Maybe this has been tried before and failed, but now seems the right time for the creation of a strong riders union. Otherwise, it seems that they'll just be blown back and forth from the wind of the UCI's hot air and the chest thumping of ASO. A union could provide financial assistance to riders who, unlike Floyd or Tyler Hamilton, can't afford to fight WADA. It could also stick up for riders in situations similar to what happened to Rock Racing at the AToC.
Is this a possibility? Or does the international nature of cycling limit how organized these guys will get? I think if the UCI really wanted to stick it to ASO, they'd unify the riders and teams and provide the funding as long as they remain under the UCI umbrella. Then they could start pitting the riders against ASO for things like excluding Astana from the Tour
Suzie b,
I never really understood the need for the UCI to create the Pro Tour. The sport of cycling seemed to be doing fine before it. My cycling insiders have told me that, a few years back, the UCI caught wind that ASO was going to create a race series around it's events so the UCI rushed the Pro Tour into existence to beat them to the punch.
The only benefit I can see to the Pro Tour is that it guaranteed participation in certain races and that is a huge benefit in attracting potential sponsors. That's the only advantage and if it really is an advantage, then the teams who benefit from the Pro Tour should kick back part of their sponsorship to the people(UCI) who made it possible. I don't see why the UCI thinks it should get part of ASO's TV money. They didn't make the Tour de France popular, ASO's efforts did.
Another problem with the Pro Tour is that the UCI gave licenses to way too many teams and because of that they limited the number of wild card teams a race could invite. If the UCI reduced the number of Pro Tour teams to say 15 and looked for revenue from the teams and their sponsorhips instead of ASO's TV money then I would support the Pro Tour. However, as it currently stands, the Pro Tour is severly flawed and is just a money and power grab by the UCI and will fail.
Please don't be fooled that the UCI is looking out for the riders and teams. These guys would throw their wives under the bus faster than Roger Clemens if it suited them. I have not seen anything done by the UCI in recent years which indicates that they really care about the riders and teams.
Jesse, yes, a rider's union would be great and not just to stop all this feuding between ASO and the UCI. More importantly, one huge way to fight doping is for the riders to all band together and agree to stop using PEDs. Unfortunately, the riders, like farmers, seem to be an independent lot and they will probably never be able to form a strong union. Maybe if things get really bad, but not likely in the present climate.
Bruce
If you could read any of the comments I wrote on a few blogs between Aug 2006 - Jan 2008, you would laugh & laugh as I rarely had ANYthing good to say about the UCI. And perhaps I am viewing them now NOT as they are, but who I want them to be, who I think they need to be, as the governing entity of this sport. But between a company whose self-interest is for their own few races & an organization who (at least in theory) is looking out for the sport as a whole, I must side with the UCI in this fight.
It's actually quite strange, as I love the Tour de France more than any other cycling race & next to the Olympics, more than any other sporting event. And yet I honestly believe for this sport to evolve, that race MUST become just a jewel in the crown of an entire Pro Tour season & not the entire crown as it is now. And I believe that is something the ASO will do everything in their power to prevent.
But I do love reading your point of view & your posts in general as they are all very enlightening & I'm one of those people who think you can't get enough information on an issue or topic one cares about. And besides, based on their history, I'm sure I'll be back to spewing shock & dismay about the UCI anyday now...