UCI Pro Tour - eurocentric - does anyone care?

[Spider1977]

So the new UCI Pro Tour is going to be entirely based in Europe from what I hear. How come no one outside europe is jumping up and down about this?

The TDU, Tour of Langkawi etc. will not earn UCI points any more. Therefore, what attraction is there for international riders to compete in them? The sponsors will desert the sport in droves.

What is going on with the administration of cycling? Attitude to drug taking is a farce and now this eurocentric attitude.

The Americas, and Aust, NZ produce world class cyclists but they all have to go to Europe. They have minimal recognition at home. Only Lance is well known outside europe.

Cycling is a sport that could easily adopt a five continents strategy. Sure, keep the big races in europe such as Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Belgium. But they could have at least one five day stage race on each of the four other continents and easily fit it into the calender. Tennis, golf, F1 cars. rally cars etc. seem to be able to do it - why not cycling?

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Spider1977
So the new UCI Pro Tour is going to be entirely based in Europe from what I hear. How come no one outside europe is jumping up and down about this?

The TDU, Tour of Langkawi etc. will not earn UCI points any more. Therefore, what attraction is there for international riders to compete in them? The sponsors will desert the sport in droves.

What is going on with the administration of cycling? Attitude to drug taking is a farce and now this eurocentric attitude.

The Americas, and Aust, NZ produce world class cyclists but they all have to go to Europe. They have minimal recognition at home. Only Lance is well known outside europe.

Cycling is a sport that could easily adopt a five continents strategy. Sure, keep the big races in europe such as Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Belgium. But they could have at least one five day stage race on each of the four other continents and easily fit it into the calender. Tennis, golf, F1 cars. rally cars etc. seem to be able to do it - why not cycling?

I've got to agree with what you say.
Obviously there is a history of competitive cycling here in Europe, but you're correct the UCI need to try to gloablise this sport and by only accrediting races in Europe for UCI points, their shortsightedness is only too apparent.

If you look at the number of American and Australian cyclists on the European circuit, you would think that the UCI would try to encourage the shoots of interest in the respective countries,
of USA and Australia.
This would seem to be the obvious thing to do.

And yes, you're right about the UCI attitidute to drug use.
It's appalling.
Anyone caught performance enhancing drugs need to know that
their actions will be punished and punished heavily.
The UCI need to take their lead from the sport of rowing.
Anyone caught using performance enhancing drugs MUST BE BANNED FOR LIFE FOR PROFESSIONAL CYCLING.

 

[jstraw]

I agree with both of the previous posts. I think at base, the UCI's desire to de-emphasize the TdF and spread success and prestige around to other events in order to better attract and retain sponsors is laudible. I certainly think the formula needs and hope it recieves major tweaking over the first season or two. I think like F1 autoracing and World Cup skiing, they need to make sure there is at least one event on every continent that has significant rider representation and/or sponsor support.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by jstraw
I agree with both of the previous posts. I think at base, the UCI's desire to de-emphasize the TdF and spread success and prestige around to other events in order to better attract and retain sponsors is laudible. I certainly think the formula needs and hope it recieves major tweaking over the first season or two. I think like F1 autoracing and World Cup skiing, they need to make sure there is at least one event on every continent that has significant rider representation and/or sponsor support.

Yes a FI or ATP Tennis type circuit would give potential sponsors the cahnce to advertise in markets where they may not have a direct presence.

As a person living in the States, do you think that there would be a demand for a large race in your country ?
I'm sure cycling has grown in popularity there with the likes of LA
and TH doing well in Europe.
But is the interest in cycling in your country solely dependent upon say LA winning the TDF, or is there eneough interest to
launch a cateory one race which could command the attention
of the UCI ?

 

[jstraw]

Difficult question...certainly the Tour du Trump/Pont was an attempt to parlay Lemond's successes into broader interest in pro cycling in the U.S. and that effort was not successful. I have my doubts that interest could be maintained if there was not an American cyclist at or near the top of the sport. For this reason I guess I wouldn't begrudge the UCI not placing an event in the U.S. Perhaps an event that rotated between the U.S. and Canada...just a thought. How successful would an Australian event be? The travel costs, time and logistics are also a legitimate consideration.

I think the biggest problem with the plan is the fact that a lot of sponsors will be reluctant to support a team that competes all across europe if their interest is in sellin bread in France or telephone service in Sapin or whatever.

On the one hand they UCI wants to avoid sponsors feeling like they're only getting bang for their buck by getting good TdF results but this is equally as serious a problem for attracting and retaining sponsors.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by jstraw
Difficult question...certainly the Tour du Trump/Pont was an attempt to parlay Lemond's successes into broader interest in pro cycling in the U.S. and that effort was not successful. I have my doubts that interest could be maintained if there was not an American cyclist at or near the top of the sport. For this reason I guess I wouldn't begrudge the UCI not placing an event in the U.S. Perhaps an event that rotated between the U.S. and Canada...just a thought. How successful would an Australian event be? The travel costs, time and logistics are also a legitimate consideration.

I think the biggest problem with the plan is the fact that a lot of sponsors will be reluctant to support a team that competes all across europe if their interest is in sellin bread in France or telephone service in Sapin or whatever.

On the one hand they UCI wants to avoid sponsors feeling like they're only getting bang for their buck by getting good TdF results but this is equally as serious a problem for attracting and retaining sponsors.

Your absolutley right - does a bread seller in France have any interest in marketing his firm in say, New Jersey ?
Probably not.
Ditto an American company, being advertised in France.
But the sport needs competitiors from America/Australia/Africa etc
and without giving young cyclists in those countries an incentive
to take up the sport by accrediting races in those countries,
the sport will be confined to the traditional areas.
You know of course that foreigners (those riders from english-speaking countries) were assessed on how they could adapt to
cycling for French/Dutch/Belgian clubs from 1950-1980's ?
It was trial for those cyclists to learn the language and to learn to race in a totally foreign envoirment that gained the respect of
teams/managers in French/Dutch/Belgian clubs and thus they offered contracts on the basis of who could adapt.

The Australians in recent years have made a big impact on the peleton as regards numbers coming in to the pro ranks.
Would a race in Australian increase the numbers coming in to the sport from that country ?
I don't know.
But I think that the UCI has got to come up with something because cycling is competing with soccer, rugby, skiing (here in Europe) and Baseball, American Football and Basketball in your country.
If you have a gifted youngster - would you send him/her to Europe to learn a tough profession with no guarantee or would you suggest for him/her to concentrate on a sport generic to
your country ?
That's a no brainer.
The UCI needs to wake up and see that youngsters will migrate to other sports, if they (UCI) don't invest in our sport.
Accrediting races outside of Europe might be one step as part of an overall process to encourage our sport.

 

[tafi]

It is ironic that the UCI should try to enhance the exposure of the sport at a broader level by ensuring that the best riders and teams are all in attendance at the pro tour races, when none of the pro tour races will be held (at least for the first couple of years) outside europe. That's just enough time for sponsors in the "outposts" of cycling such as Australia, New Zealand, Asia and Africa to give up hope in any high level elite competition developing.
Unfortunately it seems that cycling is built in europe to the extent that it is now self sustaining in the european market (lets face it it only has to compete with Tennis) and has never really needed to expose itself to the rest of the world to survive.
The US has developed its own domestic professional competition (though that has taken a beating recently with some teams closing) but the aforementioned countries/continents realistically rely on a solely ammeteur competition which is prohibitive for those without flexible workplaces or free time.

The only way to make the UCI take notice is for enough interest to be generated to institute trade teams from these places. And that will require great local interest from many parties, both financial and technical. Untill that happens no one is likely to take much notice of us

 

[Spider1977]

Great responses to this question. As I suspected cycling enthusiasts from around the world would love to see a world-wide pro tour.

The problem for countries like Australia is that no sponsor will put dollars in while the races are entirely on the other side of the world. No matter that the likes of McEwan, O'Grady, Cooke etc. are gaining more profile at home, there is still no real value for an Aussie company to sponsor their team. They may benefit individually by getting gigs on advertisements and endorsing products and good luck to them if they do, but this is not furthering the sport.

It's just lucky that Australians love sport and amateur cycling has huge support at State and National government levels through the Institutes of Sport. This will continue while Aussie riders continue to do well at Olympic and World Championships. Many of these top amateurs then move into the Pro ranks. They do it tough, moving to europe and learning new languages, cultures etc. But they have plenty of mates who've done it in other sports such as tennis, golf, skiing, car and motor bike riding.

However, just because Australia can churn out world class sportsman for an inordinate number of sports I think other countries need a lot more encouragement. As a regular traveller to China where over a billion people own a bike, I'm amazed that they don't dominate the sport of cycling. This is because the Chinese view a bicycle as a utilitarian means of transport, not a recreational item. Imagine if the sport was heavily promoted there, how much interest and money would come into the sport (set aside their appaling record of drug cheating in a few other sports).

There are other Asian and African countries that could produce fantastic cycling talent if encouraged. Then there is South America. The huge amount of talent that comes out of Colombia is testament to the popularity of the sport there. But what about all the other countries? There must be talent.

The UCI owes it to all those who don't live in europe to promote and foster the sport. Otherwise it will struggle in the future. Only one or two more drug scandals and it will be booted out of the Olympics and sponsors will leave in droves.

As for popularity in these places. If you bring a world class event to a place where people appreciate it and want it the local support will happen. I'm sure a pro tour event in Texas would gain huge support because of LA. But as mor US riders emerge, as they surely will, if the sport has a profile and big money then there will be more interest.

In Australia, the Tour Down Under gets huge support in Adelaide, with very few big name riders. Imagine how big it would be if the UCI Pro Tour came to town. I'm tipping it would draw live television coverage and big crowds.

A points system like F1 car racing could keep interest going through out the world for the annual championship for individuals as well as teams.

Imagination is all it takes. Something the UCI seems to lack.

 

[rob of the og]

..yes but. I agree that it would be good to get the pro's moving around and spreading the gospel, but you've got to get this pro tour off the ground first. The whole purpose of the Pro Tour is to desperately persuade teams to support events across the season - you don't do this by adding monkey races in just for the sake of having a race on the other continents and unfortunately that's what US races are compared to races like Paris-Nice or the Tour of Switzerland.

The Tour Downunder is a great event, but it's in the off-season, if you tell a team they have to send a team to that then they're just going to give the whole pro tour the finger. The pro tour will only work if you involve the events that most of the top teams were going to ride anyway, at least for the 1st few years until it becomes a valued competition.

All that is before you consider the reduced budgets of European teams at the moment. The realpolitik is that they can't afford to ship teams to China one week, New Zealand the next, then on to Columbia like a F1 team could. I know it's not great and I don't live in mainland Europe either, but this is where we are.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Spider1977
Great responses to this question. As I suspected cycling enthusiasts from around the world would love to see a world-wide pro tour.

The problem for countries like Australia is that no sponsor will put dollars in while the races are entirely on the other side of the world. No matter that the likes of McEwan, O'Grady, Cooke etc. are gaining more profile at home, there is still no real value for an Aussie company to sponsor their team. They may benefit individually by getting gigs on advertisements and endorsing products and good luck to them if they do, but this is not furthering the sport.

It's just lucky that Australians love sport and amateur cycling has huge support at State and National government levels through the Institutes of Sport. This will continue while Aussie riders continue to do well at Olympic and World Championships. Many of these top amateurs then move into the Pro ranks. They do it tough, moving to europe and learning new languages, cultures etc. But they have plenty of mates who've done it in other sports such as tennis, golf, skiing, car and motor bike riding.

However, just because Australia can churn out world class sportsman for an inordinate number of sports I think other countries need a lot more encouragement. As a regular traveller to China where over a billion people own a bike, I'm amazed that they don't dominate the sport of cycling. This is because the Chinese view a bicycle as a utilitarian means of transport, not a recreational item. Imagine if the sport was heavily promoted there, how much interest and money would come into the sport (set aside their appaling record of drug cheating in a few other sports).

There are other Asian and African countries that could produce fantastic cycling talent if encouraged. Then there is South America. The huge amount of talent that comes out of Colombia is testament to the popularity of the sport there. But what about all the other countries? There must be talent.

The UCI owes it to all those who don't live in europe to promote and foster the sport. Otherwise it will struggle in the future. Only one or two more drug scandals and it will be booted out of the Olympics and sponsors will leave in droves.

As for popularity in these places. If you bring a world class event to a place where people appreciate it and want it the local support will happen. I'm sure a pro tour event in Texas would gain huge support because of LA. But as mor US riders emerge, as they surely will, if the sport has a profile and big money then there will be more interest.

In Australia, the Tour Down Under gets huge support in Adelaide, with very few big name riders. Imagine how big it would be if the UCI Pro Tour came to town. I'm tipping it would draw live television coverage and big crowds.

A points system like F1 car racing could keep interest going through out the world for the annual championship for individuals as well as teams.

Imagination is all it takes. Something the UCI seems to lack.

From my brief knowledge of your country though, the Australian
authorities took the decision in the 1970's to really invest in sport
and across all sports (your country was always very successful anyway in sport but this added investment in the 70's is now coming to fruition).
Look at your cricket teams, rugbyteams (league and union),
swimmers, cyclists, tennis players, golfers etc.
In each area your country is pre-emanent on the world stage.
This proves that where there is a little bit of investment where there is an interest in sport, it will reap dividends.

Historically though cycling has always required the Aussies, the Americans, the Columbians and the Irish to have to go to France/Belgium/Holland etc, and have to try to learn a new language, eat new food, and to learn how to cycle the 'European way'
Sean Kelly, in his book, says that it was a right of passage for him - if he could survive living in Metz (France) for two years and learn the language and win races, that he would eventually be accepted.
Until cycling becomes more globalised, this will remain the fact.
And I think from reading about our sport, that there are fertile locations outside Europe where the UCI could give some encouragement to the development of our sport.

 

[el Ingles]

I think it will be the death of cycling as we know it , got a letter on the subject published on cyclingnews.com : nobody cares - not one reply .
The UCI want money that´s all , just like F1 or football and look what´s happened to those " sports " , god help us all .

 

[gntlmn]

Consider this from the point of view of the sponsors. They are the ones putting up the coin. If you were a sponsor, you would want to spend where you will get the most bang for your buck. Why would you spend money in unproven areas when you know you will get a greater return on your advertising dollar somewhere where the sport is well established in terms of fans and media exposure? Sure, you would like to see the sport flourish around the globe, but this is not an urgent need which you are willing to take some losses to develop. You have no ownership interest in the geography. Your interest is in selling products. If other sponsors absorb losses for years to build the sport abroad, all the more power to them. You can step in at that point when the economics are right and the risk is minimal.

I expect that cycling will continue to grow around the globe, but it may take a while. We cannot deny the media exposure of the Tour de France or the heritage of European cycling.

 

[Virenque]

I dont want to open new topic, so I will paste that here: Grand Tours say no to Pro Tour! Interesting! What do you think about that?

And I read some time ago that UCI wants to shorten Giro and Vuelta to max. 18 days because Pro Tour calender!

 

[Roy Gardiner]

Anyone caught using performance enhancing drugs MUST BE BANNED FOR LIFE FOR PROFESSIONAL CYCLING.

I'm going to keep saying this, sorry.

Criminologists have established that once the chance of escape is reasonably high, level of punishment is not a deterrent. Criminals do not think about being caught.

Life bans will therefore have no affect on doping in cycling.

We need to (a) end the culture of doping, reinforced by the teams (b) increase detection. This continued emphasis on hammering guilty riders is counter productive.

 

[mocka58]

I think Pro cycling is a European cultural phenomenon more than anything. It was developed in the relatively small confines of western Europe and has managed to gain followers from other parts of the world without ever really catching on in the 'newer countries' like Australia and the US. That being said, track cycling was once quite popular in Australia and we have always manage to produce a couple of world class track riders every generation or so.

The TDU is supported by the South Australian government and Jacob's Creek wineries and once they decide that their money could be better spent elsewhere then the future of the race would be doubtful.
The HeraldSun Tour has been going for over fifty years but is basically a race split between domestic riders and second string European pros and doesn't really capture the public's imagination.
I think it's doubtful that the UCI could convince top riders to come to Australia for anything short of an Olympics or World Championships and I think they know it. Europe is pro cycling's hotbed and those of us on the outside may just have to accept that it is always likely to be that way.

So the new UCI Pro Tour is going to be entirely based in Europe from what I hear. How come no one outside europe is jumping up and down about this?

The TDU, Tour of Langkawi etc. will not earn UCI points any more. Therefore, what attraction is there for international riders to compete in them? The sponsors will desert the sport in droves.

What is going on with the administration of cycling? Attitude to drug taking is a farce and now this eurocentric attitude.

The Americas, and Aust, NZ produce world class cyclists but they all have to go to Europe. They have minimal recognition at home. Only Lance is well known outside europe.

Cycling is a sport that could easily adopt a five continents strategy. Sure, keep the big races in europe such as Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Belgium. But they could have at least one five day stage race on each of the four other continents and easily fit it into the calender. Tennis, golf, F1 cars. rally cars etc. seem to be able to do it - why not cycling?

 

[Spider1977]

I dont want to open new topic, so I will paste that here: Grand Tours say no to Pro Tour! Interesting! What do you think about that?

And I read some time ago that UCI wants to shorten Giro and Vuelta to max. 18 days because Pro Tour calender!

Isn't it interesting to watch this develop. It reminds me of a similar story in golf. About 10 or 15 years ago Greg Norman proposed a world tour. He was vilified by the golf establishment, especially the PGA Tour in America. Now a world tour is exactly what they have. Sure the US PGA Tour is still the mainstay, but the top pros now realise that if they want to leave their mark on the game and be recognised among the greats of their sport they have to prove themselves on foreign shores.

I still think the three "majors" in cycling could be maintained and fitted around a world tour. There are multinational companies who would queue up to sponsor teams. Even european companies must benefit from the international exposure they get. Go to any bike shop or look at cyclists on the road in Australia, you'll see Credit Agricole, FD Jeux, Fasso Bortolo etc. everywhere. Rabobank are now in Australia and their association with cycling and the TdeF must help them gain market share here.

The cost of getting cyclists to big events is not that great. It's a matter of transporting bikes, riders and support staff. All the other gear like support vehicles can be provided by the host nation.

I'd suggest a one week Stage race in say each of Australia/NZ, Malaysia/Indonesia, China/Japan/Korea, a South American country, USA/Canada, South Africa/Zimbabwe plus the three "majors" and a few other european events (mixture of one day and Stage races).

The three majors take up 12 weeks, that leaves about 30 weeks left to fit in the rest of the program (assuming 10 weeks off). This would be enough for 10 to 15 events of which only six or seven need to be outside europe. A formula for allocating points to results could be worked out, so that riders and teams could go for prizes over the whole season as well as retaining the current systems for individual races (GC, stage winners, teams, sprint, KoM etc.).