Mergers seem to be all the rage in corporate America. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes not. In case you missed it, one of the most interesting mergers in the sports world is the recently announced union between the Indy Racing League(IRL) and Champ Car. Hey, that's open wheel car racing for those of you who aren't concerned about anything with more than two wheels.
It's been twelve years since Tony George took his Indy 500 and his ego and started the Indy Racing League. We already had a successful open wheel series, Champ Car, with all the top drivers including the Unsers, Andrettis and Rahals. But, Tony George wanted a bigger slice of the pie and since he owned the rights to the most popular open wheel race on the planet, the Indy 500 (sorry Monaco GP), he figured he had the juice to make it happen.
Of course, what did happen was that everybody lost. Champ Car has become a non-factor and the Indy Racing League turned into the 'oval racing league'. If Danica Patrick hadn't arrived a couple of years ago, the IRL would have put everyone to sleep and would have all but disappeared as well. Hopefully, the merger will take US open wheel racing off life support and we won't have resort to watching the good ol' boys swapping paint every weekend from some town where everybody knows the words to "When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again."
What does this have to do with cycling? Well, our good friends at the UCI and their nemesis ASO are at it again. Maybe it is just a huge case of Euro-cabin fever, but just like same time last year, these two organizations are sparring over control of European professional bike racing. ASO owns the Tour de France, Paris-Nice, Paris-Roubaix, Liege-Bastogne-Liege and just about every other big race on the pro calendar. The UCI owns, well, uh, um, only the the World Championships and since they moved those from August to October nobody seems to care all that much.
So, what's at stake? It's all about the Benjamins. ASO, with it's rich TV contracts has them. The UCI, which can't seem to market the World Championships to save their life, doesn't have many Benjamin's at all. Let's forget all the polemics(that's a big word meaning politics), it really is about the green. ASO has it and the UCI wants it.
How is this similar to the IRL/Champ Car merger? I side with ASO on this one, but still I hope that both sides can work something out before the situation becomes critical and the teams and riders have to decide between the two. I suffered for 12 years while open wheel racing in the US became about as exciting as watching paint dry. If that happens to pro cycling, I may actually have to stop watching TV and go out and ride my bike.
Bruce
Active Expert: Bruce Hildenbrand
Previous Next
Bruce Hildenbrand
Susie,
good observations and questions. The reason I support ASO is that they are the ones and not the UCI who have made their races a financial success. ASO has had to re-invent the Tour in major ways several times in the past few decades. They should be the ones who benefit from their hard work and success. Though the UCI may say something different, from their actions, the only thing they appear to be interested in the Tour is so that they(UCI) can get a slice of the the ASO monies. Unfortunately, it is not about the future of cycling for the UCI, it is about money and in this case, getting their hands on some $$$$ that they did not earn.
Ask the FFC(French Cycling Federation) about getting strong-armed by the UCI to not sanction ASO's race Paris-Nice so that race could not be held. I don't think that falls into the category of UCI helping the sport.
Having said that, I don't like that some teams are excluded from ASO (and RCS) races citing some criteria that other teams don't seem to meet either. I do approve of a free market race situation which means that the race organizers can do whatever they want to do and they don't have to answer to anybody. However, if the race organizers state some criteria for excluding a team, then they have to try to be fair about applyng that criteria.
Let's face facts. ASO is excluding Astana because they feel that Johan Bruyneel, Lance Armstrong and Alberto Contador cheated to win their eight Tours de France. Regardless of the facts, ASO believes what they believe.
I would much rather have ASO say 'we are excluding Team Astana because we don't like Johan Bruyneel' which is the truth rather than offer up the excuse they are using now, 'the 2007 team's rampant doping practices'. As you point out, other teams had similar doping scandals in 2007 so the stated criteria seems unfair.
Confused yet? The UCI has to stop trying to be a race promoter and trying to get it's hands on money it doesn't deserve and spend more time fighting doping and trying to unify the sport (without trying to take a huge slice of the
piece for doing it).
I don't know if it makes sense to move AToC to September. The Tour of Missouri could be left out in the cold.
February is a good date to get the best riders from Europe as the time change is a huge factor for riders especially those looking to compete back in Europe after California (it is a 9-hour diffference). Several days before the start
of the Tour of California I got a call from Team High Road asking me to lead a ride for their racers who were leaving
to go back to Europe the next day. These guys were so concerend about dealing with 9-hour jet lag that they wanted to head out on a 100-mile ride around Mount Hamilton at 4am which is 1pm Europe time!
Bruce
Bruce Hildenbrand
In the interest of equal time, it should be mentioned that besides ASO not wanting to give the UCI any of their TV money, another big reason ASO is at odds with the UCI is that ASO feels that the UCI isn't doing enough to fight against doping in the sport. So, rather than accept athletes and teams endorsed by the UCI through the Pro Tour, ASO has decided to run the races their own way and exclude riders and teams they feel are involved in doping. I think it is a fair question to ask ASO why they have decided some teams are banned, like Astana, where other teams are OK. ASO's current choices seem somewhat arbitrary. But, the ultimate goal is to fignt against doping.
Back to the UCI not fighting doping.....I think ASO is correct on this one. Last year, after the debacle at the Tour de France, the UCI pledged to carry out 500 out-of-competition tests. In actuality they carried out only twenty(20) citing that since the tests were out-of-competition it was hard to find the riders to test. Hun? What? The athletes fill out forms detailing where they are at all times. This is exactly what led to Rasmussen being tossed from the Tour. All I hear from the UCI is a bunch of lip service on doping. The problem is that fighting doping takes lots of money. Maybe the UCI should be less concerend with taking ASO's money and more concerend with spending their money on fighting doping.
Bruce
susie b
Thanks, Bruce! I saw your 1st comment to me on Saturday & it's prompted me to think even more about the situation & the future of this sport. I agree that an event's owner/organizer should reap some if not most of the financial rewards. If they take the risk & lay out the money, they deserve to be compensated when things are a success. But as in most events of this sort, the races use competitors that they, themselves, do not 'own' (fund/sponsor). And I believe they use racing & doping officials connected with the UCI. Plus, they are having the competitions not in venues that THEY own but on public roads, starting & stopping in towns that pay them big money for the privilege. I'm not sure exactly how the monies are dividied up, but in America's Big Three pro sports, plus NASCAR & any other pro sport I know of, the money IS divided amongst the team owners, venue & event owners & the overseeing entity of the sport. These groups all seem to realize they & their sports benefit from each other. (Although I'm positive they probably forever argue about who exactly deserves what share...) So, in my opinion, it would not be out of line for the UCI to share at least a little of the money, as they are the governing entity of pro cycling. I could be completely wrong as I am not even a tenth as knowledgeable about the inner workings of this sport & the various groups involved as you, but does not the UCI set the sport guidelines & "rules", which are mostly there to define/protect the sport & the riders? Without an overseeing, organizing, & governing power, what do you have? Individual, stand-alone races in a sport guaranteed to stay small time.
And maybe I'm just giving the UCI far too much credit, but I view most of their actions as attempts to FURTHER the sport on both international & financial levels. For example, the Pro Tour. As the ASO is a BUSINESS organization, their goal is to make money, not for the sport as a whole but for themselves. I've got nothing against a company making money. But it would be self-defeating for them to WANT the sport to have other races as big &/or successful as their own. It is that very self-interest that makes them the WORST group for dictating how the sport as a whole should be run.
Over the past two years, I've read numerous remarks by the ASO in which it seems they do not think their races benefit that much from having cyclists the caliber of which are in & partly due to the Pro Tour. I think they believe that even amateur teams would make the races just as exciting and successful. Although I recognize this spouting-off is likely just political posteuring, I believe they really do at least partly think it. And I STRONGLY disagree. Maybe it was true 30 years ago, before multiple bigtime pro sports & long before instant TV, media & internet coverage. And one of the things that make the Tour de France & some of the other ASO races so great is BECAUSE of the level of competiton. The top cyclists competing against each other for a entire season makes them & the sport stronger & consequently, the individual races benefit. This is why I think the Pro Tour is not just an important component of taking pro cycling to the next level, but a mandatory one. Maybe it needs tweaking but for this sport to grow into what it can truly be, an entire season of highest-caliber races using the highest caliber teams is what has to exist. Capped off by a Title sponsored Championship Cup for the team who compiles the most points. Complete with a BIG check, 3-4 times what the winner of the TDF receives. And at the year-end gala/ceremony, big checks would also be given to the Stage racer of the year, Sprinter of the year, Mt man of the year,etc. It would be just as big a thing as winning the TDF. And besides the individual races, the riders, media & fans should all be talking about THAT the entire year. In addition to at least trying to eradicate the doping cancer from this sport, I think THAT is what the UCI should be focusing on. Why DOESN'T the Pro Tour have a title sponsor? I can't believe there isn't some company out there that would'nt want their name to tumble from fans' lips as "Winston/Nextel" & now "Sprint Cup" does from the NASCAR fan's. And they get to have their name plastered on EVERYthing! Hmmm, possibly THIS is what the TDF fears most of ALL...
And I agree the UCI has not done enough to combat doping. Yes, one could say they've done a "p*ss-poor" job. (Sorry, can't help myself sometimes). That they only did 20 out-of-competition tests is pathetic even IF they hadn't publicly vowed to do 500. BTW, are doping tests curently sponsored? All the big pro sports sponsor EVERYthing. You name it, someone pays money to "sponsor" it & their name gets slapped on it. I think a drug company, such as AMGEN, would be a great sponsor for ALL the drug testing done at all the PT races & maybe even the out-of-competition tests. Instead of going to the "drug" trailor to do the testing, you go to the AMGEN trailor. Hey, if a sponsor can slap their name on the "kiss & cry" area in figure skating, a sponsor can "take credit" for the dope tesing (in the, uh, "p*ss & cry" area...).
Lest you think I believe the UCI can do no wrong, Ohhh NO. For example, the way they've handled Floyd's situation is abombinable. And they should just let OP die & not get all atwitter whenever the Spanish nitwits rattle the OP cage once a year. It is ridiculous that in all this time the various national cycling federations & ADAs have not been given full access to all the "evidence" linked to their riders. It makes the entire thing a farce. A tragic farce in that it destroyed & continues to destroy people's careers with NO proven evidence or charges brought against them. And why so many fans in this sport seem to be OBSESSED with establishing who doped in the past is a mystery to me. I think it is helping to kill the sport. Just accept that doping was rampant & even systemic in this sport for at LEAST the last 15 years. Draw a line NOW, say amnesty is granted for the past but full "prosecution" will be leveled going forward. Start fresh. Think of the next decade or so as "Reconstruction". Hopefully, without the carpetbaggers... Just get ON with it.
Sorry, I can pontificate with the best (or worst) of them. It's just I adore this sport & wish many more could realize it's beauty & power. I also absolutely adore the TDF & it is by far, my favorite cycling race. But I envision SO much more for the sport as a whole. I shall now go rest my typing fingers... Thanks again for your input & patience!
I am a bit confused. After accurately describing how Open Wheel racing in the USA basically "crashed & burned" all because the greedy, power-mad OWNER of the SINGLE BIGGEST race wanted MORE, you go on to say you back the ASO, who are the greedy, power-mad owners of cycling's SINGLE BIGGEST race, who are doing their utmost to keep the sport under THEIR control. Please explain.
I think it is a mistake. A BIG mistake. To let a small group of men who are only really concerned with their OWN races to be calling all the shots in this sport. How does that help the sport grow? I want this sport bigger not smaller, which the ASO does NOT want. Do they really want races to compete with theirs? Compete for sponsor dollars? Compete for TV time & money? Compete for prestige & relevance? (I put that last part in for your Active TDF colleague...). Heck, no.
And I would think ASTANA sees the situation as "critical" right NOW.
And I'm not a huge NASCAR fan (didn't even see a race on TV til 5-6 years ago), but cycling can actually learn a LOT from them on how to organize, govern & market a sport.
I've so enjoyed reading your blog the past several weeks and truly want to know why you would not back the UCI in this case. They are all this sport has at the moment as an overseeing entity. They are the only ones who are trying to enforce the same rules for EVERYONE. I can not abide the injustice & hypocrisy of ASO barring Astana & not Cofidis or High Road (T-Mobile) let alone Rabobank.
Anyway, in happier thoughts, I tried to post a comment yesterday about the ToC, but it vanished while previewing. (I think I hit some 'bad' key by accident). In the ToC, I LOVED Levi's TT - gave me flashbacks again to last year's Tour. He was flyin! And even though he made me sweat as he was much too close for comfort to my boy Levi, I loved that Cancellara SOMEhow made it over the mountains on Stage 4 with the climbers! That was great. And I loved that George was able to finally wrestle a Stage win from the ToC racing Gods who seemed to be holding a grudge against him the last couple years. And I also hated the weather, even if I only had to look at it on TV. To tell you the truth, as an lifelong East coaster, I didn't even know California GOT weather like that! At least for a whole week.
Which reminds me, what do you think of the idea of the ToC being moved to September to compete with or replace the Vuelta as a Grand Tour?