UCI Forbids Racing in Other Federations

[DirtyWorks]

Registered UCI Continental registered Pro's will be fined and suspended if they are found to be racing in other federations. What's a Pro supposed to do if they aren't scheduled for an event? Nothing?

http://www.podiuminsight.com/2011/04/07/uci-rules-crackdown-no-non-usac-sanctioned-races-for-pros/

http://www.yourgroupride.com/road/27-road/993-no-more-pros-at-local-races#JOSC_TOP

 

[avanti]

You would think the UCI would be all for expanding cycling - especially in countries like the USA where there is little interest by the general public.

 

[fatsprintking]

They are trying to send a message that if a rival series starts up it will be us or them. I am sure they will be happy to sanction obscure events that are around cycling development. I think they just wnat to make sure everyone knows the score re a rival competition.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Registered UCI Continental registered Pro's will be fined and suspended if they are found to be racing in other federations. What's a Pro supposed to do if they aren't scheduled for an event? Nothing?

http://www.podiuminsight.com/2011/04/07/uci-rules-crackdown-no-non-usac-sanctioned-races-for-pros/

http://www.yourgroupride.com/road/27-road/993-no-more-pros-at-local-races#JOSC_TOP

Sugahara's quotes are astonishing. First, he claims he was aware of the rule but is surprised the UCI has "decided to enforce them." Typical 'bummer dude' attitude of people in the sport.

Sugahara claims he is "puzzled" as to why the UCI has decided to enforce this rule. Anybody who doesn't know why the UCI is enforcing this rule is so clueless about the politics of the sport that they shouldn't be in charge of a race.

Second, Sugahara then downplays the entire ban by saying it will only affect 1% of the racers. But he doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that it is this 1% that drives sponsorships, fan attendance, etc. And sponsorships to races are a keystone to the survival of an entire event including sustaining its lower categories.

What promoter in their right mind who is in the business of COMPETITIVE BIKE RACES would ever say they don't care about sponsorships or TV coverage or that the TOP TALENT has been permanently banned from their event?

Sugahara also doesn't think this will affect 99% of the non-UCI racers. But it will absolutely affect them since sponsorship is driven by elite talent. Remove the elite talent, and you will lose sponsors which will hurt all the categories (see Tour of Battenkill)

This would be like Home Depot finding out that its wealthiest customer demographic are banned from their stores all across the country and only permitted to shop at their competitor Lowe's from now on.... and the CEO of Home Depot giving flippant quotes like Sugahara, "Yeah, it's pretty lame but it doesn't really affect us much."

Amazing.

 

[veganrob]

If Sugahara didn't do his homework that is his problem.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Sugahara's quotes are astonishing. First, he claims he was aware of the rule but is surprised the UCI has "decided to enforce them." Typical 'bummer dude' attitude of people in the sport.

Well, but if you've ever dealt with the UCI as a promoter, you'd know that "we're not enforcing that rule." is a common reply to many compliance questions. A good example is 'cross in the U.S. Many rules were not enforced for YEARS to grow UCI's presence. Then they arbitrarily enforce the rules.

Sugahara claims he is "puzzled" as to why the UCI has decided to enforce this rule. Anybody who doesn't know why the UCI is enforcing this rule is so clueless about the politics of the sport that they shouldn't be in charge of a race.

What promoter in their right mind who is in the business of COMPETITIVE BIKE RACES would ever say they don't care about sponsorships or TV coverage or that the TOP TALENT has been permanently banned from their event?

There are many events that are not UCI/USAC sanctioned. I'd argue they are growing the fastest. From a promoter's perspective, more attendance is the general goal. Grow attendance and it's far easier to attract outside sponsors.

Remove the elite talent, and you will lose sponsors which will hurt all the categories (see Tour of Battenkill)

I disagree, but I have a different focus. Battenkill seems to be on track for multiple full 3/4/5 fields across multiple age groups. There is no shortage of grassroots attendance. Dieter's not going to make a killing given the costs of closing such a big course. But he's got a great event formula attracting 10x the riders of the NRC crit scheduled against it. Which is more valuable to a sponsor? Battenkill. BTW, besides a sparse few, both events don't attract spectators.

Battenkill doesn't need USAC and they don't want him. That should be clear to everyone given they scheduled an NRC crit against Battenkill. This proclamation from the UCI is an aggressive attempt to shut down more popular events that do not fall under the UCI's control.

 

[isayic]

Beside being a cycling fan I'm interested in boxing and there we have different associations that are rivals. You can have more than one boxer who is world champion let's say in heavyweight or one boxer can have more than one title as world champion. I don't think that it's good for the sport.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Well, but if you've ever dealt with the UCI as a promoter, you'd know that "we're not enforcing that rule." is a common reply to many compliance questions. A good example is 'cross in the U.S. Many rules were not enforced for YEARS to grow UCI's presence. Then they arbitrarily enforce the rules.

Sugahara claims he is "puzzled" as to why the UCI has decided to enforce this rule. Anybody who doesn't know why the UCI is enforcing this rule is so clueless about the politics of the sport that they shouldn't be in charge of a race.


There are many events that are not UCI/USAC sanctioned. I'd argue they are growing the fastest. From a promoter's perspective, more attendance is the general goal. Grow attendance and it's far easier to attract outside sponsors.



I disagree, but I have a different focus. Battenkill seems to be on track for multiple full 3/4/5 fields across multiple age groups. There is no shortage of grassroots attendance. Dieter's not going to make a killing given the costs of closing such a big course. But he's got a great event formula attracting 10x the riders of the NRC crit scheduled against it. Which is more valuable to a sponsor? Battenkill. BTW, besides a sparse few, both events don't attract spectators.

Battenkill doesn't need USAC and they don't want him. That should be clear to everyone given they scheduled an NRC crit against Battenkill. This proclamation from the UCI is an aggressive attempt to shut down more popular events that do not fall under the UCI's control.

Filling the 3/4/5 fields will not bring in blue-chip sponsors. Television coverage and top elite talent is what will bring in 7-figure sponsorship deals.

Claiming that your race is successful by pointing to the number of Cat. 4 and 5 cyclists who register is a seriously flawed argument to showing success of an event.

By stripping races of top pro talent, you have dealt a death knell to both television coverage and obtaining big sponsorship dollars.

Sponsors don't care about any of this grassroots nonsense.