The ongoing power struggle of the UCI

[Netserk]

Really?.....the first documented cycle race was won by an Englishman

Mark L

So?

Where was it held?

Where would you rank GB's results in cycling (road racing) between 1900 and 2000? In the top-10?

 

[ebandit]

So you are resentful of British success.....because they have no right to win as its a continental sport.......quelle surprise

Mark L

 

[Netserk]

So you are resentful of British success.....because they have no right to win as its a continental sport.......quelle surprise

Mark L

Please quote where I wrote that.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Really?.....the first documented cycle race was won by an Englishman

Mark L

The USA are the reigning Olympic champions in rugby, but wouldn't you consider that that's primarily a sport for the former British Empire + France, first and foremost? I mean, I know it's getting more international, but the countries where rugby is traditionally important are basically the UK, France, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Italy, Argentina and the Pacific Island nations came later.

Ditto for cycling. Competitive cycle racing has some history in the UK, USA etc. but for most of its history, the traditional countries have been France, Italy and the Benelux, with Spain and Switzerland next; in the Eastern Bloc it was Poland and the DDR (later the Soviet Union) on the road and the track, and the Czechs in the field. The UK, Australia, USA expansion has been comparatively recent even if there have often been participants from those countries; it's just that the countries mentioned above have been where the lion's share of the riders traditionally come from. Hence netserk's statement that it is a continental sport first and foremost.

 

[ebandit]

And for the love of god, drop the damn anglicization of cycling. It's a continental sport first and foremost.

Where would you rank GB's results in cycling (road racing) between 1900 and 2000? In the top-10?

What else is the implication of this?......what does Anglicization of cycling mean?....

........whatever it means, you have admitted that you are resentful of it........which is just the usual sh1te that threads like this are full of from people like you

I point out to you that the first documented race was won by an Englishman.....you try and point out that it was in France. ....so what's changed?.....where the hell do you think Wiggins and Froome won their Tours?

Mark L

 

[ebandit]

The USA are the reigning Olympic champions in rugby, but wouldn't you consider that that's primarily a sport for the former British Empire + France, first and foremost? I mean, I know it's getting more international, but the countries where rugby is traditionally important are basically the UK, France, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Italy, Argentina and the Pacific Island nations came later.

Ditto for cycling. Competitive cycle racing has some history in the UK, USA etc. but for most of its history, the traditional countries have been France, Italy and the Benelux, with Spain and Switzerland next; in the Eastern Bloc it was Poland and the DDR (later the Soviet Union) on the road and the track, and the Czechs in the field. The UK, Australia, USA expansion has been comparatively recent even if there have often been participants from those countries; it's just that the countries mentioned above have been where the lion's share of the riders traditionally come from. Hence netserk's statement that it is a continental sport first and foremost.

.....and he is resentful of 'Anglicization'......maybe he should be more resentful of the Danish contribution to cycling......not been very illustrious has it...Mr 60% and The Actovegin Chicken

As for rugby...there are more rugby clubs in the US than there are in the UK....I have a feeling the same might bevtrue for Japan.....I would care less ifvtge Americans won the Rugby world cup....why would I?

Mark L

 

[Netserk]

The format and the way it's run. I don't give a **** that brits win races. As you pointed out yourself they did that a long time ago as well.

Take a look at how F1, NFL and NBA are run. Quite different to most continental sports.

Next time when you don't understand what someone writes, perhaps you should start asking them what they mean before you start spraying **** around.

 

[ebandit]

The format and the way it's run. I don't give a **** that brits win races. As you pointed out yourself they did that a long time ago as well.

Take a look at how F1, NFL and NBA are run. Quite different to most continental sports.

Next time when you don't understand what someone writes, perhaps you should start asking them what they mean before you start spraying **** around.

That's your fault for being and continuing to be a poor communicator whilst using terms like 'anglicization' that you know are inflammatory.. ..

NBA and NFL are not anglicized....they are Americanised by definition

So now that you've used this term....can you explain what you meant by anglicised.......what are the features of 'anglicised' sport management?

Mark L

 

[Libertine Seguros]

.....and he is resentful of 'Anglicization'......maybe he should be more resentful of the Danish contribution to cycling......not been very illustrious has it...Mr 60% and The Actovegin Chicken

As for rugby...there are more rugby clubs in the US than there are in the UK....I have a feeling the same might bevtrue for Japan.....I would care less ifvtge Americans won the Rugby world cup....why would I?

Mark L

And there are probably more cycling clubs in the USA than there are in Belgium, but doesn't mean that there's not more heritage in the sport in Belgium, does it. Let's face it, the USA has a population several times that of the UK, spread over an area that s proportionally even bigger.

I don't know if you like the sport of rugby. But the situation is not analogous that you mention above, because the Americans winning the Rugby world cup would be a shock result similar to Greece winning Euro 2004... but wouldn't be any more of a big thing than an outsider from an unexpected country winning a GT. Maybe Ryder Hesjedal. The situation that we're talking about with Cookson, is if they started dismantling the European and southern Hemisphere club competitions with the express purpose of having fewer games, and making the teams play further away to try to promote to a US audience where there may be more clubs, but less audience. It will annoy the fans in places like New Zealand where the sport has maximum attention, because they get to see the game less often, and only really gains curio value in places like the US where it can only ever be secondary to American Football.

We didn't have to brutalize classic races in order for non-traditional countries like the US or Australia to start winning Grand Tours; they developed cyclists capable of winning the existent events, because the existent events were seen as something worth aspiring to winning. Riders adapt themselves to suit the races they want to win. And as a result of the successes of these riders, those countries sought to build and develop and capitalize on the attention brought by that success and build their own niche on the calendar - see the rise (and fall) of a number of US stage races over the years, and the move of the Jayco Herald Sun Tour and setting up of the Cadel Evans Road Race or whatever it's called in Australia (along with Drapac going ProConti). We're seeing the same with Britain, with the instigation of the Yorkshire stage race and the London one-day event, as organizers try to capitalize on the higher profile given to the sport in the wake of the Tour wins, which were themselves the result of a specialized road racing team set up to capitalize on the higher profile given to the sport in the wake of the Olympic track successes. Leaving aside all the conspiracy theories about Sky's rise to the top of the sport and the dubious nature of shock transformers winning the biggest races, and the knowledge that the general public now has about Armstrong with regards the development of the sport in the US, that is the sport developing in non-traditional markets organically. No traditional races have had to be mutilated, no farcical new calendar has had to be created, but increased interest in the sport in non-traditional countries has led to a development of new races, new teams, and the bringing through of new talents. Of course, the bottom could fall out just as easily, just as with German cycling (the Niedersachsen Rundfahrt, Sachsen Rundfahrt, Rund um Berlin-one of the most traditional one-day races in the history of the sport, Hessen Rundfahrt/3-Länder-Tour, Rheinland-Pfalz-Rundfahrt, Regio Tour and the Rund um die Braunkohle have all gone the way of the dodo in the last few years), in which case it is imperative that we have the traditional calendar in the home countries of the sport to fall back on, not some anæmic, anorexic facsimile thereof.

 

[Master50]

At one time bike racing was hugely popular in North America and had a large professional presence. that ended. Road racing came to Dominate and the Tour was the only bike race N Americans saw. Now there are big races in the USA again and cycling is the most popular it has been in my 58 years.
There is always change and the fortunes of every sport changes too.
Some of these changes are overdue, some won't happen, and some won't work as they hoped. It won't be as bad as you think or as good as they promise.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Absolutely none of the changes mentioned in the article in the OP are "overdue". None of them have any reason to happen. They are all terrible ideas and I really can't understand why anybody other than a marketing executive would want any of them to happen.

There are plenty of problems with the current status quo in pro cycling, so it's not like the system is perfect and there are no changes that could improve it. But the status quo is vastly preferable to everything mentioned in that article. Vastly.

Mellow Velo suggests in the Clinic thread on Cookson that the reform he's selling is basically to enable him to kill off the old method of point-to-point racing that has served the sport for the last 120 years, to replace it with closed circuit racing where they can sell tickets and popcorn, along the lines of what happened at the 2012 Olympic RR and the new Ronde van Vlaanderen route. I almost slapped myself for my stupidity in not realising that was the ultimate goal. Turn a sport where part of the appeal is the free access and the geography is a supporting star into just another ticketed circuit circus like Formula One. F**k Brian Cookson. I want no part of this revolution. I've walked up mountains for hours in 40º heat to catch a glimpse of the riders only to walk back down again. I've stood in freezing temperatures by the roadside in heavy rain and biting wind to watch the riders grind by with gritted teeth, covered in rain and mud. I've posted over 14 000 times - many of them up to the character limit - about almost every facet of the sport. But I'm prepared to turn my back on it and say goodbye if this revolution comes to pass. It won't be worth my time and effort anymore. It won't be the sport that I fell in love with. It will have sold its soul at the altar of festival toilets and VIP lounges, all in the name of the same globalization that Bernie Ecclestone brought to F1 that means we now only get 9 teams at some races and drivers risk life and death in the middle of the desert in front of nobody while fans in the country the sport was born don't get the chance to see their heroes first hand all year.

 

[Jancouver]

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.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The UK, Australia, USA expansion has been comparatively recent even

I can't speak for the history in UK and the USA but Australia has a long and proud competitive cycling history with some of the largest crowds in the world attending cycling races in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Australia also has the second oldest one day race in the world, which started in 1895. There was s a rich tradition of amateur and professional cyclists butting heads, often a city v country divide, although much of that is lost nowadays.

It is not and never has been a recent thing here.

 

[Granville57]

I can't speak for the history in UK and the USA but Australia has a long and proud competitive cycling history with some of the largest crowds in the world attending cycling races in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Australia also has the second oldest one day race in the world, which started in 1895. There was s a rich tradition of amateur and professional cyclists butting heads, often a city v country divide, although much of that is lost nowadays.

It is not and never has been a recent thing here.

Much of the same could be said for the U.S. too.

Major Taylor? One of the biggest international stars of his day.

Madison races? Yup, that too was a product of the late 1800s in New York City.

But most of that and the other related historical achievements have long since been lost to history. Most Americans, and especially the American sporting media, haven't even the slightest idea that cycling was once the biggest sporting event of its day, garnering front page coverage and huge live audiences.

There is simply no connection between past and present when it comes to cycling in the U.S. and the general public today. 20 years of history would only be reserved for the more hardcore fan, 10 to 15 years for the slightly more informed, and slightly less than that for anyone even remotely aware of the sport.

For the casual observer who may be very well versed in other, more popular sports, contemporary pro cycling is nothing more than a vague collection of events that happen somewhere around France, where lots of drugs are involved.

But the archival history stretches quite far back.

 

[ebandit]

Absolutely none of the changes mentioned in the article in the OP are "overdue". None of them have any reason to happen. They are all terrible ideas and I really can't understand why anybody other than a marketing executive would want any of them to happen.

There are plenty of problems with the current status quo in pro cycling, so it's not like the system is perfect and there are no changes that could improve it. But the status quo is vastly preferable to everything mentioned in that article. Vastly.

Mellow Velo suggests in the Clinic thread on Cookson that the reform he's selling is basically to enable him to kill off the old method of point-to-point racing that has served the sport for the last 120 years, to replace it with closed circuit racing where they can sell tickets and popcorn, along the lines of what happened at the 2012 Olympic RR and the new Ronde van Vlaanderen route. I almost slapped myself for my stupidity in not realising that was the ultimate goal. Turn a sport where part of the appeal is the free access and the geography is a supporting star into just another ticketed circuit circus like Formula One. F**k Brian Cookson. I want no part of this revolution. I've walked up mountains for hours in 40º heat to catch a glimpse of the riders only to walk back down again. I've stood in freezing temperatures by the roadside in heavy rain and biting wind to watch the riders grind by with gritted teeth, covered in rain and mud. I've posted over 14 000 times - many of them up to the character limit - about almost every facet of the sport. But I'm prepared to turn my back on it and say goodbye if this revolution comes to pass. It won't be worth my time and effort anymore. It won't be the sport that I fell in love with. It will have sold its soul at the altar of festival toilets and VIP lounges, all in the name of the same globalization that Bernie Ecclestone brought to F1 that means we now only get 9 teams at some races and drivers risk life and death in the middle of the desert in front of nobody while fans in the country the sport was born don't get the chance to see their heroes first hand all year.

I don't think you need worry.......I don't think the Tour de France is about to become 1000 laps of a hypermarket car park in Calais

Again.......probably sensible to wait and see before throwing toys out of the pram

Mark L

 

[LaFlorecita]

I don't think you need worry.......I don't think the Tour de France is about to become 1000 laps of a hypermarket car park in Calais

Again.......probably sensible to wait and see before throwing toys out of the pram

Mark L

No. No. We shouldn't just let it happen and see what the results are. We know what the plan is, roughly. Crookson doesn't want to tell us any of the details or reasons behind the reforms. So we put 1 and 1 together and see these reforms will kill the sport. You say we should just sit back, grab some popcorn and watch while that happens. No. I am with Libertine, if Crookson goes on with his attempt to ruin cycling, I'm outta here.

 

[LaFlorecita]

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.

Fewer riders make for better competition? How does that work?

We'll see 90 top level riders lose their jobs. Slow clap. Well done Crookson. No team will want to keep loyal old workhorses. No team will gamble on a promising 21-year old. Oh, but we have the development squads for that , which for the record every team must have, even if they have trouble keeping their team running with the sponsor money they get

 

[LaFlorecita]

Thing is, Cookson was fine as the president of British Cycling. At BC he they are focused on developing young riders, and he was incouraging that. But now he seems not to be wanting riders get to where they want (The World Tour and Le tour) by limiting the number of riders in a team to 22. So currently young riders may not actually race in a World tour event but are able to ride for a WT team.

Also will the 22 riders include stagaires.

With stagaires do you mean end-of-the-season stagaires? If so, most likely not. If you mean neo pros, it does include them. If teams don't have room for them, the idea is to sign them for their devo squad rolleyes

 

[nhowson]

I don't think you need worry.......I don't think the Tour de France is about to become 1000 laps of a hypermarket car park in Calais

Again.......probably sensible to wait and see before throwing toys out of the pram

Mark L

You mean a hypermarket car park in Doha right?

But seriously, I'm with Libertine and LF (that happens quite often actually, I like those guys). The only change to the calendar that is "overdue" is P-T becoming a WT race and maybe, just maybe, moving the TDU back in the season a few weeks. Chopping and changing with a calendar that is working perfectly well is going to make things go... not so well. I couldn't want ALL of the best riders doing ALL of the (supposedly) best races less. What I love about cycling is every day is a new situation, and that diminishes if the field is the same for every race. If this goes ahead it will kill the week long tours and semi-classics until every race is a closed circuit race, the TdF is an Alpe D'Huez kermesse and the Vuelta no longer exists because it couldn't survive with two weeks. While a slippery slope argument is generally invalid, this is an exception because dismantling the calendar like this sets a dangerous precedent.

 

[Electress]

You mean a hypermarket car park in Doha right?

But seriously, I'm with Libertine and LF (that happens quite often actually, I like those guys). The only change to the calendar that is "overdue" is P-T becoming a WT race and maybe, just maybe, moving the TDU back in the season a few weeks. Chopping and changing with a calendar that is working perfectly well is going to make things go... not so well. I couldn't want ALL of the best riders doing ALL of the (supposedly) best races less. What I love about cycling is every day is a new situation, and that diminishes if the field is the same for every race. If this goes ahead it will kill the week long tours and semi-classics until every race is a closed circuit race, the TdF is an Alpe D'Huez kermesse and the Vuelta no longer exists because it couldn't survive with two weeks. While a slippery slope argument is generally invalid, this is an exception because dismantling the calendar like this sets a dangerous precedent.

I'm with you guys. I really don't see who beyond UCI is asking for these changes and why they are necessary. Perhaps if someone would articulate these needs and / or desires clearly as opposed to just telling me they are overdue or whatever, I might understand why such apparently destructive proposals address the problem. As things stand, it seems like a move to serve the sport management, not the sport or the riders or the fans.

Sport isn't the same as running a widget factory. It's not about a well-oiled production of races. The efficiency with which the sport is run merely enables the sport, but its the riders and the fans and the unfolding narrative of the races themselves that inspires people to watch or show up by the roadside.

Without the history and the 'romance', cycling becomes little more than a procession of thin men in lycra wheeling about as fast as they can for no reason. Same with any sport, no matter how big a 'business' it might be, it is intrinsically pretty purposeless. Any arguments about 'it generates X amount of economic benefit' miss the point - that's the collateral gain, not the reason i watch or the riders participate. And the moment management starts to focus on collateral gain to the detriment of the intrinsic 'romance', some of the illusion that the sport matters is stripped away, and the fans sense that they are merely being exploited and manipulated and lose interest.

And yes, as a Brit., it pains me to say that i do think there is an element of English management ethos here, so I do get the 'Anglicization' comments and why it rankles. Change needs to be done sensitively, and show due respect to the heritage of the sport and the sense of ownership that there is in the traditional heartland of cycling. With due respect to other Brits here and involved in cycling much more than I, I do sometimes wonder, listening to some of my compatriots talk, whether they actually like it that much, or just want to exert their dominance.

 

[BigMac]

no. No. We shouldn't just let it happen and see what the results are. We know what the plan is, roughly. Crookson doesn't want to tell us any of the details or reasons behind the reforms. So we put 1 and 1 together and see these reforms will kill the sport. You say we should just sit back, grab some popcorn and watch while that happens. No. I am with libertine, if crookson goes on with his attempt to ruin cycling, i'm outta here.

...


...


...right. And the planet keeps on turning.

 

[LaFlorecita]

...


...


...right. And the planet keeps on turning.

Why did you only reply to me and not to Libertine who said the same thing?

....

Right never mind

 

[Mellow Velo]

Sadly, for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth around here, the race calendars of cycling's traditional heartlands are, with the exception of Belgium/Holland in a sorry state.
Spain's calendar has been decimated in the past decade, with just one third of the race days left.
Italy's recent demise has been even more drastic; losing a third of it's race days in just the past two years.

While I too hate most of these proposals, it is all well and good for us to cry: "Leave it alone", but if the UCI don't carry out reform, and the recession continues, they may be very little left to leave alone.

What concerns me most about the proposed reform is that it is quite clearly aimed at attracting new audiences and revenue.
It will hardly matter what race appears on what calendar, if the UCI are aiming to charge folks to watch, for this means all will end up as criterium styled finishes.

Whatever ultimately happens, traditional cycling fans will not be happy.
For them, ( me included) change is rarely a good thing.

 

[Netserk]

How is the French calender in a bad state?

 

[Afrank]

Sadly, for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth around here, the race calendars of cycling's traditional heartlands are, with the exception of Belgium/Holland in a sorry state.
Spain's calendar has been decimated in the past decade, with just one third of the race days left.
Italy's recent demise has been even more drastic; losing a third of it's race days in just the past two years.

While I too hate most of these proposals, it is all well and good for us to cry: "Leave it alone", but if the UCI don't carry out reform, and the recession continues, they may be very little left to leave alone.

What concerns me most about the proposed reform is that it is quite clearly aimed at attracting new audiences and revenue.
It will hardly matter what race appears on what calendar, if the UCI are aiming to charge folks to watch, for this means all will end up as criterium styled finishes.

Whatever ultimately happens, traditional cycling fans will not be happy.
For them, ( me included) change is rarely a good thing.

IMO we shouldn't necessarily just abandon the idea of changing anything and leave everything as it is now. But rather efforts should be put into helping and improving the established races we already have.

Trying to shorten the race calendar even further is not the answer, nor is continuing to create races in places like Beijing or Qatar (where, as I've said before, there is little interest in cycling). The UCI needs to work with the race organizers, the teams, and the riders to help establish which races are in trouble and need assistance and which are doing well and should be left alone.

Sadly I fear that the greed for more power of the other guys and for getting more money out of the sport will trump the needs of truly trying to improve the sport and mean that we won't see those kind of things happening any time soon.