TBV Golden Oldies - Ties that Unwind

With the current UCI/ASO sanctioning fiasco going on before the running of Paris-Nice, a number of recent commentators have been bringing up various auto racing comparisons.

TBV talked about this before most of the current audience arrived, so we draw your attention back to last fall, and the Ties that Unwind.

[More]


[From October 22, 2006]

In yesterday's roundup, Landis said he wanted to take down the UCI. The obvious question that follows is what to replace it with. To TBV, the nearest comparisons are to racing with motors. The parallels between auto racing, and the perils and rewards are illuminating. Here are some things to start thinking about.

• The USAC/CART split for Indy car racing in 1979. The teams, fed up with the incompetence of the sanctioning body, formed their own series. USAC lost the series, but kept the Indy 500, the major event. An uneasy truce let CART teams run and win in the 500, but frustration stewed for years.
  
• The subsequent CART/IRL split as the premier event set up its own sanctioning body and series. Attempts by CART to compete head on failed, and CART eventually went bust, kept alive by buyouts.
• The de-jure world championship of the FIA, Formula-1, has been nurtured to the exclusion of other forms of FIA competition, notably Sports Cars (LeMans) and Rallying. When push comes to shove, all decisions by the FIA have been to strenghten F1 at any cost to other series. The series stuggles to keep full fields and their are constant complaints about the cost structure. Organizers get rich, a few teams do well. Others teamscome and go on the whim of sponsorship money that is difficult to come by without results that require huge budgets.
  
• In the meantime, a closely run parochial series gains massive popular acceptance with competitive racing, full fields and cost-effective technology. Teams, drivers and the series on a gravy train: NASCAR.
• And if you want to get wonky, the World of Outlaws split off from USAC dirt track racing as well, because USAC wouldn't allow wings (among other things).
  

It's easy enough to paint the UCI as the FIA or USAC in the analogy, and the grand tours as events like the Indy 500 or LeMans. Consider mountain biking to be sports cars or rallying -- loved by some, but co-opted by the sanctioning body and marginalized to commercial oblivion.
And you might look at USCF and USACycling as the old USAC.

Looking at the USAC/CART split of '79, there are two important points. One, USAC was toothless, and could do nothing to prevent CART from starting and continuing to run. Two, the breakaway wasn't joined by the big event, and this caused problems later.

This is different than the UCI, which through national federations can discipline riders for participating in things they don't like. The threats made to riders for racing in unsanctioned races against Tyler Hamilton when he was on suspension are a recent example. This is similar to the de-jure power the FIA holds in auto racing. In Europe in particular, the FIA has been very heavy handed and has referred to things as "illegal races" when not under their sanctioning authority. The FIA has been trying to crush LeMans for decades - which sounds a lot like the struggle between the UCI and the Tour. The French parties are similar sounding, but not the same -- the ASO is not related to the ACO that runs LeMans.

Pressure doesn't matter when the drivers and the teams of the independant series don't care to participate in races under the old sanctioning umbrella. It does matter when the breakaway series isn't big enough to keep the teams and drivers fully occupied and they want to do something else, but can't because of pressure from the other body.

What of NASCAR? Drivers and teams that land there stay. It is popular, lucrative, offers good competition, and is "fair enough". There is cheating, but it is managed in a way that is perceived to be effective. To some degree, there is a culture of tolerance of rogues, up to a point, and then a hammer comes down.

If the FIA tried to impose some rule, NASCAR would ignore it. Attempts by the FIA to lean on tracks that run NASCAR events would be met with laughter by the ownership. NASCAR makes everybody money. Running FIA events makes somebody money, but it isn't the promoters or the teams.

The history of Sprint Cars offers some cautionary reading. From time to time the World of Outlaws looked poised for success, but fall back because of politics with the remaining USAC series, and the vaguaries of media ownership changes and interest.

Some Key Lessons of History

1. A breakaway needs a viable schedule so it doesn't need to be concerned with sanctions and pressure from the entrenched or de-jure organizations.
   
2. A breakaway needs good relations with the key events to survive in the long term.
3. A breakaway needs to happen at a moment when there is weak leadership of the incumbent organization.
4. A breakaway needs strong leadership to speak with one voice. This involves teams giving up some of their autonomy.
5. The breakaway gives up some claims of legitimacy, and needs to work as a commercial entity on its own merits. In cycling, that means bailing on the Olympics.
6. You can't count on media support without the key events, and even then, it's fickle.
   

What Else?

The main alternative to doing a breakaway organization is to have a coup that replaces the leadership of the original body. I can't think of a good example of where that has happened.

This post scratches the surface of what might happen with a restructuring of cycling as a sport with regard to the UCI. I'm sure readers will have different opinions and additional thought.

Let's hear what you've got to say!

-TBV


References

An article with perspective, includes the Dan Gurney whitepaper that led to the formation of CART.

Wikipedia on Champ Car, particularly the history section.

Timeline of CART/USAC/IRL. Note the plane crash in '78 that left USAC leadership-challenged in a key period, with link to raw version of Gurney whitepaper.

Another piece, from AutoMedia.

Motorsport magazine opinion piece on CART/IRL.

Atlas F1 Rear View Mirror has a broader perspective.

Bending rules ain't exactly cheating in NASCAR, exactly, but it's not like the old days either.

Full Post with Comments...

Sunday Roundup

News
French TV interview, TBV coverage here, also AP summary, via ABC/ESPN, and CyclingNews.

Daily Peloton runs a story by Dave Shields about what Cycling can learn from other sports, particularly motor racing. This is in line with our story on the USAC/CART split, "Ties that Unwind", following Landis' "take down the UCI" comment.

Almost zero Landis content, but Tyler Hamilton participated in a Triathlon Relay today, on a team sponsored by Howard Jacobs, the Athlete's Lawyer (and Landis's). At stake, a $100,000 prize for beating 8 hours. Tyler cleaned clock on the competition by over 14 minutes in his cycling leg, but got a 4 minute penalty for not dismounting soon enough - there's a line on the ground thou shalt not cross on the bike in triathlon. It ain't like le Tour. The team's runner was halted for the four minutes, but still could have run a time well within his capability for the prize. But he went out too fast and melted down on course and came to a full stop at 24 miles, finally in at 8:17. Who knows if the penalty stop messed him up physically or mentally. No $33k paycheck for any of them, but the 8:00 looks beatable.

Forums
At DPF, Landis talks about frustration with the system:

What is your opinion of an agency (not cycling in this hypothetical) created by Congress and funded by tax money with no oversight and which requires people to notify them 24 hours a day of their location and activities so that they can be tested is some way. Does that seem to be a violation of any rights or does that seem reasonable. Also, let's assume that this hypothetical agency monitors a category of careers which have only the option to enroll in the program due to the fact that no other option exists. Keep in mind that there is, in this hypothetical, a punishment for failing to notify the agency. This sounds, to me that is, like the treatment for someone who has already been convicted of something.

Then oversight of Labs,

Am I mistaken in the statement that the labs exist to perform scientific tests which are forwarded to the agencies (WADA for example) who later decide what is justice and how is should be served. Or is it reasonable that a lab director or employee is commenting on what is the outcome of a specific test. What I'm trying to get at is, it seems to me that a lab which is given a set of guidelines, should perform a test on a given sample and forward it to the "police" and no longer have any say, or care to have any say, in the outcome of the process thereafter.

and elsewhere

What I'm saying is that the labs should feel no level of failure because the rules and guidelines are indisputable and they do nothing more than hand results over to the next level of prosecution. The mistakes and other mishandling of things are a totaly different level and after a few problems the lab should be suspended. That is, assuming that the line in the sand is final and there are no exceptions.

Blogs
Rant thinks about USADA (and AFT), and wonders if The Fix is in.

PodiumCafe notes that Graham Watson leaves Landis completely out of his 2007 calendar, which is consistent with his firm and expressed belief Floyd was doped on Stage 17.

Brand Destruction Research, which has covered Landis before here and here, reads the AP report of the French interview, and concludes, "Sorry, Floyd, but you're fucked."

TBV's opinion is that Landis was intercoursed the instant the whole thing broke. A lot of his early PR work made things worse, and BDR is right to think that will have long term consequences. But he's wrong in several respects, not least whether Landis had any choice but to have B test done at the same lab, or that he has much affect on the speed of the resolution -- unless he wants to plead guilty.

Florida Masochist reads AP story of French interview, and says, "Give it up, Floyd."

Jeredb thinks pro cycling sucks, and the Landis case is part of it.

[end]

Full Post with Comments...

Ties that Unwind

In yesterday's roundup, Landis said he wanted to take down the UCI. The obvious question that follows is what to replace it with. To TBV, the nearest comparisons are to racing with motors. The parallels between auto racing, and the perils and rewards are illuminating. Here are some things to start thinking about...
[more]

---

[continuation]

• The USAC/CART split for Indy car racing in 1979. The teams, fed up with the incompetence of the sanctioning body, formed their own series. USAC lost the series, but kept the Indy 500, the major event. An uneasy truce let CART teams run and win in the 500, but frustration stewed for years.
  
• The subsequent CART/IRL split as the premier event set up its own sanctioning body and series. Attempts by CART to compete head on failed, and CART eventually went bust, kept alive by buyouts.
• The de-jure world championship of the FIA, Formula-1, has been nurtured to the exclusion of other forms of FIA competition, notably Sports Cars (LeMans) and Rallying. When push comes to shove, all decisions by the FIA have been to strenghten F1 at any cost to other series. The series stuggles to keep full fields and their are constant complaints about the cost structure. Organizers get rich, a few teams do well. Others teamscome and go on the whim of sponsorship money that is difficult to come by without results that require huge budgets.
  
• In the meantime, a closely run parochial series gains massive popular acceptance with competitive racing, full fields and cost-effective technology. Teams, drivers and the series on a gravy train: NASCAR.
• And if you want to get wonky, the World of Outlaws split off from USAC dirt track racing as well, because USAC wouldn't allow wings (among other things).
  

It's easy enough to paint the UCI as the FIA or USAC in the analogy, and the grand tours as events like the Indy 500 or LeMans. Consider mountain biking to be sports cars or rallying -- loved by some, but co-opted by the sanctioning body and marginalized to commercial oblivion.
And you might look at USCF and USACycling as the old USAC.

Looking at the USAC/CART split of '79, there are two important points. One, USAC was toothless, and could do nothing to prevent CART from starting and continuing to run. Two, the breakaway wasn't joined by the big event, and this caused problems later.

This is different than the UCI, which through national federations can discipline riders for participating in things they don't like. The threats made to riders for racing in unsanctioned races against Tyler Hamilton when he was on suspension are a recent example. This is similar to the de-jure power the FIA holds in auto racing. In Europe in particular, the FIA has been very heavy handed and has referred to things as "illegal races" when not under their sanctioning authority. The FIA has been trying to crush LeMans for decades - which sounds a lot like the struggle between the UCI and the Tour. The French parties are similar sounding, but not the same -- the ASO is not related to the ACO that runs LeMans.

Pressure doesn't matter when the drivers and the teams of the independant series don't care to participate in races under the old sanctioning umbrella. It does matter when the breakaway series isn't big enough to keep the teams and drivers fully occupied and they want to do something else, but can't because of pressure from the other body.

What of NASCAR? Drivers and teams that land there stay. It is popular, lucrative, offers good competition, and is "fair enough". There is cheating, but it is managed in a way that is perceived to be effective. To some degree, there is a culture of tolerance of rogues, up to a point, and then a hammer comes down.

If the FIA tried to impose some rule, NASCAR would ignore it. Attempts by the FIA to lean on tracks that run NASCAR events would be met with laughter by the ownership. NASCAR makes everybody money. Running FIA events makes somebody money, but it isn't the promoters or the teams.

The history of Sprint Cars offers some cautionary reading. From time to time the World of Outlaws looked poised for success, but fall back because of politics with the remaining USAC series, and the vaguaries of media ownership changes and interest.

Some Key Lessons of History

1. A breakaway needs a viable schedule so it doesn't need to be concerned with sanctions and pressure from the entrenched or de-jure organizations.
   
2. A breakaway needs good relations with the key events to survive in the long term.
3. A breakaway needs to happen at a moment when there is weak leadership of the incumbent organization.
4. A breakaway needs strong leadership to speak with one voice. This involves teams giving up some of their autonomy.
5. The breakaway gives up some claims of legitimacy, and needs to work as a commercial entity on its own merits. In cycling, that means bailing on the Olympics.
6. You can't count on media support without the key events, and even then, it's fickle.
   

What Else?

The main alternative to doing a breakaway organization is to have a coup that replaces the leadership of the original body. I can't think of a good example of where that has happened.

This post scratches the surface of what might happen with a restructuring of cycling as a sport with regard to the UCI. I'm sure readers will have different opinions and additional thought.

Let's hear what you've got to say!

-TBV


References

An article with perspective, includes the Dan Gurney whitepaper that led to the formation of CART.

Wikipedia on Champ Car, particularly the history section.

Timeline of CART/USAC/IRL. Note the plane crash in '78 that left USAC leadership-challenged in a key period, with link to raw version of Gurney whitepaper.

Another piece, from AutoMedia.

Motorsport magazine opinion piece on CART/IRL.

Atlas F1 Rear View Mirror has a broader perspective.

Bending rules ain't exactly cheating in NASCAR, exactly, but it's not like the old days either.

Full Post with Comments...