March 09, 2007
Comments Off

The Mailbag is a regular feature on VeloNews.com. If you havea comment, an opinion or observation regarding anything you have seen incycling, in VeloNews magazine or on VeloNews.com, write toWebLetters@InsideInc.com. Please include your full name andhome town. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. Writersare encouraged to limit their submissions to one letter per month.The letters published here contain the opinions of the submittingauthors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, policies or positionsof VeloNews.com, VeloNews magazine or our parent company, InsideCommunications, Inc.

What a mess indeed
Editor:
In his letter published in Wednesday’s Mailbag (see “What has changed?”), Don Cunningham wrote, “What a mess.” Indeed. People like Ivan Basso can be found not guilty by their national association but banned by the UCI, then allowed to compete. National laws should not figure in the equation.

Based on recent history I think the Tour De France organizers will not let Basso compete, and I think it is the correct decision. CSC put out the garbage and Discovery recycled it.

Ian Sharp
Wollongong, Australia

Expand field to permit wild cards
Editor:
It seems that the ASO/UCI debate was originally about not being able to invite enough wild-card entries to join a field packed with 20 ProTour teams. The reduction to 18 was a way of being able to add additional wild cards.

Well, why not just expand the field? Bring in the 20 ProTour teams, then add your wild cards, maybe taking it up to 25 teams? If the field then seems too crowded, reduce the number of riders per team in the shorter races. How big does your team need to be for a one-day classic? A grand tour, on the other hand, is long enough to allow a couple more riders per team. Or substitutions could be permitted should a team lose a rider to a crash or injury, with the sub assuming the GC position of the dropout.

Rules could be built around the substitution clause, such as no subs after the race is half over, to prevent directors from sending in fresh riders to blow the field apart in the final stages. The folks who love to make rules would sort it out.

If we are to continue with the auto-racing comparison that seems so popular, think fewer cars for small tracks and short races, more cars for big tracks and longer races.

To me, the whole “wild card” concept smacks of “slotting allowances” used in the retail industry, where you need to buy your way into a store if you have a new product or are expanding your line.

Just a view from the back of the peloton.

Sam Pellegrino
Westlake Village, California

UCI plays a poor game
Editor:
When the European racing season was threatened again this year, my initial reaction was to blame the organizers for being unwilling to work out issues with the UCI and endanger pro bike racing. The more I learn, the more blame I aim at UCI.

The organizers own the races and have been clear in their wish to limit the number of ProTour teams in order to enable them to invite a number of wild card teams to bring in revenue and generate local/national fan support. The UCI ignored those wishes, added two more teams and then cried foul when the organizers did exactly what they said they would do.

Unibet is a victim here, but the UCI is to blame for guaranteeing them entry to events that UCI does not own. I’m glad that Astana has been invited to the tours and I hope to see Unibet race, too, but it appears to me that they are a pawn in the game, poorly played by UCI.

John F. Barton
Little Rock, Arkansas

UCI makes the rules
Editor:
Geromin Gonzales asked, “What is it the UCI does anyway?” (see Wednesday’s Mailbag.) I can’t believe that the editors didn’t add a note to the bottom of the post. The UCI is the governing body of cycling — it makes and enforces the rules.

I’m not a big fan of the way that the UCI governs sometimes (especially when it comes to doping controls, testing, etc.) but it is the boss, not ASO or any other race promoter. You can’t have different rules and/or criteria at each race.

You speak very highly of the World Cup. Who do you suppose developed and governed that? The UCI. The ProTour has its issues, but that is the system and the majority of the teams and riders seem to like it. ASO can’t just arbitrarily change the system.

Unfortunately, the riders are the ones who are paying the price for this stupidity.

Justin Maines
Boise, Idaho

Sell shares to bolster U.S. races
Editor:
I wonder why the two big American tours (Georgia and California) haven’t tried to tap directly into the American tifosi base? Why not sell shares in the races to fans? The shares could then be entered into a lottery. Prizes could include a VIP pass for the next season’s race, autographed jerseys from winners, another fricking rubber bracelet, whatever.

I suspect that nationwide there are probably 50,000 or so real fans that could be talked into coughing up $10 per share. I may be naive, but it seems like raising $500,000 to $1 million wouldn’t be too hard with such an approach.

And keeping these races going has the added mental-health benefit of keeping all of those clandestine, cubicle-bound, velo-surfers happy when their bosses aren’t looking.

Gary Stetler
Boulder, Colorado

Less politicking, more pedaling
Editor:
It’s disheartening to read about those riders who are giving up cycling because of the politics of the pro organizations. The most important thing to me is to get more people riding in bike-unfriendly America. Like all change, it has to begin with each one of us — so ride! Encourage your friends and family to ride. Work on getting your town safer for riders.

But hey, if you still want to get rid of your fancy road bike and buy a kayak (or whatever), I’ll be happy to accept a donation. A lot of committed riders are tooling around on beaters.

Stay optimistic!

Claudia Garren
Asheville, North Carolina

Friday’s Mailbag: UCI v. ASO; sell shares to support racing; less politicking, more pedaling

by VeloNews.com

Categories : Mailbag

LATEST NEWS »

Rock And Roll - Marathon Series