who has the most power?

May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
who has the most power in cycling?

UCI or ASO?

or are they bedfellows who need each other but dont like each one another?

we all know the bumbling of the UCI but does the ASO want a cleaner sport or dont care as long as the product (TdF etc) remains untarnished?
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Benotti69 said:
who has the most power in cycling?

UCI or ASO?

or are they bedfellows who need each other but dont like each one another?

we all know the bumbling of the UCI but does the ASO want a cleaner sport or dont care as long as the product (TdF etc) remains untarnished?
ASO does (by far), but they're afraid to use that power.

They could put a middle-finger in the air, work with other promoters, put a racing schedule together and literally every team would follow them almost overnight.

Of course, once they took the reigns, they'd still have to deal with limiting the number of teams in the TDF, and all the baggage that goes with that.
 
Feb 25, 2010
3,854
1
0
Benotti69 said:
who has the most power in cycling?

UCI or ASO?

or are they bedfellows who need each other but dont like each one another?

we all know the bumbling of the UCI but does the ASO want a cleaner sport or dont care as long as the product (TdF etc) remains untarnished?
ASO they have the Tour, still the biggest thing in cycling
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
BotanyBay said:
ASO does (by far), but they're afraid to use that power.

They could put a middle-finger in the air, work with other promoters, put a racing schedule together and literally every team would follow them almost overnight.

Of course, once they took the reigns, they'd still have to deal with limiting the number of teams in the TDF, and all the baggage that goes with that.
UCI hands down.

Think of licensing, putting on World's, involvement with IOC, insurance, etc etc etc.

ASO puts on some nice races, and have some lobby power with that, but think of everything the UCI has perview over.

Internationally speaking, the UCI rules over the cycling world. That's the problem...
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,003
0
0
UCI licenses etc are entirely meaningless without the Tour and the other races ASO, RCS & UNipublic control - what are you going to watch, the ASO et al controlled GT/Classics calendar or the Eneco Tour + Worlds?

However, ASO et al have ceded power to UCI, and that's another problem
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
bianchigirl said:
UCI licenses etc are entirely meaningless without the Tour and the other races ASO, RCS & UNipublic control - what are you going to watch, the ASO et al controlled GT/Classics calendar or the Eneco Tour + Worlds?

However, ASO et al have ceded power to UCI, and that's another problem
Hence the UCI having more power...
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
UCI hands down.

Think of licensing, putting on World's, involvement with IOC, insurance, etc etc etc.

ASO puts on some nice races, and have some lobby power with that, but think of everything the UCI has perview over.

Internationally speaking, the UCI rules over the cycling world. That's the problem...
ASO might not to desire that kind of worldwide all-of the-sport power and choose to just focus on their professional "premiere" side of the sport. And they could have that right now if they were willing to fight the UCI in court. They could "walk" the pro peloton away from UCI control and leave the amateur, track, MTB and BMX categories... only the UCI would have no idea what to do with them.
 
ASO has lots and lots of power (especially since they seem to have quite close ties with RCS and of course own part of Unipublic). However, they only exist to organize some races and make money and as long as the UCI is behaving with even the slighest bit of common sense they will just accept it.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Power realized, or potential energy?
ASO has some fan power - we all like to watch the big races.

UCI has real power over cycling. Stop for a minute and think of everything they control in cycling... All disciplines, amateur and pro. Apparently they can even keep riders from racing who don't even test positive.

Cycling doesn't just consist of the TdF and a few other big races.

The UCI controls everything in all spheres of competitive cycling and in all disciplines. Of course they have more power.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
ASO has some fan power - we all like to watch the big races.

UCI has real power over cycling. Stop for a minute and think of everything they control in cycling... All disciplines, amateur and pro. Apparently they can even keep riders from racing who don't even test positive.

Cycling doesn't just consist of the TdF and a few other big races.

The UCI controls everything in all spheres of competitive cycling and in all disciplines. Of course they have more power.
And they'd give everything else away to be able to control the TDF. There's the power you have, the power you want, and the power you rarely choose to use.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Won the Stage to Bald Mtn!

thehog said:
Novitsky followed by Fabani.
Novitsky is a very talented investigator - don't get me wrong.

But he is so OVER hyped by the media it is not funny!

Kind of like the 'Tommy D" of the FDA lol.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ASO (RCS,UniPublic) have some power - however they are businesses and are happy to put on the races and hold on to the cash.
They want nothing to do with running or promoting the sport - unless it shows up in their bottom line.

The UCI have the power - as we (the licence holders) can have a say in its running and we abide by their rules and regulations.
The UCI's problem is it wants the money to go with that power - and want to establish itself like FIFA or Formula 1(FIA).

It is why you hear McQuaid etc using terms like 'markets, marketability, promotion' etc.
The UCI should remember what its role in cycling is meant to be.
Part of the UCI Mission Statement:
The International Cycling Union (UCI) is cycling’s International Federation recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

The UCI administers and promotes the development of the eight disciplines of cycling.

The UCI’s mission is to develop and promote cycling, in close collaboration with National Federations.
More here.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Polish said:
Novitsky is a very talented investigator - don't get me wrong.

But he is so OVER hyped by the media it is not funny!

Kind of like the 'Tommy D" of the FDA lol.
 
Some folks here forgot that in 08 ASO run the Tour without UCI-and Pat & Co. got scary, not only because it proved then how irrelevant they are, but overall the situation showed the "real muscle" behind the most important races. I remember McQuaid making threats of suspensions & penalties to the riders & teams participating in ASO races, just to get the middle finger from everybody & the embarrassment to accept publicly the defeat of his stupid campaign.

to simplify it:
what makes someone thinks that ASO-which owns The Tour de France, Paris-Nice, Paris- Roubaix,the Dauphine, L-B-L, Fleche Wallonne, Paris Tours & 45% of the Vuelta-can be "overruled" by the UCI?
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
hfer07 said:
to simplify it:
what makes someone thinks that ASO-which owns The Tour de France, Paris-Nice, Paris- Roubaix,the Dauphine, L-B-L, Fleche Wallonne, Paris Tours & 45% of the Vuelta-can be "overruled" by the UCI?
The ASO declared earlier in the year that the top seventeen teams in the final UCI rankings this year would get automatic invitations to the 2011 Tour de France. Teams worked towards that goal. Now the UCI changed the way they pick Pro Teams, and says that the grand tours will take those eighteen teams no matter what. If the ASO accepts, I'd call that a major overrule.

And since they're doing it to Zomegnan and RCS Sports, and the Vuelta, and other races that would prefer to have additional teams from the host country, I'd say it's a strong indication of the UCI's power.

The UCI can punish (or choose not to punish) teams and riders, ban people, blacklist people, etc. They can decide which Track Cycling events will be in the Olympics. They can add new races to the top level. I hate them, but it's UCI all the way.:mad:
 
Jeebus! Did everyone get drunk and forget what happened three and four years ago? The UCI was repeatedly b!tchslapped by the ASO, RCS, and Unipublic. Since then the ASO has acquired more races and part ownership in Unipublic.
 
Aug 10, 2009
213
0
0
What's emerging here from everyone's opinions is basically that :

They are equals

Everyone's got valid points. What's true is that if they ever got in a really big fight (again) either one could seriously dammage, if not destroy, the sport. ASO has the most important races - some argue that's the power. The UCI controls relationships to the IOC, licencing, sport governance etc. --that is power too (you can't deny this).

If the '08 situation ever came about again and the UCI carried out its threats to suspend riders and licences... well. Think about it. The ASO would have to move quickly to organize a new 'league' broker buy-in from teams, organizers, media yada yada bla bla.. its a lot of work that I'm sure they'd not be interested in doing. It would seriously pull them away from their core focus - organizing events. The sport would potentially be irreparably damaged while the ASO tried to rebuild it - all the while with the UCI fighting them at every opportunity. And their most economically valuable property - the TOUR - would lose massive valuation - probably billions.

The flip side is true -- if the ASO really decided to f#&k with the UCI.

I'd call it a stalemate. They're equals. And neither is particularly happy with the amount of power the other holds.
 
Aug 10, 2009
213
0
0
BroDeal said:
Jeebus! Did everyone get drunk and forget what happened three and four years ago? The UCI was repeatedly b!tchslapped by the ASO, RCS, and Unipublic. Since then the ASO has acquired more races and part ownership in Unipublic.
sure. It happened. But did you ever consider that the UCI just decided to back away from a fight that could ruin the sport. No one would have won if they'd each gone all in. The ASO simply pushed it further.

Remember at the time to that the UCI was threatening to yank FFC accreditation. Do you think the FFC would have backed the ASO if the UCI had carried out that threat? Think about, none of those French track cyclists would have been able to do the World Cups or Olympics.

It would have been a sh1tacayne.
 
shouldawouldacoulda said:
sure. It happened. But did you ever consider that the UCI just decided to back away from a fight that could ruin the sport. No one would have won if they'd each gone all in. The ASO simply pushed it further.

Remember at the time to that the UCI was threatening to yank FFC accreditation. Do you think the FFC would have backed the ASO if the UCI had carried out that threat? Think about, none of those French track cyclists would have been able to do the World Cups or Olympics.

It would have been a sh1tacayne.
The UCI did not decide to back away; they were forced to. In the end the teams are slaves to their sponsors. There is no way the sponsors would be happy about racing some flat upstart UCI-organized race in Timbuktu--or even worse, Australia--instead of the Tour. At the height of the struggle, the race organizers threatened to set up a system parallel to the UCI, and the UCI knew that the teams would have to go with the new system.
 
theswordsman said:
The ASO declared earlier in the year that the top seventeen teams in the final UCI rankings this year would get automatic invitations to the 2011 Tour de France. Teams worked towards that goal. Now the UCI changed the way they pick Pro Teams, and says that the grand tours will take those eighteen teams no matter what. If the ASO accepts, I'd call that a major overrule.
I don't think is set on stone that those 18 teams get automatic participation at all, rather than automatic "invitation" -since they belong to the UCI "elite club"-but it does not make them "indispensable", since ASO, RCS & Unipublic still have the power to "invite teams as their discretion"

theswordsman said:
The UCI can punish (or choose not to punish) teams and riders, ban people, blacklist people, etc. They can decide which Track Cycling events will be in the Olympics. They can add new races to the top level. I hate them, but it's UCI all the way.:mad:
well-so the ASO,RCS & Unipublic can too--remember back in 08 when Prudomme said no to AC and Astana for the Tour? remember this year how RCS & the Vuelta lifted the middle finger to LA, the Hog & Radio shack? and UCI/Pat couldn't overturn those decisions at all.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
There's a popular thought that whoever collects the taxes is the de facto government. Considering that the UCI is the one who ultimately collects the fees from riders, teams, etc, they are the ones who also administrate and get to make the law. That relegates the ASO to the status of powerful lobbyist. They can use that to bend and shape the UCI so that it changes policy and law, but ultimately the UCI is in the seat of power. I think that accurately descibes the latest ASO/UCI battle. It'll take a coup to change that fact.

John "vive le revolution!" Swanson
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY