The National teams could be supported but not owned by corporate sponsors. Guess it would mean you could only get nine Frenchmen into the TDF unless you had multiple national teams.
Who thinks National Teams on the Tour would be better than Corporate Sponsored Teams?
- Thread starter Crankyfeet
- Start date
At first I thought, perhaps the Tour should go back to that format. Perhaps if national federations were involved there would be a better handle on doping. Then I thought... no that's just asking for trouble. If the ASO wants to distance itself from the UCI, then going to the National Team system will make involvement with the UCI pretty much mandatory. That's asking for a bigger fight with the UCI right now.
so no...
so no...
I voted no. the current system is more reflective of our global society. it annoys me when people root for people based merely on nationality. this change would increase national pride and in today's climate we really don't need nationalism creeping into sport anymore than it already has.Crankyfeet said:
not only do i support cosmopolitanism over nationalism, but you have to keep in mind that most good riders come from spain, italy, or someplace that speaks dutch, then to a lesser extent australia, then prolly germany and america. it would be completely dumb to have guys like ras, hushovd, vino, kirchen/schleck, who would have a really impossible time of assembling a GT-worthy team.
we want competition thus drama in the TdF, not someone like contador or basso obliterating everyone ala lance armstrong.
we want competition thus drama in the TdF, not someone like contador or basso obliterating everyone ala lance armstrong.
It's a much better system the way it is now, and I don't think it would be a good change. The sponsors are the reason the pro world of cycling is around...IMO. Without the money that they put into the sport, and the contributions they give every year to cycling (which is way more than most national cycling programs could ever afford) the sport wouldn't be anywhere as big as it is now.SaintAndrew said:
Who said anything at all about doping? Though I can understand you assuming the question was framed around that given the topics of the last couple of weeks.tasmart said:
Brilliant thread. I brought this up not long ago (and got called a ****** and a bloody ******** by the way 
).
Why cant we look at new systems of management. FFS we need to.
Why couldnt we take private ownership of pro tour teams out? Rather than '100% National pro tour teams' why cant we grant the licences to operate pro tour teams to nations (but allow them to fill the squads with the management and riders they choose)?
So France, Spain, Italy might get 3 each and down the chain you go (until you fill your ideal allocation of global pro tour teams in any one year).
These licences would be accountable ultimately to each Government (i.e in Australia we would control our licence via the AIS govt subordinate authority etc).
We can then still choose to import riders for these licences (so Australia might import 3-4 seppos and a handful of kiwis oh and Jens Voigt ofcourse). However the majority of the roster would be Aussie (those that are worthy) and we can base our national development squads as direct feeders into this pro tour licence.
Furthermore on the doping front I believe it might be useful to have the pro tour licences owned/controlled/operated by Govt's as we can use diplomatic channels to enact pressure on various 'compliance' fronts i.e with doping measures etc. (certainly far better than we can with private ownership).
We can also still look to bring private sponsorship into the teams like the current situation but we take away the capitalist imperative to generate 'ROI' asap. Govt have far more pressure put on them to reflect 'social' agendas than multi millionares like LA or that tinkoff guy.
This would end an open market on these licences as no selling would be possible (again removing the ROI incentive for licence ownership which may well be a factor that leads to the path of doping).
As the sport expands then so to could the granting of pro tour licences so that America might start off with 2 licences but if the sport grows rapidly in that country then USA may apply to the new global control body to be issued another one. Similarly Italy may decide it can no longer sustain 3 licences and returns one to the global control body which then invites tenders from countries to obtain one (with strict criteria on youth development measures, anti doping measures etc etc). Demanding higher transparency.
I dont know if this would work (just my rushed thoughts) but its an idea and I applaud this thread because it is discussing the things that need discussing. Rather than talking **** all day long.
ps. I think this sort of system might also take care of the apparent ASO powerbase which is unhealthy for the sport globally (not as unhealthy as the current UCI) but nevertheless an issue. There would be no more playing god with who can and cannot start the grand tours like there is with private ownership of licences. Governments wouldnt stand for those kind of idiotic games that hurt the sport.
).Why cant we look at new systems of management. FFS we need to.
Why couldnt we take private ownership of pro tour teams out? Rather than '100% National pro tour teams' why cant we grant the licences to operate pro tour teams to nations (but allow them to fill the squads with the management and riders they choose)?
So France, Spain, Italy might get 3 each and down the chain you go (until you fill your ideal allocation of global pro tour teams in any one year).
These licences would be accountable ultimately to each Government (i.e in Australia we would control our licence via the AIS govt subordinate authority etc).
We can then still choose to import riders for these licences (so Australia might import 3-4 seppos and a handful of kiwis oh and Jens Voigt ofcourse). However the majority of the roster would be Aussie (those that are worthy) and we can base our national development squads as direct feeders into this pro tour licence.
Furthermore on the doping front I believe it might be useful to have the pro tour licences owned/controlled/operated by Govt's as we can use diplomatic channels to enact pressure on various 'compliance' fronts i.e with doping measures etc. (certainly far better than we can with private ownership).
We can also still look to bring private sponsorship into the teams like the current situation but we take away the capitalist imperative to generate 'ROI' asap. Govt have far more pressure put on them to reflect 'social' agendas than multi millionares like LA or that tinkoff guy.
This would end an open market on these licences as no selling would be possible (again removing the ROI incentive for licence ownership which may well be a factor that leads to the path of doping).
As the sport expands then so to could the granting of pro tour licences so that America might start off with 2 licences but if the sport grows rapidly in that country then USA may apply to the new global control body to be issued another one. Similarly Italy may decide it can no longer sustain 3 licences and returns one to the global control body which then invites tenders from countries to obtain one (with strict criteria on youth development measures, anti doping measures etc etc). Demanding higher transparency.
I dont know if this would work (just my rushed thoughts) but its an idea and I applaud this thread because it is discussing the things that need discussing. Rather than talking **** all day long.
ps. I think this sort of system might also take care of the apparent ASO powerbase which is unhealthy for the sport globally (not as unhealthy as the current UCI) but nevertheless an issue. There would be no more playing god with who can and cannot start the grand tours like there is with private ownership of licences. Governments wouldnt stand for those kind of idiotic games that hurt the sport.
Nobody called you a ******.existence said:Brilliant thread. I brought this up not long ago (and got called a ****** and a bloody ******** by the way
Leave the all disfunctional national federations to mismanage everything as they already are. Don't give them something else to **** up
Australia and Canada are the only dysfunctional ones. And thats only because you cant be stuffed running ours.classic1 said:Nobody called you a ******.
Leave the all disfunctional national federations to mismanage everything as they already are. Don't give them something else to **** up
Agreed. But national teams would have huge parochial support. One downside would be that riders would lose their bargaining power as countries would have a monopoly over their riders, unless you could free trade other country's riders as Existence suggested.Trajectum said:
Hypothetical Teams: France, Italy, Belgium, Spain, USA, Germany, UK, Australia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Kazakhstan(?). Then you have riders from South Africa, New Zealand, Columbia, Norway, Russia, Ireland etc. who don't have the critical mass. Maybe the domestiques could be imported. And 9 to a team seems an arbitrary number anyway.
I can see why the ASO might favour the concept of national teams.
At present we have riders contracted to trade teams - but who are also answerable to their national federation.
if the national team concept was introduced, the relationship between rider and federation would be formalised - whereas now a rider's employer (trade team) probably holds sway with the rider.
At present we have riders contracted to trade teams - but who are also answerable to their national federation.
if the national team concept was introduced, the relationship between rider and federation would be formalised - whereas now a rider's employer (trade team) probably holds sway with the rider.
Lim...you may have swayed the voting. 27 for national team set-up and 25 for corporate teams. I know all the Aussies would be drooling over an Australian team - though would Rogers work for Evans?limerickman said:
Similar threads
