling is not charity and those hundreds without contract are probably jobless because they are below average riders. While there may still be few "better" riders without contract, I do personally believe fewer riders will make for better competition. Just WT teams have about 500 cyclist under contract. How many do you need?

If you think about it, there is 1000s of "pro" cyclist around the globe while in other sports there is only select few that make good living being a pro athlete. Even in tennis the Top 100 make good living and the rest of them is lucky to get by.

And while cycling is a team sport (to a degree), there is maybe 100 or so cyclist that are worth of watching and I wouldnt mind seeing all those top riders racing in every top race because it is quite boring watching the same 5 sprinters, climbers, TTs or rouleurs winning 90% of those top races in their niche.

Yet every talent deserve to compete at their level. You made example of tennis, even non top 1000 - let alone top 100 - players have their tournaments, and players ranked 300 or so in the world can make a living as a pro athlete, at least in developed countries. Cycling is a team and contract sport, once you're out of it, you don't compete.
If you think 1000 pros are big numbers in sports, I'm not sure you're correct. Do you know how many pro volley ball players - for example - in the world? Most other team sports have their own national pro season, even in their less traditional countries (there must be professional basketball leagues in country like Bahrain or Singapore, maybe in multiple levels), now make a calculation and compare them to cycling.
AFAIK, there are gaps between continental and national levels in cycling, in some nations moving up and down between them is not easy, you are either too good or not good enough, you're either already in or forever outside. The cut in numbers at the very top will just make it worse, and if the UCI can screw the top level I don't believe they will do better at lower levels, more cyclists will be pushed aside before they even prove anything, and that won't help the sport.

 

[Roninho]

What i fail to see in these plans is how this actually grows cycling.

Everybody knows that below the top tier events (the GT's, PN, TA, the big one day races) most events have a very hard time of getting the financing and exposure (tv/media attention) in order. Most teams are desperately depending on the exposure of the top tier events. Cutting in racedays in the top events and downgrading the 2nd level events to lower level will imo only lead to less relevant exposure for the current teamsponsors and therefor less money in cycling.

I understand that cycling is not only about europe, and if the UCI believes they can make money outside of the EU good for them. But i don't believe that cutting in what currently feeds you is the way to achieve that.

 

[Brullnux]

Reforms I think are needed:

I think the UCI needs to be reformed top down after a report by an independent report by the IOC preferably, or any other reputable group. Take out anyone who was heavily involved with the period 1990-2014 from important roles. - modernise it completely. Have more than one leader. Have at least 3 from different nationalities to eliminate bias.

Invest more in the youth structure of the sport in all countries and help it expand outwards with more recognition to the Africa Tour and Asia Tour. The Africa tour because that is where most our future champions will come from if they train right. The Asia Tour so that the Iranians stop walking every race.

Try to make it more 'cool'. Engage with the young people. I'm young and I'm pretty sure I'm the only one in my year who follows cycling.

Invest more into anti-doping. They may claim that everyone is clean but the antidoping kit hasn't really changed in the last 5 or so years. More research is what I'm saying really, research that is faster than the teams. (Sorry if this sounds like a clinic reference, it's not, these are just what I believe the UCI need to do, and doping is a pretty big part of popular conception about cycling and it needs to be addressed properly, not just saying 'oooh look at us! Everyone in this sport is clean! Yay!')

Give riders more presence and power in the UCI. They know better than anyone how cycling feels like right now and how it is to be in it - if there is too many race days, too much travelling or so on.

Give fans more power and presence in the UCI. They know better than anyone what cycling looks like right now.

Engage with people who don't like cycling and try to figure out why they don't instead of ignoring them. They may have a valid reason why they don't and one that can be changed.

Change the UCI world tour. I wish I knew how, but it needs to be done.

Change the UCI points system to become more like the CQ ranking, with credit for winning a points jersey or KOM Jersey in a big event.

 

[Gigs_98]

Please UCI listen to the cycling fans one single time

 

[argyllflyer]

Re:

Can we have the McQuaid idiot back?

I got a ban for death wishes once, so I won't do it again.....

Most of the proposed reforms date back to McQuaid's time in office... the details leaked within a week or two of his departure and Cookson did not put them together in a few days!

http://inrng.com/2013/10/pro-cycling-calendar-uci-reform-2015-2020/

Cookson gets stick for not being tough enough on Astana but McQuaid the autocrat tried to throw Katusha out without following due process and hey presto CAS reinstated them. McQuaid's rulebook undoing them both.