McQuaid bites back!

TMR
TMR Posts: 3,986
edited March 2011 in Pro race
Ouch! :shock:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/03/ ... ban_164251
Banning of earpieces – Open letter to the Riders

18.03.2011

Dear Riders,

The discussions are heated concerning the progressive banning of earpieces during races. That is why I feel it is necessary to address you collectively to try to clarify some points in the debate that is unfortunately no longer calm and constructive.

However, I would first of all like to congratulate most of you for your ability – up until now and despite your opinions – to remain reasonable faced with a situation that others have decided to render increasingly tense and therefore extremely difficult.

Respect from both sides should always be at the basis of any conflict of ideas, and I can therefore assure you that the open letters that two of your colleagues (Grischa Niermann and Jens Voigt) recently published in the media have caught my attention.

Although I in no way share their opinions, nor agree with their explanations – I’ll come back to this – I sincerely appreciate their willingness to contribute to this difficult phase of the debate, without losing sight of the fundamental principles of dialogue and the need to remain open to other opinions. It is for this reason that I will try to reply to them, all the while being conscious of the fact that , the threats of « drastic » actions and the ultimatums that have been laid down will lead nowhere and will just heat things up even more. It is no secret that over the last years our sport has been susceptible to wide criticism, and this attitude, which has unfortunately become almost chronic – to the point that we can almost wonder what will set off the next conflict after that of the earpieces -, has always been extremely detrimental to cycling’s image.

I begin by informing you that in 2008 I was convened to a meeting with the biggest producer of television images of cycling, France Television, and was told by senior executives clearly that if radios were retained in cycling and used as they were being used that the coverage of cycling on television would be reduced. I was given several examples of the reasons for this which I will go into later..

Following that worrying conversation I had discussions with other media outlets and was given similar viewpoints. Indeed you will be well aware that German television has stopped broadcasting cycling. Doping was an element certainly but so were other issues. If the product was so interesting that people clamoured for it ARD and ZDF would not have killed the coverage.

And so the UCI began a consultation process.

A working group has studied the earpieces since 2008 and as part of that group riders have been sitting at the same table as the teams and the media :Cedric Vasseur and Dario Cioni were your representatives and Serge Parsani, Joxean Matxin and John Lelangue that of the teams. By reading the recent claims of different players in the world of cycling, we could be led to believe that the banning of earpieces was decided upon in a one-sided fashion and in haste: in reality, this project is the result of deep reflection over a period of two years. Your representatives should have informed you of this.

I would also like to remind you that in 2008 and 2009, the CPA led an enquiry into the subject among its 865 members. The President of your association at the time, Mr Cédric Vasseur, will be able to confirm the very surprising fact that he only received 200 replies (less than one in four) with a very even distribution of opinions for and against.

Over and beyond the worrying indifference that these figures show, another aspect raises my curiosity: although the general situation has not changed, it is claimed that 90% of you are convinced that the earpieces are essential . The UCI can only take note of this extremely surprising alleged change in trend – especially in the light of numerous declarations we have received from riders in the last few months in favour of the banning – and ask ourselves this question: what has happened within the peloton ? Have the riders been put under pressure? Are you really free to express your opinions?

As for the reasons that pushed the UCI towards the progressive banning of earpieces, they are fairly obvious and above all well-known, so I will simply summarize them: return the rider to the centre of action, make him fully responsible for his strategy and evaluation of the situation during each phase of the race in order to avoid all outside control, which considerably reduces the unpredictable character of an event and therefore the thrill that our sport can offer to its millions of fans. Our sport is one of intelligence and physical ability with elements of chance thrown in.

The support of the media – particularly television – for this readjustment is a demonstration of the necessity to intervene on this point: the course of too many races is now a foregone conclusion, and this limits enormously the large scale visibility of cycling.

We don’t want to prove anything with this decision. We just want to make cycling more attractive to the general public, which in turn will increase its popularity and hopefully improve your working conditions. Keeping cycling attractive is also necessary for cyclist to be able to remain cyclists and for giving others the opportunity to become cyclists later.

The comparison with F1 brought up in Jens’ letter is very interesting: with all my due respect for this sport, it is exactly what we want to avoid! The story of cycling is above all a story of people, and we want it to stay that way.

As in a football match or any other sporting confrontation – including American professional leagues -, the contact between those on the field and the coaches and members of the team’s technical staff on the sidelines, must be strictly regulated. There is no sport where the coaches and strategists are in constant communication with the athletes throughout the duration of play. Cycling cannot and does not want to be an exception to this fundamental principle of sport.

Now to the question of security: I would ask you not, like Jens, to fall into the trap of rabble-rousing. An accident is an accident, and its consequences – especially when they are very serious – cannot be manipulated to try to turn the tables faced with a problem. Cycling wasn’t more dangerous before the arrival of earpieces. I can assure you that UCI is currently studying this point and discussing the possibilities with communication experts and I am prepared to allow any form of communication which will inform cyclists of safety issues, provided it is technically and economically feasible.

The sporting aspects of the race can also be interpreted differently depending on the view of each person. Jens, if a rider loses a race in the last kilometres, his directeur sportif and his sponsor will most certainly be unhappy. However, somewhere in the line of cars following the event, there will be someone who is delighted; therefore allow me not to go back to this argument. It is swings and roundabouts: one day it is you and your team another day it is another. Except maybe to deduce that this point in your letter is probably the most meaningful to explain the enormous danger that hides behind this discussion, but which apparently you are not aware of: the denial of the fundamental values of sport.

I would have preferred to leave doping out of this discussion, but I realise that I can’t resist pointing out a few facts on this subject, which is also used far too often as a scapegoat depending on the demands and the needs of the moment.

The UCI is by far the most committed International Federation in this field, and cycling can be proud of its front-running position compared with other sports, which, increasingly acknowledge the quality of our efforts and use them as inspiration for their own initiatives. Despite the way in which the letters of Jens and Grisha could be perceived, I don’t think that the riders are in the best position to remind us of the seriousness and the urgency of certain situations: if doping still exists, it’s is only because there are still riders who dope! And if it is true and undeniable that the habits of a large number of you have changed, it is also true that we are still confronted with a fairly high number of cases, which, despite the remarkable progress of our anti-doping results, means we are constantly in an environment of suspicion and tension faced with the public opinion.

But unfortunately, on this point, the riders too often tend to forget their role and their responsibilities: there are bigger problems in our sport which need your attention. I have never heard your riders association CPA nor teams association AIGCP showing similar indignation, mobilisation or militancy at the doping scandals which befall our sport. When it comes to raise the contribution to the fight against doping from the prize money, it is a flat refusal. This is where you should be addressing your open letters.

To Grischa, Jens and all riders, it would be too easy for me to reply with the same somewhat naïve statements.. I could ask you to explain to the mother of a young rider why his models, or even his heroes, are weighed down by legal procedures, or why they seriously endanger their health, prompting a new-comer to take the same risks.

But don’t worry, I won’t. On the other hand, I can’t stop myself noting, with some disappointment, that you haven’t hesitated in joining your directeurs sportifs in a fight that has become their own before it has become yours. I say this is their own because UCI fully believes that this is not a fight about radios but rather a fight for power and control. UCI is aware of steps being taken to set up a private league, World Cycling Tour, outside UCI, by certain team managers. I wonder will the financial benefits they are chasing benefit you, the riders. Somehow I think not! I quote Johan Bruyneel “I’ve been laying the framework for something great… But you’ll just have to wait and see…”.

 
The feeling I get is that you have been falsely led to believe that the opinion of riders was never taken into consideration and that you were left out of the debate. This would naturally prompt a collective reaction of contempt on your part.. Yet when it comes to addressing the true issue at stake, I have trouble identifying a single and collective stance on the riders’ side. For every self-declared spokesperson for the riders decrying the ban on earpieces there is another self-effaced rider sending the UCI private letters of support. I can understand every rider, be he a sprinter, a GC contender, a climber or a Classics rider can put forward reasons to support the use of radio for personal reasons .And even if the numbers were on the side of those opposing the ban, would you really expect your International Federation to be run based on the outcomes of popularity contests or individual interests within one single stakeholder of cycling? Is that truly a desirable quality to be found in a governing body, or do you not find it more fitting and reassuring that it be guided by the general interest, sportsmanship values and long-term sustainability?

I leave it with you and look forward to meeting up in the near future.

Yours sincerely,

Pat McQuaid
UCI President
«1

Comments

  • Karl2010
    Karl2010 Posts: 511
    So the main purpose of getting rid of the radio's is that the racing has apparently "become boring" because its controled by the DS's, and television companies dont want to air the races because nobody want to watch a boring race.

    If cycle races are not on TV then the sponsors are going to cut back/stop paying teams to wear their logo, which takes the money out of the sport, and out of the riders pockets.

    Its a strong argument you've got their Mr McQuaid.
  • squired
    squired Posts: 1,153
    I think it is well written and brings up some good points. The one about riders being so outspoken about this, yet not so much about doping is a nice inclusion.

    I'd love to know if some of the more vocal pro-radio riders were among those who responded (the one in four).

    For me, there should be no radios. Cycling has become very controlled and predictable and anything that can help reverse that sounds good to me. If cycling is going to compete with other forms of entertainment it needs to do everything it can to ensure that people who watch are entertained. Entertainment = viewers = sponsors = stronger sport.
  • mercsport
    mercsport Posts: 664
    A very reasoned and balanced letter from McQuaid. I'd hope JB, JV and the others take heed, but I fear they'll still want to make a stink, come what may. :roll:
    "Lick My Decals Off, Baby"
  • shinyhelmut
    shinyhelmut Posts: 1,364
    squired wrote:
    Cycling has become very controlled and predictable

    Yep, that's what I was thinking while watching the finale of MSR :lol:
  • TMR
    TMR Posts: 3,986
    mercsport wrote:
    A very reasoned and balanced letter from McQuaid. I'd hope JB, JV and the others take heed, but I fear they'll still want to make a stink, come what may. :roll:

    I don't think it's balanced at all; it's a very childish response. Rather than deal with the issue of radios, he's accusing the riders of doping (whether they are or not, it's unacceptable for the President of the UCI to mention this IMHO), and then having a tantrum because JV is trying to create a break away governing body. Pathetic :roll:
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,711
    The Mad Rapper wrote:
    mercsport wrote:
    A very reasoned and balanced letter from McQuaid. I'd hope JB, JV and the others take heed, but I fear they'll still want to make a stink, come what may. :roll:

    I don't think it's balanced at all; it's a very childish response. Rather than deal with the issue of radios, he's accusing the riders of doping (whether they are or not, it's unacceptable for the President of the UCI to mention this IMHO), and then having a tantrum because JV is trying to create a break away governing body. Pathetic :roll:

    So, the UCI should be happy that JV/JB are attempting to set up a world league outside of the governing body's control and this has come about simply because of the race radio dispute?

    This has always been about who wields the power.

    Is swapping dodgy Pat, for the even more dodgy Bruyneel really the way you want to see things go?
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • dulldave
    dulldave Posts: 949
    I don't like Pat McQuaid but, other than being a bit too personal to some riders, this letter seems like a very reasoned response. I think McQuaid's comments about doping are entirely relevant and accurate. But they sound a bit rich coming from the UCI.
    Scottish and British...and a bit French
  • TMR
    TMR Posts: 3,986
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    So, the UCI should be happy that JV/JB are attempting to set up a world league outside of the governing body's control and this has come about simply because of the race radio dispute?

    This has always been about who wields the power.

    It is about power to a degree, but that's not the whole story. I very much doubt that the World Tour has come about because of the radio issue, but it may have been the straw that broke the camel's back as it were. If the UCI had started to behave in a way that wasn't phenomenally dictatorial, hypocritical and ignorant then there would be no support for an alternative.
    Is swapping dodgy Pat, for the even more dodgy Bruyneel really the way you want to see things go?

    I'd like someone in charge that applies logical rules in a fair and even handed way, regardless of who the rider is or what team they are a member of. I'd like to see the way the UCI is funded change, so that there can be no question of riders ever making a 'donation' again. I'd like to see great, drug free racing by riders I can aspire to emulate and be proud to support. Is that asking too much?

    /puts soap box away.
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    To be fair, Voigt's original open letter was so full of holes that even McQuaid can drive a bus through them.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    I think it's interesting he mention ARD and ZDF. They were dropping the Tour specifically AFAIK. And why has that become boring? I can tell you something Pat, it ain't got much to do with race radios. The Tour is a victim of it's own success and it's boring because people won't take chances - not because of radios, but because sponsors put a value on coming 6th or 9'th.

    If you could figure out a way that only the winner gets reported on, you'd get some cracking racing :wink:
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    Voigt and others have written letters and McQuaid has tried a reply but it's so long most riders probably won't get to the end. What he's saying is "don't blame me" but then he's trying to enforce a new rule on a radio ban. In other words, he might not even have wanted the ban but some TV exec has twisted his arm.
  • ms_tree
    ms_tree Posts: 1,405
    It's a bit like elections and strike ballots, isn't it? Lot of unhappy people but did they bother to vote? 1in 4 isn't good.
    I've said it before and I say it again - I wouldn't trust Bruyneel as far as I could throw him. Not forgotten how he patched TheTwit through to Dr Evil when he bonked on the Joux Plan. And all that nonsense about The Look. All controlled by the Puppetmaster. (Just borrowed Mad Rapper's soap box :D )
    'Google can bring back a hundred thousand answers. A librarian can bring you back the right one.'
    Neil Gaiman
  • Arkibal
    Arkibal Posts: 850
    someone ain't happy...
    Mr McQuaid I don't agree with ur open letter at all.& trust me all of the riders I've spoken to are not being coerced into anything..

    Why won't u accept it when we ourselves say what we want? instead you choose to believe its other peoples decisions..time to listen!!!!

    www.uci.ch. Banning of earpieces. Have a look..All I can say this is Mr McQuaid's misguided opinion..we as riders feel different.

    Why doesn't Mr McQuaid have a conference with the top 25teams riders together where he can see for himself our wishes..instead of guessing.
    http://twitter.com/RobbieHunter
  • deejay
    deejay Posts: 3,138
    Ms Tree wrote:
    It's a bit like elections, isn't it? Lot of unhappy people but did they bother to vote? 1in 4 isn't good.
    Like a lot of people I only vote if the person has similar views to me but there is no point voting when they are all talking the same stuff.
    I want them to talk about my needs and not what they consider is todays agenda for the media.
    The last 2 Westminster elections all 3 parties never said a word about Europe and that was obviously an agreement before hand.
    The French referendum was three days later and no comment was made by the UK media.
    Perhaps you might realise a lot of thought can go into "NOT" voting. :roll:

    Ms Tree wrote:
    I've said it before and I say it again - I wouldn't trust Bruyneel as far as I could throw him. Not forgotten how he patched TheTwit through to Dr Evil when he bonked on the Joux Plan. And all that nonsense about The Look. All controlled by the Puppetmaster. (Just borrowed Mad Rapper's soap box :D )
    ...............Nice one. :lol:
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • Agent57
    Agent57 Posts: 2,300
    I find myself in agreement with McQuaid. I’ve thought for years that the guys in the team cars have too much influence on the race as a whole.
    MTB commuter / 531c commuter / CR1 Team 2009 / RockHopper Pro Disc / 10 mile PB: 25:52 (Jun 2014)
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Agent57 wrote:
    I find myself in agreement with McQuaid. I’ve thought for years that the guys in the team cars have too much influence on the race as a whole.

    I'm curious - Based on what?

    A good DS is a good DS. Before radios we knew Guimard, Raas and Post were good at being DS's.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    A good DS was a good DS - but the role of DS changes when you give them the capability to make minute by minute tactical decisions for the riders that race radios and in car TV gives them.

    How would people react if it was suggested footballers could have small earpieces that allowed a manager to tell them they'd left their man, pass to the right, get back on side etc. Or in rugby if a coach could communicate kick for touch, run it etc ? Or a horse race if a trainer could communicate with a jockey telling them to hold back, go to the front etc.
    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    I don't understand why there can't be a season long 'experiement' rather like in formula one.

    People say they are substantially different, and I agree, but there is one crucial comparision - technological innovation that can affect the racing.

    In formula one, where it's a more common occurance (i.e. all the time) they're happy to change the rules and see what happens. Putting grooves in the tyres to reduce grip, etc etc.

    Sometimes, the rule changes don't work - it turns out what was causing the boring racing wasn't what they thought it was - other times it does work.

    One way they found to keep championships close was to change the points system.

    Either way, cycling could benefit from a little technological experimentation.
    If fans are moaning that races are too predictable - and some are - it's worth trying to change that.

    Personally, I think better solutions would be changing the UCI points system to favour crossing the line first over getting a top 10 in a GC, and smaller teams.
    _
  • Agent57
    Agent57 Posts: 2,300
    iainf72 wrote:
    Agent57 wrote:
    I find myself in agreement with McQuaid. I’ve thought for years that the guys in the team cars have too much influence on the race as a whole.

    I'm curious - Based on what?

    Based on watching races on TV. For example the team radio passing up the message that a rival has punctured, crashed or is having a bad day, or telling a rider to ease off and wait for someone else. I'd prefer the riders to have to make those decisions and discoveries for themselves, rather than having everything fed to them via earpieces. Of course, there'd still be the chance for a tactical chat by dropping back to the team car, or talking to other riders.

    I also think it would make it more likely that the heroic lone breaks would succeed, rather than the bunch timing the catch perfectly due to the accuracy of the information they're getting, rather than having to calculate it for themselves.

    Just my opinion of course, and maybe the influence isn't as great as I think. But if it isn't, that begs the question as to why the riders care that much.
    MTB commuter / 531c commuter / CR1 Team 2009 / RockHopper Pro Disc / 10 mile PB: 25:52 (Jun 2014)
  • TMR
    TMR Posts: 3,986
    Agent57 wrote:
    But if it isn't, that begs the question as to why the riders care that much.

    Perhaps they like things the way they are now?
  • Gingerflash
    Gingerflash Posts: 239
    I favour the ban simply because I think it will be more difficult for the HTC train to reduce every major flat race to a bunch sprint for Cav. Anything that reduces the number of full-field sprints is a good thing in my view.

    As for where the power should be, it's a governing body. They're supposed to govern. Riders might like or dislike all sorts of rules - tough luck. You don't make the rules, you follow them.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Gingerflash wrote:
    I favour the ban simply because I think it will be more difficult for the HTC train to reduce every major flat race to a bunch sprint for Cav. Anything that reduces the number of full-field sprints is a good thing in my view.

    I'd agree with that, however, I don't think radios are responsible for that. The peloton used to time catches to perfection in the old days too.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • TMR
    TMR Posts: 3,986
    Gingerflash wrote:
    I favour the ban simply because I think it will be more difficult for the HTC train to reduce every major flat race to a bunch sprint for Cav. Anything that reduces the number of full-field sprints is a good thing in my view.

    Each to their own. I hold the opposite view; field sprints are one of the most exciting aspects of the sport. Every time I see Cav shove it up Farrar I scream like an excited 3 year old! :D
    As for where the power should be, it's a governing body. They're supposed to govern. Riders might like or dislike all sorts of rules - tough luck. You don't make the rules, you follow them.

    As long are the rules are logical, applied evenly and without favour then yes, you'd be right. But they aren't.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    iainf72 wrote:
    Gingerflash wrote:
    I favour the ban simply because I think it will be more difficult for the HTC train to reduce every major flat race to a bunch sprint for Cav. Anything that reduces the number of full-field sprints is a good thing in my view.

    I'd agree with that, however, I don't think radios are responsible for that. The peloton used to time catches to perfection in the old days too.

    Why not ban them for a year and see whether it's the case or not?
    _
  • Gypsum_Fantastic
    Gypsum_Fantastic Posts: 172
    The Mad Rapper wrote:
    Every time I see Cav shove it up Farrar I scream like an excited 3 year old! :D

    Quote of the day :lol: appealed to my (childish) sense of humour, now to clean the coffee off the monitor.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Evidence anyone?

    http://inrng.com/?p=2149

    :wink:

    Inrng is my new hero. He's almost as cool as Pierre.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    According to CyclingNews, there are 11 teams considering breaking away from the UCI, with RCS perhaps involved.

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/11-major-teams-considering-plans-to-break-away-from-the-uci


    (Just for fun, my guess at the 11: Garmin, Radioshack, HTC, Sky, Geox, Rabobank, Saxo, Liquigas, BMC, Astana, Movistar)
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Tusher
    Tusher Posts: 2,762
    Damn you, Young Mr Iain- I was just away to post that link. Fascinating read.

    My guess at the 11 would be to replace Astana with Def Leppard.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    Tusher wrote:
    Damn you, Young Mr Iain- I was just away to post that link. Fascinating read.

    My guess at the 11 would be to replace Astana with Def Leppard.

    Oh yeah, I forgot about them.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Tusher
    Tusher Posts: 2,762
    Richard! How could you possibly forget about them.

    I may have to CAPITALISE them in future.

Categories