Teams walk out on McQuaid

Gingerflash

...but why should they consult? Their role is to make the rules, not to give the teams whatever they want.

It's been and is still being tried at lower levels without any disastrous result.

And I'm not sure that it's "effectively for nothing". There are many who want rid of radios.

If the AIGCP leave the UCI and set up on their own, as has been threatened, who do you think will be in charge? Who will claim ownerhsip of the TV rights etc? You can be pretty sure Vaughters will be in the thick of it.

eh

It's not just the race organisers, there are also the National federations as well who tend to keep out of things, but do hold some power.

Do any governing bodies consult on rule changes and if they do pay any attention? Example: Rugby has had some shocking changes in the last few years, but thats how it goes.

iainf72

Gingerflash wrote:

If the AIGCP leave the UCI and set up on their own, as has been threatened, who do you think will be in charge? Who will claim ownerhsip of the TV rights etc? You can be pretty sure Vaughters will be in the thick of it.

Who owns TV rights now? Not the UCI despite their best efforts. Not the riders. It's the event owners. So no change there

Why should they consult? Well, to avoid making any desperately unpopular decisions. Without the riders, you have no sport.

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

Gingerflash wrote:

If the AIGCP leave the UCI and set up on their own, as has been threatened, who do you think will be in charge? Who will claim ownerhsip of the TV rights etc? You can be pretty sure Vaughters will be in the thick of it.

Who owns TV rights now? Not the UCI despite their best efforts. Not the riders. It's the event owners. So no change there

Why should they consult? Well, to avoid making any desperately unpopular decisions. Without the riders, you have no sport.

For every rider who doesn't want the ban, there will be a rider who will ride without them...

eh

Without the riders, you have no sport.

Appart from their being plenty of riders out there to fill in the spaces, if some of the present lot left. Heck there are 'pro' sprtive riders on the continent. And I'd venture it is the big events that attract the punters, not the riders per se. Which is a good job really with the amount of top riders who get banned for drugs.

iainf72

I think Pat is threatening to expose people with questionable passports if they don't be quiet about radios.

http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?pa ... 38007&tp=n

Ummmm, so doping is ok now Pat? I'm getting confused.

andyp

Seems his threat has worked;

@Vaughters Jonathan Vaughters
Pat McQuaid's job is thankless and very difficult. I don't envy his position at all.I just hope we can find meaningful mediation&compromise.

eh

I think thats kinda funny, although maybe a bit early for Pat to play that card. Be interesting to see what happens now.

deejay

Gingerflash wrote:

If the AIGCP leave the UCI and set up on their own, as has been threatened, who do you think will be in charge? Who will claim ownerhsip of the TV rights etc? You can be pretty sure Vaughters will be in the thick of it.

The AIGCP (and Vaughters) will need Races to ride in and the organisers may invite them.
I cannot see AIGCP organising races themselves.
To accomodate the AIGCP the ASO would have to do what they did a couple of years ago and run their races under French Fed Rules.
Other organisers might not feel strong enough to go against McDuff and will not be able to invite the AIGCP.

The way that McQuid is now bossing things with his World Tour then another bust up with the ASO is sure to come.
He is intent with getting his way no matter how much damage he causes to the sport.

The organisers hold the TV rights to their races and with due compensation they allow cameras into the peloton but only if they are authenticated before the start of the race.
The riders sign on for every race and so do the journo's the day before.

McQuid wants those rights because he thinks he is going to have an Empire like the English Premier League.

jerry3571

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jerry - if thats' the case, then why ride on cobbles?

We know how dangerous mountain decents are - why not take those out too?

Road racing is racing on the roads, so if the roads are tricky, the riders have to man up.

I thought it was accepted by most people that there is genuine skill in being able to deal with tricky roads. Why else is positioning etc so important in classics?

If all the roads were big boulevards it'd be stuninngly dull. It's a criticism I often level at the Tour, which, because of its size, often takes the big main roads which leads to duller racing that's less challenging for riders and less selective.

Metal poles in the roads are a new addittion and nuts. If the Teams were worried about rider safety then there's a good starting point. Find another route for the Amstel Gold. I remember seeing Kivilev and Casartelli on the TV when they had thier fatal accident and think that these things should be avoided in the same light that Formula 1 has managed to avoid so much trouble. I'd rather watch a less interesting race rather than seeing fatalities; if you don't agree with that then I'm a little worried for you. Cycling is a Sport not a Bloodsport.

I think the radio issue is a stick to beat the UCI/Pat with.

Also did someone mention about Sky TV in all this; they may fancy the TV rights to a bunch of breakaway races?? Hmmm...?

-Jerry


Some of these races are given money so they can pass a certain industialists factory/site as with Leige next week. I think it was run passes a Steel Works of some kind just because the race were paid some dollars.

deejay

jerry3571 wrote:

Some of these races are given money so they can pass a certain industialists factory/site as with Leige next week. I think it was run passes a Steel Works of some kind just because the race were paid some dollars.

But it is the organisers that have to balance the books in the end and not the dammed UCI gits.
Yes they go around Standard Liege and down the road to turn right at the side of a steel works and this leads to the relatively new climb of St Nicholas.

So if they get a few bob from the stadium and the works then it will help the prize list and other expences.
my experience in England without sponsorship but entry fees and donations then it got balanced out of my pocket. (many times)
Just one of those things when you take the job on, that the account has to balance.

The UCI will want to collect the credits and then dole the money out to the organisers who will have to plead their case for more money. (Premier League stuff)

No stuff the UCI who should try to do the job in their mandate from the international Federations.
The UCI was democratic with rules being voted for and now in recent years the UCI think they are a Dictatorship.
McQaid, mine furer, sig hiel. (well somit like that) :roll:

rick_chasey

jerry3571 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jerry - if thats' the case, then why ride on cobbles?

We know how dangerous mountain decents are - why not take those out too?

Road racing is racing on the roads, so if the roads are tricky, the riders have to man up.

I thought it was accepted by most people that there is genuine skill in being able to deal with tricky roads. Why else is positioning etc so important in classics?

If all the roads were big boulevards it'd be stuninngly dull. It's a criticism I often level at the Tour, which, because of its size, often takes the big main roads which leads to duller racing that's less challenging for riders and less selective.

Metal poles in the roads are a new addittion and nuts. If the Teams were worried about rider safety then there's a good starting point. Find another route for the Amstel Gold. I remember seeing Kivilev and Casartelli on the TV when they had thier fatal accident and think that these things should be avoided in the same light that Formula 1 has managed to avoid so much trouble. I'd rather watch a less interesting race rather than seeing fatalities; if you don't agree with that then I'm a little worried for you. Cycling is a Sport not a Bloodsport.

I think the radio issue is a stick to beat the UCI/Pat with.

Also did someone mention about Sky TV in all this; they may fancy the TV rights to a bunch of breakaway races?? Hmmm...?

-Jerry


Some of these races are given money so they can pass a certain industialists factory/site as with Leige next week. I think it was run passes a Steel Works of some kind just because the race were paid some dollars.

I never said I wanted blood. As far as fatalities due to route planning, I can't think of any. The doping is more likely to be an issue. The Casartelli death happened on a road where many races have been before. It was an unfortunate accident > one that is always going to be an issue for cycling, and, realistically, can't be prevented. Riders still go up and down the Col de Portet.

Even on straight roads in the Tour you get a lot of accidents, more than the less safety minded Giro. It's the nature of road cycling.

Cycling isn't like formula one in that it's not in a tightly controlled confined space. It is, wait for it, out on the road.

BarryBonds

men with suits and egos

blazing_saddles

The riders walk out on the teams!
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/radio-b ... e-with-uci