The World Track Championships just finished up in Manchester, England and the host country totally dominated the meeting with ten gold medals. After getting robbed of a stage win in the Amgen Tour of California it was great to see Mark Cavendish (and his partner Bradley Wiggins) on the top spot of the podium in the Madison event. Even America hauled in a bit of hardware with Jennie Reed winning a thoroughly exciting Kierin final and Sarah Hammer taking silver in the women's pursuit. Teenage phenom Taylor Phinney set a world record in the 3000m pursuit, he has an outside chance to medal at the upcoming Beijing(hack, hack) Olympics.

But, that's not the subject of my blog. It seems like the UCI just can't do anything right these days and it also includes picking the events for the Women on the track. The men ride a 1 kilometer time trial which takes the best about a minute for the 0.62 of a mile distance. The UCI, for some reason unknown to just about everyone, have the women ride a 500 meter time trial. Does the UCI think that women can't ride 1 kilometer? If so, then why do they have a 3000m pursuit for the women. To make matters even worse, the men ride a 4000m pursuit. In Anglo-speak that's 2.5 miles. Does the UCI think that women can't ride 2.5 miles on a bike? Why then do they have a Women's Scratch Race that is 10 kilometers (6 miles) long?

But, the biggest joke is the team sprint an event where, in the men's division, three riders compete. This first rider leads the first lap then drops out. The second rider completes the second lap on the front then drops out leaving the third rider to ride the final lap. The whole event takes about 50 seconds total for the three laps. Someone please tell me why the women do the same event but with only two riders? Is there some genetic difference that keeps women from competing for 15-20 seconds more by doing a third lap with a third rider?

In track and field(that's 'Athletics' for those of you from Europe) then men and women run the exact same distances as the men from the 100 meter sprint to the 42km (26.2 mile) marathon. If women can run for over two hours, why can't they race for 15-20 seconds more on the track in a bicycle race? It boggles the mind. Personally, I think the women bike racers should petition the UCI for equality. If they want to be respected and get the same honor and glory, they should be riding the same distances. I just can't wait to see what the UCI screws up next.

Bruce

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

In 2005, the UCI, the governing body of cycling, created the Pro Tour in an
attempt to form a season-long competition involving the premier European pro
races. Unfortunately, the organizers of the premier European races such as
the Tour de France, Giro d'Italia and Vuelta a Espana, known as the grand tour
organizers, were skeptical of the real reasons behind the UCI forming the
Pro Tour.

Over the past three years of its existence the Pro Tour has been a rocky road.
At the end of 2007, the UCI and the grand tour organizers agreed to remove the
grand tours and the other races put on by the grand tour organizers such as
Paris-Roubaix, Liege-Bastogne-Liege and Milan San Remo from the Pro Tour. So,
instead of the original 30 races, the 2008 edition of the Pro Tour will have 16
races. Is this divorce and new version of the Pro Tour a good thing for
professional cycling? I think it is and for a lot of good reasons.

First off, the UCI needs to prove that it can manage and promote a premier
race series on its own. Trying to latch onto races like the Tour de France,
Giro d'Italia and Paris-Roubaix, which are already wildly popular, is like
coming in to close a game with two outs, two strikes in the ninth inning with a
ten run lead. It doesn't prove the UCI's capabilities to deliver what they
promised with the Pro Tour, notably to grow cycling by increasing it's
popularity and sponsorship.

Secondly, the Pro Tour was an huge burden to the already established events
because its 20 team format severely limited the wild card invitations a race
organizer could offer non-Pro Tour teams. This caused a real have and have-not
situation. If you weren't a Pro Tour team, your squad was unlikely to get the
opportunity to prove yourself on the world's stage. A few teams, like
Barloworld at last year's Tour, got the chance and they stepped up their game
several notches and were one of the real bright moments in France last July.

This is great news for the two US teams, Slipstream-Chipotle and BMC Racing,
who are trying to gain a ticket into Europe's big races. Slipstream just
received an invite to the Giro. Would that have happened under the Pro Tour
system last year? BMC and Slipstream are also looking for a slot in the Queen
of the Classics, Paris-Roubaix. With 2004 winner, Maggy Backstedt on his
roster, Jonathan Vaughter's Slipstream squad should get an invite. It would
be great to see the BMC boys alongside them at the start as well.

And for those of you used to seeing a US-based team at the Tour, the removal
of the Pro Tour restrictions means that Slipstream could be lining up at the
start come this July.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a Pro Tour hater. One of the things I really
liked about the Pro Tour is that if a team held a multi-year Pro Tour license,
it was guaranteed entry into the biggest races. With such a guarantee, a team
could approach a potential sponsor in, say 2007, with the promise that they
would be at the Tour in 2008. Unfortunately, there were just too many Pro Tour
teams and they basically sucked up all the spots at those same big races.
Again, this was the case of the haves versus the have-nots.

It's extremely early in the season, the first Pro Tour race, the Tour Down
Under in Australia has just started, but I have a good feeling that this new
arrangement is going to force both the UCI and the grand tour organizers
to bring their A games which will ultimately be the best for professional
cycling. What do you all think?

Bruce