Bystander of Tyler
Agree with quite a bit of it...bystander is who?
http://www.powerofthebike.com/cms/bystanders-blog
Is Anyone Taking Inventory?
February 17, 2008
It’s hard to watch someone you care about be treated poorly. It’s not a concept a person can get used to no matter how long it goes on. After everything Tyler went through last year with the Tinkoff Credit Systems team, he considered leaving the sport behind for good. But when an opportunity to ride in the US was presented to him, he considered it a chance to have some fun again within the sport he loved. Riding for a young, up and coming team, teaching and sharing what he knows about cycling to his young comrades -- all from his home base in Colorado, sounded pretty good.
But then the last week transpired. And once again Tyler was thrust into a situation where his name and reputation were being tossed around like the opportunity to do so had become a rite of passage.
AEG phoned Rock Racing a week in advance of the start of the Tour of California, and said Tyler, Santiago and Oscar would not be allowed to start per alleged information from the UCI, that there were “open investigations” pending against all three riders. Support for this allegation was never provided, however.
This is where folks should start to get upset about authorities within the sport not following the rules. Per the UCI’s own set, they have no authority to investigate anyone. That responsibility is left to the national governing bodies. So in response to the unsupported phone call placed to Rock Racing, a letter was sent to the organizers at AEG explaining that the National Cycling Federations of Colombia and Spain had closed the cases against Santiago Botero and Oscar Sevilla. The UCI had 3 months to respond to those decisions but didn’t. So in their cases, the case is literally, closed.
Tyler’s lawyer sent a letter regarding his situation with a letter from USADA attached stating that they would in essence – “be in touch” if an investigation was going to be considered related to OP. That was in September 2006. Tyler has heard nothing since. In addition, Tyler’s lawyer noted, that per the rules – that even if the OP allegations were true (which they are not) they pre-date a “first offense” suspension Tyler has already served. The authorities cannot go back in time and charge a new “first offence” predating that suspension or charge a second offence that predates a first offence already served. Instead of dismissing this issue, USADA has ignored it, allowing it to continue to hamper Tyler’s career and ability to make a living like a storm that won’t blow out to sea. In sum, there is no “open investigation” against Tyler.
The language AEG is using to justify barring these three riders has now been downgraded to their belief that each rider is subject of an “open file”. What that means, who possesses this file and/or what relevance this opinion had on the Tour of California remains a mystery to many.
I find it rather humorous that in an attempt to avoid a doping scandal during their race, the organizers of the Tour of California essentially manufactured one – based in absolutely no fact at all. This is typical of the type of leadership at the helm of cycling today. This type of abstract, whimsical, baseless, unsupported grand standing is what is killing the sport. Look no further than the ASO banning Astana from their races in 2008 for further proof. What does this type of behavior accomplish besides creating more ill will and bad press for the sport? It’s asinine.
It makes me wonder about the people left in charge these days. Are there no clear thinking, well educated, experienced business people available to consult and help run this sport? Cycling is after all a business. For every entity involved, from the UCI, to the race promoters to the team directors to the riders. Everyone is working to make a living. If you took the current business model used to run the sport of cycling and applied it to any other industry – well, you’d probably bankrupt sooner rather than later. So it should be no surprise that cycling is headed in this direction.
I’ve been around the sport since the mid 90s. I remember back when I was first introduced to the teams, their marketing and their entourages – how impressed I was by how big it all seemed.
Today, a quick glance at the team websites of the top tier of the sport offers a depressing sight. Seeing George Hincapie featured in team photo wearing a nearly blank white jersey doesn’t even hint to his long resume and storied history within the sport. I can’t wait to see how this kit looks during the rainy classics season. They may as well ride naked.
Knowing that Levi Leipheimer, arguably the best American talent riding at the top of the sport today -- will not have a chance to contend at the Tour de France at the height of his career is simply tragic. I know how many years he’s worked to get to this place – he’s earned his chance to contend at the world’s biggest race. But for public relations purposes, he and his teammates have been stripped of that opportunity – without an ounce of care or thought being given to their dedication, contribution to the sport, personal welfare or what taking away this opportunity might cost them financially.
Then there’s Slipstream – the great white hope for the future of American based professional cycling -- rumored to operating on a budget funded by some guy’s wife’s family money. Gone are the days of good old fashioned title sponsors I guess - which is not really very funny considering we’re talking about a team most likely headed to the Tour de France.
The lion’s share of visuals from the US domestic team websites are equally distressing. They look like bike clubs from small towns in middle America. When Tyler rode for Montgomery Bell in 1995 – they at least had a full support staff, were well marketed and looked very professional (albeit loud) in their team kit.
I know I’m belaboring the point, but team kits are a good indicator of the state of the sport. I’ve never seen a more bland, underwhelming, lightly logoed collection in all the years I’ve watched from the sidelines. The sport is going out of business and it seems as though the few left with the chance to right the ship are totally okay with letting everything slip through their fingers rather than rebuilding the empire. As long as they keep getting quoted in the press as crusaders for the future of the sport -- who cares if they really don’t know how to go about it...
Then along comes a guy like Michael Ball – a business man with a strong will and an open commitment to trying to save the sport. He’s well resourced and not afraid to invest. He brings a young, edgy brand – and AN ACTUAL TITLE SPONSORSHIP - to a sport with an exterior that is worn and tired. He brings enthusiasm and charisma. He brings passion and heart. And what does he get but chastised… because he thinks the old establishment needs to be overhauled, should follow their own rules or get out. He’s brave enough to stand behind his riders – and won’t offer them up as sacrificial lambs when others try to use them as publicity pawns. A new concept in contrast to cycling’s history where one team owner and director after the next has dropped riders by the wayside for their own gain or ducked or run after they’ve lead them down a path of destruction.
Ball has more integrity than the lump sum of the old guard’s parts. So it only figures that the old guard would label him a wing nut out of fear for being exposed for what they really are. My question is – who are they to cast stones? Isn’t it apparent that the sport’s leadership currently in place are doing a pretty lousy job? Who among them is actually trying to save the sport with consistency, coherence to existing rules or a bonafied business plan? A whole generation of riders has been black balled and maligned over the last couple years… while the sport’s leadership continues on unscathed even though they can’t do anything but fumble and play to the press. Why isn’t anyone holding them accountable?
The Michael Ball debate reminds me of Andy Rihs from Phonak. He came to the sport with a lifetime of business experience from building Phonak Hearing Systems. He brought lots of money, a long term commitment and a genuine love for cycling to the sport. He stood up for his riders and he expected the sport to be run like a business and tried to lead the way by example. He was ultimately driven out, disgusted when one rider after the next on his team was scandalized. The message was clear. The sport only works one way and anyone who tries to change it – even for the better, gets harassed and booted.
In an age when everyone in the sport is yammering so much about raising standards and rebuilding integrity --- a quick inventory of what’s going on in the sport makes it clear that actual integrity is way down on the agenda. It all makes one wonder if anyone at the helm is really qualified enough to be there. At the end of the day it’s painfully apparent the so called crusaders for integrity, don’t have a real plan for change. They just like to talk and pretend like they do -- behavior that has no integrity at all.
http://www.powerofthebike.com/cms/bystanders-blog
Is Anyone Taking Inventory?
February 17, 2008
It’s hard to watch someone you care about be treated poorly. It’s not a concept a person can get used to no matter how long it goes on. After everything Tyler went through last year with the Tinkoff Credit Systems team, he considered leaving the sport behind for good. But when an opportunity to ride in the US was presented to him, he considered it a chance to have some fun again within the sport he loved. Riding for a young, up and coming team, teaching and sharing what he knows about cycling to his young comrades -- all from his home base in Colorado, sounded pretty good.
But then the last week transpired. And once again Tyler was thrust into a situation where his name and reputation were being tossed around like the opportunity to do so had become a rite of passage.
AEG phoned Rock Racing a week in advance of the start of the Tour of California, and said Tyler, Santiago and Oscar would not be allowed to start per alleged information from the UCI, that there were “open investigations” pending against all three riders. Support for this allegation was never provided, however.
This is where folks should start to get upset about authorities within the sport not following the rules. Per the UCI’s own set, they have no authority to investigate anyone. That responsibility is left to the national governing bodies. So in response to the unsupported phone call placed to Rock Racing, a letter was sent to the organizers at AEG explaining that the National Cycling Federations of Colombia and Spain had closed the cases against Santiago Botero and Oscar Sevilla. The UCI had 3 months to respond to those decisions but didn’t. So in their cases, the case is literally, closed.
Tyler’s lawyer sent a letter regarding his situation with a letter from USADA attached stating that they would in essence – “be in touch” if an investigation was going to be considered related to OP. That was in September 2006. Tyler has heard nothing since. In addition, Tyler’s lawyer noted, that per the rules – that even if the OP allegations were true (which they are not) they pre-date a “first offense” suspension Tyler has already served. The authorities cannot go back in time and charge a new “first offence” predating that suspension or charge a second offence that predates a first offence already served. Instead of dismissing this issue, USADA has ignored it, allowing it to continue to hamper Tyler’s career and ability to make a living like a storm that won’t blow out to sea. In sum, there is no “open investigation” against Tyler.
The language AEG is using to justify barring these three riders has now been downgraded to their belief that each rider is subject of an “open file”. What that means, who possesses this file and/or what relevance this opinion had on the Tour of California remains a mystery to many.
I find it rather humorous that in an attempt to avoid a doping scandal during their race, the organizers of the Tour of California essentially manufactured one – based in absolutely no fact at all. This is typical of the type of leadership at the helm of cycling today. This type of abstract, whimsical, baseless, unsupported grand standing is what is killing the sport. Look no further than the ASO banning Astana from their races in 2008 for further proof. What does this type of behavior accomplish besides creating more ill will and bad press for the sport? It’s asinine.
It makes me wonder about the people left in charge these days. Are there no clear thinking, well educated, experienced business people available to consult and help run this sport? Cycling is after all a business. For every entity involved, from the UCI, to the race promoters to the team directors to the riders. Everyone is working to make a living. If you took the current business model used to run the sport of cycling and applied it to any other industry – well, you’d probably bankrupt sooner rather than later. So it should be no surprise that cycling is headed in this direction.
I’ve been around the sport since the mid 90s. I remember back when I was first introduced to the teams, their marketing and their entourages – how impressed I was by how big it all seemed.
Today, a quick glance at the team websites of the top tier of the sport offers a depressing sight. Seeing George Hincapie featured in team photo wearing a nearly blank white jersey doesn’t even hint to his long resume and storied history within the sport. I can’t wait to see how this kit looks during the rainy classics season. They may as well ride naked.
Knowing that Levi Leipheimer, arguably the best American talent riding at the top of the sport today -- will not have a chance to contend at the Tour de France at the height of his career is simply tragic. I know how many years he’s worked to get to this place – he’s earned his chance to contend at the world’s biggest race. But for public relations purposes, he and his teammates have been stripped of that opportunity – without an ounce of care or thought being given to their dedication, contribution to the sport, personal welfare or what taking away this opportunity might cost them financially.
Then there’s Slipstream – the great white hope for the future of American based professional cycling -- rumored to operating on a budget funded by some guy’s wife’s family money. Gone are the days of good old fashioned title sponsors I guess - which is not really very funny considering we’re talking about a team most likely headed to the Tour de France.
The lion’s share of visuals from the US domestic team websites are equally distressing. They look like bike clubs from small towns in middle America. When Tyler rode for Montgomery Bell in 1995 – they at least had a full support staff, were well marketed and looked very professional (albeit loud) in their team kit.
I know I’m belaboring the point, but team kits are a good indicator of the state of the sport. I’ve never seen a more bland, underwhelming, lightly logoed collection in all the years I’ve watched from the sidelines. The sport is going out of business and it seems as though the few left with the chance to right the ship are totally okay with letting everything slip through their fingers rather than rebuilding the empire. As long as they keep getting quoted in the press as crusaders for the future of the sport -- who cares if they really don’t know how to go about it...
Then along comes a guy like Michael Ball – a business man with a strong will and an open commitment to trying to save the sport. He’s well resourced and not afraid to invest. He brings a young, edgy brand – and AN ACTUAL TITLE SPONSORSHIP - to a sport with an exterior that is worn and tired. He brings enthusiasm and charisma. He brings passion and heart. And what does he get but chastised… because he thinks the old establishment needs to be overhauled, should follow their own rules or get out. He’s brave enough to stand behind his riders – and won’t offer them up as sacrificial lambs when others try to use them as publicity pawns. A new concept in contrast to cycling’s history where one team owner and director after the next has dropped riders by the wayside for their own gain or ducked or run after they’ve lead them down a path of destruction.
Ball has more integrity than the lump sum of the old guard’s parts. So it only figures that the old guard would label him a wing nut out of fear for being exposed for what they really are. My question is – who are they to cast stones? Isn’t it apparent that the sport’s leadership currently in place are doing a pretty lousy job? Who among them is actually trying to save the sport with consistency, coherence to existing rules or a bonafied business plan? A whole generation of riders has been black balled and maligned over the last couple years… while the sport’s leadership continues on unscathed even though they can’t do anything but fumble and play to the press. Why isn’t anyone holding them accountable?
The Michael Ball debate reminds me of Andy Rihs from Phonak. He came to the sport with a lifetime of business experience from building Phonak Hearing Systems. He brought lots of money, a long term commitment and a genuine love for cycling to the sport. He stood up for his riders and he expected the sport to be run like a business and tried to lead the way by example. He was ultimately driven out, disgusted when one rider after the next on his team was scandalized. The message was clear. The sport only works one way and anyone who tries to change it – even for the better, gets harassed and booted.
In an age when everyone in the sport is yammering so much about raising standards and rebuilding integrity --- a quick inventory of what’s going on in the sport makes it clear that actual integrity is way down on the agenda. It all makes one wonder if anyone at the helm is really qualified enough to be there. At the end of the day it’s painfully apparent the so called crusaders for integrity, don’t have a real plan for change. They just like to talk and pretend like they do -- behavior that has no integrity at all.
0
Comments
-
The writer's ability to skirt around any reference to doping is quite phenomenal. There's some food for thought in there, but also blatant denial issues.
Talking of Andy Rihs: "He was ultimately driven out, disgusted when one rider after the next on his team was scandalized."
False. Andy Rihs quit the sport out of disgust for his riders going on with their naughty business despite him throwing out the management and starting anew. Nobody "scandalized" them. They doped and got caught. And "Tyler" was front and center in that story. Whenever an author talks of a subject on a first-name basis, objectivity is usually thrown out the window. Then again, there are some very solid points in there.0 -
And some conspiracy theory as well...0
-
drenkrom wrote:False. Andy Rihs quit the sport out of disgust for his riders going on with their naughty business despite him throwing out the management and starting anew.
Did he?
So Landis ruined his team and he remained friends with him and his company supplied Floyd with a mountain bike for his race last year?
I like Andy Rihs but don't believe he's a wide eyed idealist.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:drenkrom wrote:False. Andy Rihs quit the sport out of disgust for his riders going on with their naughty business despite him throwing out the management and starting anew.
Did he?
So Landis ruined his team and he remained friends with him and his company supplied Floyd with a mountain bike for his race last year?
I like Andy Rihs but don't believe he's a wide eyed idealist.
Iain, check out Tyler on Tinkoff...Oleg seems a bit of rogue too
"Tyler filed a labor dispute against the team in Italian court and won. The team appealed and lost. Tyler is now due the balance of his contract plus damages should the courts agree his market value was lessoned by the team’s refusal to allow him to race and garner results. The legal proceedings are now in civil litigation and could take up to one year or more to resolve. With rider’s rights being trampled more and more every passing day, he felt it was important to stand up to the Tinkoff team management. For what it is worth, the UCI, USA Cycling and the CPA (Rider’s Union) all defended his right to be paid per his original contract and supported him in his fight against the team.
In September, Tyler competed at the US Nationals in South Carolina under his Tinkoff license. The team would not support him going to the race unless he agreed to the terms of their “new” offer. Tyler opted to do things his way and borrowed equipment, bought some riding clothes and invited his friends Curtis and Cindy Brown to come along for the adventure as support staff. Without much racing under his belt he was happy to post a 6th place finish in the Time Trial and finish among only a handful of riders who survived the Road Race. Erroneous journalism lead to published reports that Tyler had been fired from the Tinkoff squad – which was a sloppy attempt to explain his riding an alternate kit. The fact is, that he would not have been able to compete at Nationals if he did not have a valid license and an active team contract filed with the UCI. This was just another example of Tyler’s frustrating experience in dealing with the media "
0
