UCI screws Astana

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Benotti69 said:
I wonder do UCI fear Vino becoming a power in cycling........
“People have to understand that they (the Continental team) has nothing to do with this team (the Astana WorldTour team). The only thing we have in common is the jersey and the name.”
sounds legit, like Sky having nothing to do with JTL ;)
 
Jun 30, 2014
7,060
0
0
staubsauger said:
I got a feeling that Astana is gone already. With the 5th case on, it seems highly unlikely that this wouldn't have any harm on their license.

Nibali and Aru doesn't seem worried at all. Why? Martinelli can't be really linked with any of the current Kazakh cases. He's part of the clean, Italian Astana section.

So is there already a door out? Martinelli talked about setting up a new Italian pro team in future this summer. Could/ would he take over?

Who would be interested to sponsor such a team?
Mapei-Bianchi
Saeco
Fassa Bortolo
Benetton
Were all rumored to be interested in sponsoring a cycling team (again) in the past weren't they?

Let's wait and see if this is just some weird speculation by me or if this even could become reality. :eek:
My thoghts exactly, maybe the UCI even wants a new italian WT team. I'd love to see a new Saeco team with the same classic red jersey. :)
 
Apr 10, 2011
4,819
0
0
If that's the only thing they have in common how could he suspend that team himself? :p

Astana will get the licence, whatever is said main team doesn't train or have same stuff as CT so shouldn't be taken in account for Astana WT decision.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Gloin22 said:
If that's the only thing they have in common how could he suspend that team himself? :p

Astana will get the licence, whatever is said main team doesn't train or have same stuff as CT so shouldn't be taken in account for Astana WT decision.
Main team has better stuff..................
 
JimmyFingers said:
A beautiful bit of utter speculation without anything empirical to back it up whatsoever. Bravo
Did you only read the one post?
What do you think I've been posting links for?
The numbers don't lie.
Even Amstrong's first retirement made very little impact.
As speculation goes, it's pretty much on the money.
Quite novel for here.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Try telling that to women's cycling. Or Germany. Or the cycling teams struggling to find sponsorship. Or the races that have breathed their last.
 
Jun 30, 2014
7,060
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
Try telling that to women's cycling. Or Germany. Or the cycling teams struggling to find sponsorship. Or the races that have breathed their last.
Yes those things will be the big problem, not the TdF ratings but small races will die and teams will have an even harder time finding sponsors.
 
JimmyFingers said:
Try telling that to women's cycling. Or Germany. Or the cycling teams struggling to find sponsorship. Or the races that have breathed their last.
So how is Nibali, Contador or Froome not riding the Tour going to impact upon Germany, if there is no effect on audience numbers?
As for already defunct races.:confused:
Do potential sponsors care about riders or viewing figures?

I'm not following your line of reasoning here.
 
Jun 27, 2013
5,210
2
0
“People have to understand that they (the Continental team) has nothing to do with this team (the Astana WorldTour team). The only thing we have in common is the jersey and the name.”

Said the manager of one team while giving the order to suspend the other one :D
 
burning said:
Do you really think that without Froome and Wiggins, the viewer numbers in UK won't change at all?
I think the viewing figures in the UK with or without Sky are small compared to the numbers in Italy with or without Pantani.

Also Pantani was way bigger in Italy - having been around for a long time, than Wiggins and Froome, one of whom would have a few years ago been vaguely recoginzed by some people as one of them olympic guys from some sport, and the other of who was totally unknown by anyone outside his family.
 
Mellow Velo said:
This has some Lance and post Lance viewing numbers.
They are tiny in comparison to the UK:

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/Will-Fewer-People-Be-Watching-the-Tour-this-Year.html

We are looking at a max of 0.025%, The norm being just a third of that figure.
Even though it doesn't change overall viewer figures that much, the variation between years is huge. If this sort of decrease occurs in one of the bigger countries, it could affect overall numbers pretty significantly.
 
The Hitch said:
I think the viewing figures in the UK with or without Sky are small compared to the numbers in Italy with or without Pantani.

Also Pantani was way bigger in Italy - having been around for a long time, than Wiggins and Froome, one of whom would have a few years ago been vaguely recoginzed by some people as one of them olympic guys from some sport, and the other of who was totally unknown by anyone outside his family.
They are obviously small, but what I'm saying is that the variation between years is significant with or without a prime contender. I suspect that it is much bigger when that contender is banned. Maybe I'm wrong though, I'm just thinking and speculating without significant statistical data.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
So how is Nibali, Contador or Froome not riding the Tour going to impact upon Germany, if there is no effect on audience numbers?
As for already defunct races.:confused:
Do potential sponsors care about riders or viewing figures?

I'm not following your line of reasoning here.
I have a feeling I am being dragged into something halfway through. My point was that cycling is affected by doping scandals, in response to the post I quoted, not just that absences of big names affect viewing figures for the TdF.
 
JimmyFingers said:
I have a feeling I am being dragged into something halfway through. My point was that cycling is affected by doping scandals, in response to the post I quoted, not just that absences of big names affect viewing figures for the TdF.
Oh yeah, sure.
I agree that doping scandals effect those areas you mentioned.
No question.
And you are right, we were talking about something very specific, in rider absence.
 
Oct 21, 2012
1,106
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
A beautiful bit of utter speculation without anything empirical to back it up whatsoever. Bravo
No, it's common sense. There is absolutely no way imaginable that there are over 2 billion TV sets in the world who's owners find cycling interesting enough to sit down and watch 20 consecutive minutes of it. No more than a tenth of that number could care about professional cycling (and that is being extraordinarily generous), or else, it would be a huge sport, up there with the likes of football in terms of the money generated. Especially since its primary fanbase and popularity is in wealthy, developed countries, where there are plenty of easy dollars to be made.

Of that significantly reduced number, fewer still will be fanboy idiots enough to not watch something because their favourite star got banned. And even fewer still will take a moral stance and refuse to watch it because the doping is officially back. Even amongst proper cycling fans, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority will return to view Tour after Tour, at least for a few minutes at any time over the three weeks. It is also reasonable to assume that even those who do decide to not watch the Tour will still add some sort of corporate value to the race, by familiarising themselves with what is going on in the race (i.e. paying attention to media coverage); so that they can come on websites like this and participate in informed discussion about doping in the sport. If the average Tour viewer had any concern for the integrity of what he is watching, then the Tour would have been finished as a spectacle after Lance, if not after Festina.

Only those people who care about cycling in the slightest will care about there being doping. The overwhelming majority of Tour de France viewers cannot be cycling fans, otherwise, as I said, we would have empirical evidence of it in the form of the sport being right up there as among the most lucrative and most well known in the world. And it is this overwhelming majority of casual viewers who're only in it for a quick 20 minute Tourism France advert, who the advertisers, the broadcasters, and thus the UCI, set up everything for. As long as they keep coming back then nobody's going to care what any other demographic of Tour viewer does.

Until such time as Vincenzo Nibali is as instantly recognisable anywhere in the world as Cristiano Ronaldo is, it is entirely incorrect to argue that banning people and doping scandals will make a difference to the bottom line for the UCI, the ASO, and every other organisation with a financial stake in the Tour. I think Dazed and Confused has seen right to the heart of the issue, which is that the advertising dollar is now the most important thing in every single sport worldwide, and the sentiments of the actual, participative, emotionally invested fanbase are entirely irrelevant to the quest for ever increasing profits.

Sure you can argue that some companies would withdraw their sponsorship in order to go into PR damage minimisation mode, but once again, these companies are in a significant minority; otherwise, after the endless doping scandals we have seen throughout cycling's history, no company would want to sponsor any cycling team. Of course that isn't the case. Today you see huge multinational companies with theoretically a lot to lose getting involved, like Sky. But once again, the average viewer doesn't care who sponsors who (because what kind of ****ing saddo opens an account with Rabobank circa 2010, for instance, just because they liked Robert Gesink?). Neither do the broadcasters, the UCI, nor the ASO. All the latter want is to flog the TV rights to the highest bidders, and all the former cares about is presenting impressive viewership stats to would-be advertisers, who are going to purchase spots in the commercial breaks, promoting goods and services completely irrelevant to professional cycling and thus completely insulated from whatever doping scandal may be going on.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
So will Astana get a Pro Conti licence instead of a WT one?

Is Nibali now looking for a new team???

Airgas-Safeway should've waited and got Nibali:D
 
Its deja vue all over again...

McQuaid vs. Katusha - Cookson vs. Astana.

Now that Markov is on Cooksoon's side that problem is resolved. And Cookson is gunning to break Astana.

It's very political and not a simple case of doping.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY