Vaughters' 10-point plan to reinvigorate cycling:

[bhilden]

F1 is indeed popular in USA and some European countries-the rest of the world care less about-and that is a FACT-only few followers get to watch the racers by PPV, cable or Internet-not as the broader coverage you're putting in it.


I do- the problem here is that clearly you're looking the problem from the USA POV, whereas the rest of the world already has already a strong following audience.


as I said, you're talking about USA-you need to catch up to the rest of the world. I would add to your point that UCI must get some arraignments with the hosting countries where H.2. & other minor but exiting races take place, to provide the proper broadcasting. --that we both agree.

I spend 2-3 months of the year in Europe, so your comments that my view is USA-centric is not true.

In Europe you can get most of the major races in every country only if you have Europsort which is a cable-based or satelite-based service(something you claim is also true for F1 outside of Europe).

The national brodacasting systems like Antenne 2(France) and RAI(Italy) don't show races that are held outside of their country. For example, you can get the Tour de France on RAI in Italy nor can you get the Giro on Antenne 2 in France. There are exceptions when a particular rider who is a big star is competing outside their home country, but that is an exception.

Global TV coverage for cycling means that a national broadcasting channel in each country broadcasts each major race in pro cycling and when the races are in that particular country they also produce the race.

We are talking ideas here to help increase the popularity of bike racing. Hopefully there is a way to implement such an idea. But, having said that, there is the possibility that pro cycling isn't popular enough worldwide to deserve to have global TV coverage. Regardless, it is worth having the discussion.

 

[hfer07]

I spend 2-3 months of the year in Europe, so your comments that my view is USA-centric is not true.

In Europe you can get most of the major races in every country only if you have Europsort which is a cable-based or satelite-based service(something you claim is also true for F1 outside of Europe).

The national brodacasting systems like Antenne 2(France) and RAI(Italy) don't show races that are held outside of their country. For example, you can get the Tour de France on RAI in Italy nor can you get the Giro on Antenne 2 in France. There are exceptions when a particular rider who is a big star is competing outside their home country, but that is an exception.

Global TV coverage for cycling means that a national broadcasting channel in each country broadcasts each major race in pro cycling and when the races are in that particular country they also produce the race.

We are talking ideas here to help increase the popularity of bike racing. Hopefully there is a way to implement such an idea. But, having said that, there is the possibility that pro cycling isn't popular enough worldwide to deserve to have global TV coverage. Regardless, it is worth having the discussion.

well-you're just confirming what I wrote.
The global TV coverage Idea simply won't work, due to the monopolies behind the ownership of the races & the national regulations involved in the broadcasting. the only option available is what Eurosport has already done, which is a multinational network company who bought the broadcasting copyrights of all mayor competitions-or have a wealthy media company to do the same-like here in the USA is being done by Universal. Your Idea might be working IF UCI becomes a broadcasting company responsible to ensure that all races they rule ought to be live broadcasting through a video feed/channel/website/etc. without any regional or international restriction, since they are the governing body of the sport-but that is loads of money to invest and they will face-as I wrote above- the resistance of each country's copyrights & regulations plus the very owners of the races.

 

[Mambo95]

Many want to criticise Vaughters (and I disagree with more than I agree with), the typical response of 'I don't know what to do, just not that'. So, I presented by own 10 point plan on another website. It's not fully formed and largely off the top of my head, but here it is:



1. Centralise ownership of cycling. Bring all of the major races under one umbrella (Cycling World Tour - CWT), owned by a single company, in which the current race owners, ASO, RCS, IMG, UCI etc hold shares. IMG can do the marketing and selling. (Much easier said than done, this one).

2. Improve TV coverage. Have an in house production company responsible for filming all CWT races. Make it innovative and most of all embrace the 'red button' (note: British term for interactive TV). Hire Sky as consultants. Let the viewer have a choice of which camera he wants to follow. Have tactics guides for newcomers. Have a choice of audio, which leads me to....

3. Keep race radios, but let us hear them.

4. Sell races to TV as packages and do what F1 does, ensure that every part of the package is broadcast. So if you buy the Tour de France package, you also have to broadcast Paris-Nice and GP Plouay too.

5. Sell directly to the consumer. Create a subscription channel on the internet. Viewers can buy individual races or packages or a season ticket. It won't be HD, but have added content, such as all the team radio feeds, but particularly footage from old races - make the back catalogue work for you.

6. Make a bigger deal of the World Rankings - but focus on the team standings, rather than the individual ones. For the individual standings, have three separate ones - GC standings, classic standings and stage standings. Have prize money for it.

7. Abolish ProTeam licences. Instead have a wider top level licence so that current ProTour teams and ProConti with wildcard teams are all equal. However, the top 14 or 15 teams in the end of season standings get automatic invitations to all races. This will allow for more wildcard selections, but no more than 50-66% of wildcards should be given to local teams.

8. Allow for an increase the number of races on the CWT calender, but don't oblige the top 14 or 15 teams to accept all invitations (they can opt out of a certain number - and be expected to). However, give relatively more ranking points to newer races to help them establish themselves.

9. Have the 'owners' of cycling get involved in helping teams find sponsors - a sort of 'dating service' if you will.

10. Outsource all doping control (for top level teams) to an independent agency (eg WADA), which will allow all doping cases for the top teams to be heard by a central UCI court, not the national federations. Punish teams, as well as riders, for positives.

 

[Ferminal]

Many want to criticise Vaughters (and I disagree with more than I agree with), the typical response of 'I don't know what to do, just not that'. So, I presented by own 10 point plan on another website. It's not fully formed and largely off the top of my head, but here it is:

And yet off the top of your head, and as an outsider, your 10 points make far more sense than JV's.

 

[robtclements]

Many want to criticise Vaughters (and I disagree with more than I agree with), the typical response of 'I don't know what to do, just not that'. So, I presented by own 10 point plan on another website. It's not fully formed and largely off the top of my head, but here it is:

Not sure i agree with all of your ideas but at least they make sense as a plan. It's still too F1 style for my taste, though. Here's a different approach:

Cut the cost of entering the cycling business to all players. Standardise equipment wherever feasible; & reduce the size of teams - including at the grand tours - to six maximum (four in smaller races), possibly with a super-sub who can either replace an injured rider or be added mid-race as a specialist. Apart from anything else, less bodies per team would free up more entry spaces for the Pro Conti teams, which is where long-term priorities should lie. On the extreme heretical level, i'd even consider a drop the worst stage principle to spice up the GTs, though i'm sure no one else would buy it

Be a lot more strategic is imposing big races in non-traditional areas. What really is the point behind the Tour of Qatar? If its just TV, don't claim its expansion - admit its just about petrodollars. Even in more traditional cycling areas, be cautious with playing all your cards on top heavy events. Are TDU or the ToC helping of hindering the local product? Put money into regional tours, building the programme up from the ground rather than smothering it

Raise the status of the criterion race to what it should be: cycling at its most thrilling. Dump the Pro Tour completely; & replace it with a world series of cycling: the best teams from all the regional tours competing in a series of super-event, not merely a roll call of the best funded

Just a few random ideas. Perhaps some of them even make sense

 

[Fus087]

8. Allow for an increase the number of races on the CWT calender, but don't oblige the top 14 or 15 teams to accept all invitations (they can opt out of a certain number - and be expected to). However, give relatively more ranking points to newer races to help them establish themselves.

I find this a bad idea.
They tried a similar approach in the first years of the World Cup, where the later races carried more points than the early ones.
The spring classics had 12-1 points for the top-10. The "summer races" Wincanton Classic, GP des Ameriques, San Sebastian & Zürich had 14-3 points, and finally Paris-Tours & Lombardia 16-5.
It's a bit different from your proposal, but not much.

Even if some new race (let's just say the Canadian PT races, or that new Tour of Beijing) carries more points than LBL or P-R, which scalp would a rider rather want?
A good race will mostly establish itself if it proves interesting and attractive; however if the sponsors nad/or UCI withdraw their backing at some point, simply assigning more points isn't going to solve all the problems.
The British World Cup race (Wincanton/Leeds/Rochester Classic) had an interesting route at least in the Leeds years and an attractive date, but it was cancelled anyway.

 

[R.0.t.O]

Many want to criticise Vaughters (and I disagree with more than I agree with), the typical response of 'I don't know what to do, just not that'. So, I presented by own 10 point plan on another website. It's not fully formed and largely off the top of my head, but here it is:



1. Centralise ownership of cycling. Bring all of the major races under one umbrella (Cycling World Tour - CWT), owned by a single company, in which the current race owners, ASO, RCS, IMG, UCI etc hold shares. IMG can do the marketing and selling. (Much easier said than done, this one).

2. Improve TV coverage. Have an in house production company responsible for filming all CWT races. Make it innovative and most of all embrace the 'red button' (note: British term for interactive TV). Hire Sky as consultants. Let the viewer have a choice of which camera he wants to follow. Have tactics guides for newcomers. Have a choice of audio, which leads me to....

3. Keep race radios, but let us hear them.

4. Sell races to TV as packages and do what F1 does, ensure that every part of the package is broadcast. So if you buy the Tour de France package, you also have to broadcast Paris-Nice and GP Plouay too.

5. Sell directly to the consumer. Create a subscription channel on the internet. Viewers can buy individual races or packages or a season ticket. It won't be HD, but have added content, such as all the team radio feeds, but particularly footage from old races - make the back catalogue work for you.

6. Make a bigger deal of the World Rankings - but focus on the team standings, rather than the individual ones. For the individual standings, have three separate ones - GC standings, classic standings and stage standings. Have prize money for it.

7. Abolish ProTeam licences. Instead have a wider top level licence so that current ProTour teams and ProConti with wildcard teams are all equal. However, the top 14 or 15 teams in the end of season standings get automatic invitations to all races. This will allow for more wildcard selections, but no more than 50-66% of wildcards should be given to local teams.

8. Allow for an increase the number of races on the CWT calender, but don't oblige the top 14 or 15 teams to accept all invitations (they can opt out of a certain number - and be expected to). However, give relatively more ranking points to newer races to help them establish themselves.

9. Have the 'owners' of cycling get involved in helping teams find sponsors - a sort of 'dating service' if you will.

10. Outsource all doping control (for top level teams) to an independent agency (eg WADA), which will allow all doping cases for the top teams to be heard by a central UCI court, not the national federations. Punish teams, as well as riders, for positives.

Nice one. I was going to suggest many of the same things, but you've saved me the trouble

No 1 is by far the most important thing. I would even take the UCI out of promotion altogether, let them focus on making the rules and enforcing the dope tests without the current conflicts of interest. Leave the race organising and promotion of the sport to a new body made up of people that are good at that stuff. I was going to call it PROCycling (Pro Race Organisers for Cycling) but the name isn't important.

Points 6 & 7 I like as well - this fits in with what Vaughters says about making competitions that are easy to understand. Individual rider rankings are a mess because how do you compare Contador with Cancellara and say who's best? Team rankings are much simpler and everyone understands the concept from other sports. Make the rankings transparent and part of the way the sport is sold - and make them mean something, entry to races and prize money.

On the TV-side definitely things need to be packaged better. Keep the all-day live coverage for those of us who want it, but also have a much more accessible format. Like an hour-long programme for Milano-San Remo that shows the finale of the race, but also has some proper explanation of the importance of the race and explanation of how it unfolds. An entry-point for the 3 week fans to follow the whole season.

After that then come the gimmicks that JV talks about. I'm all for GPS tracking of riders (maybe a live overlay via red button that identifies the riders on screen); or open-mic from the radios like in F1. Or why do we still have old-style numbers - we could have squad numbers so the riders are more easily identifiable, so a casual fan would know that Cancellara is always Leopard rider no 10 (or whatever) - have a nice big 10 somewhere on the hip and shoulder of his kit so he's easy to identify from the moto or helicopter.

 

[Anonymous]

Did mine yesterday. I only need five.

1. Complete disbandment of the world tour. Race organisers should be free to invite whatever teams they wish to, and teams should also be free to race whichever races they wish to. There should be no obligation or automatic qualification. A team shouldnt be obliged to send a under strength squad to Qatar or Oman. If they dont want to go, they shouldnt have to. And no organiser should have a god given right to have the best teams at their races. They need to work for it, put on a great parcours, make the prize money attractive, make the hospitality worthwhile. Too many race organisers (and teams) can sit on their laurels knowing they will get what they want. The only stipulation should be that organisers are obliged to make sure at least 20% of the field is made up of pro-continental teams or lower for A grade races, and 30% for B grade races. For grand tours the top teams in the rankings in March qualify for the Giro, top teams in May for the Tour etc

2. Complete obliteration of the current ranking system to be replaced with a new, rolling ranking system based on prize money as used in many other sports. This would also reward teams who frequently put riders in breakaways snapping up intermediate prizes.

3. Tougher Doping Penalties. Four years for a first offence, with the option for it to be reduced if the rider co-operates and names suppliers, doctors etc. Riders returning from doping bans may not return immediately to a pro tour team, having instead to ride one full year for a second tier team with them being tested in a regular basis during that first year. Bans for any doctors, soigneurs or team staff found assisting in doping. Rules preventing any rider convicted of doping offences from being involved in team management in the future. You dope, your career in cycling in any form is over.

4. Team Kit Design. Rules to be drawn up and enforced preventing similarity of kit, and these rules need to take into account the view from above, behind and head on. Fans need to be able to spot their favourite teams and riders both from the roadside and on the television. The current rules as seen this year, or just not tight enough. Secondly, rules to be enforced regarding the use of wet weather gear. It must be clear, or a direct copy of the normal team kit, not an interpretation, or similar, but exact. Cycling is a spectator sport, and if the spectators cant tell who is who, sometimes even which team is which, then what is the point?

5. TV Coverage. The UCI to create and operate a pay for tv package that streams highlights over the internet. Virtually every major race is either covered live, or has highlights packages from the host broadcaster. But fans are forced to watch them on the internet as they are only available in selected countries. The UCI to work with host broadcasters, or create an organisation or media arm to work with host broadcasters to provide streams and highlights on a subscription basis for all races in the races native language.

Fans dont need flashy gimmicks like helmet cams, and radio broadcasting, we just want the basics right. Clean, exciting racing. Interesting challenging parcours with race organisers competing to attract the best riders and teams. A clear easy to follow ranking system, and the opportunity to be able to watch all races on the tv or internet and actually be able to spot our favourite riders.

Not too much to ask.

 

[Mambo95]

I find this a bad idea.
They tried a similar approach in the first years of the World Cup, where the later races carried more points than the early ones.
The spring classics had 12-1 points for the top-10. The "summer races" Wincanton Classic, GP des Ameriques, San Sebastian & Zürich had 14-3 points, and finally Paris-Tours & Lombardia 16-5.
It's a bit different from your proposal, but not much.

Even if some new race (let's just say the Canadian PT races, or that new Tour of Beijing) carries more points than LBL or P-R, which scalp would a rider rather want?

That wasn't quite what I meant. What I meant was, if a new race is deemed relative to the other races, to be worth say 50 points, then for the first three years it would be worth, maybe 70 points, then it would revert back to being worth 50. Just a little bonus to encourage teams to take it seriously while it finds its feet.

(The idea was very much an afterthought though, not a key proposal).

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Much better ideas in the previous few posts than on the first page. Thanks Mambo95, robtclements, R.0.t.O and TeamSkyFans.

The point about standardising equipment is interesting. I can see the point and agree that there should be some compromise. It's just that racing should always be the technological leading edge and the commercial should follow behind. Competitive sport is the ideal testing bed for innovation.

If teams are limited to the number of bike components/frames that they can register in any one season, that should limit cost. The only restriction should be commercial viability - if it's too dangerous or expensive or short-lived for the public to use, it's out.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Show me where I called YOU a childish name?

The first line of your first post in response to mine.

How can I (or anyone) debate something when you merely rubbish JVs proposal without offering an alternative or showing why his proposals won't work.

Stamping your feet and calling people names won't make anyone any the keener to respond. Why bother trying to put together something logical and coherent if you are just going to respond with name calling?

Exactly - now why are they put off?
Because they invest in something and then do not get to ride in the big events- thats why there is instability in the sport.

And guaranteed invites will do nothing to rectify that situation but merely play into the hands of the selected few on the inside.

What there needs to be is a transparent system of invitations based on a clear criteria - which includes accepting wildcards for local teams. Some form of points based criteria. But at the same time - teams should not be bound into racing in races they have no interest nor the riders ie forcing EE to ride PR or BMC in the Vuelta.

A global outlook will get global sponsors - the reason a team like Euskadel is a small team is because there are few business in the Basque area to match other teams.

No it won't. It'll produce a series of short term sponsors. By Global what you mean is 'rich Americans, Russian Oligarchs, and if we are really lucky the Chinese and maybe we might find an Arab Sheikh'.

Its not a personal attack to point out that your view is clouded by your dislike for JV - which you have acknowledged.

The old 'personal dislike' canard. Funny how whenever anyone shoots someone else's sacred cows its because the other person has a personal vendetta. You know it really is amazing that I get anything done with my personal hatred of Armstrong, McQuaid, Contador, Evans, Frodo, JV, Riis, Harmon.

Its not - half the people on this site are wondering what the Premier League is. The Premier League was about dividing TV rights, nothing more - (although I agree it was sold as being good for the sport) - this is not even being proposed by JV.

Wrong - go back and read up on the creation of the Premier League and also the way in which UEFA was bounced into creating the hegemony creating Champions League. And btw - it was Vaughters who argued that cycling should be like the Premier League in the original BBC piece. As a cycling fan who is also a football fan, the last thing I want to see if cycling end up the kind of bloated borefest that football has become.

Nowhere has JV complained about his lack of power - he has complained about the lack of representation of the teams that he represents.
Again your view on JV is clouding your objectivity.

Out with that old canard again. Read the quote again.

My ability to vote on any regulation is essentially nil. The AIGCP is cycling's biggest stakeholder, but has no power to veto new regulations.

I've bolded the key word for you there.

Sorry to break it to you but sponsors do not invest in cycling as some sort of charity - they expect a return on their investment.

Never said they did, but chasing the quick buck - which is what you and Vaughters are arguing for is bad for sports in the long run because the smaller teams which contribute to the sport in many more ways than you give them credit for will be squeezed.

Again -there will always be small teams, so I have no idea where you're going with that point.

Not if these proposals ever get enacted there won't.

I would agree with all those proposals (and have suggested many on different threads here) but this thread is about innovative proposals on the Pro Cycling scene at top level.

And as I have said - to improve the scene at the top level you need to start at the bottom level and work upwards.

Case in point - take the TOC what they should be trying to do is create a strong race that creates a body of American fans of cycling. What we have instead is a policy that creates short term bandwagon jumping fans of American cyclists.

Anyway, I've made my point, you clearly aren't interested in discussing the problems with Vaughters arguments and his rationale, so it is a waste of time continuing. Have fun.

 

[Rocksteady]

I think I can add some clarification to #2 of JV's points.

For a new viewer, its hard to know who is winning what in a stage race. (Classics are different as it is just "first over the line wins".)

The fact I think he is trying to make is that every race has different rules. Some have time bonuses, some don't. Some have Combative awards, some have Climbing awards, others don't. Points awards are very different in some races than others. And Each race has different jerseys to represent each of these.

I think it would be good to clarify some of these. One nice thing would be the same jersey for the same award, but without losing tradition (AKA no Yellow jersey in the Giro)

Maybe make all climbing jerseys Polka dots, all Leaders Jerseys solid colors and All points jerseys something else (Stripes??). That would help people new to the sport know what was going on in the race.

Also, Chose bonus seconds or not (I prefer having them personally). Its too hard for new fans to remember which race has them and which doesn't.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The first line of your first post in response to mine.

Stamping your feet and calling people names won't make anyone any the keener to respond. Why bother trying to put together something logical and coherent if you are just going to respond with name calling?

Well here is that "first line of your first post in response to mine":

Seriously? I know you do not like JV but this is the steamiest of turds I have read on this forum in a while (yes, thats saying a lot).

I called your post poo because it was motivated by your dislike of Vaughters, not his points- I did not call you any names.

And guaranteed invites will do nothing to rectify that situation but merely play into the hands of the selected few on the inside.

What there needs to be is a transparent system of invitations based on a clear criteria - which includes accepting wildcards for local teams. Some form of points based criteria. But at the same time - teams should not be bound into racing in races they have no interest nor the riders ie forcing EE to ride PR or BMC in the Vuelta.

And I agree - because currently no-one knows what the selection process is. But the points system you suggest would not work as how can teams who do not get invited to races in the first instance accumulate points?

No it won't. It'll produce a series of short term sponsors. By Global what you mean is 'rich Americans, Russian Oligarchs, and if we are really lucky the Chinese and maybe we might find an Arab Sheikh'.

Where do you get this idea -why would individuals invest in cycling when the return is exceedingly low?
I am talking about sponsors - and yes, short term would be fine as long as they are funding a proper setup.

The old 'personal dislike' canard. Funny how whenever anyone shoots someone else's sacred cows its because the other person has a personal vendetta. You know it really is amazing that I get anything done with my personal hatred of Armstrong, McQuaid, Contador, Evans, Frodo, JV, Riis, Harmon.

Not sure what you mean by this as I have been exceedingly critical of JV in the Clinic.

Wrong - go back and read up on the creation of the Premier League and also the way in which UEFA was bounced into creating the hegemony creating Champions League.

If I am 'wrong' you should be able to show it - rather than have me look for something that bares no relevance to cycling.

Out with that old canard again. Read the quote again.

My ability to vote on any regulation is essentially nil. The AIGCP is cycling's biggest stakeholder, but has no power to veto new regulations.

I've bolded the key word for you there.

Exactly as I said - JV was talking about the AIGCP, not about himself or his team.

Never said they did, but chasing the quick buck - which is what you and Vaughters are arguing for is bad for sports in the long run because the smaller teams which contribute to the sport in many more ways than you give them credit for will be squeezed.

Not if these proposals ever get enacted there won't.

Again no, it is not chasing the quick buck - in fact quite the opposite.
He is looking for stability in the sport, so that when a team approaches a sponsor they are able to say which races they can participate in.

And as I have said - to improve the scene at the top level you need to start at the bottom level and work upwards.

Case in point - take the TOC what they should be trying to do is create a strong race that creates a body of American fans of cycling. What we have instead is a policy that creates short term bandwagon jumping fans of American cyclists.

I agree with most of this (and believe it is far more important for the sport) - but this thread is about the 'top down' approach.

But for races like the TOC to survive means having the big teams or big names. If there is no top level then teams will simply not take part and the race dies as soon as the initial investment runs dry.

Anyway, I've made my point, you clearly aren't interested in discussing the problems with Vaughters arguments and his rationale, so it is a waste of time continuing. Have fun.

I am always interested in discussing cycling's problems so don't feel it is a waste of time to contribute.

 

[Cobblestoned]

I mean....this is Vaughters.
Who the hell is Vaughtermann ?

Letting him reinvogerate cycling is like letting the CN forum rewrite cycling history.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Many want to criticise Vaughters (and I disagree with more than I agree with), the typical response of 'I don't know what to do, just not that'. So, I presented by own 10 point plan on another website. It's not fully formed and largely off the top of my head, but here it is:

1. Centralise ownership of cycling. Bring all of the major races under one umbrella (Cycling World Tour - CWT), owned by a single company, in which the current race owners, ASO, RCS, IMG, UCI etc hold shares. IMG can do the marketing and selling. (Much easier said than done, this one).

Great post.

Point 1 actually addresses the biggest problem (besides doping), and would have everyone working together for the common good.

Points 2. 3. 4. & 5 about TV being in-house are very good.

6. Make a bigger deal of the World Rankings - but focus on the team standings, rather than the individual ones. For the individual standings, have three separate ones - GC standings, classic standings and stage standings. Have prize money for it.

Not quite sure of the benefit of team rankings. But I think separate individual 'competitions' would be great.

7. Abolish ProTeam licences. Instead have a wider top level licence so that current ProTour teams and ProConti with wildcard teams are all equal. However, the top 14 or 15 teams in the end of season standings get automatic invitations to all races. This will allow for more wildcard selections, but no more than 50-66% of wildcards should be given to local teams.

About the only thing I disagree (or perhaps I don't understand).
This actually favors the big budget teams and limit other teams from being in that top 15.
If you have a 'free for all' and no-one knows if they have a guarantee to race then sponsors will be reluctant to invest.

Allow for an increase the number of races[/B] on the CWT calender, but don't oblige the top 14 or 15 teams to accept all invitations (they can opt out of a certain number - and be expected to). However, give relatively more ranking points to newer races to help them establish themselves.

Good compromise and not dissimilar from how current NE races are run.

helping teams find sponsors[/B] - a sort of 'dating service' if you will.

Again I like the idea of all the stakeholders working together.

Outsource all doping control[/B] (for top level teams) to an independent agency (eg WADA), which will allow all doping cases for the top teams to be heard by a central UCI court, not the national federations. Punish teams, as well as riders, for positives.

Ahh - the biggie +1 and something I have said for a long time - I don't expect the UCI or teams to willfully adopt this - but in time all sports (IOC sports) may be forced to do this.

 

[skippy]

OUTSIDE AGENCY such as WADA is long overdue since UCIless has a few skeletons rattling in the cupboard awaiting action !

Can the lack of Spanish postage stamps be used in any other cases ?

 

[Anonymous]

Dr Maserati and Mrs John Murphy...