Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 100 total)
  • UCI clarifies position on ""forbidden races" – Have we done this yet?
  • bencooper
    Free Member

    So who is going to fund anti-doping controls in this amazing new UCI-free world? Or do you just think people will not dope when the UCI disappears?

    The problem at the moment is that there are very limited ways to get faster – you can’t do it with technological improvements (or only minimally) because the UCI has locked down innovation. Riders are hitting the limits of what training can achieve. So really all that’s left is to dope.

    If you open it up so there are multiple ways to compete, multiple ways to win, then people won’t need to dope so much. Imagine if you had TdF categories for recumbents (faired and unfaired), diamond frames and non-diamond uprights (Moultons etc). There’s so much more possibility for innovation, strategy and chance to come into it.

    jackthedog
    Free Member

    Best option overall is to let the UCI run the kind of races they really want to run – drug addicts riding 1930s racing bikes over the Alps – and set up a proper professional modern organisation to take care of all the other bikes.

    Agreed.

    JoeG
    Free Member

    UCI – “We won’t let your sport get in the way of our business!”

    hora
    Free Member

    This stinks.

    Basically we own you. ****

    mogrim
    Full Member

    If you open it up so there are multiple ways to compete, multiple ways to win, then people won’t need to dope so much. Imagine if you had TdF categories for recumbents (faired and unfaired), diamond frames and non-diamond uprights (Moultons etc). There’s so much more possibility for innovation, strategy and chance to come into it.

    And it’d be crap. The thing about all racing is that you need to set some limits – you need a level playing field or the guy with the biggest budget has an unfair advantage. This is true of all sports: crawl is the fastest swimming stroke, so why aren’t you allowed to use it in a breaststroke race?

    The UCI’s not ideal, it could certainly do with a shake up, and this move to stop riders competing in different races is pathetic – but the fact it controls the technology available to riders is not IMO a realistic complaint.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    And it’d be crap. The thing about all racing is that you need to set some limits – you need a level playing field or the guy with the biggest budget has an unfair advantage. This is true of all sports: crawl is the fastest swimming stroke, so why aren’t you allowed to use it in a breaststroke race?

    I think there is a very effective limit in cycling and that is the fact that there is no way to increase the power of the engine (without training, obviously).

    The beauty of human powered transport is that you don’t need massive R&D and manufacturing facilities to compete with, and beat, the big boys. Just ask Graeme Obree.

    The fact is that the UCI has sucessfully kept cycling technology in the 19th century for far too long. A quick browse of this forum shows that nobody is even sure what wheel size is best for what application. On technology that is so old this is ridiculous.

    DickBarton
    Full Member

    crawl is the fastest swimming stroke, so why aren’t you allowed to use it in a breaststroke race?

    Because it is called breaststroke and not freestyle or crawl…??? That is a type of race for swimming…if it was just a swimming race then any stroke would be allowed…this is a type of swim race i.e. breaststroke/crawl/back/etc.

    Road racing is just that – a race on a road, so should allow more flexibility in what is actually used.

    Saying that, I completely agree about the unlimited budget giving an unfair advantage and agree, limits need to be set to try to make the competition happen using similar ‘tools’…

    bencooper
    Free Member

    you need a level playing field or the guy with the biggest budget has an unfair advantage

    Indeed – and at the moment we have big companies who can afford to spend huge sums to make the tiny improvements that are allowed under UCI rules.

    An interesting comparison is the Battle Mountain speed trials – on a flat desert road, teams try to go as fast as possible. The only rule is that it has to be human-powered. But of course everyone is using fully faired recumbents, and reaching astonishing speeds. But because of the variety of vehicles allowed, small builders have a chance – among the leaders are a group called Varna from Canada who build stuff in a shed and turn up on the back of a pickup. A few years ago Telewest tried to take the record as a PR stunt – they spend £250,000 and hired a bunch of F1 engineers, and failed totally 😉

    njee20
    Free Member

    So what is the difference between UCI and BCF (or other national federation) licences?

    No one applies to the UCI for their licence surely – everyone has a UCI number on their licence, but obviously only a very few will ever get UCI points. Do you become a UCI licenced rider when you get UCI points? Is it the intention to get them? Ie those racing Elite in NPS 1 where UCI points were on offer? Those racing in all categories because there were UCI points on offer?

    Kitz_Chris as you’re clearly aware of the difference and affected by this… What is it?

    nickc
    Full Member

    From the PinkBike article….

    USA Cycling posted the statement up today, along with the acknowledgement that they would be complying with the ruling, but would waive the permit fee for race organizers seeking to have their pre-existing races sanctioned.

    I think very suddenly a lot of previously un-sanctioned, forbidden races will get the permissions they need to attract the sort of riders they want

    njee20
    Free Member

    Trouble is that someone like Gorrick actively avoids being BC sanctioned, because they don’t want to be. Nothing to do with cost or anything. So if this goes as far as saying licenced riders can’t ride non-sanctioned events then it could cause a major shake up for them.

    crazy-legs
    Full Member

    If you open it up so there are multiple ways to compete, multiple ways to win, then people won’t need to dope so much. Imagine if you had TdF categories for recumbents (faired and unfaired), diamond frames and non-diamond uprights (Moultons etc). There’s so much more possibility for innovation, strategy and chance to come into it.

    You can say that about any sport though.
    That’s why the F1 rulebook as an entire encylopaedia worth of regulations laid down to the millimetre.

    Why don’t tennis players use a massive racket to give them more chance of hitting the ball. Cos it’s not allowed. Why don’t runners put big springs on the bottom of their shoes. Cos it’s not allowed.

    Same difference.

    As to the UCI rules, I’ve still not really got any idea what they’re actually talking about…

    jackthedog
    Free Member

    Don’t compare road cycling to Formula 1 – compare it to Motor Racing. Within motor racing there are different categories, using different technologies. They each have their own rule book.

    The bike is an integral part of bike racing, so the technology is a part of the entire effort. If we’re being such purists wanting to watch a sport that is a test of human fitness alone, why not just watch running? Forget the bikes entirely.

    Plus, if you widen the scope for bike designers by having new categories as per Ben Cooper’s suggestions above, there can still be a category for those who like the way things are now. It won’t ruin anyone’s existing fun, it’ll make fun for others and it will push bike development in ways most cyclists really should appreciate.

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    bencooper – Member
    …Best option overall is to let the UCI run the kind of races they really want to run – drug addicts riding 1930s racing bikes over the Alps…

    Well said, but let’s not have any organisations to provide homes for the blazer clad regulator types.

    In any case, the ultimate cycling athletes are the single speed racers.

    In what other branch of cycling do the athletes consume performance inhibiting drugs so that they can go slow enough to not appear as a blur to ordinary mortals?

    Mark
    Full Member

    Some more details in our front page story

    bencooper
    Free Member

    Don’t compare road cycling to Formula 1 – compare it to Motor Racing.

    Exactly. Imagine if Bernie Ecclestone was in charge of every kind of motor racing, from F1 to rallying to stock car racing to tractor pulling.

    It’d be rubbish.

    Look how fun raced like the Brompton World Championships can be. How about going really old-school with the TdF and making riders do it unsupported? Everyone in the same race has to play by the same rules, but why does everyone in the entire sport?

    mogrim
    Full Member

    Don’t compare road cycling to Formula 1 – compare it to Motor Racing. Within motor racing there are different categories, using different technologies. They each have their own rule book.

    Why not compare road cycling to Formula 1? Seems reasonable. Compare cycling in general to Motor Racing, even within the much-maligned UCI there are different technologies, with different rule books – DH bikes aren’t the same as Cross, which in turn are different to TT… The technology argument is a bit false, too – the UCI does accept new technology, even for road racing – TT handlebars, electronic shifting, disc brakes…

    What seems to me completely unfair is this massive landgrab the UCI’s making: you want to ride a bike in a competition, you do it with us. Even if we don’t actually run competitions for that kind of bike. I wonder if this isn’t more to do with the new League that pro-road teams are supposedly thinking of setting up? (And out of interest: do other sports have similar rules on their books?)

    clubber
    Free Member

    I see two scenarios that have led to this clarification from the UCI

    First and the one that I immediately assumed was that this is an attempt to ensure that dope banned athlete like our friend lance can’t race while banned. Then a usual they simply didn’t think things through and what we’re seeing now is an unintended consequence.

    The other is that they love power and control.

    Neither look good but I’m still not sure which is the real reason behind it.

    mogrim
    Full Member

    I see two scenarios that have led to this clarification from the UCI

    First and the one that I immediately assumed was that this is an attempt to ensure that dope banned athlete like our friend lance can’t race while banned. Then a usual they simply didn’t think things through and what we’re seeing now is an unintended consequence.

    The other is that they love power and control.

    Neither look good but I’m still not sure which is the real reason behind it.

    I’m voting for the second – Armstrong can’t compete in any serious race, there’s no national federation that would accept him. Likewise any other banned athlete.

    clubber
    Free Member

    I know what you mean but don’t forget that this wasn’t started by the UCI, rather USADA asking the question.

    Brownbacks
    Free Member

    Trouble is that someone like Gorrick actively avoids being BC sanctioned, because they don’t want to be. Nothing to do with cost or anything. So if this goes as far as saying licenced riders can’t ride non-sanctioned events then it could cause a major shake up for them.

    Each to their own. We use BC insurance, some categories are “sanctioned” with points, some aren’t.

    We essentially do what we want but use their rules as a framework to ensure a safe event. Lots of the rules are badly worded poorly thought out and inconsistently applied by BC and the volunteer commissaire. But it’s better than nothing.

    BC as an organisation is dysfunctional, but there are good people in there.

    Anyway I’m off to buy some whistles and earplugs for rule 7.2.2

    Brownbacks
    Free Member

    Patrick Mcquaid was banned for racing in South Africa in the bad old days

    Kitz_Chris
    Free Member

    No one applies to the UCI for their licence surely – everyone has a UCI number on their licence, but obviously only a very few will ever get UCI points. Do you become a UCI licenced rider when you get UCI points? Is it the intention to get them? Ie those racing Elite in NPS 1 where UCI points were on offer? Those racing in all categories because there were UCI points on offer?

    njee20

    – If you are an ‘Elite’ categorised racer, you still apply for your licence through British Cycling (or your National federation), but your licence is issued in partnership with the UCI. This normally means an increase in price of about 50%, and the privilege to race in any UCI race worldwide in your discipline.

    UCI points are a little separate. You can only gain these by racing in UCI races, and gaining a certain position. NPS races give points for the top 10. 10th place (if its the same as the USA) gets 5 points, and you need 20 points to race a world cup. Points are valid for 18 months from when they were achieved, meaning you need to keep topping up your pot to keep racing world cups.

    If anyone is interested in a very good perspective about why we should be concerned about all this, please read Chloe Woodruffs’ take on it all:

    http://www.chloewoodruff.com/2013/04/06/mountain-bike-politics/

    She is an aspiring world cup racer in the US, and will really suffer if these things dont change.

    Kitz_Chris
    Free Member

    Mark – Resident Grumpy
    Some more details in our front page story

    Mark – your front page article is wrong. It doesn’t affect all licence holders. Just UCI licence holders. Big difference.

    From the same link in your article:

    Clarification on affected riders: The letter from the UCI confirms no UCI licensed rider, in any discipline, may participate in an event not sanctioned by a national federation recognized by the UCI (USA Cycling is the sole national federation in the United States). Originally, this was described as only affecting those UCI-licensed riders on UCI teams. The UCI has subsequently clarified that the rule extends to ALL UCI-licensed riders, even those not associated with a UCI team. This rule only pertains to those riders holding an international/UCI license.

    crazy-legs
    Full Member

    – If you are an ‘Elite’ categorised racer, you still apply for your licence through British Cycling (or your National federation), but your licence is issued in partnership with the UCI. This normally means an increase in price of about 50%, and the privilege to race in any UCI race worldwide in your discipline.

    Some Federations (notably USA and Australia) have two levels of licence, a Domestic one and an International one. The International one is substantially more expensive and covers riders racing abroad.

    British Cycling works slightly differently in that you can buy a Membership and get the usual benefits (insurance, various discounts etc) but then you pay extra to buy a Full Racing Licence. That’s international by default and has your UCI number on it.

    However I’m not sure from this letter exactly what it’s referring to… Does it mean that a lowly 3rd Cat can’t compete at Enduro6 or a Gorrick or in a TLI road race? Or does it mean that an Elite racer who competes at World Cup/UCI level like Steve Peat or Paul Oldham can’t turn up at a fun event like the Morvelo CityCross?

    Kitz_Chris
    Free Member

    British Cycling works slightly differently in that you can buy a Membership and get the usual benefits (insurance, various discounts etc) but then you pay extra to buy a Full Racing Licence. That’s international by default and has your UCI number on it.

    Thanks for that clarification Crazy-legs. Its been a few years since I have had a BC licence. In that case, I guess I’m less sure where that leaves racers in the UK. In the USA (and Austria where I am now), this will only affect Elite level racers.

    crazy-legs
    Full Member

    Kitz_Chris: Actually, it’s more complicated than that; although ostensibly the same licence, there are two prices – one for UCI Teams and one for mere mortals.
    So Bradley Wiggins pays £74 for his licence cos he’s a Senior, riding for a team above UCI Trade Team level.
    I pay £32 for my licence cos I’m a Senior riding in a club team.

    Maybe, just maybe, in terms of how it affects UK riders, this is only applies to those who’ve paid the higher price? But that letter from the UCI isn’t 100% clear either way, given the slightly different way that BC licences work.

    hora
    Free Member

    What about elite Strava riders?

    njee20
    Free Member

    And there’s a UCI number on my licence, hence assuming everyone here has a UCI licence. I’m certainly not aware that any of the UK riders I’m friends with, who’ve raced world cups, have to buy the uber licence to do so, I think that’s a Pro Tour team thing.

    Blazing_Saddles will know, he’s done world cups.

    Kitz_Chris
    Free Member

    njee20 – what does the UCI number look like? Is it [three letter country code][date of birth]

    in or is it something else?

    crazy-legs
    Full Member

    njee20 – what does the UCI number look like? Is it [three letter country code][date of birth]

    UCI number is nationality as a three letter code (so GBR or AUS or NZL for example) followed by DoB in the format YYYYMMDD
    eg GBR 19800406

    for a British national born on this day in 1980.

    Kitz_Chris
    Free Member

    I guess in that case British Cycling should probably offer up a clarification as to who this actually affects.

    njee20
    Free Member

    Or… Not even attempt to enforce it because its mental?

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    Have there been any further clarifications on this clarification?

    Northwind
    Full Member

    It appears I might have a UCI licence via BC. Which is quite funny, down here at the bluntest end of competition. I keenly await my banning.

    christhetall
    Free Member

    As mentioned above, surely the solution is for UCI licence holders to ride unsanctioned races under false names – nobody at the UCI would think of that

    Can I suggest they all pick the name “James Burns”

    Pat McQuaid in South Africa

    bbb
    Free Member

    Some posters seem to be missing the point of this rule. It is not about Lance Armstrong etc.

    It is to do with stopping rival organisations like the new Enduro World Series acquiring a foothold and undermining the UCI. It is, therefore, all about control and power. By reinforcing his rule, they effectively make pro riders make a choice between riding in a series like the World Enduro or in World Cups/Championships etc. This rule is expressly aimed at destroying organisations like the World Enduro Series that try to bring change (improvement) and progression to our sport.

    Mountainbiking by its nature is fairly antiestablishment and this does not sit well with those truly interested in mountainbiking. MTB is about riding in the woods to de-stress after a hard day at work. It is about racing mates, pushing your own personal envelope. It is about challenging yourself against pros in local and international races, and being inspired by what they can do on 2 wheels. It is about big mountain days, and trips to the Alps. It is about bothy trips and bivvying out. It’s about teaching the next generation.

    For the UCI to stop people riding bikes in any way or form is wrong, whether they are occasional riders or UCI licenced pros. Mountainbiking is not about control and power. The UCI have shown their true colours yet again and so now is the time for mountainbiking to go its own way so we can ride whatever way we choose.

    cookeaa
    Full Member

    I think realistically this ruling applies only to international level “Elite” World Cup and World Championship type event entries.
    The UCI or national level affiliated organisations would not be able to police the activities of every cyclist with a racing licence nor would they really want to…

    More than likely it will only be applicable to the disipline being entered I’d have thought, i.e. an XC racer entering a WC XC race who is found to have competed in a non-sanctioned XC event could be penalized under this ruling…
    While a WC DH racer entering a WC DH race who has participated in a non-sanctioned 4x Race, would not e subject to the ruling because he’s taken part in a cycling disipline which is entirely outside of any form of UCI governance… Right?

    Obviously a WC racer needs to enter UCI sanctioned events (Including those sanctioned by affiliated national cycling bodies) to score points to be eligible for international competition. So to a certain extent if your goal is to race World cups it would be a bit of a waste of time entering non-sanctioned events anyway.

    It’s more to maintain the monopoly the UCI have over certain disiplines, Those keen to compete in disiplines where there is no UCI governing presence will not really be affected will they?
    There has been talk about breakaway international DH series in the past, intended to run in parallel to the WC events, I doubt the UCI are too keen on such things taking hold and dragging potential events sponsorship away, but then I’m not that impressed with the 2013 WC DH calender so I can see some scope for a competing series to take hold.

    Ultimately this probably only really applies to the top 1-2% “Elite” of the sport anyway, I very much doubt you’ll be turned down for a BDS Entry because you took part in a little local race.

    What role if any does the UCI take in terms of Governance for Enduro/Gravity Enduro? I didn’t think they were particularly involved or interested…

    Trimix
    Free Member

    +1 bbb

    Mountain bike riders should make a noise and stop this happening now.

    thomthumb
    Free Member

    What role if any does the UCI take in terms of Governance for Enduro/Gravity Enduro? I didn’t think they were particularly involved or interested…

    being the issue. is there a sanctioned Enduro race to enter? i don’t think so. 24 hr racing is the same i believe.

    part of the appeal of racing (24s) for me is seeing the pros at the race i’m in. Sad as it may seem but i actually take some pleasure from coming 72 places behind Matt Page, Nick Craig et al.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 100 total)

The topic ‘UCI clarifies position on ""forbidden races" – Have we done this yet?’ is closed to new replies.