Pro Tour stillborn

[Chris]

"Davide Tosi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Cycling needs to decide (and that includes all of the organizations, not
> >solely the UCI
>
> You are hopeless, so much you don't get it.
> UCI is not one of the cycling organizations, UCI is the cycling world
> governing body. If the UCI decides that one particular race (even the TdF)
> from next year is not UCI sanctioned and worth nothing and the rider who
> would eventually partecipate in it are not allowed to partecipate to any
> other race, that's it.

Dumbshit, you argue in a language you are not fluent in and you expect to
understand what people are talking about? The conflict is rarely between the
UCI and the federations. I am talking about other spheres of influence like
the players and the race organizers. In many sports, the teams have their
own stadium or whatever but cycling is unique in that it can argue
(truthfully) that the organizers in some cases are far more important the
the UCI ("league management") or even the athletes. Jean Marie Le Blanc and
others before him occasionally state the it is the Tour that makes the rider
and not the other way around. That is more true than anything that has been
stated this year about the Pro Tour. ASO could kill the Pro Tour on its own.
I believe that the latest announcement from "the 3 GTs" was the Giro and
Vuelta following ASO. They have more power than anyone else in cycling. That
is the whole reason Verbruggen attempted to get it away from them. I know
this is really hard for Italians to think about. If you concede this point
you have to concede that not only is ASO more important than the Giro, but
they are more important than every other race combined (though possibly not
if they all combine against ASO. That is why the ASO has bought all of those
races (so they can keep an entire season up if the they they have to pull
out of the UCI's league).

> The UCI controls each and any National federation. If the UCI orders to
all
> the national federations to expell riders who boycott the Pro Tour and
take
> part to races by "rebel" organizers, the National federations can't refuse
> to do so.

Damn, where did you get this idea about the federations? You really are
stupid. Who cares? Do you really think any of the top teams would comply?
Hell, many top teams would LOVE that and those are the ones that would
gladly line up with ASO. Look at USPS and Armstrong and where you think they
would go? DO you think this is because they are American? No, it is because
they have the winner from the last 6 Tours. Ask them who has the power in
cycling.

> Hein just has to decide whether he really wants to go on and create a
> cycling civil war or not, but if he wants there's really nothing that can
> stop him.


No, it is not his decision. ASO has more influence and the riders SHOULD
have more. Verbruggen is not ethically the best one to lead and not the one
with the most power. The sport is the was it is mainly because that it the
way it always has been and the UCI has never had the power. And that means
that the whole sport will always be built around the Tour. It is a damn good
thing that ASO runs other races throughout the calendar. If they were only
interested in the Tour, things would be far worse than they are now. All of
the problems in the past 15 years have flowed from Verbruggen trying to gain
power over ASO to become the most influential person in the sport. If he
wants influence, he needs to stand in line behind all of the others looking
to take over Le Blanc's job when he retires. Furthermore, the ASO seems to
really understand how to wield this power (as opposed to Heinz).


>Legally, he is the head of the cycling world.

No, legally he is the head of the UCI. There is all the difference in the
world because the UCI is not legally the "head" of the most impotant
entities.

Realistically he can do nothing more than he has done since he came to
power. If he had the legal authority you think he does, he would have been
using the courts when he gets ignored. All he can do is continue to ****
with calendars and stupid **** like that. He is held back my politics and
mostly the reality that the center of cycling is The Tour and ASO holds
that. ASO does not even need the UCI. They can do what they want, strike out
on their own with their own competitive international cycling league and
attract all of the top sponsors and top cyclists. Then Verbruggen can boss
around the rest of the guys that can't get Le Blanc to take their money and
Verbruggen can bask in the glory of being able to tell GT organizers (except
for the "Outlaw Tour"). No, Verbruggen knows how tenuous his position is.
This was a standoff and all that ASO had to do was appear to go along with
it so they could make the announcement at the most damaging time. Give me a
break. If Heinz has "legal authority" I guess he is on the way to court
right now huh?

 

[Chris]

"Kenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Hockey, Soccer, and many other international sports have "monolithic"
> > structures that enable a wider fan base to understand the sport and to
> > clarify the season objectives of the athletes or the teams. Personally,
I
> > love the unstructured nature of cycling but I can't even explain it to
my
> > brother before he loses interest.
>
> Why do tou think cycling is unstructured? Since the UCI started to
> devide races in categories (WC, 1.HC, ...) more than a decade ago, i
> believe things have approved a lot for people new to the sport.

I simply disagree. Things have improved solely because global popularity is
grown. You can thank ASO for that too. They are the ones that systematically
went to nations they wanted to cultivate (in the Americas, like the USA,
Colombia, etc.).

> Another thing: the race calendar always stays the same when it comes
> to the main races.

It should but it doesn't. Another faulure of the UCI.

The date sometimes changes a week, but from a
> relative view, those races are always organised in the same order.
> Let's say one of the biggest changes the last decade was placing the
> Vuelta and the Worlds in september. Swapping LBL with the Gold race,
> or the worlds with paris-Nice is not a factor that makes cycling
> completely unstructured and not understandable.

It doesn't do anything "completely" but changing the dates and order of
races disrupts the races and which are used to prepare for the season
objectives (which for many is the Tour). When a small change does not effect
your interest, that is not at all teh same thing as saying that the same
riders will show up. If you want, follow the race calendar of any of the top
teams and see if you can figure out the reason behind their year to year
schedule changes. Another project is to follow races from year to year and
look at the start list and or results to see if you can pinpoint why a race
suddenly gains or loses its apparent star pulling power.

> > Something can be done to undo the damage
> > that has occurred since the "mondialization" started way back in 1987
and
> > even a bit prior. The World Cup was a great idea, but its execution has
> > always been terrible. What made anyone think that the same people trying
to
> > do the same thing (The Pro Tour) but on a scope that is completely
> > unprecedented in this sport (but not many others) could be accomplished
by
> > the same organization and leader that FUBAR'ed the sport since
establishing
> > the World Cup (and changed the calendar to try to devalue the Tour)?
>
> The execution of the World Cup terrible?? Based on what?

Based on the way it fits within the sport and how it is doing compared to
what it replaced. I suppose you don't even know what that is, so how can you
argue about something you barely understand?

I thought it
> was a great idea to have the season divided in 3 world cup sessions.
> Which makes the riders who are interested in the WC, race the whole
> season. And i believe that is one of the things people love to see.


How do you determine a great idea? Your intuition? Large successful entities
can't afford to go on intuition. They need to do more to assure performance
like market research and test marketing (or other valid methods beyond your
intuition). The conflict, and that means the root problem is that the people
that can distinguish between a good and bad idea (they have experience and
access to marketing data) are fighting one another for power.

> Personnaly i think the protour sucks, but i truely believe the
> objective of it is not devaluating the tour but upgrading other main
> events, so cycling stands on more than one leg.

Dude. Follow the logic here. Either the French Tour has more power and
importance than the other GTs or it doesn't. You can't make them equal at
the same time that you are not making them equal. They compete against each
other. Do you not understand that?

Only by achieving
> this,

Acheiving the impossible? Now I see why you support the UCI. You understand
it about as much as they do. Actually, they know what I am talking about but
their actions are the best they can come up with.

>more sponsors and other commercial revenues are assured.

Yeah, "if" then "maybe". Solve the "if" first.

>The
> idea seems attractive, but over several years, it will only result in
> a further polarization of the protour and this "continental" calendar.
> The reasons for organizing the protour are plentiful, but the
> reasons for organising this continental calendar hardly exist. For
> the UCI, the continental calendar is only a necesarry harm which comes
> with the existance of the protour.

It does not need organizing. It was never centralized, not ever in the
history of the sport. Don't you get it? The same logic is what made many
nations try their hands at centralized planning.

> In comparison with european soccer, the protour is the Champion's
> League and the continental calendar is the UEFA cup. But who cares
> about the uefa cup these days. I can't even remember who was in the
> final last year. The Champion's League swallows everything. But the
> thing in soccer is: the champion's league and the uefa cup are rewards
> for teams based on how well they did in their national competitions
> the previous year.

For the most part, there are no other sports that can be used as models.
When you dom you exclude the most important entities (the organizers). In
effect, cycling is really a bunch of small "leagues" (the race organizers)
cobbled together by a central authority. WHen the central authority tries to
remove the power from those that empowered them in the fist place, you are
naturally going to have a huge clash.

When it comes to cycling, many teams will ONLY
> have the less important continental calendar. And that's where
> Verbruggen looses contact with cycling and only thinks as a commercial
> manager of a big multinational.

Huh? Who cares?

> But bottom line: the protour sucks. And even though abortion is still
> very controversial, it's the only solution for not letting this sick
> child be born.
>
>
> Kenny (my 2 eurocents)

I still can't gather any conclusions you arrived at.

 

[Kenny]

"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> > Why do tou think cycling is unstructured? Since the UCI started to
> > devide races in categories (WC, 1.HC, ...) more than a decade ago, i
> > believe things have approved a lot for people new to the sport.
>
> I simply disagree. Things have improved solely because global popularity is
> grown. You can thank ASO for that too. They are the ones that systematically
> went to nations they wanted to cultivate (in the Americas, like the USA,
> Colombia, etc.).

I agree, it was thanks to the Tour that cycling became motre mondial.
That's obvious. The UCI has no part in this process. But what they
did do well is following these developments and reaching new people
some kind of guide for cycling by categorizing the races.

> The date sometimes changes a week, but from a
> > relative view, those races are always organised in the same order.
> > Let's say one of the biggest changes the last decade was placing the
> > Vuelta and the Worlds in september. Swapping LBL with the Gold race,
> > or the worlds with paris-Nice is not a factor that makes cycling
> > completely unstructured and not understandable.
>
> It doesn't do anything "completely" but changing the dates and order of
> races disrupts the races and which are used to prepare for the season
> objectives (which for many is the Tour). When a small change does not effect
> your interest, that is not at all teh same thing as saying that the same
> riders will show up. If you want, follow the race calendar of any of the top
> teams and see if you can figure out the reason behind their year to year
> schedule changes. Another project is to follow races from year to year and
> look at the start list and or results to see if you can pinpoint why a race
> suddenly gains or loses its apparent star pulling power.

What you say is correct from the organizer's and DS's point of view.
But i was talking from the average fan's point of view (or new fans).
I don't think it matters to them if the worlds follow one week earlier
after the Vuelta and Paris-Tours one week later. I just want to say
that at this time the season is devided in three parts: spring,
summer, fall, each building up to one or two main events. Let me
picture it: the stage races in south-europe in february and march are
the preparation for the classics in april which are following *always*
the same order. After that Romandie is the last prep for the second
highlight of the spring: the giro. Switserland and the Dauphine are
the preparation for the Tour: the main event in the summer (and prob.
the whole year). Some use the Tour as prep for the august
classics,the second highlight in the summer. The fall is the vuelta
leading up to the worlds and the last classics, the final of the World
Cup. Is it that unstructured??

> > > Something can be done to undo the damage
> > > that has occurred since the "mondialization" started way back in 1987
> and
> > > even a bit prior. The World Cup was a great idea, but its execution has
> > > always been terrible. What made anyone think that the same people trying
> to
> > > do the same thing (The Pro Tour) but on a scope that is completely
> > > unprecedented in this sport (but not many others) could be accomplished
> by
> > > the same organization and leader that FUBAR'ed the sport since
> establishing
> > > the World Cup (and changed the calendar to try to devalue the Tour)?
> >
> > The execution of the World Cup terrible?? Based on what?
>
> Based on the way it fits within the sport and how it is doing compared to
> what it replaced. I suppose you don't even know what that is, so how can you
> argue about something you barely understand?

So don't try to make a point with vague arguments and be clear about
what you state.

> > Personnaly i think the protour sucks, but i truely believe the
> > objective of it is not devaluating the tour but upgrading other main
> > events, so cycling stands on more than one leg.
>
> Dude. Follow the logic here. Either the French Tour has more power and
> importance than the other GTs or it doesn't. You can't make them equal at
> the same time that you are not making them equal. They compete against each
> other. Do you not understand that?

Who's talking about making equal?? Can't you use the mondialization
of cycling to put other facets of cycling (cycling is more that the
Tour, open your eyes) in the spotlight? As the Tour is powerful and
the most important event, it's able to survive by itself. Other
sometimes have problems (like Paris-Nice two years ago) surviving.
When it comes to that aspect the idea of *some kind of* protour might
be good. And i don't think competing other races to death is the goal
of the Tour (ASO). why else did they start organizing races like LBL
and the Fleche Wallonne??


> Only by achieving
> > this,
>
> Acheiving the impossible? Now I see why you support the UCI. You understand
> it about as much as they do. Actually, they know what I am talking about but
> their actions are the best they can come up with.
>
> >more sponsors and other commercial revenues are assured.
>
> Yeah, "if" then "maybe". Solve the "if" first.

That's my point. The Protour has ambitious objectives and seems to
have a lot of reasons in favor of it. In theory. In theory communism
works. But we all know how that worked out.
Is saying 'The protour sucks' not clear to you?

> >The
> > idea seems attractive, but over several years, it will only result in
> > a further polarization of the protour and this "continental" calendar.
> > The reasons for organizing the protour are plentiful, but the
> > reasons for organising this continental calendar hardly exist. For
> > the UCI, the continental calendar is only a necesarry harm which comes
> > with the existance of the protour.
>
> It does not need organizing. It was never centralized, not ever in the
> history of the sport. Don't you get it? The same logic is what made many
> nations try their hands at centralized planning.

I thought you said you found cycling unstructured??


> When it comes to cycling, many teams will ONLY
> > have the less important continental calendar. And that's where
> > Verbruggen looses contact with cycling and only thinks as a commercial
> > manager of a big multinational.
>
> Huh? Who cares?

What!? If you don't care about that why are you even bothering
spreading ignorant **** about cycling? This is exactly the point!
the coordinating body and a bobo in an ivory tower are loosing contact
with the true soul of the sport. Cycling is the sport of the people,
not the sport of fat sweaty guys in 1000 dollar suits and a big wallet
in their pocket.

Kenny

 

[Sonarrat]

"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> <Sonarrat> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:55:47 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > >< the champs of the National league are chosen to play the Yankees > as
> > >a total novice rider (who recently got his first decent bike) and a
> > >resident in the Boston area, this is what turned me off of Postal. An
> > >article I read compared them to the Yankees. It mentioned some rider who
> > >was a threat to Armstrong and that rider was soon with the Postal team.
> > >After watching Steinbrenner loading his team picking up who he wants to
> > >so much, to put it simply, it just dont seem fair. I don't know much of
> > >the racing world but is it correct comparing Postal to the N Y Yankees?
> >
> > Let me put it this way: They tried to sign Ivan Basso last year.
> > Fortunately Bjarne won out. Imagine if he hadn't - the 2004 TdF would
> > have been even more of a foregone conclusion than it already was.
> >
> > -Sonarrat.
>
> I disagree. As a support rider riding a program prior to the Tour, Bass
> would not bery likely have been as well prepared and would have remained on
> the list of guys "with potential". Even if he did make it with the same
> form, it would have been hard to place on the podium when you have to lead
> the back over early climbs. Those guys also drop off the back on the last
> climg to be in the best position to do well the next time they are called
> on. Lance's lead would have been lower too since Basso efectively rode as
> Armstrong's 10th man for at least 2 big days in the mountains. IF Basso was
> on USPS, he would have forced another guy off the team and therefore would
> have been forced to pick up that rider's work load. The only changes would
> have been Ullrich would have been on the podium and Lance would have won
> another stage. He had a better chance at winning those 2 stages with solo
> breaks but his GC time would have been lower.

I don't think you got my point - having Basso on the same team as
Armstrong would have neutralized the man who turned out to be
Armstrong's most credible opponent.

-Sonarrat.