Refuse to pay your BC license fee next year

dave_1
dave_1 Posts: 9,512
edited October 2012 in Pro race
I just read Greg Lemond's call to arms. Is it time for everyone to refuse to pay to BC and UCI in 2013 unless Pat and Hein go? I can't see how else change can happen.
«1

Comments

  • LeicesterLad
    LeicesterLad Posts: 3,908
    I reackon a large number of BC members don't even know who Pat and Hein are. Also not entirely fair on British Cycling or their athletes. If there was a way of cutting funds to the UCI then i'm in.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Greg has got the approach right. The UCI needs the feds support, so you need to pressure the feds.

    All this pitchforks and burning torches is fun and all but it's ultimately pointless.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Beatmaker
    Beatmaker Posts: 1,092
    I thought about this a while back whilst looking at my racing licence, but as Leicester Lad says it would also have a negative effect on BC, so it's back to the drawing board.
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Other than refuse to pay fees, what else? Am I right in saying Greg is very much wanting them to sue him in the USA so he can inflict much more damage to their cred? He alludes to a file he has and a willingness to spend a lot more money..will UCI bite?
  • LangerDan
    LangerDan Posts: 6,132
    Why should the organisations "on the ground" suffer for this? Its not a problem of their making. Several races are only just holding on, with support from the national federation - why should they go under?

    I think it would be better to apply pressure via the sports sponsors. Buy someone else's laminate flooring or banking products. Don't watch the races on TV. And then let the sponsors know why you didn't do that. Sponsors have considerably more muscle and TBH, several have been complicit in the whole business.


    (kerr-ist - I'm beginning to sound like Dennis)
    'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    LangerDan wrote:
    I think it would be better to apply pressure via the sports sponsors. Buy someone else's laminate flooring or banking products. Don't watch the races on TV. And then let the sponsors know why you didn't do that. Sponsors have considerably more muscle and TBH, several have been complicit in the whole business.


    (kerr-ist - I'm beginning to sound like Dennis)

    Good point though. If the UCI were merely doing what the sponsors wanted, doesn't that add a whole new dimension to the discussion.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 13,200
    I can't see this working. Pitchforks and torches are cheaper than having to give up a racing licence, if racing is your thing.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • BC / UCI are all about jobs for the boys. These guys look after their own, I'd be worried about comeback if I were to speak up, both for me and for my club. It's a very small world, say the wrong thing to the wrong person and life can be made very hard, especially if you work in the trade.
  • Nick Fitt
    Nick Fitt Posts: 381
    I wonder how many major sponsors the sport will have in a few years. If you boycott them it will make their decision to withdraw even easier to make. The LA/UCI hell fire fiasco is far from over. When it is over, amateur BC category racing may be all we have.

    In the current economic climate, with the Eu economy set to shrink further, who in their right mind would suggest cycling sponsorship to their Board?

    The return is implied through global viewing figures. Today this means that your brand is globally associated with a bunch of cheats and liars, this is bad publicity. Playing Devils advocate, growth in snooker viewing is huge and is far safer.Any more stupid moves from pro riders (Contadors comments)and the UCI (Pat clearly intends to cling on) and the sport could so easily reduce to nowt.

    It truly does need a massive 'positive PR shove', not fighting, a string of productive and critically, publicly measurable actions need to be undertaken to stabilise the sponsors, TV rights companies, supporters. The teams will be fine if their sponsors are stable, rock the sponsors and the teams are gone.
  • LeMond's call on US cyclists to hit USA Cycling is a double whammy.

    Yes, its about pressure on UCI via USA Cycling.

    But its also aimed at way that USA Cycling have been complicit in backing up Armstrong through the years - right up to protesting against the legitimacy of the USADA etc when the USADA first filed back in June. There has been (is?) corruption at the top of USA Cycling. They will have done over Greg Lemond himself over the years.

    I mailed Cookson on Tue to protest against the UCI leadership and to ask him to do what he can to help change things there. But I see no reason to hit BC by holding fees.
  • I've been protesting for years, not had a BC license since '98! :D

    Hasn't worked yet though... :(
  • I've been protesting for years, not had a BC license since '98! :D

    Hasn't worked yet though... :(


    Would that be the legendary Scottish tightness when it comes to matters of the wallet? :wink:
  • hammerite
    hammerite Posts: 3,408
    BC do lots of good things too though. Just ask the 30+ kids that come to coaching sessions every week at my club. Some of the regional coaches put in no end of work for this, it's pretty much a 7 day a week job. They've already had funding cuts in recent years and lost staff, would be a shame for more of them to go as a result of people not renewing.

    Anyway my BC membership and race licence pays for itself with the discount in race fees. Plus I'm angling at getting a discount on a Fiat. Easily bought me.
  • I've been protesting for years, not had a BC license since '98! :D

    Hasn't worked yet though... :(


    Would that be the legendary Scottish tightness when it comes to matters of the wallet? :wink:

    I'm not Scottish. Or greasy...
  • I've been protesting for years, not had a BC license since '98! :D

    Hasn't worked yet though... :(


    Would that be the legendary Scottish tightness when it comes to matters of the wallet? :wink:

    I'm not Scottish. Or greasy...


    oh, very cunning :)
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,217
    Great idea - then I can no longer coach with the comfort of knowing I am insured and have the support of BC if something goes wrong and I won't be able to race. That'll learn the UCI!
  • Pross wrote:
    Great idea - then I can no longer coach with the comfort of knowing I am insured and have the support of BC if something goes wrong and I won't be able to race. That'll learn the UCI!
    It ain't gonna happen.

    It's rather a populist, simple-minded suggestion by Lemond (assuming he did write what is attributed to him) et al to suggest not supporting national cycling that would do significant harm to grass roots cycling and would leave a legacy of nations lacking young riders of a standard to compete internationally and damage national cycling as a whole.
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    Haven't read what Lemond has said but it had crossed my mind to do something similar - if it has a negative effect on BC well that's up to BC to speak up a bit.

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • Haven't read what Lemond has said but it had crossed my mind to do something similar - if it has a negative effect on BC well that's up to BC to speak up a bit.


    BC is just one of 40 Federations who have a voting right (and that's only at election time i.e. 2013).

    I dont believe that the UCI Management Committe meeting minutes are put into the public domain - so unfortunately we wont know what Cookson does or says in tomorrow's meeting, from the UCI themselves.

    However, am I right in thinking that Cookson might head up the Road side of the Committee, as Fat Pat used to do before Verbruggen shoe'd him in to replace him as Pres?
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    Yes but when Cookson posts once on Veloriders basically in support of Fat Pat that doesn't inspire me to carry on organising races under BC or sending out 60 odd racing licences to our members for BC each year. I'll probably keep a BC licence myself as not doing it would just harm me but the rest of it I think I'll pack.

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • sketchley
    sketchley Posts: 4,238
    Boycotting UCI Sponsor might be as good a plan.


    List of UCI "Partners"

    Mapei
    Tissot
    Shimano
    Santini Maglificio Sportivo
    Skoda
    ProGate
    Tacx
    VSI

    From

    http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/la ... 2&LangId=1
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • curium
    curium Posts: 815
    BC have voting rights. It's absolutely right to put pressure on them to vote against Pat at the next election.

    If you don't want to withhold your cash, why not write a letter stating your opposition to the leadership of Fat Pat and urge them to oppose him for the good of the sport.
  • Nick Fitt
    Nick Fitt Posts: 381
    Sketchley wrote:
    Boycotting UCI Sponsor might be as good a plan.


    List of UCI "Partners"

    Mapei
    Tissot
    Shimano
    Santini Maglificio Sportivo
    Skoda
    ProGate
    Tacx
    VSI

    From

    http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/la ... 2&LangId=1
    I dont intend to buy anything from them anyway. The best would be to lobby the BC in writing as suggested above I think
  • claudb
    claudb Posts: 212
    Am I missing something here ????
    Could someone please tell me who it is should be in charge that they want McQuaid out ?????
    Who are the contenders and how does anyone know ????
  • This why I'm no longer a member of BC (not it isn't becuase of the shyte webshyte ). As far as I can see BC haven't done anything worthy of note for raod racing in this country for the last 15 years.

    Road racing has virtually disappeared on the open road ('cept Premiers) and BC have stood by and let it happen. So they're not getting any more of my money.

    But I don't race anymore (well I don't count spotives as racing) so only need 3rd party cover so am a member of the saddlebag brigade..........whom I've also lobbied for them to end thier association with Pharmstrong shycophant Leggup.
  • Could someone please tell me who it is should be in charge that they want McQuaid out ?????

    Lemond, Millar (Robert or David - takes yer pick). Maybe even Paul Rummage.

    Someone that isn't in Pharmstrong's pocket (or anyone else's).

    I'm good at kicking ass. I'd have a go (in any case I'm rather fond of long lunches and red wine - and wouldn't it be great to live in Switzerland !).

    TBH - I think they should disband pro cycling for a couple of years until the whole sorry mess can be sorted.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,137
    I notice that this evening on Radio 5, Anne Gripper, who has probably done as much as anyone to reduce doping in the last half dozen years, was very supportive of Pat McQuaid. (And she's not at the UCI any more).

    Somehow the sport got from Armstrong and Landis winning the Tour doped to the max, to Wiggins winning it (and Hesjedal the Giro), presumably clean. Power to weight ratios on climbs dropped by 10% or more.

    This didn't happen by accident. People made it happen. And for all their faults the UCI under McQuaid were one of the major ones.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • And for all their faults the UCI under McQuaid were one of the major ones.

    So why didn't Mcquid adhere to the WADA code and prevent Pharmstrong from starting the TDU in 2009 as he hadn't done 6 months pre-competiton testing ?

    If that isn't corrupt I really don't know what it. Mcquiad is a corrupt scheming scumbag who deserves to be hounded out of the sport just like Pharmstrong.
  • Beatmaker
    Beatmaker Posts: 1,092
    And for all their faults the UCI under McQuaid were one of the major ones.

    So why didn't Mcquid adhere to the WADA code and prevent Pharmstrong from starting the TDU in 2009 as he hadn't done 6 months pre-competiton testing ?

    If that isn't corrupt I really don't know what it. Mcquiad is a corrupt scheming scumbag who deserves to be hounded out of the sport just like Pharmstrong.

    I think perhaps what RichN95 is proposing is that we look at the bigger picture here. I for one am guilty of perhaps focussing on Hein and Pat and their downfall than making cycling better again. One thing is for sure, the current regime dare not put a foot wrong with such a focus on them going forward (apart from saying some stupid things, and I respect anyone who has the courage of their convictions to stand up and say what they believes regardless of what their opinion is). Better the devil you know and all that.
  • ed_209
    ed_209 Posts: 17
    I think that cancelling BC membership risks undoing lots good work that they do at grass roots level, whilst not having much impact on the Pro-side of things and maybe zero impact where it's needed at the UCI. As a member then writing to BC asking what it's doing to ensure the UCI (re)gains some credibility seems a good step.

    As RichN95 says - it's a huge change from the hideous problems in the USADA report to the emergence of credible performances in Grand Tours and the UCI has been a big part of that. Which makes it all the more frustrating when McQuaid comes out with some demonstrable nonsense rather than simply following procedures and being transparent.

    A change of leadership is not so straightforward though. InnerRing did an excellent job of explaining what's required;
    http://inrng.com/2012/09/how-to-replace-pat-mcquaid/