Ultimatum Time! Teams Threaten Boycott Over Radio Ban
The radio ban controversy refuses to go away, and in fact, in recent days, the conflict has escalated. First, USA Cycling announced earlier this week that the organization had lifted the radio ban for elite races in the United States. Teams may now race with radios at the National Racing Calendar events, beginning with the Redlands Bicycle Classic on 31 March. From the press release: "The vast majority of athletes, teams and event managers agree that safety cannot be compromised, and that progressive sports use more communications technology, not less," stated Bob Stapleton, owner of HTC-Highroad professional cycling team and USA Cycling board of directors USPRO representative. In lifting the radio ban, the American federation risks a clash with the UCI, who could fine or suspend USA Cycling.
Now comes the news today that the teams organization, the AIGCP, has thrown down an ultimatum to the UCI. Citing concerns over the governnance of the sport and arguing that cycling is a team sport, the AIGCP has called upon the UCI to lift the radio ban by 1 May. If the UCI refuses, the teams will boycott the Tour of Beijing, a race promoted by the UCI. The Tour of Beijing is the only race on the calendar that the UCI promotes. Consequently, the boycott will not damage an independent promoter, according to the AIGCP. Reportedly, the CPA, the rider's association, has also signed on to this agreement. No word yet on the UCI's response. VeloNews has a short conversation with Vaughters on today's news.
Want to read the full press release? I'm so here for you. To the under-the-fold!
AIGCP Press Release
One of our desires is to help improve the governance of cycling. We cannot be effective in this when we are not allowed to participate in these meetings. Being invited and then removed, in a matter of days, from these meetings, depending on the whim of UCI management is unacceptable. To be clear, the teams remain unified in their stance on the radio issue. Cycling is a team sport and as such, communication is key for the athletes and the coaches. We continue to hope - and push - for an amicable resolution to this issue.
However, if the use of radios in all professional cycling events is not permitted by May 1st, all of the teams have signed an accord that simply states that we will not participate in the Tour of Beijing, which is the only event in professional cycling that the UCI not only governs, but also promotes. This way we avoid actions that could be damaging for any race organizer that does not have any say or vote in the governance or regulation of the sport or any race that is part of cycling's rich history.
Our objective in this action is to ensure that the people that actively work in field of professional cycling also have a vote in its regulation. Fair, logical, and agreed upon regulations are our goal. We hope the UCI will become our partner in achieving this objective.
90 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
-1
it’s still fricking delicious.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Mar 17, 2011 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
You hated it the semester you spent there. I remember you specifically saying that.
"Your not going won't unbreak her arm."
my issue
is that my Chinese parents-in-law assume that I will also think that chicken feet are “the best”
moo
better than
duck webbing.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Mar 17, 2011 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Bah, radios!
Bah, Boycotting!
I didn’t race with radios…and I won literally one’s of races.
A bike should have a voice... it should speak to you, and you should hear it, and what it should say is: "Attack!" - sminer
Only cause you slipped off the front early before anyone was paying attention
NTTAWWT………
"Your not going won't unbreak her arm."
That's the threat? Boycotting a race in Beijing?
I’m shaking here, I’m shaking. I’m so sick of this shit. Actually, I don’t care about race radios. Not this way or that way. I’m just so sick of all the other shit going on here in the US and in the big wide world, it’s nice to vent even if it is about something stupid.
by sebastiandeluded on Mar 17, 2011 11:05 AM EDT reply actions
not much else they can do. they can use radios in all the big races. the worlds would be great but its national teams so no dice there.
by mr. rogers on Mar 17, 2011 11:37 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
AIGCP and CPA have both been excluded form a meeting with the UCI
well done UCI… Perhaps we’re better off with out you.
Anyone who has every thought a working Photojournalist has a glam job needs to rethink...
by Christopher See on Mar 17, 2011 11:31 AM EDT reply actions
The thing about this whole thing is that even if you discount the radio part of this...
…the governance part of this is so compelling that I’m basically all for them telling the UCI to fuck themselves, especially if it leads to a stronger riders union with a somewhat independent voice in all of this.
(And more and more I think the radio ban is stupid and unlikely to do most of what it’s supposed to do).
+2
"It was getting colder and colder as we went up. About halfway up, I started to go a little backwards and as I passed Thor he looked at me and said, "If you lose my wheel I will smash you." I took his wheel and found an extra gear." João Correia
I for one
don’t think it’s necessarily a good idea if the teams get to vote on the regulation of the sport. Regulatory capture can lead to some pretty bad stuff, and the risk is bigger when the agency is in bad shape. That’s the weirdest thing here; people moaning about the UCI being the worst organization ever and then wanting the fox to have a say about the security of the henhouse.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 17, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
There's a difference between regulatory capture...
…and having a voice as a stakeholder. Be careful you don’t equate the two via a slippery slope. Yeah, it’d be bad if the teams had veto power over every regulation. But that’s hardly what’s involved here.
If a party (team or rider organisation) gets a seat on the UCI exec comm
they will have voting power and therefore they are no longer just a voice.
Note: I personally have not made up my mind whether I like the idea of teams and riders to have voting power.
Riders don't need a vote, they need a union
Their interests are so often at odds with the UCI’s, they should act as an independent organization.
"It's just a bike race" - Frank Schleck
Can agree that they need a union.
Its unclear to me, if they need a vote. They are clearly not ready for it now, but if they can get their act together perhaps they should have a vote. I have not made up my mind.
agreed
but as is they lack the needed organization to even begin to campaign for a real labor union. The CPA is a joke. The problem is that all these actions are taken at the behest of the team owners and management staff, who I don’t think have the riders best interests in mind and who I believe should be an entirely separate lobby from the riders. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t trust team management to do right by the riders or by the sport, especially if you’ve read FMK’s latest columns. The riders are pawns in the battle between the UCI and AIGCP, neither of which is all that noble.
That's a really important point
The UCI is separate from the peloton and the pelton is separate fromt he teams. In the US, the NFL is going through a huge labor battle and the owners are at odds with the players. The difference is that the owners make up the NFL and employ the players. The UCI is just a regulatory body that has no interest in the “league” which is the owners and peloton. Their only interest is their own which is no way to grow a sport. It is a pretty unique situation in comparison to US sports. Although I suppose FIFA is a bit similar?
I don’t care one way ro the other about radios, but I would like to see the people that actually do the racing and pay the bills have more control over their day to day jobs.
Eat rice, act nice, and let the good times roll
I believe US sports is in unique situation
Well, perhaps not entirely, the Swedish hockey league is some sort of hybrid. And there are probably other examples. But I would say that most other sports are similar to the UCI.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 17, 2011 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
As Uphill write
They want more than being a voice. To quote from the press release: “that the people that actively work in field of professional cycling also have a vote in its regulation”. And it still doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 17, 2011 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Having a vote is still not regulatory capture...
…there’s a hell of a lot of daylight in between those two things. I’d actually be willing to argue that having a limited veto wouldn’t necessarily be regulatory capture.
I haven't argued that it is
You can have capture without a vote. Through lobbyism. Or bribes (of course, the UCI officials would never take bribes). I am saying that the risk of capture is a lot bigger when the subjects of regulation are allowed to vote on the regulation itself compared to when they’re only allowed to voice their opinions. Of course, giving them an oppurtunity to vote doesn’t mean that anything bad inevitably will happen, but have we really been looking at the worst case scenario here? I still find it strange to have the opinion that the UCI sucks, and then not seeing any problem with giving more power to the teams and riders.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 17, 2011 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok.
Like I said below, I’m thinking that what’s really at stake here is independence. You want the regulator to remain at least substantially independent of the objects of regulation. I agree that this is important.
I disagree that giving teams and or riders a vote on regulation, or some kind of formal (if limited) veto, or some other check on the power of the regulators is necessarily a compromise on their independence. And I think the fact that in practice the regulators have hardly been ‘neutral’ with regard to interests besides that of the sport and its participants is deeply problematic (I realize that this is a reformulation, but hopefully what I’m getting at is clearer). I think the IOC’s interests have had far, far too much influence. I think, to be very honest, that any number of financial interests that have made having the appearance of clean sport far more important than having clean sport have had far too much influence. I can go on, but I hope the point is clear.
I agree that how the riders and teams gain a voice and how much of a voice they have are serious questions, and if it’s handled badly then it could produce very unhappy effects. But I don’t think that’s a reason compelling reason why they shouldn’t have a voice. I think the UCI is an excellent example of why trusting a technocratic administration to get it right if you make it ‘independent’ enough of those being administered is extremely unwise.
How is it not a compromise?
I honestly can’t see why it’s not. And the neutrality issue is still pointless, adding another wrong doesn’t make it right. Besides, the teams and riders can’t easily be compared to the IOC since the UCI isn’t supposed to be the IOC’s governing body.
I think the UCI is an excellent example of why trusting a technocratic administration to get it right if you make it ‘independent’ enough of those being administered is extremely unwise.
Are you saying the the problem with the UCI is that they’re too independent from the teams and riders? To me that’s strange, what about Armstrong’s donation?
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 17, 2011 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm talking neutrality of interest...
…if you hate the word ‘neutrality’, then let’s say that the regulator has to operate in the interest of the sport, where this is defined in terms of the welfare of all of its stakeholders (and yes I’m willing to distinguish welfare from preference, though not absolutely), rather than some other interest, including that of the regulator, who needs to essentially not be a stakeholder.
I think this is hardly irrelevant, and indeed is at least as important as the independence of the regulator: and I think it’s a non-trivial part of where the UCI has failed to be a good regulator…and continues to fail. If you see this as irrelevant, then I can understand why you don’t like the current debate. But I just disagree with you about the relevance of this consideration
I don't hate the word the neutrality
You said that the issue of regulatory capture presumes that UCI is a neutral governing body. It doesn’t, and in that regard the neutrality issue is pointless.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 18, 2011 3:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Given what I've explained I meant by it, I still say it does.
If the UCI isn’t so constituted that it acts in the interests of the sport in the first place, then whether the riders or teams manage to manipulate it into acting in their interest isn’t so serious. I really don’t like the assumption that the UCI’s actions, if the riders and teams or race organizers, etc., don’t have a ‘vote’, are somehow going to be governed by the interest of the sport. I find that deeply questionable in this case, as do a great many other people.
If you want to tilt at windmills, fine
I most certainly do not have any naive dreams about the UCI and their actions. And I find it bizarre that another flaw, by design, isn’t viewed as serious.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 18, 2011 8:18 AM EDT up reply actions
We disagree whether it's a flaw.
At least that’s what I think this argument boils down to, and I suspect it’s a disagreement in principle, so probably best to let it go at that.
Re: compromise
I don’t think giving a vote compromises the independence of regulation at all. Surely you think democracies are capable of regulating themselves, don’t you?
So we're really going for...
…at least they make the trains run on time as an acceptable substitute. No, democracies aren’t perfect, but they do a better job of protecting the interests of multiple stakeholders / constituencies than most other solutions. I really don’t think that making the UCI a bit more democratic would have led to worse outcomes on the doping front, partly because I can’t really imagine how much worse it could have been.
Interesting
I asked Vaughters a few days ago on twitter what he thought the outcome would have been if the teams and riders got to vote on the WADA code back in 2004. He didn’t answer (and I honestly believe he has better things to do), and I’m not sure their votes would have made any difference. Because as far as I remember, the IOC made some noise about UCI (and FIFA) not signing the Code, with the threat of excluding the sports from the Olympics. More to the point, do we really want the teams and riders to decide on doping regulations within the sport? I most certainly don’t, and “it can’t get worse” doesn’t cut it.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 18, 2011 3:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Actually, I think it's at least as likely that they can be...
..convinced that fairly and credibly enforced anti-doping rules are in their interests, and that it’s worth it to do the work to convince them of that. Frankly, if you can’t get the riders and teams to buy into an anti-doping regime, it’s going to fail, every time. I think the history of the issue shows that pretty clearly. I think the doping objection sounds a lot better than it is.
But the thing is
that they are just as short-sighted, perhaps even more so than others (tunnel vision is an issue). The work to convince them might in some cases involve having rules that they oppose. The helmet rule was definitely not loved from the start, and they had to live with it. I have a hunch that it’s quite different today.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 18, 2011 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions
No question...
…but I still think that where the changes you want to make really do depend in considerable ways on cooperation, government by fiat isn’t likely to work. I’m not suggesting taking away the UCI’s ability to make rules. I’m suggesting that the process by which the rules get made should include representatives of the riders, teams, and race organizers. I really do not get the assumption that the only effective way to make real changes is to jam them down people’s throats over their opposition. I suspect that’s likely to be the least effective way, in the end.
You assume far too much
Again. There are quite obvious situations when that’s the only solution, but not at all every time.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 18, 2011 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
So, what's the problem?
Honestly? Why not give them a vote and more of a voice?
If I still haven't got my point through
I never will.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 18, 2011 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I think we just disagree.
Which is fine :)
But if there is no compromise
they don’t need to regulate themselves. And no, I don’t think democracies are good at doing it, but that most certainly doesn’t have anything to do with the UCI. As I’ve said, if the UCI is in the state it is, you need to look out for regulatory capture even more.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 18, 2011 3:15 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't disagree with you that regulatory capture is a problem...
…I just don’t think that giving riders / teams a meaningful way of responding to regulations or regulatory proposals they don’t like = regulatory capture.
Getting a vote on regulation
increase the risk of regulatory capture. That’s the only thing I’ve beens saying here. A vote doesn’t equal capture, it’s not automatic.
And there are other ways to give riders and teams a meaningful way to respond, such as the CCP. But the definition of what “meaningful way” means is obviously open for debate.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 18, 2011 8:41 AM EDT up reply actions
How so?
If you gave them a majority of votes, then obviously. But a vote, or even a couple of votes, among others. This is what baffles me about your view. And I think R Mc is really right when he reminds us that back room deals and bribery is way more likely to lead to real capture than open debate and voting. And I think the more of the latter there is, the more likely that the former will have a much, much more limited effect. I just don’t get the supposed downside to democratizing the governance of the sport a bit.
Not that we've heard how many representatives they want
But the UCI management committee isn’t that big. A couple of votes can be exactly what changes a decision. The assumption that there will be an open debate and voteing is, ehrmm, interesting. This is still the UCI, right?
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 18, 2011 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure, but to change it they have to have allies.
If they really want something that nobody else thinks is a good idea, they they’re stuck. If they have a view on a genuinely debatable issue, then that view should count. I fail utterly to understand why this is bad.
And allies are impossible?
Some people on the committe will have real personal gains or losses, other won’t be affected in the slightest. It’s obvious to me that it’s not a leveled playing field.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 18, 2011 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions
If a $250,000 paument
Is enough for one rider to affect personal reg. Capture, then there’s much room for improvement in how the stalinistically-named UCI does things.
by R Mc on Mar 17, 2011 7:13 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Also, your objection presumes that the UCI is acting as a genuinely neutral governing body...
…rather than a stakeholder or a proxy for some stakeholders. There are a lot of people who argue, fairly compellingly, that this is not even close to the case. This is why the connection between the UCI and the IOC is of capital importance here, especially given that no one in his or her right mind can argue that the UCI isn’t a ‘stakeholder’ in a very real sense, with very large amounts of money involved.
Crap, replace UCI with IOC in the last sentence!
so: “…can argue that the IOC isn’t a ‘stakeholder’ in a very real sense”
(why the fuck can’t we have an edit function? Hello! SBN!)
ja, i do wish we had an edit function.
Like, it could have an expire time or something if they wanted. But really….
No, it doesn't
I’ve no idea what a neutral governing body look like, I’ve never been to Eldorado. One can be neutral in relation to an overall non-neutral position. And IOC’s interest in the UCI and the sport doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for other agents to gain advantages in areas that the IOC don’t care about.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 17, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Fine, there's always *an* interest, but I meant neutral in the sense you specify here...
…and I don’t think the UCI is even sort of neutral in that respect, and I think that it’s relationship to the IOC is a big part of why not. I also don’t think that the IOC represents the interests of ‘sport’ in any meaningful sense. You may disagree, but I think it’s pretty much a grotesquely corrupt and self-serving organization, full stop.
I don't know if we're going to count the turtles here
But I would say that the UCI by definition have to be neutral in relation to it’s own position. Regardless of how non-neutral that is overall. I agree with you about the IOC, but on the other hand it’s not relevant here.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 17, 2011 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Only if you actually think the UCI's actions, by virtue of being such,
are undertaken in the interest of the sport of cycling. Since I think whether they are is incredibly arguable—and in any case surely not something that can be decided a priori—I don’t see how the UCI is ‘neutral’ by definition. Further, any sense of neutral that has any concrete meaning would have to balance the interests of the various stakeholders without being subsumed by any of them. This leads me to think that what we’re really arguing about here is independence rather than neutrality, but I think the response to that is better made above.
You're the one who brought the neutrality issue to the table
And that issue was pointless to begin with.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 17, 2011 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
ASO (one of the few race organisers that really matters)
is against team radios. Article in Velonation.
I still think its incredibly dumb that the NRC races are allowing radios...half of them are crits
and there are some circuit races in there too. NO NEED!
This bodes well⸮
UCI President Pat McQuaid opened the meeting by passing on the congratulations of the Director of the World Anti-Doping Agency regarding the way in which recent cases had been handled. He then informed the CCP members of the reason for the absence of Messrs Jonathan Vaughters and Gianni Bugno, who had been formally invited to choose between participating in the meeting and standing by the AIGCP and CPA in their threat to launch boycotts and strikes against the proposed ban on the use of earpieces during races.
While regretting their decision not to take part in today’s constructive discussion, particularly as regards the safety aspects of the issue, President McQuaid regretfully noted this new element of tension in the situation. It will not, however, change the UCI’s position on the subject.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
"...who had been formally invited to choose between participating in the meeting and standing by the AIGCP and CPA..."
sounds more like a fuck you than an invitation to me. well done pat, well done.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
i finally get some respect around here
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Boycotting China could be a very bad idea
Cycling could really use a beachhead in that country. Massive potential of both athletes and sponsors. If China gets rolling the sport of cycling will internationalize even faster than the last couple of decades.
Robert Gesink on the difference between football and cycling: "For us it's a lot harder to get yellow"
And
that’s even before we start talking trade deficits. Surely the bike has to be the most successful export to China ever. Well, until the 1970s anyway.
If cobble delusions are wrong, who wants to be right? -JFS PGH
by Chris Fontecchio on Mar 17, 2011 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
True Enough
You wonder how the sponsors will react to this.
"It was getting colder and colder as we went up. About halfway up, I started to go a little backwards and as I passed Thor he looked at me and said, "If you lose my wheel I will smash you." I took his wheel and found an extra gear." João Correia
UCI often regulates like a bunch of headless chickens,
the Teams have a proven track record of “suicidal” behaviour and the Riders simply prefer to dope. The boycott is hardly a surprise.
Yes this is brilliant
let’s boycott a brand new race in a country which can pour limitless money into the sport and has a population of almost 1.5 billion. Why would you want to start having cycling become popular there??!!!
It's Timofey MOZGOD time
Ujiri for MVE
GALLO!!!
problem word: "popular"
Granted, the production of popularity is certainly possible (witness “Spice Girls” and “Black-Eyed Peas”), but assuming that a UCI-promoted race with how much buy-in from either Chinese government or corporations will lead to “popularity” among the general Chinese population seems questionable.
This might be considered as a “pump-priming” operation like playing NFL games in London. And the popularity of American football is growing at what sort of levels in the UK? (And people there actually BUY a few tickets to the games, as opposed to being bused in to ‘cheer’ for the racers . . .)
Admission time: I didn't read this thread
cause I’m quite tired of the radio thingy, but I figured I’d barge in to mention that ALL teams – dixit Lefevere: “Even the French ones. That’s rare.” – have agreed to race E3 with radios.
Don’t know if that’s been mentioned.
I like tinkering with the boys.
- majope
i had not heard it.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
If you want, I could translate the Sporza article and fire it up as a fanpost
I like tinkering with the boys.
- majope
feel free
but posting the link and having the googles do the translating work for us works almost as well.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Easier is good
http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/wielrennen/110318_oortjes_Lefevere
I like tinkering with the boys.
- majope
Related to
this? There were words, from Vaughters I think, about all teams being in agreement.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Mar 18, 2011 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions

by 



















