UCI wants teams to boycott Paris-Nice

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

The NY Times on the ASO vs. the UCI, with comments by Millar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/sports/othersports/08cycling.html?_r=2&ref=sports&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Thanks again Bro. Your contributions and links to this forum are indispensable.

I know some people are cynical about Millar and his cover ups and denials at first, which were replaced by "I'm a born again clean cyclist" mantra.

But I believe in him. I think he could be like a reformed smoker... more anti-doping than a person who's never doped.

Cycling needs these guys, assuming they're legit, to fight from within.

I think cycling's future has to come from a new source, and I think it has to come from the power that a pro cycling union would wield. Cancellara said it best. Enough is enough. These fuckwits who preach about the sport but are more interested in covering their own ass, and furthering their own careers, are getting in the way. The problem is the money. And an independent mediator/arbiter needs to come in and restructure the whole frickin' thing. The anti-doping needs to be funded from the revenues. And the authorities have to be true to the investment in a clean sport, not just giving it lip service. The TV rights need to be spread equitably.

Cycling has two diseases. Its structure and the doping problem. Unfortunately the doping problem is being used as a weapon in the fight over the structure and the money.


Who here wants to help start a proper union of pro cyclists? It could be like the PGA Tour. It could run the whole frickin' show (the cyclists would elect their leader, not be lead by a bunch of amateur cycling hobnobbers who've never ridden for their careers).

Thanks again Bro. Your contributions and links to this forum are indispensable.

I know some people are cynical about Millar and his cover ups and denials at first, which were replaced by "I'm a born again clean cyclist" mantra.

But I believe in him. I think he could be like a reformed smoker... more anti-doping than a person who's never doped.

Cycling needs these guys, assuming they're legit, to fight from within.

I think cycling's future has to come from a new source, and I think it has to come from the power that a pro cycling union would wield. Cancellara said it best. Enough is enough. These fuckwits who preach about the sport but are more interested in covering their own ass, and furthering their own careers, are getting in the way. The problem is the money. And an independent mediator/arbiter needs to come in and restructure the whole frickin' thing. The anti-doping needs to be funded from the revenues. And the authorities have to be true to the investment in a clean sport, not just giving it lip service. The TV rights need to be spread equitably.

Cycling has two diseases. Its structure and the doping problem. Unfortunately the doping problem is being used as a weapon in the fight over the structure and the money.


Who here wants to help start a proper union of pro cyclists? It could be like the PGA Tour. It could run the whole frickin' show (the cyclists would elect their leader, not be lead by a bunch of amateur cycling hobnobbers who've never ridden for their careers).
Proper union of pro cyclists: yes absolutely..............unfortunately the greatest problem comes from the pros themselves in the form of self interest which has been the basis of their riding as far back as I can remember: This self interest is linked to survival centered around the knowledge that their riding careers are short so the philosophy has been, grab what one can now. They are incapable or do not want to think about the long term benefits that would help themselves and the riders that follow in their footsteps. At the same time they become upset and feel helpless when used as pawns by those organisations who feed off them...............They have to really wake up for this situation to change............Old forms continue to be perpetuated in every sphere unless conscious activity forces a breakdown so that then new structures can be formed.........that`s just the way it is. David Millar recently stated. "Everyones waking up and taking responsibility." Okay then wake up and take responsibility, form a proper union.

So how does one achieve this in practise? Where is the drive and the will to initiate such an undertaking going to come from? Who is going to make the first move?........There lies the rub.

If I may continue: The central function of a pro union would be concerned with the rights of the riders: what I would term the "Rights sphere" that is to say each rider within the union would have the same degree of protection whether he be a seasoned rider or a neo pro..............absolutely no descrimination between the two: this has to be a fundamental requisite in order to create stability within the ranks. There must be no funding from team management or any other interested party or parties: funds must come directly from the riders.............again fundamental in order to be seen as an independent organisation. Disputes within the union to be resolved from within that union whenever possible.......again fundamental.............This is of course a basis for such a structure, and hopefully one can see and understand the central theme.

Also there has to be a central figure whose task would be to coordinate and communicate on the riders behalf between the union members and the outside world.............that outside world would include teams and team management, governing bodies like the UCI (lets hope the present structure can be re;structured) federations, event organisations and dope controls. But and this is very important his task would only and always be centered on the "Rights sphere." If he loses track of this or submits in any shape or form to outside influences then he and the riders are doomed. The unions strengh would lie in the fact that all it would ask is that it`s members individual rights be recognised and honoured, then and only then would the riders experience a stability knowing that whatever happens around them they could stand with their heads held high and know that they are not just trapped pawns. If those rights are not recognised and honoured then to a man they simply do not ride...............period.
It is because they are in a weak position with no unified voice that the outside world takes advantage of them...................For pro cycling to truly prosper each element must concentrate on that which it knows and does best whilst recognising the other so that everyone pulls in the same direction.......

It seems to me that one must take a positive view and say that it is possible to form such a union for to be negative and consider all this as just hot air and idealism means that the cycling dark ages just continue possibly until the end of time.

Excuse me but one more round. The union would would compose it`s own charter drawn up and approved by members: Included in this charter would be a section on what happens if the charter is breached. Therefore there would be a section relating to drug abuse: I:E: if a rider is found to be positive by outside forces then regardless of these forces and the decisions made by them the union itself would hold a tribunal composed of a panel of riders duly elected before which the offender must stand.

It seems to me that if each and every rider who becomes a member and signs the charter knowing and understanding it`s contents who then abuses the said charter, and being fully aware that then he has to stand before his fellow riders and give an account of himself he will surely think more than twice before taking negative actions........................

I would agree a union would help. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, Flathead, the cyclists self-interests get in the way.

In the U.S. both profession football and baseball have had their battles with the unions and we've had either complete suspension of the games or replacement players. The strikes have served a purpose, although both sides could argue over who benefited the most. I think MLB is the extreme where the Player's Association is basically in charge.

One of the problems with cycling is that, while teams exist, the sport is largely an individual sport. Football and baseball are team sports, though individuals stand out.

I do not read of enough interest in the cyclists to actually do something to change things. What we read, instead, is that they do not like the situation but that is a far cry from doing something about it.

I'm not sure a union will work given that riders come from so many different countries with different cultural backgrounds.

I'm not sure a union will work given that riders come from so many different countries with different cultural backgrounds.I don't understand the potential problems of riders having different cultural backgrounds. They are all riding in the same environment with the same team contracts and most riding on multi-ethnic teams.

Are you referring to difficulty understanding the speaker at a Union meeting?

I don't understand the potential problems of riders having different cultural backgrounds. They are all riding in the same environment with the same team contracts and most riding on multi-ethnic teams.

Are you referring to difficulty understanding the speaker at a Union meeting?Language shouldn't be such a big deal. I'm saying that a team based in one country will probably have a different attitude to things compared to a team based on another country (e.g. look at the protectionism in Spain, although that is not really a team thing). So, don't know if they can come to an agreement on anything serious.

I'm not sure a union will work given that riders come from so many different countries with different cultural backgrounds.and completely different employment, civil and criminal laws.

I'm not sure a union will work given that riders come from so many different countries with different cultural backgrounds.
There are problems like the lowest paid members of the ProTour are paid 30K euros a year. They probably don't have much leeway before they are in serious financial difficulty.

Then you have clean riders who may not be too keen to strike in order to support a team of dopers that did not get a race invite or to support a rider like Sevilla who has not beeen convicted of doping but everyone knows is guilty.

There are other issues too. It may be hard for riders to find enough common ground.

Good points. If there weren't any obstacles, there would already be a Union. The purpose of the Union wouldn't be to make everyone the same and employed under the same contracts neccessarily, the Union would be a united front to combat exploitation and destructive policies. The Union would focus on the common ground and issues facing pro cyclists. The employer being different teams rather than one Pro Tour does complicate things somewhat. Though Europe is becoming more unified.

I am not a socialist. I'm just thinking that perhaps the only way that this fight can be solved before it seriously maims the professional sport, is to introduce a third power center into the mix. A group that can possibly blow a big whistle and order everyone to get out of the pool.

While the theory is fine Cranky, as others have pointed out the disparities make it difficult to get something like that to work, and should there be a serious option I can assure you that UCI, Federations and race organisers would not be too thrilled about it.

The big problem for me is the difference in $$ for riders from certain teams in certain countries vis-a-vis the rest, as Bro Deal pointed out... that and the fact that there are a lot of riders who make a living with some... chemical assistance. :o

But atleast the riders should now take a bigger role in this argument. For heaven's sake this is their sport and not the sport of the ASO/leaders of UCI.

I understand that the race organisers don't like to be told around and that they don't like the fact that they have to invite certain teams to all of their events. But I don't think it's good if the race organisers themselves get too much power, either. Let's take an example: ASO buys the Giro and the Vuelta and a few big one-day-races -> they would then own nearly all the big races in Europe. Now let's say ASO puts pressure on CSC to fire Bjarne Riis for his doping in the 96 Tour. CSC say no and they are then banned from all ASO events. The team would be dead in less than a year and just because the race organiser didn't like the team boss. Or a team is too dominant and the ASO suspects that the team uses doping - without any concrete evidence they could kill the team by banning them from their races.

Not necessarily the best examples but I'm just saying that if a race organiser with mainly profits in mind gets too much power it ain't good for the sport. So that's why riders should start by getting ASO to the table by not taking part in some of their races. And some restructuring of the UCI wouldn't be a bad idea either...:rolleyes: