UCI won't recognise Paris-Nice

iainf72

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... nice_N.htm

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT.

This is getting daft

vermooten

Would anyone ever employ this bozo McQuaid after his overseeing cycling's darkest days? Even Dubya could do a better job of bringing opposing points of view closer together.

andyp

Didn't he do this last year too? It's groundhog year in Aigle clearly.

I like the bit where he asks the "cycling family" to unite behind him - here's a thought why don't they unite against him and give him the boot? Here's one reason why they should.

:roll:

Salsiccia

andyp wrote:

Didn't he do this last year too? It's groundhog year in Aigle clearly.

I like the bit where he asks the "cycling family" to unite behind him - here's a thought why don't they unite against him and give him the boot? Here's one reason why they should.

:roll:

I agree, McQuaid is about as useful as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest.

But I can't really work out why ASO are running Paris-Nice independently of UCI. Is it a power-struggle or do they have legitimate reasons?

Just when cycling is hopping around after shooting itself in the foot, it's now taking aim at the other foot...

terongi

Salsiccia wrote:

I agree, McQuaid is about as useful as a one-legged man in an ars*-kicking contest.

Isn't a one-legged man quite useful in such a contest? Why can't he be the target?

Seems like a good analogy for McQuaid as far as I can see.

Kléber

Paris - Nice is a major event. If ASO are not inviting Astana, there is no reason for the UCI to throw it's toys out of the pram. Remember, last year the UCI was cashing cheques from teams for Pro Tour licences, but it never had a legal agreement with race organisers to guarantee entry into the Pro Tour.

The UCI seems schizophrenic. On the one hand, it is supposed to be a governing body for all of the sport, from BMX to track cycling, from China to Flanders. On the other hand, it's acting like the Ecclestone or NBA inspired private company, trying to control the organisation, TV rights and other financial elements and concentrating on the money: professional road cycling.

Instead of threatening Paris - Nice, offering silly threats like "we won't put on anti-doping controls", it should be meeting urgently with ASO and others to forge a common agreement.

iainf72

I think I've figured this one out.

The biological passport disaster has a massive financial hole.

The UCI are working on a way to blame the French for it.

alanmcn1

There were recent comments by Bob Stapleton in a recent interview on his finding a sponsor, in which he said he was happy to bankroll the team this year. The reason was that he couldn't at the moment gaurantee a sponsor what his season would look like. When pressed he said that something big would happen early this year with regards to the cycling calendar, hinted that ASO would the be the prime movers, and that he had already been "approached" about his willing involvement.

IMOHO, this is the start of a move by ASO and several bigger teams who are on the movement for a clean cycling members list, to take control of cycling. I pray I am right, and that they succeed. UCI is now a joke, and is not needed. If ASO and the teams can take control, get WADA as the official dope tesing controller, and get the major races involved, we will have a fantatsic future. Look at the Champions league, the premiership, darts, snooker. All are healtheir than they have ever been becuase the clubs/participants and the big organisers took control and told the crap old ruling bodies where to go.

Come on ASO and the chosen few........................you know you want to

Dreamlike state of ranting over

squired

I personally believe that what the UCI is trying to achieve is vital for the sport - globalisation. What the ASO wants is to protect the importance of its races and nothing else. Cycling will only move forward if it becomes a global sport, rather than something based in Western Europe.

If you are a sponsor do you want a team that races in France, Italy, Belgium and Spain, often on empty roads, or do you want it in major televised races around the world in front of massive crowds?

iainf72

alanmcn1 wrote:

There were recent comments by Bob Stapleton in a recent interview on his finding a sponsor, in which he said he was happy to bankroll the team this year. The reason was that he couldn't at the moment gaurantee a sponsor what his season would look like. When pressed he said that something big would happen early this year with regards to the cycling calendar, hinted that ASO would the be the prime movers, and that he had already been "approached" about his willing involvement.

You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to bankroll Stapleton's team.

Potential sponsors don't care about the sport being clean, they care about getting into the big events and not being embarrassed.

I still can't work out why they want the french fed running the race?

iainf72

squired wrote:

If you are a sponsor do you want a team that races in France, Italy, Belgium and Spain, often on empty roads, or do you want it in major televised races around the world in front of massive crowds?

Do you think FDJ give a toss about racing in China or Australia?

Many sponsors in cycling are smaller regional companies. And that's how it's been traditionally. You can do a cycling team pretty cheaply compared to other sports.

alanmcn1

Regardless of the merits of sponsoring High Road, I think we are seeing the beginning of a major play here by several operators.

As you said, sponsors just want in the big events. So no-one is going to sing up if the chances are how the big events are run is about to change dramatically. I really hope this is the start of a breakaway. Why does cycling need to have a tour in China FFS? Does the champions league need a team from Indonesia? Stick to what is big, and people will watch it and love it

redddraggon

squired wrote:

I personally believe that what the UCI is trying to achieve is vital for the sport - globalisation. What the ASO wants is to protect the importance of its races and nothing else. Cycling will only move forward if it becomes a global sport, rather than something based in Western Europe.

If you are a sponsor do you want a team that races in France, Italy, Belgium and Spain, often on empty roads, or do you want it in major televised races around the world in front of massive crowds?

ASO has got races in Africa and Asia aswell.

Kléber

squired wrote:

I personally believe that what the UCI is trying to achieve is vital for the sport - globalisation.

This is happening in spite of the UCI. If people in China or Thailand are taking up cycling as a sport it is because they are wealthier and have spare time to potter on their bikes, instead of pedaling to the factory or rice paddy. The Tour Down Under is there because the Australians want to market wine, tourism and other virtues to Europeans and because the pros want some easy miles, not because the UCI is putting in some kind of investment. As said above, ASO already runs the Tour of Qatar and several races in Africa.

Look at cycling's sponsors. They are not major names. "Silence" anti snoring products or Lampre steel. For sure, bigger sponsors would be interested but they're terrified of scandal and stick to golf or tennis. Until the UCI resolves the doping problems, the likes of Coca-Cola, Vodafone or Sony will avoid the sport, this is the reason big sponsors aren't involved, not because they can't have their team on Chinese or Brazilian TV.

It shouldn't be about the UCI vs ASO. Pat McQuaid needs to show leadership and generosity, not pettiness.

iainf72

alanmcn1 wrote:

As you said, sponsors just want in the big events. So no-one is going to sing up if the chances are how the big events are run is about to change dramatically. I really hope this is the start of a breakaway.

Imagine you were a potential big sponsor - ASO would frighten the living bejeepers out of you. They declined to invite the winner of the previous Tour to their events, despite the sponsor putting €15m into the team, having Damsgaard keeping his eye on the riders etc. Yet teams which "damaged" their event just as badly last year are still there. Why would you invest?

So you're right, the sponsors want into the big events, but ASO have to make you nervous about that.

pat1cp

here we go again :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Does anyone know if Eurosport are showing Paris Nice ? If they aren't I may have to take my analogue sat box with me and get it on french tv. PS. Sorry to hijack.

iainf72

pat1cp wrote:

here we go again :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Does anyone know if Eurosport are showing Paris Nice ? If they aren't I may have to take my analogue sat box with me and get it on french tv. PS. Sorry to hijack.

Sure is Pat

http://yahoo.eurosport.co.uk/tvschedule ... ay12.shtml

ninjaslim

As interesting as all this forum chat is, is there not some sort of an oppourtunity to lobby the UCI about the behaviour of Quaid.

Or start by lobbying British cycling (/your national body) to put their weight against the UCI and thier obvious incompetance. Presumably some of the license / membership we pay makes it to their coffers.

If attacks are coming from all sides it's going to become difficult for them to ignore.

Kléber

iainf72 wrote:

So you're right, the sponsors want into the big events, but ASO have to make you nervous about that.

That's one way of looking at it. Or look at Slipstream: you promise to perform well in ASO's early season events, flatter them and try to be as openly clean as you can and you're guaranteed an invite.

Instead, Astana's key sponsor, the Kazakh government slammed ASO last summer and their move to repair the damage to the team's credibility was to employ the man who signed Ivan Basso. :roll:

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

Instead, Astana's key sponsor, the Kazakh government slammed ASO last summer and their move to repair the damage to the team's credibility was to employ the man who signed Ivan Basso. :roll:

So they waited a until the following season when he's with a different team to punish him, eh?

If Astana were the only problem last year I couldn't argue with you - No one could, but it's the complete and utter lack fo consistency. If High Horse, Rabobank, Saunier and Cofidis weren't there then we'd be talking.

flattythehurdler

Ninjaslim, Your avatar looks like eduardo breaking his leg.

Doobz

flattythehurdler wrote:

Ninjaslim, Your avatar looks like eduardo breaking his leg.

looks like a rider and his frame with water bottles on it..

-

I am gutted about all the problems with cycling racing atm - I dont think our little voices matter at the end of the day.. I still think most pro riders would love a bit of a change to the season with some extra locations chucked in..

ninjaslim

I've been avoiding that replay

I'm off to see the Gunners at the weekend though

alanmcn1

Iainf

if i was a sponsor (if only) I would be encouraged by ASO stance. I'd be less inclined to put my money into a team I wanted to bring pride to my company if i thought they would have to dope to beat the likes of Johan and his Astana brigade. Yes they weren't the only ones to err last year, but in an image conscious world they are the rotten apple that represents all that's wrong with the psort. ASO decision to get rid would encourage me that that systemaitc chetaing is now being countered, and I can join the likes of slipstrema in putting my money into something i have confidence in. Not saying I'm right you are wrong, just that there are 2 very obvious camps with regards to looking at this

iainf72

alanmcn1 wrote:

if i was a sponsor (if only) I would be encouraged by ASO stance. I'd be less inclined to put my money into a team I wanted to bring pride to my company if i thought they would have to dope to beat the likes of Johan and his Astana brigade. Yes they weren't the only ones to err last year, but in an image conscious world they are the rotten apple that represents all that's wrong with the psort

I'd guess sponsors find the threat of being excluded from races more worrying than doping. Look at what that big sponsor said to Bruyneel - Can you guarantee a Tour win. Does that sound like someone worried about doping?

The vanity projects like High Horse and Slipstream won't last too long IMO.

alanmcn1

But that's why astana is all wrong..........because their only concern is winning at all costs, whatever it takes. I hope for your sake Highroad and slipstream do last long, coz if they don't succeed in changing things the future is worse than I care to think of. I prefer to think of them as attempts to dig the sport out of one big hole rather than vanity projects

Moomaloid

This was always gonna end up as a 'i've got bigger balls than you' contest and it if its not sorted it could spilt the sport wide apart.... these guys are all idiots! When sport is trying to turn itself around the silly squables in house threaten it again...

I say get Bob Stapleton in there!

iainf72

Until you stand a good chance of being caught for doping, doping will continue. In the longer term what possible good can the models adopted by HR or Slipstream do?

It's nice marketing for the current climate but it's no solution.

alanmcn1

Is a better solutino to continue to put suspect DSs in charge of teams with a win at all cost mentality????? Surely having teams where it is acceptable to have off days and doping is dicsouraged offers a far greater chance of a solution to cyclings doping problems. can't really follow the logic on that one

iainf72

Moomaloid wrote:

I say get Bob Stapleton in there!

Why? So he can put on a team kit, smile, shrug and say "I'm new here"?

He's been a disaster in cycling. Might be a nice guy and successful in business but he's a bloody tragedy in cycling.

iainf72

alanmcn1 wrote:

Is a better solutino to continue to put suspect DSs in charge of teams with a win at all cost mentality????? Surely having teams where it is acceptable to have off days and doping is dicsouraged offers a far greater chance of a solution to cyclings doping problems. can't really follow the logic on that one

But how? What good does having a couple of teams (without commerical pressures) doing that do?

The french have been doing stuff like this for years and they've not impacted much, have they?

Until it's a big thing across the sport it's all pointless.