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.

Reader: Wilcockson is wrong
Editor,
I respectfully disagree with John Wilcockson's article posted on March 2. It is the UCI that wants to control cycling and to change the format of the sport. The race organizers and promoters are the ones who make this sport go. They take the financial risks. They put on the races. The UCI has been and should continue to be but a sanctioning and licensing body. However, more recently, and under the current leadership, the UCI wants to siphon off the proceeds of the events while taking zero risk and doing nothing to promote the events.

The UCI created the ProTour concept to get huge sums of money from the teams ... for itself alone. Not a dime of that money was to go to race promotion or execution. Then it attempted to create merely illusory power and control to keep getting this money by trying to dictate to the promoters who could race their events (of course, it was to be only those who paid the graft the UCI demanded). Not content with that, the push then started for the UCI to get a piece of the TV money that the promoters have been using to support their races. Thus, the UCI wanted to go from being a sanctioning/licensing body to a financial partner getting money from both ends of the game, without adding anything to the mix. Nice gig if you can get it. That is what has spurred the ASO into action to protect what it has invested in for years and built.

There is so much wrong with the ProTour concept, but that is not the focus of Mr. Wilcockson's article, or of my response.

What is going on in cycling today is not unlike what has happened in motorcycle racing in the US. The AMA tried to morph from a licensing/sanctioning body to a race financial partner. They promoted no events and they added nothing to the mix. Those efforts ruined motorcycle racing in the US for years and kept it from growing. The new leadership of the AMA has recognized that this concept is deeply flawed and unfair and is now moving in a different direction.

Tell me ... what has the UCI done to deserve the millions it has taken from teams and why should it be able to dictate to a race promoter who can race in the events? Perhaps most importantly, why is the UCI entitled to any money from the organizers for their TV contracts?

The ASO is simply trying to protect the assets it has worked for years to build up. The UCI is simply trying to take get something for nothing.
Walter Nash
Tucson, Arizona

Letter writer = C R I T I C A L
Editor,
Cippolini comeback = C O O L

Hamilton, Botero, Sevilla training in vicinity and being interviewed by VeloNews = L A M E
T. Pritchard
Peoria, Illinois

Teams made a mistake
Editor,
I have to really believe that the teams and riders made a huge mistake by opting to ride in the Paris Nice. Absolutely the only thing that will get both the UCI and race owners attention is a united stance on the part of the teams and riders. To UCI’s credit, I am sure that’s what they hoped for but it’s clear they are not in control. I am actually a little shocked that they took their position with ASO before they consulted the teams and riders. Makes them look pretty foolish to be honest.

Anything short of a unified rider coalition is doomed to failure. If the riders could only unite they could be in control instead of being constant victims. That’s one of the things that Michael Ball has championed and he seems to be the only one who has that part right.
John Neugent
San Luis Obispo, California

Fan strike called for
Editor,
Funny, I just said out loud to myself after reading about ASO v. UCI, "the riders need a union of some type that represents their interests and gives them a voice." But maybe it’s a fans union we need. I propose a VeloNews union of concerned fans. Our demands to start with are:

1. Let go of the past, all untested riders currently guilty by assoociation are free men. We all know by now that the sport was tainted for decades, you'll never get the truth, it included all the riders we love and the ones we love to hate. Unless they want to man up like Riis and confess, then the past stays written and those harboring guilt will surely die early from the stress, a ridiculously high price to pay for cheating in a bike race.

2. Meet half way on the current cases, acknowledge potential for an imperfect system and make any current bans 1 year for all, but coupled with no more appeals process, it's stupid, makes the rider look even more guilty, hurts his career far more than a year off will, and puts money in pockets undeserving. Get on with it, men.

3. New ultra-harsh rules for the future working in combination with the passport. You cheat, you're out. Not your team, not your dirty coach or manager or masseur, just you, the rider gone from the sport for good. If you haven't figured out by now which teams to ride for and how to train and ride clean, no one cares about the fact you won't get to race a bike professionally anymore.

4. A real union for the riders so that when the children who run things can't get along as will happer forever, the riders can get together as the most powerful voice and decide what to do. In the case of Paris-Nice, under the new treaty, Astana would be included because there would be no more guilt by association permitted. If ASO still went crazy and pulled a similar stunt, the riders could vote democratically as to whether they ride, strike in protest, ride in protest, whatever, but suddenly they are deciding their destiny. This makes sense as they are pretty much the key to the whole sport. Not much to argue about with no riders around.

5. No earpieces or electronic communications devices allowed whatsoever in the peloton that connect riders to anyone.

6. Stop telling us the time trial is "the race of truth" we get it already, the whole race is the race of truth.

7. No more French words in titles of non-French races unless "Day" is used specifically like Bob Roll does it.

If our demands are not met entirely to the spirit in which they were imposed, we the fans of professional cycling will boycott all race coverage, attendance, sponsors products and wares and so forth, yadda yadda yadda. — The Association Day Cycling Fans International.
Whit Faulconer

Teach a man to bike ...
Editor,
Craig Calfee's bamboo bike program that brings to Africa the techniques of how to build bikes largely out of locally-accessible material is indeed an improvement over other programs that concentrate on giving people individual bikes manufactured elsewhere.

Reminds me of that old quote:
"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime"
Khal Spencer
Los Alamos, New Mexico

Ball is within his rights
Editor,
Most critics of Michael Ball and his Rock Racing Team are missing the point: Professional cycling is a business. Ball is a very successful businessman. He is treating his cycling team no less as a business than any of his others. If only the rest of the professional teams, race organizers, and governing bodies treated it as such.

Ball's "flash," as some have called it, is nothing more than smart marketing aimed at establishing a new brand. Ball has very effectively used television, internet, print media, and even personal appearances by his riders, podium girls, and himself to develop a first class image for his team.

Were some of his signings controversial? To be certain, they are, but signing riders like Hamilton, Sevilla, and Botero generated huge amounts of PR, as did the signing of Cippolini. To those who say the sport doesn't need that sort of PR, again you are missing the point. As anyone who has ever marketed anything will tell you, there is no such thing as bad PR. Only bad PR management.

All three of the Rock riders who were prevented from riding the Tour of California have served their suspensions and/or been cleared by their respective federations to compete. Ball is completely within his rights to hire such riders and should be lauded for giving them a second chance. He's trumpeted that fact and positioned his team as the one that stands for justice and due process to all who will listen as part of his smart PR management strategy.

Rather than blasting Ball, we should be giving kudos to him and anyone else who takes the dark road that is professional cycling today and throws down millions of dollars to sponsor a team.
Tom Brown
Las Vegas, Nevada

A grateful fan
Editor,
I am increasingly frustrated with the letters that talk about boycotting the upcoming “boring” tour. Where’s the support for all the other riders and teams that work so hard to get there? Yes, the organization is a mess. Yes, the doping scandals and infighting are terrible for the sport. I hate that Astana is probably out. But even with all of that, it’s still the most beautiful sport in the world to watch.

I remember the days when Versus was OLN, and they aired the Vuelta and Giro several times a day. Cycling coverage is a tenuous business in the U.S. It wasn’t profitable for OLN, and they dropped a lot of it. I doubt the ASO cares who’s watching in America, but I do. Like it or not, Versus is also a business. I’m grateful for every scrap of coverage we still get and for the joy of listening to Phil and Paul. Do we need to cut our noses to spite our faces?
Joyce Polance
Chicago, Illinois

Fan: ASO gets it
Editor,
The UCI has long forgotten, and ASO is keenly aware of the two most important aspects of professional cycling. First, professional cycling is an entertainment business. Second, fans and sponsors care about riders (the entertainers) and races (the entertainment venue).

The reason that sponsors spend millions in support of cycling teams, is to market their goods/services to fans that watch. It doesn't matter to the sponsor if an event is sanctioned by the UCI, the UCI doesn't affect the size of the audience. All that matters is how many fans watched in person and on television (that's how the entertainment business works). The riders work for the sponsors, so what's good for the sponsor is good for them.

From a fan's perspective, UCI sanctioning does not affect the quality of the race. Without the UCI, the mountains won't get smaller, Boonen and McEwen don't ride slower. I doubt that many casual fans even know what the UCI is.

Back to the business aspects, ASO has invested millions to acquire and improve notable races. Like any business, ASO tries to control expenses. UCI sanctioning costs considerable amounts of money, and as noted earlier, provides no business benefit. Unless the UCI reinvents itself into more of a riders' union (to negotiate with race promoters on behalf of the riders), I think their future existence is unlikely. The major race promoters can always take turns hosting/promoting the World Championships.
Ed Maspons
Greensboro, North Carolina