Vaughters vs. Roche (or, what are the big problems in pro cyling?)

[Flying_Monkey]

Earlier this week, ex-TdF winner and now member of the UCI's Pro Cycling Council, Stephen Roche, spoke his mind on the big issues facing pro cycling: race radios, crashed riders getting drafts from team cars and unzipped team jerseys... err, what? No, really, you read that right.

Unsurprisingly, Jonathan Vaughters, who heads up Garmin-Baracuda and the cycling teams' association, begged to differ, arguing that anti-doping, firm rules on cancelling stages because of the weather, and the long-term future of riders (i.e. pension arrangements), were all more pressing.

It strikes me that Roche has been thoroughly UCI'd - he's mouthing whatever they come up with, good or bad, and with that attitude he's well on course to be a future head of the organisation. Meanwhile the teams, the cyclists and the fan are all going to be shaking their heads at how out-of-touch the UCI are.

The UCI are doing some things that are good in the face of objection from the current teams and riders - particularly the efforts to extend cycling into other areas of the world - but even here they seem to be driven not by the genuine potential future of the sport, i.e. where there is existing talent and enthusiasm but less money (South America, South-East Asia and Africa) but by shorter-term economic considerations (China and India). And there is a real lack of support for women's cycling.

So, who is right? And what do you think are the problems (and the solutions) for pro cycling?

 

[lukesdad]

I think you only have to look back to Roche's stance on Rough Ride to see where he stands.

 

[martint235]

I agree with Lukesdad, I think the bloke has been UCI'd for years.

I voted doping, women's cycling and support for riders although on second thoughts I'm not sure about the support for riders. Some of the pros are exceptionally well paid and I do accept that the lower echelons of the pro game are possibly not paid enough to live comfortably after retirement. So I suppose there needs to be support for those who are injured or unable to continue in another career after retirement for whatever reason. Not sure this gets across what I'm trying to say but hopefully it does.

 

[dan_bo]

i'd say doping and long-term support for ex-pros is strongly linked, and a big problem for pro cycling.

 

[fossyant]

Most governing bodies are out of touch with the sport they 'Govern'. Always been the same. Roche will say anything he's paid a fat salary for !

 

[Noodley]

Seems like we are all out of touch with the UCI...no votes (yet) for drafting, clothing or race radio. It's a shocking lack of respect and understanding from the CC Race massive. Innit.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Seems like we are all out of touch with the UCI...no votes (yet) for drafting, clothing or race radio. It's a shocking lack of respect and understanding from the CC Race massive. Innit.

Well I voted for race radios and was surprised to see I was the only only one thus far.

 

[Strathlubnaig]

Race radios - that stage last week in Turkey no radios, and the peloton never knew Keisse was way up ahead, made an exciting finish.
Pensions - Most of the rest of us sort our own pensions out, why not cyclists, just be careful with your money and put some away.
Doping - It's going to be a few years until the Operacion Peurto fall out etc are forgotten, in the meantime, just keep testing and discouraging it as much as possible.
Super Teams - Look at football, over dominance by one or two teams make things boring. Why not a salary cap like in NHL etc ?

 

[Boris Bajic]

1. Sponsorship? I think levels are about right just now. Everyone wants their own sports to be better supported, but I think pro racing is about right just now.

2. Drafting and other road-race etiquette? That just adds to the 'all in it together' approach of the peloton. Stage racing has always had that added magic of being utterly brutal and ruthless whilst also giving some impression of gentlemanly conduct. In some respects the latter is a sham, but in some it is real. Drafting to get back in there is OK with me.

3. Doping. In terms of image, this is number one for me. But... Some of my heroes are the worst offenders from the worst days of doping. Pantani, Armstrong, Virenque, Millar... All great riders. Doping is a plague, but it hasn't yet killed the patient and it does add a little mystique and intrigue. I'd love it to be gone, but fear it never will be.

4. Clothing regulations? This is an issue only for the sponsors. Cross the line zipped up and with logo visible. Otherwise, do what you have to do.

5. Global expansion. Why? It has done nothing for F1. I rather like it as it is. Expansion is a mantra among some organisational gurus, but for me it is about character. The character is in the eccentricity and the eccentricity lies largely in the (globally) parochial nature of the sport.

6. Radios. Both arguments are good. I have no views on this and would follow pro-cycling with or without.

7. Women's cycling. It does sometimes seem under-funded, but money will flow to where the viewers are. Money rarely brings viewers with it and rarely stays long where it tries and fails to do that.

8. World Tour Format. I'm not in favour, but ignorance prevents me from answering in depth.

9. Dominance. Sport is about dominance in many ways. Pro sport is about money. It will happen. Salary caps will be got around. Live with it.

10. Rider benefits. This is a matter for the teams or a union of riders.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Sock length is critical. Easily outranks doping as a cause for concern.

 

[Shadow]

Sock length is critical. Easily outranks doping as a cause for concern.

Ooh, worms, cans and opening spring to mind. Not just length but colour, sponsor names, fully extended or rolled down etc.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Sock length is critical. Easily outranks doping as a cause for concern.

The UCI seems to think so...

 

[oldroadman]

One problem - the big pro teams want to write the rules. Which will be of no help to anyone except themselves, and all the rest of the sport - the bit that everyone else takes part in - is forgotten in the charge of the major team managers and owners for more money. In a word Greed, and another two words - self-interest.
They have no interest beyond their own little world. At least the UCI and national federations have some concern for everyone else.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

That's a very cynical view although no doubt it has some truth to it.

Certainly, some team managers will be only in it for the money, but there's plenty in it for the love of cycling. And it's hardly a profession that's guarranteed to make you millions, is it? Plus, if you look at the contrast between Vaughters and Roche's views: if you didn't know their affiliations, which one would you think was acting more in the interests of the wider world of cycling?

 

[Angus444]

His comment re jerseys made me smile.....for years we had a national football manager who insisted that players must always 'play with their stockings (eurgh) pulled up'....no matter how badly they played, no matter which 'diddy' third-world nation slaughtered us, appearance often appeared to be more important than performance....