Props to Wilcockson
Dear Velo,
What an excellent article by John Wilcockson!

It would seem clear that ASO, as owners of the most prestigious event in cycling (the Tour de France and others such as Paris-Roubaix and Paris-Nice), are seeking to widen their control in cycling, which would ultimately undo all the work to make professional cycling an organized world-wide sport.

The fiasco surrounding Michael Rasmussen and the Astana team in last year's Tour de France has given ASO all the ammunition they need to legitimize their attempt to wrest control of cycling from the UCI, because ultimately their ambitions are surely wider than France. Have they already not made a bid to buy the rights to the Tour of Spain? Unchecked, why, as a business, would they not seek to buy other profitable events, wherever they might be?

While many applaud ASO in their stance against doping, one has got to ask is it about fair play or about protecting and furthering their commercial interests? What else may they decide is damaging to their interests? Without regulation or challenge, ASO could ultimately become the main arbiters of standards within the sport.

The riders' and teams' apparent lack of cohesiveness leave them wide open to being bullied by what is a powerful commercial organization. For the second year running they have stood by meekly while fellow riders and teams (Unibet and Astana) have been denied the right to race in the premier events. Who will be the next political pawn? Who is going to protect the livelihood of riders?

On reflection it was surely a mistake to appoint the French manager of a French team as the voice of the professional cyclists. In the current political situation he is far too vulnerable to pressure from ASO.

The establishment of premier events around the world has been fabulous and has ultimately widened the development of competitive cycling all over the world.

Whilst the Tour de France is a sporting spectacle that France is justifiably proud of, and will always be the event that inspires riders and public alike, please let us not go back to a sport where the main focus is France.
John Brennan
Montrose, Scotland

A different view ...
Editor,
I take a different view of the rift between the UCI and the Grand Tour organizers than does John Wilcockson. While Mr. Wilcockson lays the blame at the feet of the organizers, labeling Paris-Nice a "renegade," I feel that the root of the problem is a fundamental failure of leadership on the part of the UCI. The UCI has tried to rule the sport by executive fiat rather than by trying to find consensus with the Grand Tour organizers.

This is particularly foolhardy, since the Grand Tour organizers also own most of the other major European cycling events. The UCI has not granted them admission to the top level of the sport. Rather, they ARE the top level of the sport and the UCI is riding on their coattails.

The Grand Tour organizers and the UCI should form a mutually respectful and co-equal partnership and should work together to find a common vision for the sport that they can both support. Both parties share responsibility for the ever-widening rift. However, if the UCI wants to claim the leadership of the sport, then they're also saddled with the lion's share of the responsibility for the failure of that leadership that is responsible for the continuing battle between the sport's major players, a battle that the UCI is predictably losing.

If the UCI continues to try to put the boots to the Grand Tour organizers, all they'll do is to make themselves more irrelevant.
David LaPorte, race director,
Nature Valley Grand Prix, Minnesota

Re: Wilcockson's opinion ...
Editors,
I think that in the spirit of journalistic integrity Mr. Wilcockson's recent diatribe against the ASO should have at least been called "An Editorial."

Instead it was presented as news! I had to double check to see that it was not in fact a UCI press release with Pat McQuaid's name at the bottom.

Mr. Wilcockson has a history of pro-UCI bias which to me is inexplicable in the very complex arena of professional cycling. He also seems to have a very short memory. Has he forgotten that last year McQuaid publicly announced, "The ASO does not own the Tour de France ..."?

Imagine how the NFL would respond if they were told they don't own the Super Bowl, or the NHL, if they were told, you don't own the Stanley Cup. Even the historic and staid All English Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club would raise an eyebrow if some international regulatory official said, "Wimbledon is not yours ..."

And what about last year when the German authorities were doing everything they could to keep doping out of the world championships? McQuaid's response was cynical beyond belief. "Italy loves cycling and the UCI loves Italy." So much for rigorous anti-doping enforcement.

In my opinion ASO is not the threat to cycling. It is the blatant attempts by the UCI to destroy the historic structure of the sport for its own power and profit.

Label it as such.
Jeff Donaghue
Mineral Point, Wisconsin

Reader: Team exclusion may be helpful
Editor,
There are two possible outcomes in the ASO/UCI dispute, and they may hinge on the decision of the teams to participate in ASO's events.

If the teams decide to boycott, ASO would be forced to take a seat at the negotiating table.

If they participate (which it looks like they're going to do), they legitimize ASO's demands. But that may be the best thing for cycling. Sure, it's also the best thing for ASO, but it would engender a market system for race invitations that would be based on a team's cleanliness.

We need to accept from the outset that ridding the sport of both the reality and the image of doping is paramount. Forcing teams to either clean up their image or be excluded from the races that matter would achieve that, however heavy-handedly. Keeping riders from racing will only worsen this dispute and hurt cycling further.

In the end, fans, riders, sponsors and organizers all want to see fast, clean racing, not hard-headed power struggles.

This is not to say that what happened to Astana is fair. But an organizer's power to exclude teams may be helpful, in the long run, for cycling as a whole.
Chat Ortved and Ted O'Toole
Toronto, Canada and New York, New York

Levi is no wheelsucker
Dear VeloNews,I just have to take exception to Mike Hatten’s commentson Levi Leipheimer’s riding style, especially at the Tour of California.

I was in San Jose when he and Gesink shelled the field on Sierra Road. All the supposed wheels he was following were dropped on the climb.

Sure, he stayed with Gesink on the climb, but he was a ways out with a strong chase group behind. Perhaps Mr. Hatten missed the footage of Levi in his time trial position absolutely drilling it into San Jose.

He took the bull by the horns, securing Gesink’s stage win and his GC gains with a huge late effort.

I don’t think the Solvang time trial was passive riding either. Levi took 30 seconds on the field, and beat a lot of pure time trial riders in the process. Where I come from, that’s called manning up, not sitting on. I thought it was exciting to see.

Many viewers of last year’s Tour de France found the final time trial duel with Contador and Cadel pretty gutsy stuff. Sure, Leipheimer came up short on the overall, but he came pretty close. It would have been easy to settle for a podium finish, but he put it all on the line and made the race. I was also impressed with his team support riding in the alpine stages last year.

Levi has worked hard, and is reaping rewards from that hard work. I cheer for riders that maybe don’t have Lance’s huge natural ability, but make up for it with work ethic, tactical savvy and determination. Ride, Levi, ride! I’m rooting for you.
Rob Welton
Juneau, Alaska

Portland's 6-day
Dear Velo,
The last time you quoted someone saying there was no 6-day track racing in the U.S., you printed my letter pointing out the Alpenrose Dairy in Portland, Oregon, and the 6-day track race there, which has been happening for years.

Today I read Mr. Simes saying that his Las Vegas 6-day will be the first in 35 years. While I wish him luck, and hope the event is a huge success, Portland has our annual 6-day and it is going strong! This year it begins on June 23.
Mark Ginsberg
Portland, Oregon

Editor's response: We have received several kind letters reminding us of the Portland 6-day. Our apologies for the oversight. Perhaps it would be accurate to say that Simes' planned race would be the first indoor 6-day in the U.S. in at least 35 years? We’re sure we'll hear if that's not correct.

On the UCI's role
Editor,
Many seem to misunderstand what the UCI does. You may complain about the ProTour and feel the UCI should not receive any economic benefit, but the alternative to a central governing body is every promoter making their own rules.

ASO wants to be judge, jury and executioner.

They will decide who gets to race in their event, they can un-invite any rider or team at their complete discretion without due process or any protections. They can change rules as they see fit and make up new ones if they choose. They will have complete control of their events without any balancing authority that looks at the bigger picture.

This was fine when cycling was a European sport with the primary focus of selling newspapers and each teams' bicycles. This is not so good in the modern era when the sport is competing for sponsor dollars from major multi-national corporations.

Now imagine if every promoter is in the same position. The Giro makes up rules to suit their needs. The Vuelta makes up rules to suit their needs. Promoters control the calendar for their races. Maybe the Vuelta prefers to schedule their event when that upstart Tour of California is currently scheduled. Maybe the Giro prefers to issue their race invitations one month before the event and based on the number of Italians on a team. We might even have different doping rules for every event. You can use an antihistamine in Italy, but not in France. Absurd you say, maybe not.

If I am a potential sponsor considering investing in sport for the PR value then the current environment in cycling without any central structure does not look very appealing. I can pay to put my companies name on the side of an F1 car and know exactly which 17 or 18 events
"my car" will be participating in each year and what television coverage I can expect, or I can put my companies name on a professional cycling teams jersey and have no guarantee I will be in any events, get any television coverage, or realize any benefit for my investment.

Potential sponsors are not limited to cycling. They have many, many choices for how to spend their advertising and promotion dollars. Our fractured, every man (promoter) for himself sport does not offer much appeal. The UCI and the ProTour offered agreed upon rules for participation, a pre-determined calendar, and a path to guaranteed participation for my investment. What of these does ASO, RCS and Unipublic offer minus the UCI?
Mike Kelly
Chattanooga, Tennessee

Let 'Bert ride!
Editor,
I was happily reading my new issue of VeloNews and wanted to make a comment. Under the Industry Insider section regarding the Let Levi Ride campaign you ask: "Whatever happened to Alberto? ... What about 'Let Alberto Ride?'."

I just wanted to point out that there is a similar campaign for Alberto located at www.ContadoralTour.com. There is a link to the website on the www.LetLeviRide.com website. See Contador al Tour!
Jill Van Noord
Boulder, Colorado