I wonder if the UCI`s threats will prove as empty as those issued by McQuaid in the run up to the Paris Nice?

To a very large degree it is the UCI themselves who have led the sport to the brink, and made the actions of the ASO necessary, what with their long-term 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' attitude to doping. For example, consider the way Verbruggen dismissed the revelations of people like Graham Obree and Gilles Delion. Today McQuaid displays much the same attitude, as is evidenced by his fatuous claim that organised doping no longer exists and that races are faster these days because "the wind is different'! (See http://www.thepulse2007.org/?p=73 ). It even seems that the UCI have at times gone out of their way to protect dopers and those suspected of doping. One good example is the way Hein Verbruggen commissioned that biased and misleading `Vrijman report` on the work of the LNDD in the wake of Armstrong's retrospective 'positives' for EPO use in the 1999 Tour. This report gives every appearance of being little more than a 'hatchet job' cynically calculated to protect the UCI's icon of 'global cycling' and was described by WADA as `so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical.`

Those who believe that the ASO are not genuinely concerned about the effect doping is having on the Tour, (or who believe that all 'the French' are interested in is 'engineering' a French win…) should perhaps think back to the way Jean-Marie Leblanc of the ASO fought to have Richard Virenque - France's biggest prospect for a Tour win since Bernard Hinault - excluded from the Tour in the wake of the Festina scandal. Back in 1999 Leblanc said that Virenque's presence is the Tour was "incompatible to the image and reputation of the event we want to preserve." When the UCI once again sided with the dopers and insisted that he be given a place Leblanc's response was "If Virenque won the Tour, it would be a very serious setback for our race".)

Given the astonishing degree of unprofessionalism he has shown since taking office, it is surely time for Pat McQuaid to resign. His only real talents appear to be for megaphone diplomacy and hypocrisy. He argued that the organisers of the Tour of California had the full right to decide who rode their event, but denies that the ASO have the same right. He backed the organisers of the Giro when they initially excluded Astana, but attacks the ASO for refusing to invite Astana to ride the Tour de France. He argued that it is wrong for the ASO to fail to invite Astana on the basis of their past record, and then went ahead and banned Frank Vandenbroucke from all 'ProTour' events on the same grounds! He has argued that the ASO are 'blackmailing' riders, claims he has the interests of the riders at heart and says that he will do everything to defend the supposed 'right' of Contador to ride the Tour (regardless of his implication in the Puerto affair), and yet he has also threatened to ban any rider who took part in the Paris Nice from all races held under UCI rules!

To his disgrace McQuaid has also repeatedly resorted to narrow-minded, anti-French rhetoric. At times McQuaid appears to be simply a xenophobe. For example, as with his claim that cycling's doping problem is due to the existence of "mafia Western European nations" whose values should be compared with those countries belonging to some mythical, whiter-than-white "Anglo-Saxon culture". This claim has a certain irony given that in the case of Astana it is "Anglo-Saxon'" McQuaid who opposes the implementation of more robust anti-doping measures! Xenophobe or not much of what McQuaid says, (such as his claim that the refusal of the ASO to invite Astana to ride the Tour "was a decision made in France by a French organisation purely for the French public") gives every appearance of being calculated to gain support from those who themselves harbour anti-French prejudices. For example, those who seriously believe that the refusal by the ASO to offer an invite to Astana is part of a supposed 'plot' by the ASO (or should that be 'The French'?...) to 'stop Leipheimer winning the Tour'. (These are probably the same people who believe that Landis was clean but was 'framed' by 'the French', an absolutely ludicrous suggestion given that the ASO needed the Landis doping scandal about as much a bullet in the head!).

In reality the McQuaid/ASO split is about 3 main issues, all one way or another related to the (in the words of Brian Cookson, head of British Cycling) "problematic and divisive" 'ProTour' concept. Firstly there is the desire of the UCI to dictate to the organisers of the sport's major events who gets to ride in those events. Relatedly there is the failure of the UCI to tackle (and even complicity in) the doping problem over the years, something which has led the sport to the brink. The result of this is that those with a financial interest in the sport can no longer risk another doping scandal and so, quite understandably, want to retain full control over who they invite to ride in their events.

Perhaps the biggest issue of all is number three. TV rights. The UCI clearly intends that race organisers should no longer have full control to the TV rights to the sport's major events on the basis that these form part of the 'ProTour brand'. In effect the UCI are telling organisers that the events they own and run no longer 'belong' to them and that the UCI is moving in with the intention of making a grab for the money to be made from the TV rights to events, in particular the Tour de France.

Even as the McQuaid/ASO battle rages, Hein Verbruggen (McQuaid's ever-present shadow) is reported as being in negotiations with several investment companies interested in buying of the rights to televised cycle sport. These include the British CVC Capital Partners group, the Belgian production company Woestijnvis and The Rothschild Group. (See

http://tinyurl.com/2bt5hn ).

If it wasn't bad enough that the UCI sold 'ProTour' licences on promises they were in no position to honour, now they are playing a role in selling of the TV rights to events they don't even own or organise! McQuaid has lost all credibility having made threats he will be unable to follow up without damaging the careers of half the peleton. He is autocratic, seemingly uninterested in negotiation or compromise and sees any voice of dissent as being proof of 'disloyalty', demanding that the dissenter resign from any UCI related post. (As with his demand that AIGCP president Eric Boyer resign from the ProTour Council). He clearly does not have the support of the riders themselves and is increasingly isolated having now suspended any official contact with the AIGCP. On top of all this the UCI are now taking legal action against Dick Pound/WADA in response to the Pound's perfectly valid criticism of the UCI historically lax attitude to doping.

For the good of cycling it's time for McQuaid (and Verbruggen) to go and for the UCI to both stop acting outside it's remit and giving the impression that it believes that the role of the ASO is to act as a 'cash cow' for the UCI and the rest of cycling.

well said aurelio (i think)

The UCI want to control everything, look at the developing Cyclosportive scene in the UK, the UCi are working with British Cycling to gain control, when clearly they have an independent self regulating body that the organiser have joined - the IACO.

I commend the ASO and the FFC.

The UCI have lost control and credibility. It's time for McQuid and others to leave.

well said Aurelio - everyone should read paul kimmage's book "rough rider" to get a sense of where McQuaid is coming from. Whatever your viewpoint of the politics involved in the Tour, this book will give you a sense of the McQuaid's integrity levels.

Nice one ASO. Hopefully this will be the beginning of the end of the UCI in its current form.

Aurelio has the doping angle well covered but the UCI has done massive damage to cycling in other ways too. It's worth taking a few minutes to browse chapter 3 of the UCI rules, IMO a load of arbitrary rubbish on every subject from frame tube diameters to saddle positioning. What right has Pat McQuaid got to tell me how to sit on my bike? It doesn't look like he or any of his chins has been for a ride in the last decade.

But worst of all, why do we let these old duffers stand in the way of good bike design? Manufacturers are desperate for innovation (11-speed Campag, I rest my case) because they need new stuff to sell, but there's not much they can do when the UCI specifies everything down to the frame geometry! As the big-brand sponsors disappear, you'd have to be mad to turn down a chance like that to bring more money into the sport ...

Bring on the revolution, if you ask me.

Come the revolution we all be riding Pinarello Prince's.

Come the revolution you will not have a choice.

Vive La Revolution!!!

I hope that this years tour will be about the riding, not red tape and drugs tests.

p.s. I heard that after last years fiasco, the Astana team were looking for new blood...

Go ASO

Regards

Greg