As cycling braces itself for the busiest three weeks of the year, Cyclingnews sat down with UCI President Brian Cookson in Utrecht on the eve of the Grand Départ of the Tour de France to discuss some of the biggest challenges faced by the sport's governing body in recent months.
First on the agenda was the power struggle currently taking place between the sport's stakeholders after Cyclingnews revealed last week that the UCI, teams, and the Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO) - which runs the Tour de France - are at loggerheads over reforms to the structure of cycling.
The UCI also came under fire in June when it dropped its appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) over the Biological Passport case of Roman Kreuziger, whose original ban had been overturned by the Czech cycling federation. No reason has been given for the last-minute decision and fresh scrutiny has been piled on the role of the Passport as the leading tool in the fight against doping.
ADVERTISEMENT
Finally, a major test of Cookson's stewardship has been the Astana case, in which five members of the Kazakh team's WorldTour team and Continental feeder set-up returned positive doping controls in the space of a year.
Cyclingnews: Can you start by updating us on where the UCI are with their latest reforms?
Brian Cookson: We’re making progress. The proposals that we’ve got are pretty much accepted by most of the stakeholders. It’s fair to say that there are some stakeholders who want further discussion and negotiation but I want to emphasise that we at the UCI are not in any way delaying this. We want to move forward as quickly as we can and want to give certainty to race organisers and teams, sponsors, the media and fans. So we are pushing as much as we can but we don’t want to have a war and we know the damage that it could create from the previous war and I think that we can find a solution and we’ll keep talking until we do.
CN: Were you surprised, then, by the leaked letter a few weeks ago in which ASO came out against the reforms?
BC: I’m disappointed that we’re not able to reach a full agreement. There are still some remaining issues which are not a surprise but I want to emphasise that there is very wide agreement. The UCI are not doing anything that threatens any organiser and team. We’re not proposing to shorten the Giro [d’Italia] or Vuelta [a España], and we want to expand and develop the WorldTour calendar.
CN: With ASO’s position in terms of what they hold, such as the Tour de France, it’s impossible to see any reform going ahead without their consent.
BC: They’re in a very powerful position there’s no two ways about that. Their job is to organise their races and nobody wants to damage that but what we do need to do is find ways of making everyone’s financial position stronger and more sustainable. I don’t think that necessarily needs to be seen as weakening those that have a strong position at the moment. Clearly there are elements that I find a challenge but I think that we can find a way forward for the good of the sport. We want to see the sport strong and want to see the teams and riders stronger. I don’t want to damage any of the wonderful existing events but I do think that we can find ways of expanding our sport worldwide. I think that doesn’t mean damaging the existing strengths.
CN: But what are you offering that ASO don’t already have?
BC: What we’re trying to do is have a stronger global narrative to the sport. We want to enhance the development and the pathways so that the teams can offer more sustainable returns to their sponsors and investors. Those things are hard to quantify. ASO are in a great position and they have a great series of events and many of those events that they’re developing would love to be part of the WorldTour as well but they should have an interest in making the WorldTour reforms work as well as anyone else.
CN: The Tour is the Tour though, and the best riders will always go there because teams need to please their sponsors, so invariably ASO are and will be in that position. On top of that, regardless of whether it’s dressed up as narrative, it comes down to revenue sharing, doesn’t it? They don’t want to carve up what they have.
You can read more at Cyclingnews.com
via Cyclingnews Latest News http://ift.tt/1G08Pen
No comments:
Post a Comment