ANDERSON: 2013 wraps up with movement in the ranks

By Phil Anderson / Expert

It’s that time of year again and I remember it well; the shuffling and jockeying for positions on well-funded teams by riders of all nations.

The ideal time for this movement is usually prior to the conclusion of Le Tour, in July.

But since the fallout of the USADA and resultant falling over of a number teams, it’s a buyer’s market for cashed up teams as there are plenty of unsigned talented riders dangling in the wings.

It’s a shame, really, how cycling now is almost overfunded in the sense that the financial demands placed on the teams, event organisers and other key stakeholders by global and local governing bodies are so high that the sport is almost in a pressure cauldron.

High input and low return does not ever stack up, teams fall over as quickly as they are created and stability is poor.

A good rider looking for a gig in a world tour team may not get a contract, deserving or not.

There are far too many good riders who now have to step down to the next level, Grand Tour winners included if they wish to continue with a career.

Movement at the helm
The riders are not the only ones skating on thin ice.

At the world UCI level, the winds of change are in the air and in a funny kind of way Lance is responsible.

The scandal and fallout from the USADA report has had the powers-that-be dancing on hot coals and finally answerable.

The first and most positive change is happening in the women’s ranks.

With Tracy Gaudry on the soapbox, change will be definite and having a women’s committee at the top level will be the first of many steps that have to be taken to improve their position in the sport.

At domestic level we have a new President and CEO of Cycling Australia. I have commented on resignations in previous blogs.

This time around the Australian Sports Commission has demanded change, and again we can thank Lance for the impetus that has driven this charge.

Local Issues
Gerry Ryan has a lot on his lap and the clash of interests are obvious. Was the decision misguided?

We will see. Cycling in Australia would suffer immeasurable damage if Gerry pulled the pin on the funds he contributes to both Cycling Australia and Orica-GreenEDGE.

Without his generosity, the sport as we see it in Australia today would certainly not be sustainable.

There are very few Aussie pros riding in Europe at the moment who haven’t been supported in one way or another by Gerry Ryan.

Cycling Australia and Gerry need to work towards a future where the sport is not dependant on the generosity of one person as this presents its own limitations.

Governance and business do not mix but governing bodies need to be run efficiently and with financially sound principles.

The Future
Imagine a future where events are supported by Cycling Australia benevolently, rather than the most recent position where they inevitably turn a greedy eye to any venture with promise, demand high returns for licenses or won’t issue a licenses with a view to running everything for their own financial gain.

Cycling in Australia is so new, the culture is not entrenched and the funds limited. We are generations away from that future, given Cycling Australia’s current position.

Growth is global but cycling is still, culturally, a European sport. In my view the best thing that could happen in Australian cycling at the moment would be to allow the growth of the National Road Series.

Develop supporting races for the National Road Series, local qualifying races that would allow teams and individuals to ride in the event on their home turf, don’t limit entrants by team status, open up opportunities for local business to fund riders and small teams and let the kids race.

I have had the view for a long time that the winning team plus the outright winner of the National Road Series should be able to race in the Tour Down Under.

The traditional South Australian Sport Institute (SASI) team is a nonsense.

The Drapac team can race this year but now that they are a pro-continental team the local racers can’t pit themselves against them and they can’t race in the National Road Series.

This is all so limiting in a nation that does not celebrate this great sport and we still don’t have the winning team for the year able to line-up against the pros. These old school ideologies have to change.

Change
A couple of weeks ago, I sat at an old timers’ lunch next to the young Adrian Anderson.

It will be gratifying to see what he will bring to my sport. The new CEO is young, and not limited by old ideologies.

Outsiders are often at first glance totally confused by the hierarchies and traditions in cycling that are a nonsense on our local turf.

The Crowd Says:

2013-12-14T09:18:56+00:00

John Thomson

Guest


No relative to you is he Phil:) Seriously though CA went off the rails in the last few years with all sorts of strange partnerships and joint ventures that were bad financially and I'll advised. Running bike shows and cycling tours in Europe were all bad ideas when they had neither the expertise or good business model to make a success of them. Maybe now they will just get back to being a cycling adminiistrator and not try to duplicate things that commercial businesses already do well.

2013-12-14T03:48:05+00:00

Robert Merkel

Guest


Great piece Phil. Anyone would think you know something about this cycling caper! Part of the issue with the TDU is the UCI rule that says that wildcards at World Tour events can only go to Pro Continental or national teams. One workaround for this is the proposal (by Jono Lovelock on this site) to have the "national" team to be made up of riders exclusively from the NRS winning team, and carry the sponsorship of the NRS winning team. Unfortunately, this won't work quite as well as it used to, with the influx of Kiwi riders. California avoids the problem by not being part of the World Tour; being such a big market most of the WT teams will turn up anyway. As far as CA's support for the NRS, the latest newsletter reports that the financial position of CA is somewhat strained and they're making cutbacks; what those cutbacks mean for the NRS remain to be seen. Personally, I think the NRS is a lot better bang for the buck than aspects of the track program, but the track program's funding is tied funding by the federal government. So the money will have to come from another source. Finally, on your point about support races, the Sam Miranda Tour of the King Valley, part of the women's NRS, is an excellent example of the kind of integration that you're talking about. There's a TT on the Friday, state open men's and women's road races and a Gran Fondo on the Saturday, and a handicap on the Sunday on the same courses used by the NRS ladies. It's a superb weekend of racing and attracts huge fields. There has to be scope for more of the same.

Read more at The Roar