How about the return to the traditional European-based calendar of races that always existed pre-PT and even pre-World Cup (which also denigrated such great races as Fleche-Wallone)?mohair_chair said:Long live the....what?
It's great, Pat is going to exclude them from something they don't want to be a part ofjd3 said:Cycling News quote "UCI President Pat McQuaid told Reuters that all the teams could face exclusion from the UCI". Isn't that wat they just did? I know UCI is not just the Pro Tour, but aren't they fed up with the whole UCI?
I wonder if Pat McQuaid has unemployment insurance.
No, I think that overstates the case. Sure, there is friction due to UCI's mishandling of the PT situation. And I suppose there may be some who think the UCI should have shown stronger leadership re: anti-doping.jd3 said:I know UCI is not just the Pro Tour, but aren't they fed up with the whole UCI?.
Until someone creates an alternative organization to do the same. This has happened in many sports over the years.JSR said:But dismantling of the UCI is not a proper solution. There still needs to be a rules body, license administration, and common ante-doping administration, all of which the UCI is the appropriate organization.
In any case, McQuaid's threats are hardly worth the breath used to make them, given the lack of enforcement in ASO races this year. What a blowhard.
You would think at some point even Verbruggen's position in the IOC would not be enough to save them.mohair_chair said:The breakaway organization could petition the IOC to take over access to the Olympics, which would almost certainly be granted if the new organization were sufficiently large, well organized, and representative of the majority of the sport. I can't imagine why any pro team would stick with the UCI if this happens.
Sure, it COULD happen. I just don't think it will.Dwayne Barry said:Until someone creates an alternative organization to do the same. This has happened in many sports over the years.
Until McQuaid is willing to come crawling back to them with his tail between his legs I don't know why the organizers and teams wouldn't just go forward with creating a new organization that will enforce rules that they agree upon. The essence of the UCI's problem was that they had a plan that was really only strongly in their own interest, somewhat in the teams/riders interest, and not at all in the successful organizer's interest.
I've felt all along that it is kind of a shame in some respects that the serious fight against doping also coincided with the PT mess. And unfortunately the breakaways have been far more concerned with a clean sport than the UCI ever was. Otherwise, pull out of the UCI, leave WADA, keep to the old ways. However, it does appear that in the last 2 years there has been a pretty substantial change in the culture and it would be hard to go back to en masse full-stop doping.JSR said:Even if someone tried to replace just part of that - let's say ASO's races become a "league" - there's a mountain of logistics to overcome, plus all the outreach to junior programs, national and conti regimes, etc. If your league is not in some way coordinated with these other entities how do you know the riders are clean, the teams are sufficiently organized to participate in TdF-like events (assuming ASO would continue to want there to be flexibility in their invite list)?
I'd be interested in your thoughts on that. I had thought that the PT rules regarding insurance and minimum salary were the best thing that every happened to the riders.harlond said:Anyone think this could lead to the development of a meaningful riders' union? The riders certainly need one, and I believe the UCI has stood in the way of that.
Good question.Bry03cobra said:How will this effect suspended riders??