The Mailbag is a regular department on VeloNews.com. If you have a comment, an opinion or observation regarding anything you have read in VeloNews magazine or on VeloNews.com, write to webletters@insideinc.com. Please include your full name, hometown and state or nation. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. Writers are encouraged to limit their submissions to one letter per month. The letters published here contain the opinions of the submitting authors and should not be viewed as reflecting the opinions, policies or positions of VeloNews.com, VeloNews magazine or our parent company, Inside Communications, Inc.

Still more explaining to do ...
Editor,

Thanks for the info on the basis of the threatened sanctions.

As I suspected, it is a very broad rule leaving much to the discretion of the powers that be. I read a comment today about a fiasco going on in the America's Cup sailing world that is equally against the interest of the sport that also fits here. To paraphrase, ASO, Unipublic, UCI, FFC, etc., need to realize that they are NOT Bernie Ecclestone, a Formula 1 monarch with the power of fiat. No one individual or organization has the power to dictate to the others.

From a legal perspective, there are holes in the rule and the enforcement thereof that are big enough to drive a truck through. However, firing up that truck takes time. Riders only have a really very short window of time to compete in these storied events, and taking even a year out of that window is devastating, particularly with the Court of Appeal in Sports opting out of possible involvement.

So now, a rider will have to take the chance to be excluded from other UCI events, such as the Olympics, appeal through their national federation or the UCI, get an adverse ruling, to then be able to appeal to the CAS. Maybe by the next Olympiad the case would be resolved.

UCI seems to have the upper hand in this particular row over Paris-Nice. But what happens when ASO uses the nuclear option and sets up the Tour to operate under FFC rules? Or the Giro and Vuelta go to NGB sanctioning instead of UCI? And the Monuments?

The tours of Russia and China are a lot less marketable without ProTour or Pro Continental teams and riders that the fans recognize. And without recognizable riders, there are no big sponsors. For the Olympics, cycling is a side show to the glamor events and many riders don't even have the Games on their calendars. But mess with the Spring Classics and we may have a Belgian uprising on our hands. Tell Tom Boonen he is not riding the cobbles. Or Paulo Bettini that he is not permitted to ride MSR.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised; Eddy Merckx was told that he was not welcome at world's last year. Obviously, the world has tilted on its axis and is now spinning sideways.
Alan R. Stewart,
Appleton, Wisconsin

Teams association is weak
Dear Editor,

Eric Boyer said about the teams' decision to ride Paris-Nice, "The AIGCP made this decision while thinking only of the sporting interests of the riders and the teams' sponsors." Try telling this to Astana and Unibet, and other top ranked teams excluded from ASO races.

AIGCP is weak and has no solidarity, proven by its failure to make a stand against injustices to its members. The UCI provides a legitimate, universal, regulatory framework, which can, and should at times, be amended to meet the needs of all those involved.

The fact is that ASO arbitrarily decide who rides their races. Sure if you are one of the top teams you will probably get a ride, but there is no guarantee. For all its faults the ProTour does attempt to ensure all the top-ranked teams ride in the premier events; surely this is the stability that sponsors and riders need.

One of the criticisms of the ProTour is the exclusivity of its membership. Membership should be decided on a performance basis year-on-year as it is in most sporting leagues, giving Pro-Continental Teams more chance to enter the big league.

I have seen letters from readers recommending cycling be organized along the lines of various motor sport leagues. Perhaps I could suggest that football (soccer) as a better model. The accessibility and universal success of football is largely down to the international regulatory framework governed by FIFA. If individual National Football Associations started organizing the game and rules to suit themselves international football competition would collapse along with its appeal, and that is what is danger of happening in cycling.
Joh Brennan,
Montrose, Scotland

Congratulating the UCI
Dear Editor,

I would like to congratulate the UCI for successfully taking doping out of the conversation this season.

You would think that this time of year, people would start wondering what has changed over last season on the war-on-dope front. Has our wonderful governing body made the tough changes necessary to insure clean races? What new controls have they put in to prevent a debacle like last year’s Tour from reoccurring?

I had heard of a passport, but that does not seem to come up so often these days. All I hear about is how ASO is screwing everything up by not allowing (suspected/past) dopers into their race.

Looking at Velonews these days, one would believe that the doping issue is behind us. I guess if you can’t/aren’t willing to fix a problem, you might as well make it go away by creating a new one. Bravo UCI, Bravo!
Antoine Rollin,
Atlanta, Georgia

Who gets the kids?
Dear Editor,

This fight between the UCI and ASO is much like a bitter divorce.

In a divorce, parents leverage their kids to get what they want without thinking about the welfare of their kids.

ASO and UCI are using riders in much the same manner. Put the riders in the middle and use them as leverage against each other. The riders have about as much opportunity to make the correct decision as a 10 year old does who is asked to chose between living with his mom or his dad.

The difference, the riders lives and their families depend on the paychecks the riders receive. And while the kids get screwed up in a nasty divorce, the riders are just flat out getting screwed in this case.

Send ASO and UCI to basic parenting classes.
Walt Scarbrough
Norris, Tennessee

The ProTour has been good for the sport
Editor,

I could not have disagreed more with anything than the letter from Ed Maspons in the March 3 Mail Bag.

The ProTour was developed to ensure a high level of competition by bringing the best riders and the best teams to the best races. How much better has the Giro been over the last few years with top level competition instead of an even mix of ProTour teams and smaller Italian squads?

The goal of the ProTour is to make it easier for teams to find high quality sponsorship. In the old system a team would go out looking for sponsors with no idea of what races they would participate in. In television commercial language, this is like selling a commercial spot without telling the advertiser when it would be on. Will the commercial be on at 2:30 a.m. on a Tuesday, or during half time of the Super Bowl? Most sponsors are willing to pay more for the latter than the former.

The ASO's stance also has to do with money and Mr. Maspons was partially correct here. If the UCI mandates a selection of international teams and teams that the ASO cannot be sure will be popular in France, the ASO may make less on selling the race to French television. If the ASO is not getting a more saleable product, then UCI sanctioning is not worth the cost.

As for the statement that the UCI should reinvent itself as a riders union, no. The riders need a better union — maybe they can call up Major League Baseball for some advice on how to build a strong union — because there is no doubt that this garbage between the ASO and UCI will end up hurting the riders the most, because they have the weakest organization of all stakeholders in this fight.
Mike Pearson
Sacramento, California

Don't forget the UCI's mission
Editor,

I think that those who continue to bash the UCI is favor of the ASO are forgetting each organization's core goals. The ASO is a company in it to make a profit. The UCI is a non-profit here to enforce the rules, which I might add that the ASO has already agreed to.

If you want to see the UCI mission statement you can read it here.

While the UCI enforces the Protour it helps to organize, it was initially done to help the riders and the teams with unstable sponsorship. In the past, sponsors found it difficult to invest in teams if they weren't guaranteed to get their team into races.

If the ASO has a problem with the rules, then go through the system and change them. Is the ASO a dictatorship? The UCI is certainly not, as their rules can change with a vote.
Alaric Falcon
San Francisco, California

Yay! A letter about racing, not politics! ... Oh wait ...
Editor,

Nice job Chechu!

I hope Astana wins every race they are invited to this year to rub it in the faces of those who shunned them!
Tom Isaacson
Buellton, California

Form a new league!
Editor,

The current struggle between ASO and the UCI should be seen as a golden opportunity for the riders/teams to form an elite league of their own with a clearly defined set of rules in concert with the UCI.

Forming such a league would, of course, mean that some new races would have to be organized to replace those controlled by ASO, RCS, and Unipublic. Frankly, I read about and watch the races to enjoy the efforts of the best riders in the world. It matters less to me which events they are racing. And in any case, many of the new races could or would probably be held on the same roads used now.

I do understand the historical relevance of the great races that could be threatened by such a move, and I'm sad to think that they may be compromised. But teams have invested millions to become a part of the ProTour only to find themselves victims of the whims of the organizers, who feel their races are more important than the riders, teams and UCI regulations.

What other choice is there but for those that make bicycle racing at its highest levels the beautiful sport that it is — the riders — to strike out on their own and run their own show?
Weston Reid,
Los Angeles, California

Don't forget the sponsors
Dear Editor,

With all the attention that the recent UCI vs ASO debacle has generated, I am surprised at the lack of apparent public feedback/commentary on the situation from the team sponsors. From the stories I have read, it seems as if the teams feel "obligated to their sponsors" to participate in the high profile races such as Paris-Nice, etc.

Is this really what is desired by the sponsors?

In the end it's all about the money: shouldn't the major sponsors be determining where their teams race?

If at the beginning of the season, the sponsors stated (directly or indirectly) that they wished to sponsor teams that would be racing the ProTour racing circuit, why should there be any reason for the teams not to follow those initial requests and race only ProTour races?

If the ASO, UCI, and individual team managers can't decide where their allegiances lie, maybe it's time for the sponsors to start pulling some strings.

After all, without sponsors, there is NO UCI, NO ASO, NO ProTour, NO TEAMS.

Seems pretty simple to me.
Brian Hertzberg,
Madison, Wisconsin