Why does mountain biking need the UCI?

welshkev

Apologies if this has been asked before. But I was just reading on the BBC sport website about the elections for the new president and everything I've read seems angled towards road racing.

It's not a dig at the UCI, it's just what do they actually do for MTB? I literally have no idea what they bring to the table. Is it money? Sponsorship?

warpcow

I would imagine just their name helps add some legitimacy to mountain biking, whether it's needed or not. Can't think of much else.

pesky_jones

Yeah I was going to see it brings a bit of unison to MTB

FishFish

I guess that having a body like this is the sort of premier league for race organuisation - it is a branding issue. Good for attracting sponsors. However the branding can go wrong - vis a vis road biking and Lance Armstrong. Football - FIFA same same.

bluechair84

I don't know either, but in speculation; don't they keep track of points scored at UCI acknowledged events so that we can have a seeding system? This then means that they decide which races form part of the points series, and which don't. Like the debacle over DH /Enduro recently. I didn't read into it much, but didn't they say that DH racers weren't allowed to race Enduro at all? If we didn't have a body, we wouldn't have points series which show who are they pinnacles of our sport.

benpinnick

MTB doesnt need the UCI, as the Enduro world series is proving. UCI clearly knows it too, hence the ban on pro's riding non sanctioned events this year. I give it 2 more years (including this) before DH breaks away too.

supersonic

The bans are ridiculous. As is the UCI website, and their image after Armstrong tooka bashing too. They need a big makeover, or people, as above, will break away. I don't think it will affect sponsors for MTB.

Monty Dog

The Olympics - if you have aspirations to be a global sport, with big sponsorship it's the only game in town.

The Rookie

Lets not mention 4X either......

felix.london

supersonic wrote:

As is the UCI website

Their website is shockingly awful!...it's nearly as bad as Superstar Components' site

welshkev

The Beginner wrote:

Lets not mention 4X either......

What about XCE?

benpinnick

Xcx is a joke. It's as badly thought out as allowing some random website to become your lead sponsor only to find out later its some crap site put together by a moppet without the money or customer base to support you. The ringing of I told you so must be deafening at the uci.

ddraver

With regard to the Brian Cookson, he's runnin gpurely on the basis that he is NOT Pat McQuaid on whom all of the blame for the UCI's calamitous handling of pro road racing over the last 10-20 years. Hence why his manifesto is so focussed at that.

The reality is that the UCI don't really care about MTBing and given the mess they ve made of road racing is something I'm fairly pleased about. All they do is organise THE world cup and THE World Championships (other wise we end up with 2 or 3, as there is in 24hr MTBing at the moment) and get it into the Olympics. Frankly they seem to do naff all else with MTBing and that suits me fine

The ban on riders and unsanctioned races/events won't fly, it's a transparent attempt by National bodies to grab some money back off the sportive road crowd, none of whom are buying super expensive racing licences anymore...

P-Jay

No, but Mountain Biking does need a governing body to tie everything together and represent the sport with organisations like the Olympic Committee or TV People whathaveyou you just end up with a hundred different voices all trying to do the same thing and no one else is sticking their hand up to do it.

This World Enduro Series could be a watershed moment.

Personally I don't think the UCi gives a flying one about us dirty Mountain Bikers unless there's a quick buck to be made. We're to the UCI and Road Racing what World Rallying is to the FIA and Formula 1.

ddraver

I doubt it to be honest, the World Enduro series will show that there is enough interest, participation and sponsorship and then it will become the UCI World Enduro Cup, brought to you by Shimano...or whoever...

thelonegroover

If the portrayal of the UCI in the film The Flying Scotsman is anything to go by, I can quite understand why people would feel they are a waste of time.
As for mountain bike support, they apparently didn’t even advise the BBC a world championship event was on in Ft. William.
Boxing seems to cope OK with multiple governing bodies, I’m sure cycling could.

rockmonkeysc

BC is pretty rubbish as well. Every month their news email has no mention of mountain biking. They will allow races to be run and then block riders from getting points because the race orgaisers didnt have insurance.
The BC website is as useless as the UCI website.

YeehaaMcgee

cyd190468 wrote:

Thelonegroover wrote:

Boxing seems to cope OK with multiple governing bodies, I’m sure cycling could.

If you walk down the street today and ask a hundred people who the heavyweight world champion is. what do you think the answers will be? Twentyfive years ago you would have got 100 people saying Tyson. Now it's hard to tell.

That's because there is no such thing as "THE" heavyweight world champion. There's several. Oddly.

welshkev

cyd190468 wrote:

Thelonegroover wrote:

Boxing seems to cope OK with multiple governing bodies, I’m sure cycling could.

If you walk down the street today and ask a hundred people who the heavyweight world champion is. what do you think the answers will be? Twentyfive years ago you would have got 100 people saying Tyson. Now it's hard to tell.

that's because Tyson was the undisputed heavyweight champion. that's never going to happen now as the titles are spread between the 2 klitchsko (sp?) brothers and they're not going to fight each other

Paul 8v

warpcow wrote:

I would imagine just their name helps add some legitimacy to mountain biking, whether it's needed or not. Can't think of much else.

Can't think of anything Pat McQuaid is involved with adding legitimacy to anything!

welshkev

cyd190468 wrote:

welshkev wrote:

cyd190468 wrote:

Thelonegroover wrote:

Boxing seems to cope OK with multiple governing bodies, I’m sure cycling could.

If you walk down the street today and ask a hundred people who the heavyweight world champion is. what do you think the answers will be? Twentyfive years ago you would have got 100 people saying Tyson. Now it's hard to tell.

that's because Tyson was the undisputed heavyweight champion. that's never going to happen now as the titles are spread between the 2 klitchsko (sp?) brothers and they're not going to fight each other

Yes that was my point . If the titles had remained unified the Klischkos would have to fight each other.Mtb doesn't need three different xc world champions that can't/won't race each other.

but personally I think it's slightly different as MTB doesn't involve brothers punching each other in the head

but I get what you mean

YeehaaMcgee

welshkev wrote:

but personally I think it's slightly different as MTB doesn't involve brothers punching each other in the head

but I get what you mean

You've not been to an Atherton post-race party then?

rockmonkeysc

Does BC do anything for mtb? Their website only seems to promote road and track cycling.

YeehaaMcgee

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Does BC do anything for mtb?

Simple answer, yes.

rockmonkeysc

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Does BC do anything for mtb?

Simple answer, yes.

They dont promote mtb as a sport. They make racing expensive and have stupid rules for no obvious reason.

YeehaaMcgee

RockmonkeySC wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Does BC do anything for mtb?

Simple answer, yes.

They dont promote mtb as a sport. They make racing expensive and have stupid rules for no obvious reason.

My answer was simpler

rockmonkeysc

Even the BC cant explain why you cant race downhill wearing a skin suit or without a peak on your helmet I wouldnt choose to do either but I have missed out on a race run after breaking a peak in practice.
They also cant explain why you cant have a video camera on during race runs but you can in practice.

YeehaaMcgee

Well, the British Columbians don't know everything. they mainly just know how to shred.

ddraver

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Even the BC cant explain why you cant race downhill wearing a skin suit or without a peak on your helmet I wouldn't choose to do either but I have missed out on a race run after breaking a peak in practice.
They also cant explain why you cant have a video camera on during race runs but you can in practice.

Simple money is nt it? Sponsorship, "brand image" and that. That and as skin suits seemed to really give an advantage, they had to make it the same for everyone other wise everyone would have had no choice but to go skin suits to be competitive

Cameras I don't know. I suspect it's something that was decided for the road (if the camera falls off in a bunch sprint it could cause havoc) and has been transferred over...

Monty Dog

Cameras = additional equipment. They can fall-off and create a problem for other riders. It's a standard rule for all branches of the sport.

The Northern Monkey

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Even the BC cant explain why you cant race downhill wearing a skin suit or without a peak on your helmet I wouldnt choose to do either but I have missed out on a race run after breaking a peak in practice.
They also cant explain why you cant have a video camera on during race runs but you can in practice.

Iirc, skin suits were banned because RIDERS argued that they damaged the image of the sport. There was a big debate about it 4 or 5 years ago.
Those that wanted to keep the sikrad gnarly image were complaining that skin suits had an unfair advantage and made the sport look shit...... which it did.