ASO only has interests of ASO at heart

psychiatricblues

In my opinion, the A.S.O.'s statement that it is going to cut all links with the U.C.I. is nothing to do with doping, it's nothing to do with the interests of cycling. It is only to do with A.S.O.'s desire to increase its power within cycling, and increase its' profits.

The A.S.O. has this year (no, in the last six months) thrown riders off the Tour who have no link or suspicion of doping (riders like Bradley Wiggins). They have banned teams from their races to spite the U.C.I., citing laws that apparently didn't apply the previous years, when they allowed Unibet to cycle all year. During this Tour, they have blamed the U.C.I. for the timing of announcements made by other cycling authorities (the Danish and German cycling bodies in the cases of Rassmussen and Swinkewitz).

A.S.O. is not acting with the best interests of the sport, of the professionals, of the teams or of the fans. It is only acting with the interests of itself. It's aim is only to increase its' own power. It is the Tesco's of cycling.

I do not for a moment think the U.C.I. is beyond critisism. Some of its' decisions are rubbish to say the least. But it is the legitimate organisation to manage and legislate on cycling. Its' authority comes from the national cycling authorities that make up it's membership. The A.S.O. only gets its authority from running the Tour, and the other bike races that it bought. It is a business, not a sports body.

iainf72

Who do you trust more, big business or the government? That's basically what it boils down to.

I sort of come down on the side of ASO. The Tour de France is their brand so why should someone in Switzerland decide a team who throws them a lot of money gets to ride the Tour? ASO need to do things which make commercial sense for them and if you take the example of Unibet, they clearly went for the ProTour to get entry to the grand tours, ie they tried to buy their way in.

Like it or not, in terms of pro cycling, what happens in Italy, France, Belgium, Holland and Spain is more important than what happens in Poland or even the UK. And the same goes for ASO - They're the big fish and run the biggest race in the world...what they think counts.

Ratkilla

ASO run the prestige races in the world of cycling. The Aces if you like.
The UCI hold nothing on these terms.
This whole past week is about politics and ASO won.
The UCI have, basically, become irrelevant.
The world knows that the Maillot Jaune holds more relevance than the Rainbow. The real world, that is, rather than the cycling world.
I heard Pat McQuim prattle on about 'unity' and how Prudhomme 'ranted down the phone' about Rasmussen. But in his own words McQuim basically admitted that there is no communication between national federations and the, supposed, governing body about issues of doping. Or, seemingly, anything else.
Why not FFS!?
There's a revolution going on here. Choose your side.

top_bhoy

The UCI lost all credibility with me the moment it banned Graeme Obrees riding position on the eve of a race - a stitch up by vested interests which still stinks.

A successful TdF is of huge benefits to the whole of cycling, not just ASO - similarly, a drug riddled TdF brings cycling right down and benefits no-one. If protecting the reputation and image of the TdF means doing something different than in previous years then that has to be good and good luck to them. Its obvious the UCI has failed to get the message across, ASO want to try something different. They have every right to do so I feel.

Its not beyond the bounds of reason that the organisers of the Vuelta and Giro will follow ASO - in other words, is the beginning of a breakaway?

squired

The problem is that the UCI has cycling as a whole to deal with, and wants that task. That includes races at all levels, on all continents. The ASO only cares about its races and making more money, in my opinion. Also, I'm convinced that they feel threatened by races not under their control (Tour of California, Tour of Australia, Tour of Germany, etc) that could potentially threaten them if they become more prominent. If the right sponsors got involved in the right countries (such as the US) we would end up with races with bigger prize pools than many if not all of the ASO races. I believe that they realise this is where things will eventually go with the ProTour and that they are doing what they can to protect the stature of their events, even if it is to the detriment of the sport as a whole.

The ASO has a powerbase in Europe, and wants to keep cycling in Europe to protect their interests. If races like the Tour of Australia or Tour of California were to become part of the Pro Tour some of their races would potentially be dropped. Maybe one of these races would even be expanded one day to become a grand tour (although I could see that with the Tour of Germany first at the expense of the Vuelta). The fact is that this is a big threat to the ASO and their buddies (i.e. the organisers of the other grand tours).

floatman

Listening to Pat McQuaid on Eurosport yesterday was completely underwhelming .. he didn't really sound like he had any ideas, he even put up a defence that national bodies had no obligation to talk to the UCI ... well change the laws so that they DO have to communicate such trivia as missed doping controls .. surely that isnt so difficult.

to my mind, harsh and medieval it may seem, the collective punishment of teams for one riders transgression introduced by ASO is the most positive anti doping step we have ever seen. Make every rider in the peloton have a distinct vested interest in shopping the dopers because their own careers depend on it.

OffTheBackAdam

iainf72 wrote:

Who do you trust more, big business or the government?

"Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea."
Dr Johnson

The ASO are, of course, protecting their "brand", the UCI have systematically failed to do so. If doping means that Prudholm has fewer large sponsors to chose from, the amount he can charge falls, the number of races he can promote also falls. The TdF makes him lots of money, other races don't, or even lose money (Paris-Nice?)

The ASO "asking" a team to wthdraw, should one of their number fail a dope test may seem harsh, but for too long we've had systematic, team-supported if not simply ignored, doping. Festina & Cofidis to name that leap to mind.
It also throws the fight against doping more onto the teams, if it costs them and thus their sponsors publicity, then the sponsors will be pushing for a dope-free squad. The culture of silence must be broken, this will do it. Peer pressure has brought cycling down to this level, no longer will a manager or a soigneur "suggest" that a rider must take product x, to keep their place in the team.

LangerDan

The ironic thing is that even if ASO do split from UCI, you can bet that all their events will be run according to the UCI rules and regs.

I can also foresee ASO doing fewer drugs tests in the future. Fewer tests = fewer positives = less scandal = more positive publicity

robbarker

Pay Mcquaid was wholly unimpressive in various interviews yesterday. He admitted that the UCI/ASO spat is a simple power struggle, effectively conceding that the UCI, under his weak and confused leadership, are simply jealous of the ASO and trying deperately to get even.

Mcquaid's assertions that the UCI IS cycling and is, by definition, in the right in all things became laughable. He seems to genuinely believe that the cycling world will fall in line behind them, whatever they do.

The reality is that the UCI are far from representative of what the cycling fan-base wants. Do the worlds get anywhere near the interest of media audiences that races like the Tour, or even Paris-Roubaix do? Of course not. The protour debacle is another example of how the UCI's childish posturing has acted to damage the sport.

The UCI's biggets fault, however, is in their singular failure as a global governing body to sort out doping and, alongside it, the publicity surrounding it. Other sports manage both areas far better.

The ASO are far from perfect but they do have the ability to put on the biggest shows in cycling with tremendous aplomb. They provide what the punters want and the audiences to match. That is enough to ensure that they will win the day eventually.

The best thing that could happen to cycling now is teams and international governing bodies abandoning the UCI completely and forming a new governing body.

We could say goodbye to the baggage of tradition that goes with UCI affiliation (does anyone still agree with a 6.8Kg weight limit in the carbon fibre age, or the nonsensical ban on making TT bikes as aerodynamic as they can be?) and welcome a new era of effective doping control, cooperation with the organisers of the races we like watching the most and to the development of our sport, rather than a stifling stagnation.

Johnny Ergo

If what you're saying Rob is that the UCI have no power or influence how can they be expexted to sort out drugs problem? We have to have an independent (and yes, respected) world governing body because of the conflict of interest that would follow if organisations like ASO were left to run their own events and police cycling in general.. I agree that the UCI is a toothless tiger. They need to get their own house in order - it's just jobs for the boys as far as I can see.
The way things are going at the moment all I can see for the next few years is meltdown and cycling going the same way as boxing did many years ago. That would be disastrous for the sport.
I wish I had an answer but I don't.

ricadus

Just working my way through the Robert Millar biography at the moment and one thing intrigues me. On page 132 it says:

By the end of the [1983] Tour another five riders had tested positive. One of them, Patric Clerc, also held up his hands. 'I plead guilty, but I had to look after myself after riding the Dauphine Libère and Bordeaux–Paris, which left me exhausted. If I hadn't done so, I would not have ridden the Tour.'

Is this the same Patric Clerc who heads ASO and who is the real power behind Tour director Prudhomme?

Kléber

No, ASO's Clerc used to organise the Roland Garos tennis tournament.

andyp

ricadus wrote:

Is this the same Patric Clerc who heads ASO and who is the real power behind Tour director Prudhomme?

I doubt it as the president of ASO is Patrice Clerc.

ricadus

That's what I thought, but a quick google search typically threw up both versions.