Rob Jones, of Canadian Cyclist: blithering idiot!!!

Rob Jones, Editor of Canadian Cyclist, is a blithering idiot!!!

Here is but one example, "It is time for drastic changes to the way the Canadian Cycling Association (CCA) conducts its operations. This is a very bold statement, but one that I feel is necessary if our sport is going to survive and prosper at an elite level in the environment that exists for all sports these days."

Next few lines,

"Given the conditions that the CCA faces, I believe that they are actually doing an excellent job, but it isn't enough."

So which is it Rob? Why "drastic change" if they are doing an excellent job".

Truth is the CCA is doing a terrible job. By Rob Jones just cannot bring himself to say that. Furthermore, when we say the CCA, we now are down ot about five employees in Ottawa and three of them that know next to nothing about cycling and never leave the office.

Rob thinks he is making bold statement!!! I've been saying the very same thing for four years. Rob finally wakes up, almost, when the sport is on its last legs. Jones is so afraid of what I have to say he continues to ban me from his site.

How about hiring somebody to run the sport, Rob, that knows the sport, instead of people like Lorraine Lafreniere and Steve Lacelle and Kim Sebrango before her? Why not mention how Bill Kinash, President of the CCA left the marketing position there open for 21 months and walked away form a $15,000,00 investment in the sport by the government without one new sponsor after the 2003 World Championships. If I was the government and the CCA did that to me, I would not give them anymore money either. Why not ask, even demand that?

Let's keep in mind Rob Jones makes a lot of money with the Canadian Cycling Association. Just look at the CCA web site. Jones long ago compromised his integrity.

Rob Jones is not part of the solution he has long been part of the problem.

http://www.canadiancyclist.com/default2.html


September 19/07 7:00 pm EDT - A Blueprint for Change - An Editorial

A Blueprint for Change - An Editorial

It is time for drastic changes to the way the Canadian Cycling Association (CCA) conducts its operations. This is a very bold statement, but one that I feel is necessary if our sport is going to survive and prosper at an elite level in the environment that exists for all sports these days.

Cycling in Canada is still running on an old model, whereby national sports bodies received the majority of their funding from government, with an occasional sponsor allowing them to offer some additional programs (or usually top up funding for required programs).

However, government has changed the funding model drastically, with funding tied to specific programs (such as BMX or mountain bike), where the greatest potential for immediate return (ie, medals) is identified. Funding is even being cut if a sport manages to bring in sponsors. This leaves little or no budget for development, or for sectors of the sport that have not been identified by Sport Canada as having a high payoff (in the short term).

Cycling is also suffering under the added burden of having to support multiple sectors that have little cross over; something that few other sports face. Consider that the CCA is required to support Road, Mountain Bike, Track, BMX and Paralympic disciplines - and these are just the Olympic disciplines, leaving Cyclo-cross and Downhill out in the cold.

It is as if swimming had one federation for swimming, diving, syncro and water polo; or skiing had alpine, nordic, freestyle and ski jumping in the same association fighting for a slice of the same pie.

Given the conditions that the CCA faces, I believe that they are actually doing an excellent job, but it isn't enough.

The fight for Olympic spots continues to get tougher, as the IOC and UCI place increasingly demanding criteria in place. The cost to have our athletes compete at the events necessary to achieve the level of performance required to be competitive, and to get the results needed to earn those all important Olympic spots (for which government funding flows) also continues to rise.

It is really a Catch-22: the CCA gets money for results, but can't get results without having money to spend on programs. And the government keeps slashing what they provide and/or setting the bar ever higher.

Personally, I think that, if the truth be told, the current federal regime sees little or no value in supporting sports outside of the North American pro leagues, and has set the system up so that sports are doomed to fail. It is no use pointing to the money that the Australians pour into sport, because we are just not going to see that happen in Canada - the public support is not there and never will be.

Therefore, I predict that if the CCA continues on the current path of trying to be all things to all people, and depends upon government funding to achieve its goals, then we are doomed to seeing our sport wither.

It is time for the CCA to step off the funding merry go round and take charge of its own future. I spend a lot of time at events all over the world, and get to see a large variety of programs that are used to support athletes. To my mind, the system that the CCA needs to adopt is along the lines of that used by USA Cycling for their U23 program, and by the Swisspower team to support Swiss mountain bikers.

At the Champery World Cup earlier in the season, I was a guest of Thomas Frischknecht and the Swisspower team. I had a chance to stay with the team, eat with the team, get to know the riders a bit, and have a long conversation with Thomas about the program.

What it boils down to is that the Swiss mountain bike coach Andi Seeli saw that mountain biking was not getting federation resources (road was and is the priority), and decided that he needed to step outside the cycling federation and build a program.

Thomas said that Andi came to him with a proposal: use Thomas' celebrity to draw sponsors and build a pro team that would allow identified younger athletes to develop with the support (financial, coaching, equipment) they require. While Thomas would be the initial draw for sponsors, as the younger riders began to get results they would also attract sponsors.

This program has grown to have a multi-million dollar budget and has produced World Cup winners and world champions and, even though Thomas has stated that he will retire after the 2008 season, he is confident that the program will continue.

USA Cycling has developed a similar program for its U23 men - primarily on the road, but also some offroad. The team has a full list of equipment sponsors, plus a financial backer - VMG. VMG (Velocity Made Good) is a corporate sponsor that certainly couldn't/wouldn't pony up the funds needed to sponsor an entire national program, but they could see the value in working with this one segment of the national team. The result is that the riders get to train and race together all season, and get access to some bigger events (such as the Tour of California), which they certainly wouldn't on smaller squads. A number of riders have already graduated to larger squads.

In a small and uncoordinated way, this is what has begun to happen with Symmetrics, Expresscopy.com and Rocky Mountain-Haywood. Together, these squads are accounting for much of the rankings success that Canada has achieved in different sectors of the sport. This is particularly true in men's road racing where, without the efforts of Symmetrics, we would have no more than one male rider at the world championships road race next week (instead of three). Unfortunately, the Rocky Mountain-Haywood program is almost certain to scale down next year, and possibly disappear after Beijing.

The CCA has many valuable properties in its programs, but together they are too big and cross too many markets for any but the largest companies to sponsor - and cycling is not high on the list of these corporations. It is much more feasible for the CCA to sign a sponsor specifically for the women's road program, or the BMX program, or the cross-country or downhill programs, than it is for the entire national team. Each of these programs has value to a specific sponsor, depending upon the market they are trying to reach.

However, for this to happen requires a second major change at the CCA: a revamping of the Board and administrative structure. Currently, the Board is elected from among interested and passionate members of the cycling community. They meet a few times a year to be updated on the operational side of the Association and decide on the few policy issues which come up. This is an ineffective and outmoded model.

If you look at most Boards these days, members are recruited based on what they can bring to the table: financial acumen, marketing, legal, government or industry experience. They are then expected to be resources that the organization (whether it be non- or for profit) can use to achieve its goals.

CCA Board members are not selected that way but, despite that, we do have members on the current Board with useful experience and knowledge in many areas. Unfortunately, their expertise is not being harnessed to make full use of their abilities, so far as I can tell, nor is any effort being made to identify gaps and work to fill them.

This also points to a hole in the Committee structure at the CCA - there are High Performance, Development and Officials Committees, but what about a Marketing and Sponsorship Committee, or a Communications Committee, or a Government Relations Committee? A further Committee (which I believe is long overdue) is an Advisory Committee to the Board. This would consist of members of the industry, government, teams, athletes, media and other useful sectors.

I believe that the CCA needs to start recruiting effectively among the business community for Board and Committee members. There are many, many cycling enthusiasts in positions of authority, who would support cycling, but they are never asked and there is no place to fit them in, as the CCA currently operates.

In 1996, Canada won five medals at the Olympics, and did almost nothing to capitalize on it effectively. In 2000 we won none, but were luckily able to coast on our 1996 accomplishments. In 2004 we won two (one-sixth of all Canadian medals!), which again staved off drastic cuts to funding.

Hopefully, we will win medals in Beijing, but we need to be looking beyond that now - with 2010 Vancouver sucking up government resources, a bag full of medals still won't see a significant improvement in traditional sources of funding.

It is time for the CCA to take charge of its own future.

Rob Jones = most respected person in canadian cycling.

What Rob Jones has done is leech off the sport.

I've seen Rob Jones and worked with him for 20 years. I was there when Rob Jones used to hide in bushes to get his pictures and would write about the sport without asking a question of riders. He would stand back and let others do the work.



And we’re not talking that long ago. Back in 2003 Rob Jones was writing about the Hamilton 2003 Worlds organization without talking to anybody in it. I know I was there. In fact, I’m the guy that called him on it and phoned him and told him if he wanted to write about the organization he should come down and meet with us, since he lived only 20 miles away. Jones was writing his **** without even first hand interviews.



Do you know the first positive thing Rob Jones had to say about the Worlds in Hamilton in the spring of 2003, around the time of the Toronto Bike Show where I has a booth beside his? He said the best thing they had done so far was to hire me. Don’t believe it, go back and look.



Furthermore, let me tell you about how Jones was operating. In 2002 & early 2003 he tried to get work from Hamilton 2003 the organizers of the Worlds, but the football guys (Braley and Lumsden) running the show cut him out. So all he did was bad-mouth the event for months in 2002 and early 2003. Then, after I invited him in to meet with the organizers they figured out it was better to buy Rob Jones off so they gave him contracts for photos and some web stuff/sales and started getting him on TV. All of a sudden Rob’s attitude towards things changed completely.



He sold out.



20 years I have watched Rob Jones and Benjamin Saticoy of Pedal Magazine and how they operate. I was with Pedal Magazine as a writer BEFORE Sadavoy even showed up and bought it to supplement his trade shows rags.



Rob Jones and Canadian Cyclist have been accepted as media substitutes for the real thing.



Instead of getting real news media attention in newspapers or on broadcast TV as CDN cycling did lots of before CanadianCyclist.com now riders, organizers fans settle for photos and write-ups on Canadian Cyclist instead of demanding or doing the work necessary to get their results and photos in real news media.



Canadian Cyclist is a crutch enabling the mediocrity found throughout the sport, from organizers to riders, to teams to governing bodies.

BTW, this is typical Rob Jones behavior.

Every fall, usually in October though, he writes basically the same editorial, "Things are real bad we need changes". He mentions a very few of the same changes I call for month after month, year after year.



Then Rob Jones says nothing more, does nothing to follow it up and goes along with every CCA decision to hire somebody who knows nothing about the sport to run it.



Don’t believe me? Go look for yourself. Check his archives or other web cycling forums. He does this every year.



And he wonders why things do not improve.

Here's one example, but do not believe me. Go find your own, it will be a useful exercise. You will see below even Rob Jones admits he has been sayng the same thing since 1998, yet nothing changes because Rob actually does nothing:


October26/04 1:30pm EDT - Canadian Cycling 6 Years Later: an Editorial
Posted by Editoress on 10/26/04.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rob Jones

In August of 1998 I wrote an editorial entitled "Canadian Cycling in Crisis" (view here). In it, I expressed concern that the future of cycling in Canada was in crisis, with little emphasis on development, and a continued reliance on "past performers". Six years later, as I re-read this article, I see that many of the same concerns continue to plague our sport.

There still appears to be no overall strategic plan or proposal in place to address development (both for existing riders in the system, and to attract and identify new talent). The provinces and national association are still at odds on many issues (in a lot of cases, the same issues). There is no national road series, no national track series, and the national mountain bike series does not have (and never has had) a title sponsor, nor does it offer any meaningful reward to participants. Now, with the addition of BMX for 2008 in Beijing, the situation has been exacerbated. Marketing has occurred on an apparent ad hoc basis, with few (if any) new sponsors signing on.

On the athlete front, we rely, for the most part, on many of the same riders as we did in 1998. Many of these riders continue to perform at the highest levels, but when one or more becomes injured, the consequences can cause a crisis - witness the injuries of Roland Green and Chrissy Redden last year, with the loss of one Olympic spot for the men, and the heroic efforts by other riders to avoid the same situation from occurring in the women's ranking.

Photo taken today in Hamilton.

Finally, one year after the excitement of the Road Worlds in Hamilton, we have little in the way of visible, tangible rewards we can point to. There is, of course, the legacy, split into two funds of approximately $500,000 each, but neither appears to have done much beyond investing the funds. The CCA legacy has gone so far as to appoint a Board (although the bylaws are still not approved by the CCA Board), but the provincial one still hasn't even got that far (it is difficult to tell how far they have gotten, since none of the partners organizations I have spoken with seem to know). The promised up-swell in publicity and recognition for cycling has not happened either, with numbers for many events continuing to stagnate or, even worse, drop.

Having painted a fairly depressing picture, I will be the first to admit that the last year has seen some promising developments. The appointment of Kris Westwood as Development Coach, was an excellent step. Kris brings experience as a rider, coach and manager to the position and has begun to put together a framework for a comprehensive development program.

However, Kris is just one person, and what is needed is a commitment by all levels - from riders, coaches, clubs and provinces - to build a development system. This system is a huge undertaking, requiring much more than just setting standards and holding training camps. Coaches need to have a process for bringing riders up through the ranks, talent identification activities, projects, race series and sponsors are all needed - for road, mountain, track and BMX. Kris is working on a program, but it will remain just a document unless the national and provincial bodies buy into it, and the funds are available to implement it.

The restructuring at the Board level of the CCA is also beginning to bear fruit, particularly with the injection of new blood. However, this needs to continue, both on the Board and in the Committees, all of whom need to refocus their efforts on long term planning. For too long, the CCA has worked on a quadrennial cycle, just thinking from one Olympics to the next. When I spoke in Athens with Martin Barras, the Canadian coach who runs the highly successful Australian track program (and who has just been re-hired by the AIS - Australian Institute of Sport), he told me that their focus right now is 2012. Canadian cycling needs to shift their focus further down the road in the same fashion, and the Board and Committees need to recognize this, and act on it.

The increasing tendency of the UCI to focus on their core European properties through programs such as the upcoming Pro Tour means that there are huge implications for non-cycling nations (and make no mistake, we are in that category). The previous technique of running around the world frantically grasping at UCI points (and putting huge pressure on individual riders) will become pointless if the UCI continues on their present path. Targeted, long range planning will become key for any international programs (which, without a doubt, will be even more important than they are currently).

Similarly, a domestic program needs to be constructed. Currently, there is a scatter gun, regional approach, some efforts duplicated, and other areas not addressed at all. Track is primarily centred in Quebec, because that is where the primary track coach is. Mountain biking is in Victoria. Road is nowhere and everywhere, and BMX is currently nowhere (although efforts appear to be underway in Calgary). A strong regional program exists in Dieppe at the Atlantic Cycling Centre, and weaker ones in Ontario (McMaster and Hardwood). None of these programs appear to talk to each other very much or share resources.

On the road there is no national series, which is key to attracting new riders, and as a focus for domestic teams when they go looking for sponsors. The Canada Cup for mountain biking has become less and less relevant, except as a way to grab some UCI points, since it no longer results in inclusion on the national team. Track is crying out for a national series, especially after Lori-Ann Muenzer won gold in Athens. With tracks in Dieppe, Quebec City, Bromont, Detroit (the best Ontario can do, presently), Calgary, Edmonton, Burnaby and Victoria, this should be a no-brainer. It offers an excellent format to sell to sponsors, and much lower cost than either road or mountain bike. It also provides an excellent venue for bringing in new talent. China recently admitted that they targeted women's track racing as a relatively cheap and easy way to gain medals.

However, a linchpin for the success of any of these plans is marketing. The CCA failed to capitalize on their success in Atlanta, and had nothing to sell after Sydney. Athens has provided the CCA with a rare second chance, with the strong performance of Canadian cyclists, led by Lori-Ann and Marie-Helene Premont. Cycling is in a relatively strong position, and needs to capitalize on it now.

To avoid the mistakes of the past, the Board needs to recognize that they have to partner with experts. The Association appears to have taken a crucial first step by bringing in consultants to evaluate the position of the sport. Hopefully, they will continue to work with experts, rather than trying to do it themselves. Having said that, it is crucial that the Association provides the experts with the proper mandate; one that supports the long range goals of the Association.

I'm going conclude with almost the same list of recommendations I made 6 years ago which, sadly, are still relevant:

1. Contracting out marketing to a professional, arms-length agency. The agency would negotiate and liaise with clients, leaving the CCA administration and Board to focus on the sport.

2. Institute an Organizer Committee to assist and support current organizers, and to bring in new ones. The committee will also be involved in recruitment and training of organizers, and advocating on behalf of organizers at the CCA level.

3. Appoint a Media Relations Coordinator. Either a new position, or a reassignment of duties among existing staff to make sure that CCA news and information are released in a timely and consistent way to all media and provincial bodies. (Note: this has been happening in a more consistent way in the past year, but the person who was doing it has left)

4. A constitutional amendment that will limit any one person's term in a position to two consecutive terms, and a maximum of 4 terms in total per 10 year period. Our sport needs new blood, at every level. Too long has there been a rotation of the same faces at the top. Many of these people have done an excellent job, but it seems sometimes that people are staying on because they feel they have to in the absence of any other interested parties.

5. A series of cross-Canada open forums, attended by the CCA Executive Director and either the President or another Board member. These decision-makers are faceless to the cycling community, and have very little contact with the riders and enthusiasts who keep the sport going at all levels. These forums could be held either in conjunction with provincial Annual General Meetings, or at selected Canada Cups and National Championships. If Hein Verbruggen (President of the UCI) can hold a live internet chat session with the world community, then surely the CCA President and Executive Director can meet their public?

6. A requirement that all sponsorship agreements contain a clause that provides for a portion of funds be directed to development. This should be non-negotiable, and we suggest that a minimum of 20% be directed into Junior and Espoir projects, assisting less prosperous provinces to send riders to National Championships, and in Development Camps. Sponsorships should also be designed so that one sponsor can not "cherry pick" the top promotional activities without contributing to sport development.

This last proposal is likely to be extremely unpopular with some sponsors. However, the CCA has, in our view, been too quick to allow sponsors to tie up opportunities in a sport that has tremendous opportunities. Cycling accounted for one-sixth of the medals Canada won in Athens, and one-third of the golds. The CCA has to hire professionals to capitalize on their current market capabilities.

Post your comments on the Forums, and contact your provincial bodies to get involved.

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:20 am Post subject: There are a great many unexplained unaccmplishmnets on the list posted to this thread but everybody prefers to comment on me.

So flattering. I never thought I was that important, more important than the CCA itself.

You apologist just want to to stick your head in the sands and pretend all is well. You can crtiicize me all you want you will still be wallowing in your excrement at the end of the day.

Little monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

How do you account for Rob Jones' editorial once a year in Canadian Cyclist pointing out CDN cycling is in crisis and has been for at least six years? Was Rob wrong? Or is he correct only because he brings it up once a year and then prefers to forget about it?

Go read his editorials from October 2004 and October 2003. He make it clear there are major problems. Is he wrong too? Are all of us wrong when we point out problems?

Why do other federations hold BIG crit championships. Why did USPRO have a $100,000 Crit championship? Was that a waste of time?

If Kinash admits he made a mistake in December 2003 and then makes the same mistake for another 15 months does that then make it right because he has made the same mistake for so long?

I will contiue to point out the obvious and glaring mistakes and problems until they are corrected and changes are made. I do not care if it takes another isx years. So get ready for a long ride. That's cycling.
_________________
That's my opinion, what's yours?

August 23 1:30 pm EDT - Canadian Cycling in Crisis-an Editorial Posted by Editor August 23, 1998 1:33:15 PM Canadian Cycling in Crisis

Cycling in Canada is at a crossroads. This season we have seen some of the best Canadian results in the history of the sport, including 3 women ranked in the top-10 world rankings, wins in major international events in both road and mountain bike disciplines (Linda Jackson and Alison Sydor), and some promising results by Canadian men (Roland Green, Chris Sheppard, Mark Walters and Gord Fraser). However, we have also seen dwindling numbers in the Junior ranks, rider boycotts and a lack of leadership at the highest levels of the sport. Overall, this paints a short-term picture where all is rosy, and a long-term view of a sport that will soon sink into mediocrity.

We believe that the Canadian Cycling Association (CCA) has become an organization that is reactive, rather than proactive, and that drastic and sweeping changes need to be implemented immediately in order to preserve and enhance our country's position in the cycling world. The strategic plan we propose would upset a lot of applecarts, however, something needs to be done NOW, otherwise, within a few years (and possibly a few months), Canadian cycling will begin a downward spiral from which it will be difficult to recover.

Currently the CCA enjoys a government funding level that puts it in the top 15 sports, based on results at the 1996 Olympics, world championships and other international events. However, that government ranking is based on the past. The riders who put cycling in this enviable position are, for the most part, either in the latter part of their careers, or have retired: Linda Jackson, Alison Sydor, Lesley Tomlinson, Curt Harnett, Brian Walton and Warren Sallenbach (to name a few). While these riders may continue to set the standard at an international level, they (and others such as Sue Palmer and Chrissy Redden) are likely to start retiring within the next 2-3 years (ie, expect a mass exodus after the 2000 Olympics). This will leave Canadian cycling with a hole that is difficult to fill. Consider also that injuries can, at any time, remove a top rider from competition, leaving a gapping hole in Canada's ability to maintain its ranking. A case in point is the continuing injury of Clara Hughes (double bronze medallist at Atlanta). While we are very hopeful that Clara will return to her high level of competitiveness (witness her results earlier this season), there is also no denying that, if she did not, Canada's ability to equal its cycling medal count at Atlanta (5) would be extremely low (Curt Harnett, another medal winner, retired after the Olympics).

We do not intend to denigrate the abilities of other Canadian riders, but the plain fact of the matter is that the CCA and the provinces have been coasting on past programs for too long. Many, if not all, of the current top-ranked Canadian riders gained their early experience and exposure to the sport in domestic national series, such as the Canada Cups for road and mountain biking. In the late `80s and early `90s, our national road series was the envy of American competitors, whom came up, en masse, to compete in real road racing (which they couldn't get in their own country). The list of names who either got their start or first came to national attention in this series is eye opening: Sydor, Palmer, Tomlinson, Redden, Hughes, Gord Fraser, Jacques Landry, Czeslaw Lukaszewicz, Steve Rover, Jill Smith, Edie Fisher ... the list goes on and on. Of course, the series is not the only reason why these riders went on to international standing, but we have heard time and again from these riders that it was their starting point.

The argument is made by the CCA that now riders must ride internationally (ie, in Europe or the United States) in order to be competitive. That may be so, once they outstrip the domestic scene, however, we are not seeing riders reach the point where they can make that jump. At the recent national championships for road, track and mountain bike, the numbers in the Junior ranks were appallingly low. It is easy to write this off as a natural cycle,. but is the CCA doing to combat it? The answer is ... nothing. In government funding studies, the CCA consistently scores high in elite competition, and consistently abysmal in rider development. It is simplistic and unfair to say that the CCA doesn't care about rider development. They do, but it comes down the hole that they have dug themselves into.

Government funding continues to be cut to all sports, and to make up the difference, sports look to sponsorships - a move that we applaud. However, the CCA has behaved in a rather shortsighted way in this area. In the late `80s, when the Canada Cup road series was very popular, Canadian Tire signed on as title sponsor, and the series flourished like never before. Prize lists increased, strong teams were formed just to follow the series across the country (up to 11 races, from coast to coast), and crowds upwards of 30,000 were seen at some criteriums. Then, Canadian Tire decided to move on to other promotional activities, and the series collapsed within a couple of years. Road racing in Canada has never been the same since. It is easy, and unfair, to blame the sponsor - they had a business goal to achieve, and while they were involved in the series they were an excellent sponsor, but business goals change, and sponsors move on.

Move forward to the present: Tim Hortons has been an excellent sponsor, however, the sponsorship is up for review this fall, and all a Tim Hortons spokesperson will say is that they "are reviewing [their] entire marketing plan". Tim Hortons is the only sizable cash sponsor that the CCA has; without it many national projects would be doomed or in serious trouble. This has led to a CCA administration that spends more time servicing the sponsor then dealing with their primary mandate of developing the sport. It has meant that any aspect of the sport that does not directly impinge on the sponsor (meaning any non-national championship event) does not get either the attention or funding it requires - a vicious downward spiral, since the lack of funding and attention makes it even more difficult to attract potential sponsors to non-marquee activities.

The implications for the Canada Cup series after this season are horrifying. Who would want to buy into a promotional vehicle that has had:

• the final event cancelled due to poor scheduling
• a boycott by riders at another event, and riders charged by the police
• a last minute 'makeup' event that still has not had a decision announced as to its official status
• a series with no official CCA presence at every event (which might have forestalled the boycott)

a series that has become less meaningfull to the riders, since winning the series does not mean position on the national team (Adam Walker, the Elite Men's overall winner is currently not scheduled to be on the World Championships team, despite dominating the series. He suffered two flats and a mechanical at the National Championships, still won the series, but is not on the team)

In fact, who would want to be an organizer involved with such a series? We have spoken to at least four organizers, past and present, who have said that they will not be involved again.

The Canada Cup is a series that is crucial for rider development - riders can not afford to travel to the United States until they have reached a high enough level attract either sponsorship assistance or funded status. Riders such as Chrissy Redden, Neil Grover, Seamus McGrath, Melanie Dorion and Melanie McQuaid all got their first exposure to high level competition at the Canada Cup. The road and track scene is even worse - 31 Junior men and 14 Junior women at the National Championships! In addition, prior to the Nationals there were no national level events for Juniors to prepare for the Nationals.

For these reasons, and others, we propose the following sweeping changes at the CCA:

1. Contracting out marketing to a professional, arms-length agency, such as IMG or Landmark. The agency would negotiate and liaise with clients, leaving the CCA administration and Board to focus on the sport.

2. Institute an Organizer Committee to assist and support current organizers, and to bring in new ones. The committee will also be involved in recruitment and training of organizers, and advocating on behalf of organizers at the CCA level.

3. Appoint a Media Relations Coordinator. Either a new position, or a reassignment of duties among existing staff to make sure that CCA news and information are released in a timely and consistent way to all media and provincial bodies.

4. A constitutional amendment that will limit any one person's term in a position to two consecutive terms, and a maximum of 4 terms in total per 10 year period. Our sport needs new blood, at every level. Too long has there been a rotation of the same faces at the top. Many of these people have done an excellent job, but it seems sometimes that people are staying on because they feel they have to in the absence of any other interested parties.

5. A series of cross-Canada open forums, attended by the CCA Executive Director and either the President or Vice-President. These decision-makers are faceless to the cycling community, and have very little contact with the riders and enthusiasts who keep the sport going at all levels. These forums could be held either in conjunction with provincial Annual General Meetings, or at selected Canada Cups and National Championships. If Hein Verbruggen (President of the UCI) can hold a live internet chat session with the world community, then surely the CCA President and Executive Director can meet their public?

6. A requirement that all sponsorship agreements contain a clause that provides for a portion of funds be directed to development. This should be non-negotiable, and we suggest that a minimum of 20% be directed into Junior projects, assisting less prosperous provinces to send riders to National Championships, and in Development Camps. Sponsorships should also be designed so that one sponsor can not "cherry pick" the top promotional activities, without contributing to sport development.

This last proposal is likely to be extremely unpopular with both the CCA and Tim Hortons. However, the CCA has, in our view, been too quick to allow sponsors to tie up opportunities in a sport that has tremendous opportunities. Cycling was second only to rowing in the number of medals won at Atlanta, and we are one of the few sports where Canada has international stature. The CCA has to hire professionals to capitalize on their current market capabilities. Tim Hortons has been an excellent sponsor, but cycling should have as much loyalty to them as they do to the sport - meaning none. This is strictly business, and the people at Tim Hortons know it.

In conclusion, we would like to reiterate that we are very concerned for the future of our sport, and so should you be. For too long has cycling, and the people at the top levels of administering the sport, been resting on past laurels. Unless drastic and decisive action is taken now, we predict the sport will be in serious trouble within 3 years.

We want your feedback on this editorial, so please post your comments in the Forums. We also feel that you should register your agreement (or disagreement) with our points at the CCA level. You can send your remarks to:

Patrick Healey (CCA Executive Director)

Brian Jolly (CCA President)

Nobody is perfect.

As you have shown time and time again hire you for 2003 worlds was not a very good decision.

Rob definately blew the call on that one.

All the comments Rob Jones has made in those editorials and that is all you have to say? You are truly pathetic.

He comes right out and says the CCA and sport are doomed on the present course.

Exactly what I have been saying all along.

The difference being that Rob is respected you are not.

I have known about the situation in the CCA for years. Their competence or lack of it is not in doubt. Just as your lack of competence is not in doubt.

But Rob Jones says they are doing an excellent job.

Don’t you read well?


First you cannot count, now you cannot read?

"Given the conditions that the CCA faces, I believe that they are actually doing an excellent job..", said Rob Jones.

No new sponsors.

No new teams.

No new events.


In fact, fewer events and events being cancelled.


Worse international results.


No development.

Firing all but a few coaches.

Firing the High Performance Director, they only guy that knew anything about cycling in the whole bunch.


Firing the Marketing Coordinator, good move, but not hiring another very bad move.

Firing the Finance Director.

Revenues plummeting from $2.7 million to $1.7 million in one year and sure to diminish further.

What “excellent job” do you see them doing?

"Their competence or lack of it is not in doubt.", you say.

Then you are in total disagreement with Rob Jones.

Which is it, is Rob Jones right or wrong?

You think this is about me?

You're not the brightest bulb, are you?

You can not have been a high level rider, you’re too stupid.

"Given the conditions that the CCA faces, I believe that they are actually doing an excellent job..", said Rob Jones.
Rob, please out out the excellence.....

No new sponsors.

No new teams.

No new events.

In fact, fewer events and events being cancelled.

Worse international results.

No development.

No mainstream media coverage.

Firing all but a few coaches.

Firing the High Performance Director, they only guy that knew anything about cycling in the whole bunch.

Firing the Marketing Coordinator, good move, but not hiring another very bad move.

Firing the Finance Director.

Revenues plummeting from $2.7 million to $1.7 million in one year and sure to diminish further.

Three women in the office who know next to nothing about the sport and Remi Berube and Sean O'Donnell, that is the Canadian Cycling
Association. You call that excellence, huh, Rob?

What “excellent job” do you see them doing?

Talk about Blithering Idiots!!!

12 reponses to this thread, and 9 of them are your own responses to yourself!!!

Consider them addendums, not replies.

Were you aware that Rob Jnes writes the same editorial once a year every fall?

Probably not.

Has Rob jones explained himself? No, he has not. He says an organization that has fired five or six employees in a year (half its staff) and lost about half its budget is doing a good job.

While I have your attention, you requested a list of suggestions form me. I provide them. You have not replied to them. Why did you ask for them?

You got them and you have no comment?

You're useless.

Useless?

Someone who carries on endless conversations with themselves is less than useless.......Mentally ill probably.

Anyway - My comments are: while there are SOME good ideas.. you do not elaborate just how these would actually be accomplished. Plans get attention.. bitching and pointing out wrongs do not.

I have made responses to your LIST below. for what good it will do. I expect a long rant from you.. that basically comes back to the same ****. Hire M. Arzouian and all things will be wonderful at the CCA again. sigh.

No one in cycling will hire you. No One!



They don't want you.. PERIOD. Get it through your head. You have a proven track record of casuung dissent, discord and generally pissing everyone off that you have dealings with. You are not the person who should not represent cycling in Canada.

Nice idea. but domestic racing is not the CCA's mandate. This is for the most part under the pervue of the provincial associations. Do you plan to usurp them? Piss them off.. good start to getting them onside. I don't see USA cycling running races.......

Ski Canada is the exception... not the rule with sport in Canada. And yes..skiing is that much more popular than cycling. Skiing takes place at set venues where people can purchase expensive chalets, take their kids and they go back year after year, sometimes for generations. Ski areas are communities. Cycling has no such venue or attraction. Skiers tend to be the wealthy part of the population. cyclists are not. How much $$ do you plan to spend?

And just HOW would you do that. The general media has proven time and time again.. cycling is not on their radar. Sportcom and Canadian Cyclist have been sending press releases to the major media after every major cycling event in and out of Canada where Canadians participate for years now. I see no appreciable increase in cycling coverage anywhere.. UNLESS it involves a scandel. Like Jeanson's recent confession or Landis' doping.

How do you plan to change the mindset of the media.. at gunpoint?


Uh Huh! There are lots of venues for discussion. The provincial AGM's for example and the CCA AGM. Open to the public . Ever been to one?

Easy? I beg to differ. I work in the news media, albeit not national. While sports is not my main area (I am the cycling expert) I do know how things work. I can tell you local kids teams, and major pro teams are the ONLY interest, as that is what the advertisors want. The pro stuff comes down from the wire service and the local stuff is provided by the teams and parents for the most part.

The Sports editor of the Leader Post in Regina? Of course he would not have a clue who Bill Kinash was/is. I have worked in the small city media for 20 years. If I asked the sports editor who were the presidents of any of the sport organizations in the province or Canada for that matter. he would not be able to name any of them either.


This has been done already for the past 2 years for track, and I am not too sure that it is such a good thing. The youth events now get little or no coverage at all. At road nationals the youth events were held so far ahead of the elite events that the young riders had no contact with the elite ridders. Not a good thing if you are trying to promote mentorship.

What new events?

The CCA 's financial statements are posted online and are part of the statement published at the yearly AGM.

7 b) There should be at least one national road race in every province.

And how do you force this to take place? BC superweek wants nothing to do with being part of any national series.

Good idea. Have you looked into the cost of building these? Do you have a proposal. Have you presented it to any "benefactos? I seem to remember you went after Doral.. and could not even get in teh door.

I seem to remember Montreal had a velodrome and it was "removed" due to lack of use. Cyclists are poor by comparison. They also moan ad nauseum about spending 100$ per year fro a racing licence. Not too sure if you can count on teh cycling community to pony up big bucks.

This is already being done. Garneau sells the national uniform to dealers now for 2 years. I don't see to many around tho'....


This has been tried many times by the provinces, with little success.How do you propose to do this.

Bike shops don't even like to carry magazines these days. They don't take trade ins, sell stuff on consignment or host events. I see it as a hard sell frankly.


Been done! How much support has this opportunity attracted?

Have you asked the Masters how they feel about this?. I think it would be VERY unpopular. Seems to me your attack on the Masters at the 2003 road worlds nearly got you lynched.

Pierre H and Brian J. (as I recall) very knowledge and experience in cycling is why they got the jobs in the top jobs at the CCA first place. Both are now working with the UCI. Mirek Mazur was fired from the Ontario cycling association because he pissed off so many young riders. Nothing is stopping Mirek from running for a spot on the board.. nothing.

You say we need more knowlwdgeble cycling people at the CCA. Past experience says this does not always work.

There is a call for nominations that goes out to all the provinces, and this is posted on the CCA site and is also posted on many cycling sites (CC, Pedal, etc) as well as the provincial sites.

Even at the Alpine federation Ken Reid (and Steve Podborski) held board positions for many years BEFORE applying for and getting hired as CEO. You say you want a job at teh CCA? Why not prove yourself first by running for a board spot. If Ken Reid did not think it was beneath them.. Why should you?


So take away their democratic right to vote in private? Have you ever been to an AGM. Are you aware of the lobbying that goes on by delegates? Do you think the "provincial constituents" care?


Pierre Blanchard has been president for nearly 3 years now. What has he done?


----------

Not many of these suggestions written three or four years ago have been done.

I would add today, Sept. 17, 2007:

As I recall Ms. Sebrango left for health reasons.. was not fired. Hutsebaut was hired for the CEO job. He has nmany many years of experience in cycling - running teams, coaching, was in the bike business too? Hired you for the Road Worlds in Hamilton as I recall.

I thought you were Pierre Blanchard's friend? I thought you said he was the right choice for the position? So Kinash was not the only problem and the same problem now continues with the new president?

Quote:

2. Move the CCA out of its disarray of crappy but very expensive ($52,000/yr.) office space in Ottawa and put it near the Forest City Velodrome. Create a complete cycling complex with tracks, mechanic shops, testing and training facilities. Leverage the $600,000 Hamilton Legacy being pissed away in $2000 payments and use it to bargain with a municipal, provincial and federal governments to match it with grants ($600,000 to a municipal $600,000 for $1.2 million to a provincial $1.2 Million for $2.4 million to match a federal $2.4 million for a total of $4.8 million). Show sponsors that were are serious about the sport. Make big plans you get big sponsors.

Yah, remove the CCA from all the resources and access to all things that are Ottawa. How many other sport organizations have their headquarters outside Ottawa? There is a good reason why Ottawa is the place they must be. Why aren't Skiing Canada's offices in Whistler or Jasper or near some other major ski resort?

Yup. just dump `em. Sets a great example for sponsors who might wish to come onboard. they can just be dumped after years of support "at the whim" of the people at the helm.

The cycling industry does NOT have big bucks. Not too sure where you get that idea.

Good idea, but not practice. Hamilton and their opposition to Road Worlds is one example. Ask Curt Harnett how his attempt to revive the Toronto Queen's park event went. Quebec may be the only province with a major city that would be welcoming to a large cycling event. BC's super week too, but they want no part of being a series.