McQuaid has truly lost it

whiteboytrash

Not sure you all understand. The problem being is that no one in either UCI or the ASO are elected. Well the UCI president is elected by the heads of the federations (select number of the federations mind you - hence why you see teams in the World Champs with disproportionate representation). Now if the riders could vote with weighting (like the rural weighting voting system in Australia where a vote from the rural areas would count for 1.1 votes) along with vote from the team managers for the UCI president you'd see a change in attitude from the UCI and in their focus. Couple this with representation a rider and team manager on the board then you have a fair and equal voice for all. Problem being the UCI just decide what ever. They cobbled together the ProTour at the expense of the great events. They allowed drug use to continue and allowed certain riders to get away with positive tests.

What ASO is trying to do now is to free cycling. ASO have no interest in governing the sport. Once they get the sport away from UCI then they can form a government for sport for the sport. If the UCI keeps control we'll continue to see what we've seen in the past 40 years of the sport. Bullshit.

Riders complain now that they cannot get contracts longer than a year and this forces riders to dope. Now why haven't the UCI ensured they riders are protected with better and longer-term contacts ? Why haven't they ? Because they don't really care. What the riders care about is the races not the UCI. The races will always survive because the riders will want to race them not race under the UCI. Simple.

Frigo's Luggage

I agree and disagree. I don't like the idea of the promoters having all of the power. However, the only fix I can see for the UCI is to eliminate the whole thing and start from scratch.

There should be one governing body that sets the rules. There should be one rule enforcement body that is separate and distinct from the governign body. There should be a third organization that acts as the promoter for the sport. Right now the UCI is trying to do all of these things and there is an inherant conflict.

__________________
We are all made of stars.

cuervo

Well said !!!

__________________
Sorry, English is not my primary language.

doctorSpoc

McQuaid HAS truly lost it... but he's damn right!

ASO has no intererest or ability to enhance the future and integrity of our sport... you think it's bad now imagine how the sport will be went it's completely fractured and struggling to survive with every federation, every promoter vying for themselves... every pormoter turing our sport into a circus trying to make a buck... the wild wild west. As bad as the UCI might be they are the governing body of our sport and they actually have the interest of the sport as a sport in mind... maybe they may be misguided at times, maybe sometimes even corrupt but they do much more good than bad... the UCI needs to be restuctured yes, but dimantling it with no contingency for what will replace it WILL be the final nail in the coffin for cycling.

i'm fully on side with the UCI and McQuaid on this one... this is our sport we are talking about here and ASO needs to get bitch slapped and put in their place in a BIG way... this is WAY over due! McQuaid's finally found his balls.

you guys who think that ASO is on the right track need to get a frigg'n brain transplant in a big way... and fast! get you heads out of your asses!

Crankyfeet

I think your idea this is the best solution. The events still need to be blessed by official sanctioning... and the year round anti-doping efforts need to be coordinated by UCI probably, but the problem with UCI is that they answer to the National Federations, who elect them, but the pro scene has a lot of stakeholders with much more invested than the National Federations.

I agree with you that we need an official organization that has participation from all the stakeholders. Problem is that either party, or whoever wins this battle, is not going to cede control to a new organization that diminishes their own power. The best chance to have something created that is better than either the UCI or ASO is to do it now when each party realizes they have a lot to lose in an all-out war.

The UCI needs to get subsidized in its role carrying out anti-doping. Random tests all over the world cost money to perform.

__________________

guncha

Power struggle is nothing new in sports. Some years ago alternative league was formed in basketball in Europe when basketball teams were not happy with their governing body. This alternative league functions very well and everybody is happy with that.

What means does UCI have? If the only mean is to exclude riders which participated in ASO events from World Ch. or Olympics then those tournaments will become like a joke. For instance, Olympics might go back where it was before 1996 when amateurs participated in road races.

__________________
Why am I still a fan of dopers sport?

TheDarkLord

Don't know why you are getting such an idea. UCI as it is now is controlled by a dumbass with a lust for power, and is largely responsible for the mess that we are in right now. When people criticize "UCI", they are criticizing the idiot(s) who is controlling the organization. It is all good to talk about "fixing the UCI", but do you see it happening any time soon?

Crankyfeet

I'm getting convinced that the UCI structure can't be changed. Because to get the right balance of input within the UCI, requires the current powers to relinquish their influence. Not gunna happen. They are going to either have to get destroyed, or at least brought to their knees. This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

The sad thing is that the correct strategy for the currently farked UCI is to diminish pro cycling's revenue. That weakens their adversaries, because the UCI don't rely on commercial revenue to sustain their existence. So maybe Prudhomme is right about the sabotage tactics. And maybe UCI don't care if sponsors leave in droves, if it means they hold most of the cards in a few years.

We need a third organization IMO to administer/own pro cycling, as Bro suggested, that includes influence from the UCI, but also the other major stakeholders (teams/sponsors, rider's union, national feds, race promoters/owners).

PS - I made this post in the other thread before realizing it was as/more apt in here.

__________________

poulidor

Found on Velo-Club:

__________________
Let Astana and McQuaid whine !

stilesiii

I find it humorous that those who compare McQuaid to Hitler, are ready to give up on the more democratic organization, and hand power over to the authoritarian ASO.
This must be a European response.

ASO throws out riders and teams based on rumors and innuendo. No due process. No right of redress. No questioning the Furer.

ASO is no answer for the probelms of cycling. Cranky is on the right track.

Those who would forfeit liberty for security are deserving of neither.

hawkeye87

It is basically like jumping out of the oven to land in a frying pan. I have found the ASO to be arrogant and self-righteous naboobs but the UCI almost makes them seem tolerable. I am finding both organizations so objectionable and self-centered it is difficult to remember that we want to watch racing.

__________________

"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." -- Wayne Gretzsky

poulidor

ASO throws out nobody, they just didn't invite some teams.

What would do your boss if you make 2 big errors at work?

__________________
Let Astana and McQuaid whine !

italiano

This my posizion too. Both disfunzional… they teatral funny ...

blaming other each....

__________________
For inches and centimetres, let fools contend."
-- Damian Grammaticus

Cobblestones

Um no. I think I first brought up this comparison in this threat. And it was mostly based on the tone of the speech.

Now, as you can see, I'm writing from the heartland of the good old U.S. of A. And I think, it is very American to bash the corrupt and ineffective international organization the UCI has become (or always has been), and give the benefit of the doubt to a private organization looking out for profit (ASO). You know, as Americans, we have faith in the forces of the market and private actors to turn out a product which appeals to the masses.