UCI Reforms. Lets try again

iainf72

So, anyone had any thoughts about what needs to happen yet?

WADA's Howman said in an interview a few days ago it's not possible to set up and indepedant anti-doping structure. So as a starter for 10, that's not going to happen.

LangerDan

1) Get Hein out of the picture quickly - an honorary president should only be allowed into the building on the last Friday of every month, when he can torment the younger staff about "how it used to be in his day", have a spot of lunch and then fcuk off. The sport can do without his malign influence.

2) I think Pat should go - eventually (as in 12-18 months). Get a succession plan in place and not just for the top job.

3) Reconfigure the executive board - increase from 4 to 6-8, President not allowed nominate more than one member, members cant serve more than 1-2 consecutive terms. Board and president need to challenge each other.

4) Top job should go to someone skilled in administering a large commercial entity - they are plenty of slots for cycling experts deeper in the structure. The presidency shouldn't be a sop to someone just because he's got a twitter account or suffered terribly at the hands of Armstrong. The top position doesn't even need to be filled by a cyclist. Nor should be an active race promoter or any other party with a commercial interest in an "apparently" cleaner sport.

5) I'd agree with McQuaid about accepting funding / donations from a broader base. People view this as a bribery issue - but what if someone like, say, Brailsford decided to make a donation?. Would it be more acceptable then? Details of both donors and recipients would be made public in the audited accounts. As Rich has pointed out before, people expect the UCI to fund every sort of two-wheeled diversion but no-one wants them to make the money to do it.

6) Work with WADA to see how, in the absence of an independent anti-doping structure, how much the UCI can be divorced from the anti-doping operations within the structures that exist at present.

7) Publicise the good work that does happen. The centre at Aigle isn't just about training riders from non-traditional countries. For example Pendleton spent two seasons there. Or the fact that despite the many reservations about how its configured, there have been rider benefits from structures like the World Tour - teams have to be on a more solid financial footing - including payment guarantees for the rides and staff - than they were in the past.

8 ) Decide exactly what the stance will be on the re-employment of riders and management convicted of doping (or any other form of sporting fraud) back into the sport. Whatever they decide, they should stick to.

9 ) Hire a competent PR firm who can avoid the head man looking like he only opens his mouth to change feet.

Richmond Racer

LangerDan seems to have written a pretty sound basis for the reform manifesto..

Couple of additional comments:

Agree, President should not be anyone from cycling - too much baggage, ties, enemies/friends, history - need someone coming in from outside with a track record in turning around foundering businesses/organisations

Disagree on the donations front - the governing body accepting donations from individual riders or teams is huge conflict of interest and open to corruption. Even with the idea of all being reported in annual accounts, there would still be deep suspicion around around donations. If they need more funds, I'd really advise looking elsewhere....like a review of all the Aigle comp packages starting with Fat Pat's...

Close down GCP. The governing body should not be awarding race licences and be a race promotor themselves.

Push for tougher sanctions. 4 years not 2, and none of this retrospective ban business, which is a joke.

skavanagh.bikeradar

Agree with much of the above. UCI could show that things have and are changing and that they really are at the forefront of anti-doping by (a) publicising the things that they do well via a competent PR machine (as LangerDan pointed out) and (b) visibly and publicly being at the forefront of anti-doping through actions.

They also need a response to the criticisms in the USADA report specifically around the timing of tests, keeping them unannounced, chaperoning, access to team and rider rooms and buses etc. Targeted start line tests. Points penalties for teams. Really working hard to disrupt doping and to change the risk balance (at least in the minds of teams and riders) so that it appears riskier and so the incentive(s) to dope is lessened.

I've turned this into a doping question. Apologies, I think the previous posts have done a better job than I on the administration.

LangerDan

Richmond Racer wrote:

If they need more funds, I'd really advise looking elsewhere....like a review of all the Aigle comp packages starting with Fat Pat's...

Payroll at Aigle isn't huge (10 -12 million SFr) with only about 10% going to "Direction" which I take to be Pat, Hein and the various vice presidents etc. Not enormous scope for savings.

bipedal

I have a question: what has happened to the Anne Gripper role? She seemed, while in post, relatively independent and committed to anti-doping, and put in place many of the good things that the UCI do. Since she left there doesn't seem to be a clear direction or UCI spokesperson for antidoping; instead we get the blunderbuss randomly fired off pronouncements from Pat...

TMR

iainf72 wrote:

So, anyone had any thoughts about what needs to happen yet?

WADA's Howman said in an interview a few days ago it's not possible to set up and indepedant anti-doping structure. So as a starter for 10, that's not going to happen.

Why isn't it possible? It would seem to be entirely possible if the will is there. It has to be 100% independent or it can have no value. The UCI or any other organisation can have no say in anything it does, a complete free hand. All riders compelled to fully cooperate or face an immediate lifetime ban from the sport with no appeal.

Let's not p*ss around here. If we want a clean sport, then create an entity that guarantees one or STFU about doping forever.

LangerDan

bipedal wrote:

I have a question: what has happened to the Anne Gripper role? She seemed, while in post, relatively independent and committed to anti-doping, and put in place many of the good things that the UCI do. Since she left there doesn't seem to be a clear direction or UCI spokesperson for antidoping; instead we get the blunderbuss randomly fired off pronouncements from Pat...

I think it might just be down to the fact that Gripper, as an English speaker, would have a high profile in the English-language media. Her successor, Francesca Rossi is Italian.

ContrelaMontre

I defer to Michael Barry who has said what needs to be done better than I can...

Pro teams, which are financed with sponsorship and do not share in television rights, are a liability. Their existence is dependent on victories and results points maintained by the International Cycling Union, or the U.C.I., as it is better known. Teams that do not continue to build points lose their position in the WorldTour, the elite group of teams allowed to race in the top events like the Tour de France. Sponsors’ money swiftly disappears.

Cycling must follow the long-established pattern of most pro sports, developing a league in which teams are stable and sustainable and where all profits are shared. The continual pressure to perform and to survive results in poor judgment and bad advice. When teams and riders are always in survival mode, ethical lines are easily crossed.

nathancom

1) Make sure that TV revenue from events is passed directly back to the teams so that they have a foundation independent of their sponsors. This will reduce the pressure to get the brand on TV at any cost and will allow teams to plan for the longer term. Currently they are just billboards on wheels and it encourages collusion at all levels to go beyond the rules. (Edit: took this from the reading the Barry quote above a few days back, completely agree with his point)

2) Ban donations to UCI from anyone currently involved in the sport. Governing bodies should be entirely independent, run solely for the benefit of the sport.

3) A levy of sponsorship revenues for each team and be passed onto the UCI or they can increase entry costs for teams to race to replace these funds. Bike and component manufacturers do very well out of the sport. They should be helping to fund the UCI.

4) Remove Hein and keep Pat. Hein is fully discredited and his presence taints the organization. Pat is saying the right things whilst trying (and to be honest failing) to maintain the integrity of the UCI. The alternative of Pat resigning and the UCI in meltdown would be detrimental to any reform of the sport in the near future.

5) Introduce immediate bans for teams from events where any of their riders fail both A&B samples. This would add an incentive for management to keep a clean team especially at the GT events. Or only allow teams with no failed A&B samples in the previous 2 years to appear at the most prestigious events: classics, GTs.

TMR

nathancom wrote:

1) Make sure that TV revenue from events is passed directly back to the teams so that they have a foundation independent of their sponsors. This will reduce the pressure to get the brand on TV at any cost and will allow teams to plan for the longer term. Currently they are just billboards on wheels and it encourages collusion at all levels to go beyond the rules. (Edit: took this from the reading the Barry quote above a few days back, completely agree with his point)

2) Ban donations to UCI from anyone currently involved in the sport. Governing bodies should be entirely independent, run solely for the benefit of the sport.

3) A levy of sponsorship revenues for each team and be passed onto the UCI or they can increase entry costs for teams to race to replace these funds. Bike and component manufacturers do very well out of the sport. They should be helping to fund the UCI.

4) Remove Hein and keep Pat. Hein is fully discredited and his presence taints the organization. Pat is saying the right things whilst trying (and to be honest failing) to maintain the integrity of the UCI. The alternative of Pat resigning and the UCI in meltdown would be detrimental to any reform of the sport in the near future.

5) Introduce immediate bans for teams from events where any of their riders fail both A&B samples. This would add an incentive for management to keep a clean team especially at the GT events. Or only allow teams with no failed A&B samples in the previous 2 years to appear at the most prestigious events: classics, GTs.

I agree with just about all of those points. Sensible and common sense, so it probably won't happen.

LangerDan

TV rights for most events (with the exception of the Worlds, Tour of Beijing etc) don't belong to the UCI, the belong to the event organisers, AFAIK. Good luck with trying to get ASO, RCO / RCS etc to hand over the cash.

nathancom

LangerDan wrote:

TV rights for most events (with the exception of the Worlds, Tour of Beijing etc) don't belong to the UCI, the belong to the event organisers, AFAIK. Good luck with trying to get ASO, RCO / RCS etc to hand over the cash.

I would have thought that currently they will generate some revenue from endorsing any event and including it in the various calendars, however big or small. They need someone who can negotiate that into a % fee based on total revenue of these events and then start chipping away to increase that %. There is plenty of money generated by this sport, just look at the crowds, but it is 50 years behind other sports with the money all going to independent promoters, a bit like boxing.

I found it remarkable that Pat was almost cap in hand yesterday - can't think of any other sporting association that would accept donations from the sportsmen it is supposed to represent/manage. Until they gain financial independence the UCI is a weak and compromised organisation. For all the grief UCI has been catching, it is hardly surprising that its decision making over the last 20 years has been driven by its wallet not by sporting principal.

ocdupalais

The Mad Rapper wrote:

nathancom wrote:

1) Make sure that TV revenue from events is passed directly back to the teams so that they have a foundation independent of their sponsors. This will reduce the pressure to get the brand on TV at any cost and will allow teams to plan for the longer term. Currently they are just billboards on wheels and it encourages collusion at all levels to go beyond the rules. (Edit: took this from the reading the Barry quote above a few days back, completely agree with his point)

2) Ban donations to UCI from anyone currently involved in the sport. Governing bodies should be entirely independent, run solely for the benefit of the sport.

3) A levy of sponsorship revenues for each team and be passed onto the UCI or they can increase entry costs for teams to race to replace these funds. Bike and component manufacturers do very well out of the sport. They should be helping to fund the UCI.

4) Remove Hein and keep Pat. Hein is fully discredited and his presence taints the organization. Pat is saying the right things whilst trying (and to be honest failing) to maintain the integrity of the UCI. The alternative of Pat resigning and the UCI in meltdown would be detrimental to any reform of the sport in the near future.

5) Introduce immediate bans for teams from events where any of their riders fail both A&B samples. This would add an incentive for management to keep a clean team especially at the GT events. Or only allow teams with no failed A&B samples in the previous 2 years to appear at the most prestigious events: classics, GTs.

I agree with just about all of those points. Sensible and common sense, so it probably won't happen.

Pat needs to take it on the chin and resign, I'd say.
Does the current state of affairs not already constitute a "meltdown" of sorts at the UCI? By McQuaid's own admission it's certainly a crisis.
He may be stood in the HQ in Aigle frantically wafting the doors trying to get rid of the stench from the previous tenure, but he's too closely linked on many fronts. Now is the time for the UCI to be seen to take a more pugnacious stance.
As more and more journos and commentators express their thoughts, it seems that he general trend is for negative observations and criticism on so many of the issues being discussed. This inquisition is only going to ramp up again in January when the Puerto trial kicks off.

LangerDan

nathancom wrote:

I would have thought that currently they will generate some revenue from endorsing any event and including it in the various calendars, however big or small. They need someone who can negotiate that into a % fee based on total revenue of these events and then start chipping away to increase that %. There is plenty of money generated by this sport, just look at the crowds, but it is 50 years behind other sports with the money all going to independent promoters, a bit like boxing.

Problem is that most of the people are not paying anything to watch the sport. No ticket sales, no "Sky Sports" type subscription, no pay per view. Its one of the best elements of the sport


I'm not sure if there is a simple solution to this. If you tie the teams fortunes to TV exposure, what happens if the public start turning off and revenue drops. Will the teams give a refund if a race is boring? And if the team income is predicated on organisers getting a certain level of exposure to the viewing public, won't there be pressure on riders from all sides to "perform", keep the customer satisfied and we're back to square one.

Years ago, someone - I think it was Magnus Backstedt - pointed out in an article that pro team funding is no different to how the most basic sponsored club operates - you get a sack of cash at the start of the year, you spend it on riders and jerseys and petrol and hope you get to the end of the season without it running out. You certainly don't end up heading into the following season with a healthy cash surplus.

Tom Butcher

I don't see that giving teams TV revenue makes a huge difference - especially if we are going to have a league - there's still competition for places in that league and I assume with that comes more TV money. You can't have competitive sport without pressure to perform and get results - if anything a system that relies on teams as mobile billboards puts less pressure on teams to win - you can get exposure simply by being there in the race and launching a few suicide attacks or getting in breaks.

iainf72

It's interesting some of the suggestions are things the UCI tried and get shot down by the race organisers.

ContrelaMontre

Tom Butcher wrote:

I don't see that giving teams TV revenue makes a huge difference - especially if we are going to have a league - there's still competition for places in that league and I assume with that comes more TV money. You can't have competitive sport without pressure to perform and get results - if anything a system that relies on teams as mobile billboards puts less pressure on teams to win - you can get exposure simply by being there in the race and launching a few suicide attacks or getting in breaks.

If the team's have a license to compete in the league and share in the revenue then their fortunes should be less tied to the individual sponsor. And sponsorship will be easier to retain or attract than is currently the case.

How many teams just disappear every year because a headline sponsor drops out? Would be better if a team's fortunes were detached from the headline sponsor.

Tom Butcher

So this league is a closed shop - there's no promotion or relegation or significant financial incentive to finish higher up? Because if there is I don't see there is much difference to having pro tour licences - teams would be under huge pressure to stay in the league. And if the league is basically not a league at all but just a licence to compete in the big events why not just say the current teams keep their licences whatever future results ? I just don't see that a league is needed or wanted - it makes no difference in terms of incentives for teams to dope except possibly increasing them by formalising competition between teams.

So what it boils down to is just a suggestion to give teams TV money. Well yes I suppose riders and teams would like that - the problem being that race organisers don't have limitless resources - I really doubt there is enough for them to make a significant contribution to team finances and keep many races on the calendar afloat.

iainf72

RCS are paying the teams next year, aren't they?

Richmond Racer

iainf72 wrote:

RCS are paying the teams next year, aren't they?

Sharing TV revenue
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rcs-spo ... artnership

Its a start - but clearly many smaller Italian and Spanish races are struggling as it is

dave_1

a short reply. Break away league is needed...but results management not in the league's power. It wont' happen though so wonder of this thread's value. UCI will go on

nathancom

I guess you need to analyse exactly what problem you are trying to fix before bringing up solutions. Otherwise it is just a wishlist for how you want cycling to look.

Looking strictly at doping in cycling:
I think excluding teams from the most prestigious events on the basis failed drug tests of individual riders would be a significant nudge towards the enforcement of clean riding. I don't see a downside other than it being unpopular with teams.

No_Ta_Doctor

nathancom wrote:

I guess you need to analyse exactly what problem you are trying to fix before bringing up solutions. Otherwise it is just a wishlist for how you want cycling to look.

Yes.

What actually needs doing is a thorough external audit of the UCI, with recommendations for procedures, processes and structure designed to ensure accountability, transparency and democracy.

Right now the main objection to getting rid of McQuaid is that it's entirely possible we'd get someone far worse in his place. This is only possible because so much of the problem with the UCI seems to be cronyism and back-room dealing. The president appears to have too much power, the processes and procedures seem to become subverted at will, depending on which way the wind is blowing, decisions are inconsistent and arrived at God knows how.

The first step should be trying to reform the UCI so that we can expect consistency, accountability and transparency. This would help prevent corruption and/or idiocy within the organisation.

My guess is that such an audit would recommend a few of the points that are mentioned above - fixed term presidency for max 2 terms, same for committee members, restructuring to give more independence to the anti-doping operations, procedures to ensure correct handling of results management etc.

The actual rules and regulations are possibly less important right now. We've all got opinions on what to do with the UCI points system, how to deal with dopers etc, but what's important is that these rules/regulations originate from processes and structures that are designed to be open and accountable, rather than made up on a whim by somebody with too much power.

Personally, I'd hand the UCI over to an "interim government" made up of administrators from outside cycling that would put this in place and then call elections.

Pipe dream, I know.

Richmond Racer

Here we go. Fresh out of the AIGCP meeting in Paris:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/indepen ... says-aigcp

mididoctors

Pat Mac should just resign for starters

iainf72

Richmond Racer wrote:

Here we go. Fresh out of the AIGCP meeting in Paris:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/indepen ... says-aigcp

Smart play. Get someone to look at the whole thing and say "yes, it's moving in the right direction". What is interesting is that he wants WADA to help fund it.

"A start point would be to go to WADA as they’re the umbrella organisation so to have then help determine who the independent group would be," Vaughters told Cyclingnews, before turning his attention to the UCI role.

"I hope they can help to financial help and to help let someone look at what’s going on from an outside perspective. Lets get an objective third party view."

"In the governance aspect we’ve put some serious questions forward in the past year or two. And regarding anti doping, my personal perspective from what I’ve seen Francesca Rossi do as has been excellent. What we need is for someone else to come in and validate that perspective. But also look retrospectively as to where the mistakes were made and where we can make sure there are procedures in place to save us from making the same mistakes.

LangerDan

What is the "best practice" model for running a similar sporting body? Is there any other sport(s) that the reformed UCI should be based on?

ContrelaMontre

Dave_1 wrote:

a short reply. Break away league is needed...but results management not in the league's power. It wont' happen though so wonder of this thread's value. UCI will go on

If ASO and RCS got together to form a breakaway league where only teams who signed up to a new charter were allowed in I could see that having some real value.

The teams can be shareholders in the league and therefore profit from its success. If they have positive dope controls there could then be a number of penalties from the team being suspended from the next race through to expulsion from the league and relinquishing their shares.

Spiny_Norman

nathancom wrote:

Looking strictly at doping in cycling:
I think excluding teams from the most prestigious events on the basis failed drug tests of individual riders would be a significant nudge towards the enforcement of clean riding. I don't see a downside other than it being unpopular with teams.

The most obvious downside to me is that it runs the risk of making the sport seem more like a lottery than a sporting event, with results being determined in the courts. Picture the scene: a certain rider is one of the GT elite, always there or thereabouts, and expected to do very well in a new team, but one of his new teammates tests positive in March when he attempts some crude DIY doping, and his team is disinvited from not just the Giro, but the Tour and Vuelta as well. Despite some thrilling racing in all three (OK, but imagine), the biggest story is always what would have happened if our unfortunate rider had been there.

He then signs up to do some media work, and even when he isn't implying that he'd have beaten everyone else hollow, it's a constant reminder of what the races could/should have been. His fans will consider every GT winner that year tainted, because he was absent through no fault of his own. Get this happening a couple of times, and it could kill the sport. It would certainly lead to vociferous campaigns to repeal this ridiculous rule, even from people who strongly supported it not long before.

The pragmatic alternative of excluding teams with persistent doping problems runs into other difficult questions - what's the threshold? Is it transparent? If it is, aren't you telling teams they can dope so much, but no more? If not, how can justice be seen to be done? If you only exclude teams where the doping was done with the team's knowledge, you guarantee that positive tests will tell us nothing, because everyone will claim that they did it on their own, in secret.

I like the idea, but even if it's possible to reach a state where no one dares to dope because of what it would do to their team, the process of getting there would be a total mess.

TMR