UCI turn facist (even more so)

[Topperharley]

http://www.vitalmtb.com/news/news/U...To-Fines-For-Racing-Non-Sanctioned-Events,581

So what does this mean for pro's racing in series like the Vic DH Series? It seems to state that any unsanctioned racing could result in fines or suspension? This could bring down the UCI World Cup series as we know it in not much time at all. If I read that correctly, there will be a revolution!

This maybe the most insular and selfish thing the UCI could do to mountain biking, it essentially a pre-emptive strike against anything like DH1 starting up, or even the Enduro Series. It stops events like Sea Otter, Crankworx or even Rampage attracting big names, it's wrong.

Petition against it -

https://www.change.org/petitions/us...tter-to-negotiate-abolishing-uci-rule-1-2-019

 

[Mr_hANky]

How does an event become sactioned?

 

[Mr_hANky]

Seem's UCI just want a cut of non-sanctioned events profits.

 

[wilddemon]

There's no way it would stand up in court. The first person to fart at it will blow it over.

 

[T-Rex]

http://www.vitalmtb.com/news/news/U...To-Fines-For-Racing-Non-Sanctioned-Events,581

So what does this mean for pro's racing in series like the Vic DH Series? It seems to state that any unsanctioned racing could result in fines or suspension?

I'm confused... Is the VDHS not MTBA sanctioned? UCI delegates event sanctioning to MTBA in Australia.

 

[driftking]

I was thinking state potentially would be included but things like crankworx would be forbidden. Things not controlled by the mtba or the countries national
Association. They said nationally recognized so I think state would be safe.

Other external run events that are not on the calendar would be a issue. Probably less an issue here in Australia more of a issue overseas. But xc riders have more of these "none sanctioned events here"

Aside the income for riders it brings up other issues too.

-it may result in lower numbers to events and potentially slow the growth of the sport because we don't have draw cards of bigger riders.

-lower numbers results in less revene and in turn less prize money

-riders use these events as training, as a way to blow of steam and generally to just have some fun.

- racers want to fight against the best and see where they measure up, they are separating the grass root riders from pros. Albeit not all events will be effected.

 

[MARKL]

(hopefully?) this may be the final tipping point for the UCI where riders and sponsors just go, 'fuck it, not worth the hassle' and embrace an alternate promoter. Personally I want to see Gee, Rachael, Stevie Smith, Gwin etc do a 'Red Bull' event and see what the UCI does? Will they tell 50% of the top riders to piss off or will they treat it like a LA drug test?

 

[driftking]

I'd tho m most riders would be hating on this idea, if they all just say screw it and race none sanctioned events the UCI can either get rid of the rule or ban every rider. Banning every rider in which case would destroy the UCI events and the fame/sponsors/respect/main game will go where the big players go. If everyone was to pick up and use a external promoter that will be come the new game and UCI will have effectively destroyed themselves.

It's a stupid rule.

What was the point behind it? Was it just a money standpoint.

 

[barron]

2 cents

Surely its a political move to, as mentioned above, to pre-empt any serious attempt at an alternate world series.
However, with a world cup series, what 7 races long covering 3 months, i can't see it supporting itself.
I'ld love to see a Formula 1/moto gp esc. world series, but I don't think the sport is bigger enough to maintain itself in isolation from other events. I'm not sure how many current world cup riders 100% professional (ie: not otherwise employed) but I expect it to be a small percentage and of these most of their revenue is likely to come from sponsors. The world series will only lose riders and sponsors if people can't get value for money.

Uci don't seem to realise we are not in the time of Stalin but of wikipedia and linux, where you need to be open and constructive to survive. I hope it stimulates change that results in more og the sport we love in a way that's sustainable to all involved. Unfortuntely i expect the UCi is not completely stupid and/or blind, and will soften where needed to prevent self destruction and seek other means to control the sport, and untill a well constructed and made attractive to enough of the key players, the UCi is what we'll be left with.

 

[D_Nine]

I must admit my ignorance. Who is the UCI and who said they were in charge ? Under what authority do they have the power to ban riders or instigate fines ? If ALL the riders just said fuck off we don't like you what could they really do ? If all the riders signed contracts to follow their regulations but then decided not to what could they do ? Sue everyone ? Hah like that would be logistically possible !! Just get the riders to form a new organisation. IE Indy and Cart .

 

[driftking]

I must admit my ignorance. Who is the UCI and who said they were in charge ? Under what authority do they have the power to ban riders or instigate fines ? If ALL the riders just said fuck off we don't like you what could they really do ? If all the riders signed contracts to follow their regulations but then decided not to what could they do ? Sue everyone ? Hah like that would be logistically possible !! Just get the riders to form a new organisation. IE Indy and Cart .

Union Cycliste Internationale is the world governing body for sports cycling and oversees international competitive cycling events. They are essentially in control of anything that is tied to professional racing.

I'm not sure what would happen if another organisation stepped up to take charge, that would all come down to what has been contracted by who and what those contracts contain..

 

[sikpuppyonglory]

wouldn't be hard for the UCI to be hung out to dry if all racers boycotted all uci sanctioned events & formed their own new governing body with people who are passionate about the riders & what they stand for, get the backing from all cycling sponsors & bike manufacturer's and start afresh with new governing laws allowing riders to compete in whatever events that their sponsors would like them to participate in.

 

[ajay]

wouldn't be hard for the UCI to be hung out to dry if all racers boycotted all uci sanctioned events & formed their own new governing body with people who are passionate about the riders & what they stand for, get the backing from all cycling sponsors & bike manufacturer's and start afresh with new governing laws allowing riders to compete in whatever events that their sponsors would like them to participate in.

Well that's a huge issue. It will be a big gamble for the sponsors and manufacturers to back it. As it stands now, the WC has been running for decades, every year, with a lot of traditions in terms of locations, events, etc. To just stick it to the man, boycott the WC and start your own series (and in this case, its something that supporters WOULD like to see happen) is a monsterous financial gamble. It would permanently sever the relationship with the UCI, and it might also fall in a heap, leaving a whole bunch of riders without sponsors, and manufacturers with no one to promote their bikes, and no series - and who would be world champion?
I know that the World Cup isn't the only advertising platform for manufacturers, but its certainly a significant one.
Dicey times... F*ck the UCI, in the A^se!

 

[flamshmizer]

Well that's a huge issue. It will be a big gamble for the sponsors and manufacturers to back it. As it stands now, the WC has been running for decades, every year, with a lot of traditions in terms of locations, events, etc. To just stick it to the man, boycott the WC and start your own series (and in this case, its something that supporters WOULD like to see happen) is a monsterous financial gamble. It would permanently sever the relationship with the UCI, and it might also fall in a heap, leaving a whole bunch of riders without sponsors, and manufacturers with no one to promote their bikes, and no series - and who would be world champion?
I know that the World Cup isn't the only advertising platform for manufacturers, but its certainly a significant one.
Dicey times... F*ck the UCI, in the A^se!

Don't forget a lot of the MTB companies make road bikes, which is a much bigger market with way more money. I would not be surprised if profits from road racing helped pay for MTB world cup expenses. If specialized (eg.) walked away from UCI MTBing, they UCI could put pressure on their far more profitable road team. I wouldn't put anything past the UCI now.

Can of worms it is.

 

[josh88]

How I have interpreted the scenario is that the rule was created by the UCI however it is up to the national association to enforce it (e.g. MTBA or in this case the USAC) so this is why the issue only seems to revolve around events and riders in North America at the moment. This is due to the rule existing for a period of time but only having now been made aware to riders and general public.

 

[driftking]

How I have interpreted the scenario is that the rule was created by the UCI however it is up to the national association to enforce it (e.g. MTBA or in this case the USAC) so this is why the issue only seems to revolve around events and riders in North America at the moment. This is due to the rule existing for a period of time but only having now been made aware to riders and general public.

Iv read that too, what happens in the case though if America enforce it mtba say no, does tere need to be a blanket agreement between all counties or not? I'd think there would eventually be a case for this as one could argue the advantage of the ability to use non sanctioned event for training in other countries, what would happen if an athlete from America was to travel to Australia would they be in violation because they are represented by America or would they fall under the Australian rules now.

 

[josh88]

Iv read that too, what happens in the case though if America enforce it mtba say no, does tere need to be a blanket agreement between all counties or not? I'd think there would eventually be a case for this as one could argue the advantage of the ability to use non sanctioned event for training in other countries, what would happen if an athlete from America was to travel to Australia would they be in violation because they are represented by America or would they fall under the Australian rules now.

I would imagine the rider would fall under the country in which they hold a license, as it's up to that country to enforce any sanctions on the rider for any violations which occur.

 

[thecat]

wouldn't be hard for the UCI to be hung out to dry if all racers boycotted all uci sanctioned events & formed their own new governing body with people who are passionate about the riders .

You'd get the same issues we had when MTBA first split from CA. UCI are responsible for major cycling event like World Champs and Olympics. If riders walk away from UCI their chance at representing their country at Olympics or official world championships is gone.

Like the MTBA split I'd imagine this would be a short term pain but in a sport where longevity at the top isn't all that common it's a big ask for the current crop to sacrifice their chance at gold medal glory. and like the MTBA split I'm not sure that short term pain will result in any realistic long term gain.

 

[Norco Maniac]

Can of worms it is.

Like the MTBA split I'd imagine this would be a short term pain but in a sport where longevity at the top isn't all that common it's a big ask for the current crop to sacrifice their chance at gold medal glory. and like the MTBA split I'm not sure that short term pain will result in any realistic long term gain.

UCI also screw over BMX with arbitrary,outmoded and plain dangerous rules as to what protection gear we can wear etc without contributing anything useful as far as rider development or track safety.

 

[morticus]

I vaguely remember something along these lines in the word surfing tour. The reason behind that though was because the top 44 surfers were sick of surfing events that had little to no surf, because they were planned a year in advance. Most of the pros were looking at moving to another tour that was actually designed around swell forceasts and other factors. From memory it fell in a heap though, and i think that this might end up the same way. I could be wrong, it has happened before.
Why couldn't red bull events be included? Wouldn't it just mean that the riders currently racing for points would be eligible for them? In regards to sponsors, i thought racing at major events like these would increase publicity. I guess the pressure will be put on them to take it to their governing body, who in turn answers to UCI.

I think UCI lost a lot of credibility when its been proved the majority of riders in their premier event have been guilty of drug cheating.