FFC suspended by UCI
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
0
Comments
-
Whilst the sport continues to be marred by drug accusations, the UCI concentrates on it's argument with the ASO. Brilliant!!You live and learn. At any rate, you live0
-
To rehash what I have already said elsewhere...
To a very large degree it is the UCI themselves who have led the sport to the brink and made the actions of the ASO necessary, what with their long-term 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' attitude to doping. For example, consider the way Verbruggen dismissed the revelations of people like Graham Obree and Gilles Delion. Today McQuaid displays much the same attitude, as is evidenced by his fatuous claim that organised doping no longer exists and that races are faster these days because "the wind is different'! (See http://www.thepulse2007.org/?p=73 ).
It even seems that the UCI have at times gone out of their way to protect dopers and those suspected of doping. One good example is the way Hein Verbruggen commissioned that biased and misleading `Vrijman report` on the work of the LNDD in the wake of Armstrong's retrospective 'positives' for EPO use in the 1999 Tour. This report gives every appearance of being little more than a 'hatchet job' cynically calculated to protect the UCI's icon of 'global cycling' and was described by WADA as `so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical.` Then there was the way the UCI has scandalously accepted back-dated theraputic excemption certificates from riders caught doping, including Laurent Brochard after his world RR championship `winning` ride and Armstrong after he tested positive for steroids in the 1999 Tour.
Those who believe that the ASO are not genuinely concerned about the effect doping is having on the Tour (or who believe that all 'the French' are interested in is 'engineering' a French win…) should perhaps think back to the way Jean-Marie Leblanc of the ASO fought to have Richard Virenque - France's biggest prospect for a Tour win since Bernard Hinault - excluded from the Tour in the wake of the Festina scandal. Back in 1999 Leblanc said that Virenque's presence is the Tour was "incompatible to the image and reputation of the event we want to preserve." When the UCI once again sided with the dopers and insisted that he be given a place Leblanc's response was "If Virenque won the Tour, it would be a very serious setback for our race".
Given the astonishing degree of unprofessionalism he has shown since taking office, it is surely time for Pat McQuaid to resign. His only real talents appear to be for megaphone diplomacy and hypocrisy. He argued that the organisers of the Tour of California had the full right to decide who rode their event, but denies that the ASO have the same right. He backed the organisers of the Giro when they initially excluded Astana, but attacks the ASO for refusing to invite Astana to ride the Tour de France. He argued that it is wrong for the ASO to fail to invite Astana on the basis of their past record, and then went ahead and banned Frank Vandenbroucke from all 'ProTour' events on the same grounds! He has argued that the ASO are 'blackmailing' riders, claims he has the interests of the riders at heart and says that he will do everything to defend the supposed 'right' of Contador to ride the Tour (regardless of his implication in the Puerto affair), and yet he has also threatened to ban any rider who took part in the Paris Nice from all races held under UCI rules!
To his disgrace McQuaid has also repeatedly resorted to narrow-minded, anti-French rhetoric. At times McQuaid appears to be simply a xenophobe. For example, as with his claim that cycling's doping problem is due to the existence of "mafia Western European nations" whose values should be compared with those countries belonging to some mythical, whiter-than-white "Anglo-Saxon culture". This claim has a certain irony given that in the case of Astana it is "Anglo-Saxon'" McQuaid who opposes the implementation of more robust anti-doping measures! Xenophobe or not much of what McQuaid says, (such as his claim that the refusal of the ASO to invite Astana to ride the Tour "was a decision made in France by a French organisation purely for the French public") gives every appearance of being calculated to gain support from those who themselves harbour anti-French prejudices. For example, those who seriously believe that the refusal by the ASO to offer an invite to Astana is part of a supposed 'plot' by the ASO (or should that be 'The French'?...) to 'stop Leipheimer winning the Tour'. (These are probably the same people who believe that Landis was clean but was 'framed' by 'the French', an absolutely ludicrous suggestion given that the ASO needed the Landis doping scandal about as much a bullet in the head!).
In reality the McQuaid/ASO split is about 3 main issues, all one way or another related to the (in the words of Brian Cookson, head of British Cycling) "problematic and divisive" 'ProTour' concept. Firstly there is the desire of the UCI to dictate to the organisers of the sport's major events who gets to ride in those events. Relatedly there is the failure of the UCI to tackle (and even complicity in) the doping problem over the years, something which has led the sport to the brink. The result of this is that those with a financial interest in the sport can no longer risk another doping scandal and so, quite understandably, want to retain full control over who they invite to ride in their events.
Perhaps the biggest issue of all is number three. TV rights. The UCI clearly intends that race organisers should no longer have full control to the TV rights to the sport's major events on the basis that these form part of the 'ProTour brand'. In effect the UCI are telling organisers that the events they own and run no longer 'belong' to them and that the UCI is moving in with the intention of making a grab for the money to be made from the TV rights to events, in particular the Tour de France.
Even as the McQuaid/ASO battle rages, Hein Verbruggen (McQuaid's ever-present shadow) is reported as being in negotiations with several investment companies interested in buying of the rights to televised cycle sport. These include the British CVC Capital Partners group, the Belgian production company Woestijnvis and The Rothschild Group. (See http://tinyurl.com/2bt5hn ).
If it wasn't bad enough that the UCI sold 'ProTour' licences on promises they were in no position to honour, now they are playing a role in selling of the TV rights to events they don't even own or organise! McQuaid has lost all credibility having made threats he will be unable to follow up without damaging the careers of half the peleton. He is autocratic, seemingly uninterested in negotiation or compromise and sees any voice of dissent as being proof of 'disloyalty', demanding that the dissenter resign from any UCI related post. (As with his demand that AIGCP president Eric Boyer resign from the ProTour Council). He clearly does not have the support of the riders themselves and is increasingly isolated having now suspended any official contact with the AIGCP. On top of all this the UCI are now taking legal action against Dick Pound/WADA in response to the Pound's perfectly valid criticism of the UCI historically lax attitude to doping.
For the good of cycling it's time for McQuaid (and Verbruggen) to go and for the UCI to both stop acting outside it's remit and giving the impression that it believes that the role of the ASO is to act as a 'cash cow' for the UCI and the rest of cycling.0 -
iainf72 wrote:http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SPORT/06/12/cycling.ban/index.html?eref=edition_sport
I bet they're real upset
How about if, after the Olympics, the other major federations resign from the UCI and set up their own international federation. A sort of coup d'etat. By the time the next Olympics comes round the new federation would hopefully have been affiliated with the IOC and then the UCI would become completely irrelevant.I was only joking when I said
by rights you should be bludgeoned in your bed0 -
If there is, as has been pointed out, a serious lack of credibility, confidence, competence and talent with McQuaid and Verbruggen, why don't the other UCI members simply phuck them out?
A split will probably work as well as it has in pro boxing - neither side will have sufficient authority to moderate the sport.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
aurelio
One of the best posts I have read for some time.
Why don't the other UCI members muck them out...well the other UCI members are McQuaid supporters, the fact is that the whole organisation is often made to look foolish and lacking in common sense. Take the pro-tour, it worked fine for a year or two, but as predicted, it hasn't done cycling long term good.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Many would like to do exactly that, including the Italians, Belgians, French, Germans and so on - in fact almost all the Federations of the traditional cycling nations. (Just think back to who voted in support of the UCI in that 'Union Européenne de Cyclisme (UEC) Congress meeting back in March).LangerDan wrote:If there is, as has been pointed out, a serious lack of credibility, confidence, competence and talent with McQuaid and Verbruggen, why don't the other UCI members simply phuck them out?
The problem is that the UCI is a `world` body and as such can rely on the support of all those federations who it is helping to `develop` cycle sport in their own countries, especially when the money from such development comes from elsewhere. (And it seems that the UCI sees the revenue from the TV rights to the Tour De France as being it potential biggest source of revenue). Perhaps that is `democracy` but when it comes to a UEC vote the votes of places such as Turkey, Albania or Armenia carry as much weight as those of France or Italy, and that is just the UEC vote! On top of this all the other Continents have thier own cycling Unions with a voice in the UCI!
In fact McQuaid has all but said that his aim is to break the power of the traditional cycling nations (or `mafia European nations` as he has called them) in order to further his goal of `global cycling`, whatever that means. For example, in one interview McQuaid said:
The UCI has as its vision and its mission very much in the past couple of years to globalize this sport. However, we are fighting desperately against an attitude within Europe which is very Euro-centric and which is very traditional, very much dealing with historic cycling and not wanting historic cycling to be damaged or to be any way curtailed or any way overtaken by the development of cycling on a global basis. That’s exactly what’s going on.
We’re fighting two different cultures here; one culture which is trying to hold things back and keep things as they always were, as against a more broad-looking culture which is to develop the sport on a global basis and to really show what can be done.
...as I said at the very beginning of this interview, it’s very much a fight between the UCI, which is trying to globalize the sport and the Europeans which are trying to keep it within Europe. And those Europeans are led by ASO. ASO is a company that makes 40 million euro a year from cycling, mainly from the Tour de France. In fact, all from the Tour de France. That’s a huge sum of money that they make. No other organizer in the world is making anywhere near that money. Most of them are just about keeping their heads over water, a lot of them are even losing money, but the ASO because of the product they have, which is a wonderful product, the Tour de France, are making vast sums of money, and they don’t want to change that. They’re dead scared that if this sport becomes a global sport, they won’t have the same handle on it, they won’t have the same power ’cause they might be a slightly smaller fish in a huge pond. And they’re dead scared of that. They prefer to be a big fish in a small pond.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/10-spe ... n-america/0 -
Aurelio: Well said. Your post should become a "sticky" on the race forum. 8)0
-
Great posts aurelio0
-
Legally - can the UCI 'ban' the FFC? I don't know the laws, or membership statutes, but it seems a bit strange to me that a country's cycling body can be kind of kicked out of the global cycling union.
My worry is how this may affect the olympics and world champs.
May teh Tour de France and other ASO events end up being completely seperate 'private' events with nothing whatsoever to do with UCI (or even FFC come to that).
As the Tour is where the money is it wouldn't be long for the UCI to become like the intenational blindfolded hackysack union - i.e. basically powerless.0 -
I thread in almost uniform agreement?
I can hardly believe it!
Says so much about the current administration's ineptitude.
Aurelio has so eloquently expressed how many of us feel about this sorry state of affairs."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
A great post. Surely up for best of the year.0
-
Top post aurelio! Now that ASO have a major stake in the Vuelta, have taken on the Tour of Germany and are in negotiations over the Tour of Flanders there's going to be relatively little left for the UCI to administrate. The only downside is that UCI are the only officially recognised body for cycling for the Olympics and that could result in a power struggle of significant magnitude- particularly as Verbruggen has many cronies in the IOC.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
I have to add my voice to the chorus of approval to Aurelio's superb post - it sums up the whole sorry state of affairs perfectly.
I think the day of reckoning for professional cycling is fast approaching and the UCI will be left with very little to govern. That can only be a good thing given their continued ineptitude.0 -
Thanks for all the kind comments. :oops:
By the way, the second part of that McQuaid interview can be found at:
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/10-spe ... f-cycling/0 -
Monty Dog wrote:Top post aurelio! Now that ASO have a major stake in the Vuelta, have taken on the Tour of Germany and are in negotiations over the Tour of Flanders there's going to be relatively little left for the UCI to administrate. The only downside is that UCI are the only officially recognised body for cycling for the Olympics and that could result in a power struggle of significant magnitude- particularly as Verbruggen has many cronies in the IOC.
Who will administer the sport at below, say, Procontinental level? There is no money in it so no incentive for commercial organisations to get involved- or can I expect Christian Prudhomme to be checking gearing at the underage national championships?'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
Isn't that what national federations do anyway? All the UCI do in these situations is take the registrations fees and administer a very thick and often irrelevant rulebook.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
UCI are very much like FIFA in that many of the bigger nations don't like the leadership but are outvoted by block voting from smaller nations who receive a lot of 'attention' under the guise of global development. In many of the federations it is very easy to isolate major nations.
Ultimately all of this doping/ProTour rubbish all comes done to generating money. As Aurelio points out, the major income comes form TV rights, and those that the UCI do hold, for the Worlds, don't hold a great deal of value. The value is in the Grand Tours and the big Classics - unfortunately the UCI tried to get these TV rights by inventing the ProTour, something that was neither wanted or needed by rider/orgainser or the public.
Couple of years in and the general public have seen no improvement in TV coverage unless you call 2+ hours coverage of the Eneco Tour as a plus.0 -
alan sherman wrote:Legally - can the UCI 'ban' the FFC? I don't know the laws, or membership statutes, but it seems a bit strange to me that a country's cycling body can be kind of kicked out of the global cycling union.
My worry is how this may affect the olympics and world champs.
May teh Tour de France and other ASO events end up being completely seperate 'private' events with nothing whatsoever to do with UCI (or even FFC come to that).
As the Tour is where the money is it wouldn't be long for the UCI to become like the intenational blindfolded hackysack union - i.e. basically powerless.
I'm late but I agree with the posts and the thread and.
The Tour de France is "French" (amazing) and as such it has the backing of the French Government and is listed as French Heritage.
To see the Police Convoy's descending on each day's stage from all different directions
and in the evenings their return home in "Blue" coaches and vans.
The Protour had 1 year (with objections) and last year came the bust up with the TDF.
We then saw the "Farce" of what Mc Dick wanted and what the ASO would allow.
Can any "Sane" person understand how the UCI could hope to ever be capable of such organisation skills within France. Even get Tarmac laid and remove road furniture and so much more.
The thread so far has talked about the Cycling Federations, and I forsee the French Government being involved and if need be, even the Euro Parliament of which Swiss is not Euroland and pay no Taxes to it.
We have seen the UCI change many things (Vuelta from April to Sept) in the callender, the limiting of the amount of GT stages, there will be rest days. (no wonder the race is faster) but the Pro Tour is a Step too far.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
Pro Tour was a good idea. You had a calendar of races and it went along with rights for the riders, teams fronting bank guarantees and the introduction of a minimum wage. Is ASO going to do this? Non, as they like to say in Paris.
But the UCI's caring for riders is waaaay too late. Riders are dead. Of course the UCI could not have stopped all the doping but it took them a long time to begin to try seriously.
But a good idea is no good, you have got to introduce it right. To start the plan when you don't have agreement from the biggest race in the world makes the UCI look bad. Then when the teams say they're stopping it, the UCI tries to threaten them.
McQuaid and Verbruggen are losers. Maybe they've got the support of some national federations but the fans, the teams, the race organisers, all those in pro cycling when you think about it, seem to think the UCI is a joke organisation.
Worse, this is getting into the media now, with rumours of keirin korruption on top of the "cycling = doping" copy you get all the time. We deserve better people to run our sport. I may not be a pro but even the smallest fan can see his sport being undermined by these guys.0 -
aurelio superb post! I visit here from time to time but have never registered until that post which sums up my feelings for and understanding of the UCI far more eloquently than i ever could.
UCI led by McQuaid and Verbruggen seem to me rightly or wrongly as exactly the sort of puffshirt vacuous self important blazer wearers with second rate political skills that hold sports back rather than promote without bias. Clearly they should not control television rights to ASOs and others events and it does appear that their stance against doping is less than total, it would afterall have been in the best interests of the sport they supposedly want to promote to have fully shared information with the ASO prior to the TDF rather than withhold. Crushing doping in cycling should take higher priority than Tit for Tat foolery if the the UCI is really the moral and sporting authority it purports itself to be.
Oh and hello to everyone Im off my soap box now
regards0 -
Well done Aurelio!
When the PT was announced I thought it was quite a good idea but they pushed it through without letting sponsers. teams and riders have much input such as movement into the PT and down to Continental level, as in football leagues. Now they want to take it to far-flung countries but there seems to be no thought for the riders in that they are travelling through time zones, racing, travelling again. They need to stamp out doping but in my mind are putting too much pressure on riders with so much travel.
Is all this talk from McQuaid actually coming from him or is Verbruggen the ventriloquist?
I feel the riders are the ones who are caught in the middle when they are just trying to do their job and make a living.'Google can bring back a hundred thousand answers. A librarian can bring you back the right one.'
Neil Gaiman0 -
AURELIO - superb post the most sense anyone has put down in a long time I couldn't agree more. Secondly the post by MATTM_UK is correect as well there are similar parallels with FIFA, the Olympic federation of the 80's and 90's (some may say still today) and that of the athletics federation before the IAAF. They all had in common out of touch Ivory towers supported by self interest who are only there to protect money making self interest.
There is a book some of you may have read (if you haven't and I recommend it, albeit its about FIFA for those football haters) called FOUL - The secret world of FIFA: bribes, vote rigging and tickets sacandels by a respected journalist called Andrew Jennings
The Parallels with FIFA and the UCI are uncanny. especially Verbruggan and Havelange and Blatter and McQuaid0 -
superb post, aurelio. i think you've presented the frustrations of most cycling fans with clarity & clout.0
-
I'm a bit out of touch with the various shenanigans. I can't seem to find any comments/debate on the the withdrawal of the teams from the Pro tour for 2009 and the subsequent impact this might have on UCI - can someone point me in the right direction?I wish I was any place but the someplace I\'m in0
-
Excellent post aurelio, & thought promoting follow up by everyone, I agree with what you have said. My concern for a breakaway international governing body would be for the other less high profile disciplines. These still have a huge following & put children on bikes etc. eg. MTB, BMX, Cyclo X. Would these sports receive less support as they attract little media/TV & therefore money, than the GT's and other major events?
As BC has managed to increase it's membership, highest for 40 yrs apparantly and create a national squad(s) which is the most competitive in living memory should we be looking at Brian Cookson to head a new International Organisation or just to replace the recumbent president at the UCI?0 -
I think Brian Cookson voted for McQuaid 0
-
Kléber wrote:I think Brian Cookson voted for McQuaid
Because, lets face it, the UK is one of those 'developing nations'. It was/is in BC's interest to keep the Olympics high on the priority list. Funding depended on it.
The question is whether or not BC has, or is, starting to outgrow that position what with their road/Tour ambitions and Sky's millions?0 -
What a rubbish post by Aurelio.
0
