UCI messing with grassroots MTB racing now?

[flyor64]

Enforcement of UCI rules limits racing for top mountain bikers in USA

This actually upset me enough to start a thread.

One of the coolest things about alot of these grassroot races is the opportunity to meet and very likely chat with a lot of the top pros in MTB racing.

Seems like the UCI is just out to shut down anything that does not put more cash in their pockets...

 

[Master50]

Maybe the rebellious nature of the colonies has finally raised the Ire of the rule makers?
These rules needed to have been enforced back when Colorado and Oregon were supporting breakaway leagues. This rule exists in just about every pro sport too. Maybe it is time for the local race to consider working inside the system than against it?
I think it is long overdue. Maybe it will influence how races are sanctioned and your super pro will come back?

 

[flyor64]

All true, I suppose. I have no issues with races being sanctioned and under the oversight of that country's governing body. Everthing here, all the way down to the local stuff I race, is sanctioned and run under NCF (Norwegian equivelant of USAC).

I just wonder about the fact that for so long it was not an issue, nor enforced, and suddenly it's an issue that needs to be addressed. IMO the timing is suspicious in that alot of these stage races and enduros are getting bigger and bigger...it just smells to me like a "hey, we want our cut...or you don't get your/our star riders"

I have no idea the costs associated with running a sanctioned event, but it is surely higher.

 

[Oldman]

Maybe the rebellious nature of the colonies has finally raised the Ire of the rule makers?
These rules needed to have been enforced back when Colorado and Oregon were supporting breakaway leagues. This rule exists in just about every pro sport too. Maybe it is time for the local race to consider working inside the system than against it?
I think it is long overdue. Maybe it will influence how races are sanctioned and your super pro will come back?

Coming from the rebellious colony known as the Northwest it appears as a total slam to the locals. USACycling also knows much of their scrutiny regarding the Lance thing, Nike, etc...comes from this region as well. The local USAC officicals know it, promoters know it and it really stinks.
Initally OBRA and others left USAC because races became too expensive to run because USAC took huge premiums from them and contributed f*ck all. It actually grew racing in the region and created some spectacular events. All was good until Steve Johnson started getting some heat over the Lance affair from UCI. It is ham-handed pressure tactics from silly-guilty middlemen and will net them nothing in income.
UCI took a similar tactic forcing USAC to sanction a local rider for a suspension related race infraction pulling out the big guns to bully a local promoter; a the while denying that Lance could ever have been involved in doping. While all of this sounds far fetched you only have to consider the stupid way the federation has been run as a tool of Mr. Weisel and his fraud machine. Stay tuned; everyone's still trying to flush these t*rds out of the system and return some actual grass roots support to USAC.

 

[DirtyWorks]

USA Cycling has been warning its pros about this since sometime mid-2012.

Like this matters to most off-road "pros" though. How many are actually making a living wage on a UCI registered team?

We all know the Bro-deal riders who aren't making a living at it are what comprise most "pro" events in the U.S. anyway.

If this is the issue that bolsters independent federations, then great. But, otherwise, USAC members seem to be okay with starving domestic pros among a host of other consequences of UCI/USAC management.

 

[avanti]

Maybe the rebellious nature of the colonies has finally raised the Ire of the rule makers?
These rules needed to have been enforced back when Colorado and Oregon were supporting breakaway leagues. This rule exists in just about every pro sport too. Maybe it is time for the local race to consider working inside the system than against it?
I think it is long overdue. Maybe it will influence how races are sanctioned and your super pro will come back?

The Colorado league is now part of USAC (or sanctioned by USAC) but now I have to pay fees to both USAC and the Colorado league.

I might add that I now need two membership/license to compete in CO state championships - USAC ($60) and BRAC ($25).

 

[DirtyWorks]

The Colorado league is now part of USAC (or sanctioned by USAC) but now I have to pay fees to both USAC and the Colorado league.

Depending on where you are, the system works a little differently in that the rider may not see her regional association's part of the entry fee. Almost everyone who participates in USA Cycling events has this fee structure. You and other USA Cycling members pay the regional association twice. Once in the entry fee, a second time as a rebate back from USA Cycling.

I don't know if you know how that takeover went down, but it was a totally legal demand to join USA Cycling or be put out of business by USA Cycling by using their monopoly price/budget powers.

 

[Ripper]

Enforcement of UCI rules limits racing for top mountain bikers in USA

This actually upset me enough to start a thread.

One of the coolest things about alot of these grassroot races is the opportunity to meet and very likely chat with a lot of the top pros in MTB racing.

Seems like the UCI is just out to shut down anything that does not put more cash in their pockets...

Not just in the US either. It seems this rule might also be enforced in Canada. Might make the MTB scene in BC interesting (I don't know if many or any of the evens are UCI sanctioned).

The rule does not really meet the present context. Perhaps the UCI should look at why these leagues/races exist and why they do so well. And instead of trying to choke the UCI riders out of it, try to look inward and improve what they do.

 

[Ripper]

Maybe the rebellious nature of the colonies has finally raised the Ire of the rule makers?
These rules needed to have been enforced back when Colorado and Oregon were supporting breakaway leagues. This rule exists in just about every pro sport too. Maybe it is time for the local race to consider working inside the system than against it?
I think it is long overdue. Maybe it will influence how races are sanctioned and your super pro will come back?

Ah, but one of the other spins on this is it is not just the pros. The rule is any UCI license holder. You could be a Cat 4 roadie, but do an unsanctioned event, and you would get fined. I think I would send the UCI some monopoly bills with a f*ck you note.

 

[King Boonen]

Ah, but one of the other spins on this is it is not just the pros. The rule is any UCI license holder. You could be a Cat 4 roadie, but do an unsanctioned event, and you would get fined. I think I would send the UCI some monopoly bills with a f*ck you note.

Also, I'd question if it does exist in other sports. Without checking, I think that, say, David Beckham can go and have a kick about in a five-a-side league with just about anyone he wants according to FIFA, but his contract with his club is likely to stop him.

As someone new to mountain biking it just looks like the UCI trying to choke off any possible breakaways that aren't even trying to challenge it.

 

[avanti]

Also, I'd question if it does exist in other sports. ...........

I do not follow boxing but I get the impression from the media that there are at least three boxing associations (one offers Olympic qualification) - can compete in each others events?

 

[King Boonen]

I do not follow boxing but I get the impression from the media that there are at least three boxing associations (one offers Olympic qualification) - can compete in each others events?

Yes, you can compete for all three (again, I like you am not sure how many there are) that is how you get a unified champion, or someone who holds multiple belts. Of course, people have had belts taken away from them for not fighting a specific bodies number one contender and choosing to fight someone else, and sometimes champions will fight without a particular belt being on the line, but they can fight in all of the organisations.

The caveat is that, if they want to fight in the Olympics, they must be an amateur, Cuba are said to be so successful because they banned professional boxing in 1961, so the Olympics is the pinnacle of a Cuban boxers career.

I honestly don't know why boxing is still amateur in the Olympics, but this example is certainly an exception as far as I can think.

 

[DirtyWorks]

As someone new to mountain biking it just looks like the UCI trying to choke off any possible breakaways that aren't even trying to challenge it.

The UCI is trying to maintain a worldwide monopoly on competitive cycling. Except, they aren't interested at all in grassroots racing and so when independent events are growing quickly, they respond by forbidding license holders from spending time and money elsewhere.

At least in the U.S. USAC has been killing off promoters enforcing UCI's racing format anyway. The whole system is broken. USAC has a monopoly on the sport through the Ted Stevens Amateur and Olympic Sports Act and permanent funding from USOC, so it's not going anywhere.

 

[King Boonen]

There seems to be less money in mountain biking and maybe this means there is less the UCI can do to control the riders. Hopefully mountain biking can fight back...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Some independent races

Here's an article with a good number of American Independent races.

Check the comments for a *bunch* more.

http://reviews.mtbr.com/the-angry-singlespeeder-a-year-without-usa-cycling

This thread has a few more too: http://forums.mtbr.com/xc-racing-training/year-without-usa-cycling-845969.html

 

[King Boonen]

I'm UK based but I'll keep an eye on what's happening to events over here. I don't know if the same problems are occurring.