UCI Spitting their dummy.

[andy1234]

Oh dear - Pro sports exist because of the sport.

To allow it be a professional sport ie teams/athletes earn money, they sell advertising of the sport..

Oh dear indeed.
Your naivety surprises me.

Pro sport does not exist because of the sport.
Pro sport exists because it is a proven advertising vehicle for sponsors.
If there isn't a market that can be sold to, It won't become a pro sport.

You said earlier,
"Pro-sports 'primary purpose' is that its athletes can earn a living by being professionals"

Once again. No, it really isn't.

It's not a cyclists welfare organisation. It's a business. You advertise a product you get paid. You win races and advertise a product to a bigger audience, you get paid more.
Providing cyclists with a salary is quite simply necessary for the success of the business.

Again you think that someone (not sure who) is 'concentrating on the negative' - they aren't, they (UCI etc) are trying to hide it and it keeps being exposed..

The likes of ARD are concentrating on the negative. The UCI, as any business does, is trying to mitigate the impact of that negative exposure.
Until the doping problem can be solved, which would be a win win for everybody, managing that exposure is the only option.

Yes I have - the testing, media, police etc have blown the hinges off the door a long time ago. .

As I said before, eradicating doping is not a solution at the moment. So tackling that problem is a constant process that brings negative connotations. Its a constant process of damage limitation.
Professional organisations deal with problems like this head on, BUT NOT IN FRONT OF THE CUSTOMER.

Hmmm - you're getting there.
Why is it cycling manages to be exposed if it was as 'clean' as it is 'promoted'? (Hint, it isn't).

The UCI have been forced into a situation brought about by the dopers themselves. Following problems such as the Festina affair, the UCI were faced with providing a response to the media and sponsors.
The media just wants a good story.
The sponsors, however, want a positive spin. It is not in their interests for their previous investment and potential future investment to be devalued.
A statement of anything other than confidence in the organisation, that is professional cycling, would go down like a lead balloon.

Until there is a solution to the problem of doping in sport, the commercial partners in that relationship require a positive message, or the chances are, sponsors will find a sport that gives them that positive message.

It may stick in the throat of fans like you and me, but it's an economical necessity.

Again - in any organisation, when a problem is exposed you tackle it not attempt to spin out of it.

The organisation has a obligation to manage that problem. But if the problem cannot be eradicated then it needs to be managed in a commercially sensitive manner.

Unfortunately these are the ills of professional sport.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh dear indeed.
Your naivety surprises me.

Pro sport does not exist because of the sport.
Pro sport exists because it is a proven advertising vehicle for sponsors.
If there isn't a market that can be sold to, It won't become a pro sport.

Right so, clever marketeers invented bikes and introduced competition to sell swag?

You said earlier,
"Pro-sports 'primary purpose' is that its athletes can earn a living by being professionals"

Once again. No, it really isn't.

It's not a cyclists welfare organisation. It's a business. You advertise a product you get paid. You win races and advertise a product to a bigger audience, you get paid more.
Providing cyclists with a salary is quite simply necessary for the success of the business.

Again wrong.
In the early days the primary source of athletes income was prize-money.

It was later that the sports and the advertisers saw sports potential for advertising.

The likes of ARD are concentrating on the negative. The UCI, as any business does, is trying to mitigate the impact of that negative exposure.
Until the doping problem can be solved, which would be a win win for everybody, managing that exposure is the only option.

"The negative"? You mean the D word, right.
Is mitigate a big word for spin.

As I said before, eradicating doping is not a solution at the moment. So tackling that problem is a constant process that brings negative connotations. Its a constant process of damage limitation.
Professional organisations deal with problems like this head on, BUT NOT IN FRONT OF THE CUSTOMER.

Again most doping incidents have been highlighted by the press and police.

The UCI have been forced into a situation brought about by the dopers themselves. Following problems such as the Festina affair, the UCI were faced with providing a response to the media and sponsors.

No, they are tasked with providing a solution not a (PR) response.

The media just wants a good story.

The UCIs incompetence gives the media that.

The sponsors, however, want a positive spin. It is not in their interests for their previous investment and potential future investment to be devalued.
A statement of anything other than confidence in the organisation, that is professional cycling, would go down like a lead balloon.

So continue the lies to the sponsors so it gives them the 'positive spin'.

Until there is a solution to the problem of doping in sport, the commercial partners in that relationship require a positive message, or the chances are, sponsors will find a sport that gives them that positive message.

It may stick in the throat of fans like you and me, but it's an economical necessity.

The organisation has a obligation to manage that problem. But if the problem cannot be eradicated then it needs to be managed in a commercially sensitive manner.

Unfortunately these are the ills of professional sport.

Again you think the UCI are in control of the spin. They are not.
Their lies and the reality of the sport are continuously exposed.

 

[andy1234]

Right so, clever marketeers invented bikes and introduced competition to sell swag?

No, and starbucks didn't invent coffee, but it become a business as soon as someone relaised thay could make money out of it.
Before that it was just, well, coffee.

Before pro cycling, it was just, well, amateur cycling.

Again wrong.
In the early days the primary source of athletes income was prize-money.

It was later that the sports and the advertisers saw sports potential for advertising.

Where do you think that prize money came from most of the time?
I'll tell you. Betting and small time sponsorship.
One way or another there was a commercial interest.

Again you think the UCI are in control of the spin. They are not.
Their lies and the reality of the sport are continuously exposed.

The rest of what you say is just anger at how a professional sport is run.
Im not defending it, I'm just stating the economic drivers behind the decisions made.

Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, and starbucks didn't invent coffee, but it become a business as soon as someone relaised thay could make money out of it.
Before that it was just, well, coffee.

Before pro cycling, it was just, well, amateur cycling.

Aha - so Pro cycling came after amateur cycling.

Where do you think that prize money came from most of the time?
I'll tell you. Betting and small time sponsorship.
One way or another there was a commercial interest.

Right, business saw the potential of the sport for advertising which means the 'commercial interest' came in after.

professional sport is run[/U].
Im not defending it, I'm just stating the economic drivers behind the decisions made.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Run by whom? The UCI?
Again they are responsible for running the sport, all of it - not just the commercial interest.

To the blue, you are not a messenger, you are an apologist (from your earlier post):

.....

Untill cycling is competing on a level playing field with Football, Tennis and Swimming in terms of transparency, I'm happy to sweep the problems under the carpet the same way they do.

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

The rest of what you say is just anger at how a professional sport is run.
Im not defending it, I'm just stating the economic drivers behind the decisions made.

Don't shoot the messenger.

I imagine that most true fans of their sport would feel angry at having been duped by cheating in their favourite sport. If a fan does not feel anger he is lacking in morals or not a true fan.

To the blue, you are not a messenger, you are an apologist (from your earlier post):

Dr M. Good call on the Apologist.

 

[andy1234]

Aha - so Pro cycling came after amateur cycling.


Right, business saw the potential of the sport for advertising which means the 'commercial interest' came in after.


Run by whom? The UCI?
Again they are responsible for running the sport, all of it - not just the commercial interest.

To the blue, you are not a messenger, you are an apologist (from your earlier post):

And when the commercial interest comes in......it becomes professional, thus allowing riders to earn a living from it... phew we got there in the end.

Relax doc. You are clearly out of your depth with some of this stuff.

Nice use of highlighting on my "under the carpet" quote.
Talk about taking it out of context. The UCI are hiring you know....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Relax doc. You are clearly out of your depth with some of this stuff.

Nice use of highlighting on my "under the carpet" quote.
Talk about taking it out of context. The UCI are hiring you know....

I'm obviously so out of my depth you have resorted to petty ad hominens.

Here is your earlier post in full - the context is correct.

This

Professional SPORT is awash with doping.
When other sports are subjected to the same level of scrutiny that pro cycling is, I will support full and frank discussion of it's problems in the media.

Untill cycling is competing on a level playing field with Football, Tennis and Swimming in terms of transparency, I'm happy to sweep the problems under the carpet the same way they do.

 

[andy1234]

I imagine that most true fans of their sport would feel angry at having been duped by cheating in their favourite sport. If a fan does not feel anger he is lacking in morals or not a true fan.




Dr M. Good call on the Apologist.

Your moral fiber is obviously not lacking, because you keep telling us so.
Good Benotti, keep it up.

If understanding the way the real world works and commenting on it makes me an apologist, then so be it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Your moral fiber is obviously not lacking, because you keep telling us so.
Good Benotti, keep it up.

If understanding the way the real world works and commenting on it makes me an apologist, then so be it.

You are not just commenting on it - you are condoning it.

 

[andy1234]

You are not just commenting on it - you are condoning it.

Yes, In the framework of running a competetive business, I condone the behaviour of managing negative publicity.

 

[ultimobici]

Not really.

And cycling fans need to stop being so whiny about how they have such a hard time and how hypocritical is all is that not other sports are treated the same.

Bottomline, cycling has a massive doping problem, made worse by a complicit media that refuses to be critical.

If cycling gets a hard time from ARD it is because it deserves and needs a hard time. Crying that it is being unfairly treated is akin to a spoilt and indulged child suddenly wondering why they are being held to account.

Accusing ARD etc of hypocrisy and turning into cycling as some kind of victim here is the biggest pile of festering bull**** since the last David Millar interview.

Good for ARD and **** the UCI and the apologists and those fans who like to see themselves as victims.

So let me get this straight.

I'll agree that cycling has an ongoing problem with doping. However, the flak that it catches in the press relative to football & athletics is way way out of proportion to the level of doping & corruption in the sport.

FIFA has only just started to come under a little pressure over corruption that has been going on for decades. So I do feel hard done by as a cycling fan that every time cycling is reported in the British press it has a reference to doping even when there is no doping story. When there is a doping issue in football it is buried or misreported. Remember Jaap Stam's departure from Man Utd? At the time it was reported that he was fired for comments about Ferguson made in his autobiography when it was actually due to being caught with nandrolone. Just as OP was kicking off the WC was on. When asked about blood testing, Sep Blatter said that it was too expensive for football to do!!

 

[Benotti69]

Yes, In the framework of running a competetive business, I condone the behaviour of managing negative publicity.

i hope you are more successful than pro cycling

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, In the framework of running a competetive business, I condone the behaviour of managing negative publicity.

And it is that short sighted belief that has the sport in the mess it is in - the UCI are not a business - they are a sports authority.

Here is the UCI mission statement:

The International Cycling Union (UCI) is cycling’s International Federation recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The UCI was founded in Paris in 1900.

The UCI administers and promotes the development of the eight disciplines of cycling all around the world (road, track, mountain bike, BMX, para-cycling, cyclo-cross, trials and indoor cycling). Over the last 10 years, the UCI has intensified its development activities on all five continents.

The UCI’s mission is to develop and promote cycling, in close collaboration with National Federations, be it as a competition sport and its associated values (effort, well-being and fair play), as a healthy recreational activity or as a means of transport.


In particular, the UCI:
• organises the UCI World Championships and the UCI World Cups,
• collaborates with the IOC to organise the cycling events of the Olympic Games,
• sets the dates of races on the International Calendar,
• establishes the regulations for the cycling disciplines,
• develops the disciplines of cycling around the world,
• organises training programmes,
• fights against doping.

<snip>

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So let me get this straight.

I'll agree that cycling has an ongoing problem with doping. However, the flak that it catches in the press relative to football & athletics is way way out of proportion to the level of doping & corruption in the sport.

FIFA has only just started to come under a little pressure over corruption that has been going on for decades. So I do feel hard done by as a cycling fan that every time cycling is reported in the British press it has a reference to doping even when there is no doping story. When there is a doping issue in football it is buried or misreported. Remember Jaap Stam's departure from Man Utd? At the time it was reported that he was fired for comments about Ferguson made in his autobiography when it was actually due to being caught with nandrolone. Just as OP was kicking off the WC was on. When asked about blood testing, Sep Blatter said that it was too expensive for football to do!!

One key difference to the highlighted - the recent FIFA issue was to do with the administrators, not the game itself.
Doping takes away the 'values' of the game or sport - enhanced performance/cheating etc.

 

[Deagol]

If understanding the way the real world works and commenting on it makes me an apologist, then so be it.

Ever ask yourself WHY the "real world" works that way?

The end always justifies the means ?

The world is made up of people who have free will. These people have the ability to change the course of the future.... or apoligize for the present and continue with business-as-usual.

 

[andy1234]

And it is that short sighted belief that has the sport in the mess it is in - the UCI are not a business - they are a sports authority.

Here is the UCI mission statement:

This might be the first thing we agree on.
The UCI IS a business. The argument is, should they be?

The problem is, if its not the UCI that runs the commercials, then who?

 

[ultimobici]

One key difference to the highlighted - the recent FIFA issue was to do with the administrators, not the game itself.
Doping takes away the 'values' of the game or sport - enhanced performance/cheating etc.

Problem is that football has resolutely refused to accept that there is any doping in football. It had to be forced to take any kind of action as a result of the desire to be an Olympic sport. When Rio Ferdinand missed his test its seriousness was treated with derision by the press. When he was actually sanctioned it was a paltry 8 months for an offence that should carry an automatic 2 year ban. It wasn't like he hadn't been repeatedly told he had a test that day, so he effectively refused the test.

 

[andy1234]

Ever ask yourself WHY the "real world" works that way?

The end always justifies the means ?

The world is made up of people who have free will. These people have the ability to change the course of the future.... or apoligize for the present and continue with business-as-usual.

The problem lies with the dopers.
Those individuals have the choice, not the UCI.
The UCI can only manage the problem and ensure it doesn't bring the sport to its knees. The power to change the sport will shift back to the UCI if a fail safe dope test is created. Until then, damage limitation is the only option.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This might be the first thing we agree on.
The UCI IS a business. The argument is, should they be?

The problem is, if its not the UCI that runs the commercials, then who?

The UCI is not a business -which is why your point continues to be flawed.

The "commercials' (I assume you mean commercial interest) is by the race organizers through TV rights and the teams through finding sponsors.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The problem lies with the dopers.
Those individuals have the choice, not the UCI.
The UCI can only manage the problem and ensure it doesn't bring the sport to its knees. The power to change the sport will shift back to the UCI if a fail safe dope test is created. Until then, damage limitation is the only option.

Let me fix this for you;
The power to change the sport will shift back to the UCI if a fail safe dope test is created, they then actually implement that test, if someone is caught for that test that they don't except bribes to make it go away or that in the event that WADA are looking not try and hide it as long as possible and help the person caught come up with an excuse.

 

[dbrower]

The UCI is not a business -which is why your point continues to be flawed.

The UCI is absolutely a business. If it's income does not exceed expenses for too long, it'll be forced to fold shop.

-dB

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The UCI is absolutely a business. If it's income does not exceed expenses for too long, it'll be forced to fold shop.

-dB

No - the UCI thinks it is a business, it is not;

From the UCI website:

The UCI Statutes stipulate that:

1. The International Cycling Union (abbreviated as UCI) is the association of national cycling federations.

2. The UCI is an international, non profit-making and non-governmental association, officially recognised to be of international interest.

3. The headquarters of the UCI are in Switzerland (…).

 

[andy1234]

The UCI is not a business -which is why your point continues to be flawed.

The "commercials' (I assume you mean commercial interest) is by the race organizers through TV rights and the teams through finding sponsors.

My point is not flawed. Your understanding appears to be though.

You do know that a non profit organisation can still be a business right?
Just because revenue is not distributed to staff or shareholders does not make it any less of a business.

Care to elaborate what you mean?

 

[andy1234]

Let me fix this for you;
The power to change the sport will shift back to the UCI if a fail safe dope test is created, they then actually implement that test, if someone is caught for that test that they don't except bribes to make it go away or that in the event that WADA are looking not try and hide it as long as possible and help the person caught come up with an excuse.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My point is not flawed. Your understanding appears to be though.

You do know that a non profit organisation can still be a business right?
Just because revenue is not distributed to staff or shareholders does not make it any less of a business.

The UCI is a sports authority - not a business.

Care to elaborate what you mean?

Sure, the UCI is a sports authority - not a business.