I've got some problems with the way the UCI is running things, and I'd like to get some feedback on what I say here. I know that I've tended to post provacative stuff here before, but this I hope you will think this better considered.
Here's my theory:
1) Internationalization of cycling is a Good Thing, the motivation for it (and execution OF it) is wrong.
As someone who has a partner who has competed at the Olympic level in sport, I've seen some political mechanizations going on the background, trying to grow sport in the Euro-centric model.
2) Organizations like Right To Play are designed to grow the base of athletes available to the IOC, which wields supreme power in sports through it's control of the Olympics, which trickles down to national governing bodies, then to event organizers, then, at the very end to athletes. In the end the athlete is used to make money and keep power. They themselves gain very little beyond their salary and some fleeting fame.
The head of Right To Play was at the Bilderberg Group before he started that. I've attended these Right To Play functions and they are almost like head-of-state dinners; held in EXCLUSIVE mens clubs (no I don't mean strip), with famous athletes, reporters and other top 1%-ers...
Reminded me a lot of the so-called Christmas "charity" giving to African children, and there were lots of talks about how inspiring it was for the multiple Olympic Gold medals winners to play games with African kids. In the guise of giving, we turn our gifting into conversions and the giftees into our enemies through such selective rich-white-person condescension.
3) Athletes themselves have asserted little power since their salaries have risen. OK, thank Greg Lemond, and move on to what is really going on. Read "Fight The Power" by Chuck D who talks about controlling slaves by pitting them against each other, light-skinned vs. dark-skinned; old vs. young, etc.. It's the same thing, folks.
Since they have been gradually given more "points" (power), they have accepted this instead of asserting some REAL influence. Since the time of Bernard Hinault, no significant protest has been held by the athletes themselves, with a minor exception for race radios. And now, Bernard Hinault is a smiling gladhand nobody. This isn't by accident.
4) Teams have no power in the current UCI structure. What has made soccer (football) so profitable for EVERYONE is the "club" structure. A nod and a wink is done to the so-called "club" structure that USED to exist in cycling, but this model is unsustainable in the current UCI model.
5) By making the athlete now the holder of points (and therefore power), this keeps the athletes divided from each other, from the team they are working with (unless their internal culture is sufficiently strong like in the Garmin team).
6) There are pitfalls to a "club" system- it becomes entrenched and the leader deified (like Penn State), but this produces undeniable results. Still, this is as far down as it should go. In my thinking, clubs and governing bodies would work together to maintain a fabric of cycling going; with the main focus of the UCI being on regulating the clubs in such a way as to produce a healthy system.
7) The UCI, when given a problem goes through the following phases: a) denial b) Denial c) DENIAL! d) Outrage e) OUTRAGE! f) CRAZY overcompensation for being behind the curve instead of on top of things g) removal of team and athlete rights h) Now the UCI feels it can do whatever it wants in any aspect of the sport including: overregulation (aka nonsensical for anyone who is too tall or too short, or wants to ride modern) bikes, chasing around Iljo Kiesse, banning race radios (WTF?), starting a Chinese bicycle race in a super-polluted, largely unattended race, etc., etc., etc., etc.
7a) ARROGANCE! This kind of arrogance is only found in those prisoners (in this case, the UCI) who, in their fear of the situation take up the work of the wardens (the IOC) and on their behalf. Do the research. IOC is a bad, bad organization.
8) All governing bodies work this way, without a check and balance of teams, who stand to make the most money (in my fictional system) to advocate for less restrictions. Somewhere in the middle is an ideal. Athletes should stand to gain the most from this, but generally don't. They are commodities, who are told they are living the dream, but are being used in a general sense.
9) Selective Enforcements & Taking FOREVER FREAKING EVER to decide doping cases. To my mind, a peloton full of cheaters is better than a governing body who takes too long to decide such cases or applies them unevenly. We almost have forgotten who Jan Ullrich is at this point, and the UCI is still chasing him around like a dachshund chasing a garbage truck. MANY dopers have come and gone since Jan Ullrich stepped aside, and many are still racing. WTF?
10) By keeping sponsors guessing, the UCI's team structure has gradually been destroying the sponsor base. You could say that by being SO FAR BEHIND the doping scandal, it's overcompensations have undermined all apparent attempts to grow the sport. Even it's mishapen attempts to form an elite structure give little motivation to athletes or teams to retain and grow talent, much less the domestiques who enable the victories we celebrate. More and more, like in the NFL, it's difficult to retain any sense of "team" or get behind one organization you can believe in. Groups like Garmin and Highroad succeeded only through their modern innovations, and after the innovations are commonplace, the UCI has and will continue to assimilate those and shoot the innovators in the back.
Here's my theory:
1) Internationalization of cycling is a Good Thing, the motivation for it (and execution OF it) is wrong.
As someone who has a partner who has competed at the Olympic level in sport, I've seen some political mechanizations going on the background, trying to grow sport in the Euro-centric model.
2) Organizations like Right To Play are designed to grow the base of athletes available to the IOC, which wields supreme power in sports through it's control of the Olympics, which trickles down to national governing bodies, then to event organizers, then, at the very end to athletes. In the end the athlete is used to make money and keep power. They themselves gain very little beyond their salary and some fleeting fame.
The head of Right To Play was at the Bilderberg Group before he started that. I've attended these Right To Play functions and they are almost like head-of-state dinners; held in EXCLUSIVE mens clubs (no I don't mean strip), with famous athletes, reporters and other top 1%-ers...
Reminded me a lot of the so-called Christmas "charity" giving to African children, and there were lots of talks about how inspiring it was for the multiple Olympic Gold medals winners to play games with African kids. In the guise of giving, we turn our gifting into conversions and the giftees into our enemies through such selective rich-white-person condescension.
3) Athletes themselves have asserted little power since their salaries have risen. OK, thank Greg Lemond, and move on to what is really going on. Read "Fight The Power" by Chuck D who talks about controlling slaves by pitting them against each other, light-skinned vs. dark-skinned; old vs. young, etc.. It's the same thing, folks.
Since they have been gradually given more "points" (power), they have accepted this instead of asserting some REAL influence. Since the time of Bernard Hinault, no significant protest has been held by the athletes themselves, with a minor exception for race radios. And now, Bernard Hinault is a smiling gladhand nobody. This isn't by accident.
4) Teams have no power in the current UCI structure. What has made soccer (football) so profitable for EVERYONE is the "club" structure. A nod and a wink is done to the so-called "club" structure that USED to exist in cycling, but this model is unsustainable in the current UCI model.
5) By making the athlete now the holder of points (and therefore power), this keeps the athletes divided from each other, from the team they are working with (unless their internal culture is sufficiently strong like in the Garmin team).
6) There are pitfalls to a "club" system- it becomes entrenched and the leader deified (like Penn State), but this produces undeniable results. Still, this is as far down as it should go. In my thinking, clubs and governing bodies would work together to maintain a fabric of cycling going; with the main focus of the UCI being on regulating the clubs in such a way as to produce a healthy system.
7) The UCI, when given a problem goes through the following phases: a) denial b) Denial c) DENIAL! d) Outrage e) OUTRAGE! f) CRAZY overcompensation for being behind the curve instead of on top of things g) removal of team and athlete rights h) Now the UCI feels it can do whatever it wants in any aspect of the sport including: overregulation (aka nonsensical for anyone who is too tall or too short, or wants to ride modern) bikes, chasing around Iljo Kiesse, banning race radios (WTF?), starting a Chinese bicycle race in a super-polluted, largely unattended race, etc., etc., etc., etc.
7a) ARROGANCE! This kind of arrogance is only found in those prisoners (in this case, the UCI) who, in their fear of the situation take up the work of the wardens (the IOC) and on their behalf. Do the research. IOC is a bad, bad organization.
8) All governing bodies work this way, without a check and balance of teams, who stand to make the most money (in my fictional system) to advocate for less restrictions. Somewhere in the middle is an ideal. Athletes should stand to gain the most from this, but generally don't. They are commodities, who are told they are living the dream, but are being used in a general sense.
9) Selective Enforcements & Taking FOREVER FREAKING EVER to decide doping cases. To my mind, a peloton full of cheaters is better than a governing body who takes too long to decide such cases or applies them unevenly. We almost have forgotten who Jan Ullrich is at this point, and the UCI is still chasing him around like a dachshund chasing a garbage truck. MANY dopers have come and gone since Jan Ullrich stepped aside, and many are still racing. WTF?
10) By keeping sponsors guessing, the UCI's team structure has gradually been destroying the sponsor base. You could say that by being SO FAR BEHIND the doping scandal, it's overcompensations have undermined all apparent attempts to grow the sport. Even it's mishapen attempts to form an elite structure give little motivation to athletes or teams to retain and grow talent, much less the domestiques who enable the victories we celebrate. More and more, like in the NFL, it's difficult to retain any sense of "team" or get behind one organization you can believe in. Groups like Garmin and Highroad succeeded only through their modern innovations, and after the innovations are commonplace, the UCI has and will continue to assimilate those and shoot the innovators in the back.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram