NB: The UCI ProTour Reserve Fund and the UCI  ProTour operating statement detailed in the notes to the UCI Financial Statements relate to two entirely separate things and should not be confused one with the other. The UCI ProTour operating statement details the total income and expenditure relating to the ProTour (now WorldTour), not the ProTour Reserve Fund. 

The amounts disbursed from the ProTour Reserve Fund to GCP being the topic du jour, chaque qour, some comment on them is necessary. Between 2009 and 2011 a total of €758,000 has been disbursed to GCP. Nowhere in UCI’s Financial Statements is this described as a loan. There is no provision within the relevant regulations requiring that funds disubursed from the ProTour Reserve Fund be repaid to the ProTour Reserve Fund.

Why and how the ProTour Reserve Fund can legitimately be used to fund GCP is best explained by reference to the UCI Cycling Regulations, Part 2 Road Races, Chapter XV UCI WorldTour, clauses 2.15.243 through 2.15.253 (pages 129-130). To save you the time and effort of seeking this out for yourself, the relevant sections are set out below (as taken from version 01.07.11 of the Regulations):

This special feature has been brought to you with the assistance of a lot of Nurofen.

As I discussed with @festinagirl and @velocast yesterday on the Velocast podcast (you can listen here), there is more to this story than just Lance. Even though Lance wishes this to be all about him, as @festinagirl so eloquently said yesterday, this is more about Lance the team owner and his part in an organised doping conspiracy.

However, if you think this is solely the domain of U.S. Postal cycling team, or Johan Bruyneel’s alleged involvement along with the other four conspirators, you are sorely naïve. This Lance business will expose just how sophisticated doping protocols have become since 1992, and how they continue to be sophisticated to this day. The worst part in all of this is the reaction by many of those who are supposed to be protecting the integrity of the sport overall.

The Belgian Federation? The UCI? USA Cycling?

The Belgian cycling federation has chosen to remain tight-lipped, waiting to see which way the wind blows. The fact that USA Cycling released the list of athletes who specifically removed themselves from Olympic team consideration does demonstrate the pull Armstrong still has in the organisation.  How about the UCI? How can the governing body of the sport, which patted itself on the back merely days before about the success of the biological passport, come out with a cryptic and tight-lipped press release on the Armstrong business?

Panic.

The trouble is all these organisations have fallen prey to the seduction of becoming marketing and PR organisations to promote the sport, instead of staying true to their real function of providing administration and support for those who wish to pursue cycling in a competitive manner. When you have a Federation or a governing body trying to run races themselves or grow the sport themselves, it puts them in the dangerous predicament of being a “fox in charge of the hen-house.” If you happen to have the wrong people at the top level making the decisions, the aims of the organisation can be perverted for less magnanimous ideals.

The superstar and the boss, Lance Armstrong and Hein Verbruggen, former president of the UCI (Photo © Mike Gladu courtesy Cyclingnews)

Is it a coincidence Hein Verbruggen’s rise to the top level in the sport coincided with an era rife with doping challenges?

Many people who are new to the sport of cycling comment on how incestuous the sport really is. Non-profit governing bodies creating private for-profit entities to grow the sport, something that used to be called “misappropriation of funds” in criminal court circles, have been blissfully ignored by the Swiss Parliament, or the criminal investigation units of a particular nation. Journalists participate in blatant public relations campaigns through the guise of their employers, or are blatantly paid by cycling related entities as independent contractors to provide sales or marketing or PR opportunities. These same journalists are expected to remain neutral or report on the negative aspects of the sport. We see the fruits of this now.

Cycling lacks a clear chain of command, and a clear channel of communication. Pat McQuaid speaks directly to athletes. Members of labs have met directly with team managers. Team owners meet directly with race organisers. The governing body decides to wear a race organiser hat. Journalist work directly for members of the pro peloton.  The tough part is that we also rely on all of these individuals to hold themselves accountable and resist the temptation to pervert their position for profit.

This brings us back to Armstrong.

The Armstrong case demonstrates to us just how deep the involvment from all parties truly is. The UCI was involved directly with Lance, which is why they are so tight-lipped at the moment. They have no idea who the witnesses are, or how they could implicate the UCI in the investigation. The same could be said for USA Cycling in many respects. Even the ASO may not be above reproach in this situation. This is a prime example of why the lack of rules, the lack of leadership, and the lack of direction from those who are “in charge” of the sport can become exploited by someone who can potentially increase their respective revenue streams.

It’s hard to hold them all accountable for their actions, as the relationships are murky at best. The trouble with murky lines of communication and responsibility is that it allows for those with less than honourable intentions to operate. Hence why doping doctors are still in the sport. Hence why dodgy team managers are still involved in the sport. Hence why athlete managers or “coaches” are allowed to be part of star riders’ entourages. Hence why federation and governing body directors and managers are involved directly in cycling for-profit ventures.

Cycling needs an entire clean-up from top to bottom. Cycling needs a UCI president who says enough is enough, and passes legislation to create clear channels of communication between the governing body, federations, team owners, teams, riders, manufacturers, media, and the fans. Setting the table properly removes the spectre of potentially dubious activity, and could create the transparency we all crave.

AIGCP should be negotiating contract terms with a riders’ union. This should be approved and ratified by the UCI. It shouldn’t be up to the UCI to mandate from the top down; the UCI should merely be the balance to check the relationship. The UCI should ensure teams are treated fairly by race organisers, and that race organisers follow proper protocol, not necessarily dictate who appears where. The UCI should be helping national federations grow their cycling programmes by providing expertise in conjunction with for-profit race organisers, not organising races themselves.

More importantly, they should be supporting each nation’s anti-doping programmes in spite of what may possibly be an embarrassing public relations event for the sport.  The statements from those at the top of all influential organisations should be different. Based on the reaction from both USA Cycling and the UCI to the impending Armstrong situation, is it any wonder folks feel less than comfortable in coming clean on what truly happens behind closed doors in our sport, and feel the need to talk to “semi-anonymous trolls,” “nom de plume idiots” and Twitter personalities to clear their conscience rather than speak directly with those involved in overseeing the sport?

No wonder at all.

McQuaid and Rumpf hold joint press conference

“After receiving word from the respective organizers of the races that their financial situation was dire enough to place this year’s editions of each race in jeopardy, Global Cycling Promotion has agreed to step in and take over operation of the races,” declared Rumpf, “We have paid an undeclared sum to the Basque government for the race rights, and are thrilled to announce these races as additions to our growing Chinese portfolio.”

A beaming UCI president Pat McQuaid was on hand for the press conference and offered his comments.

“I’m a little shocked and dismayed that these race organizers could be in such financial turmoil, considering the fact that cycling has never been better. Sponsorship money is up, rider salaries are up tremendously, and everyone in the sport hasn’t been happier with our performance on behalf of all stakeholders. That said, it is disappointing that we’re going to have to hold off on some of our grand globalisation plans to rescue these three races,” stated McQuaid.

When asked to clarify the UCI’s role in the three races, McQuaid was blunt, “Look we own GCP, we run races. The UCI is assuming control of these three races through the auspices of the GCP, which is best in these times. UCI control ensures that cycling continues into the next millennium. This is in line with our new policy of administering, controlling, and taxing from the group ride to the professional ranks.”

Rumpf stated that they will be partnering with the “usual suspects” in order to ensure “product consistency,” which has led to cries of foul by the traditional folks who have been part of race organization for all three races.

“We are happier working with groups such as ASO. We know what to expect from them and our other partners. The fact that the race is being run is the most important element and we’re unconcerned with local ramifications. Remember our mission is a global sport, not a European one.”

GCP will be announcing further details regarding changes to the races in the coming weeks.

Here we go!

Kittel received legendary support from his team this week, at his first race for 2012 Etoile De Besseges (photo by Isabelle Duchesne courtesy of CyclingNews)

Best of the Week

Number Five

No Croatian licence for Riccardo Ricco 

This is just plain sad. Look, Ricco, your 15 minutes of cycling fame are up.  If Alessandro Petacchi can’t get an Asian licence, then you’re up shite creek without a paddle, a boat, and a life preserver. I might even suggest some therapy, or an extended holiday on an island without bicycles or any technological connection with humanity. Take a break. Spend time with the family. Learn a skill. Like dishwashing. Or ditch digging.

Number Four

Vanderkitten adds Bridie O’Donnell to the roster

So Bridie writes for us and she’s a panelist on the Hotstove. And she’s sharp, smart, and funny. Are we biased? Hell yes. But beyond that, she is an important voice for women’s cycling, and an advocate for fairness in the sport, not to mention society at large. We’re looking forward to her exploits with the new crew, and making her case for inclusion on the Australian Olympic Cycling Team. Vanderkitten is another shining example in the women’s peloton of providing outstanding support for their riders beyond the paycheque.

Number Three

Remaining Garmin women end up with AA Drink

I would love to hear the real story on this. But I’ll leave it alone this week and say that I’m glad to see Pooley, Armitstead, and the rest of the ladies find a secure home in an Olympic year. We all know there’s a real story behind the public relations fluff, but we’ll just have to wait until 2013 for that to come out.

Number Two

SHIFT Active Media lands RCS 

Now you all may be asking yourself why this is important, but please pay attention. Firstly, SHIFT Active Media has a strong understanding of cycling and the impact of “new media.” They represent some of the key players in the cycling industry and do savvy media buying, communications work, publishing, and creative. Their principals are some of the who’s who in the sport – including the ex-COO of Future Publishing, which owns cyclingnews.com and ProCycling Magazine. The also provide their services to 3T, Colnago, and fi’zi:k to name a few.  They understand the importance of new media and social media, even though Stephen Farrand still has a reluctance to fully embrace Twitter. Sorry, Stephen, I’m still smarting over that unfollow last year. (chuckle) Savvy move by the folks at RCS, as they understand the impact of the changing playing field of brand awareness, as seen in our own @pedalingtheroad interview with Marco Gobbi Pansana. Be thankful, cycling fans – they could have picked a dinosaur agency that would put, say, the Tour Down Under on Channel 9 rather than keep the coverage on the innovative SBS.

Number One

1t4i handles the Marcel Kittel situation in superior fashion

Imagine you are a rising superstar who has come off a record-setting rookie performance. You pride yourself on being clean. You ride for a team that has a stellar reputation when it comes to anti-doping initiatives. Then, you turn on German TV to see that you’re linked to a “doping” scandal.  Kittel was devastated. But you know what? His teammates rallied around him, all of them making phone calls to each other. The team spoke to Daniel Benson from cyclingnews.com right away to get the story out. But that wasn’t enough, they even put a detailed explanation of Kittel’s and teammate Patrick Gretsch’s involvement with the UV treatment on the team’s website. Plus, they even went so far as to note that John Degenkolb visited the doctor but didn’t receive the treatment.  For a team that prides itself on anti-doping initiatives and transparency, it’s outstanding to see that they hold true to those ideals when crisis hits. That’s great leadership by Iwan Spekenbrink. In addition, the cycling twitterati jumped on the bandwagon to call out the ambulance chasers of the news realm and hold them accountable.

Worst of the Week

Numero Cinco

Team Time Trialling  at World Championship Events Part II – The Belgian Sand

Is this a new trend in men’s elite racing? Just TTT to a win? It’s rather coincidental that the same thing happened at the road championships in Copenhagen. No matter. What’s the real story? Is it the Belgians taking full advantage of home sand, where they have expertise like no one else? Was it superior preparation to other nations? One thing is for sure, it certainly was an eyebrow-raising performance the likes of which has never been seen. However, on the plus side they had a phenomenal turnout of 62,000 people, something that the UCI attempted to limit to 42,000. Why? I just don’t know anymore. Nonetheless, if seven U.S. riders dominate next year, we pretty much know the answers to all of our questions – a home side win is good for business. The fix is in.

Numero Cuatro

Wanted: Investors in a private venture set up by non-profit funds borrowed without approval

This would be just sad if it wasn’t so absolutely atrociously funny. As @fmk_RoI noted on Twitter, why would the UCI want to invest in their own Ponzi Scheme? However, “speaking to people of means” could be your local loan shark, or even worse, a Russian gas magnate who runs Russian cycling, is President of the European Cycling Federation, and sits on the UCI Management Committee. He’s a great one with all sorts of connections, including Ukranian mafia, but I won’t go there, no, @inrng has a cracker post coming up on that (keep your eyes peeled starting Thursday at inrng.com). No, you see, the ASO said no to investing in the Ponzi Scheme as they preferred to be paid as the technical service provider for the races that have already been set up – like the Tour of Beijing – rather than risk losing money as an investor. You see, the UCI has a bad habit of misusing, misplacing, or flat out losing money. Of course, conventional wisdom would say that the ASO are positioning themselves to be bought as they continue to divest of a variety of  assets. Anyone remember how the GCP was set up? With funds borrowed from the ProTour fund, of course.

Numero Tres

Kathryne Bertine’s brush with an inept Aigle

The UCI addition of the worst of the week continues with Bertine coming out publicly to voice her frustration in her dealings with the cycling governing body that  resemble an accounting firm from a bad Monty Python sketch. No kidding. Losing points retroactively, and her federation files paperwork a couple of days late means that she may miss the Olympics? Due to a pencil pusher? It’s interesting to note that UCI rules have been bent and out right broken for many, especially if you have a brown envelope. In this case? Letter. Of. The. Law. However, is this more of a statement about federation politics? Bertine is a dual citizen, and she smartly saw an opportunity to go to the Olympics riding for a small nation rather than the United States. Could this be a politically motivated backlash? Heaven forbid a small nation sends one cycling athlete to the Olympics at the expense of another “cycling power.”  Stranger things have happened in Aigle.

Numero Dos

Levi Leipheimer wins Tour De San Luis

You all know why.

Numero Uno

Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen and the UCI sue Paul Kimmage

I have an idea. I’m a public figure, and I’m fair game for criticism. But in my world no one should have an opinion but me. Because apparently I’m all knowing. Now, I run a semi satire via twitter on the fine Irish gentleman, but I’m a fooking parody. He’s not supposed to mirror my attitude in real life. But he is. I mean, could you imagine Guardian commentator Patrick Wintour being sued by former RBS honcho Fred Goodwin for Wintour’s comments about him losing his knighthood? Of course not! However, as reality doesn’t exist for McQuaid, Verbruggen and the UCI, and they insist that the cycling world “Eat Fooking Cake,” they can pretty much do whatever the fook they want. I appreciate the fact that they picked on Kimmage, because the gent will fight back. In fact, this may galvanize the cycling journalists around the world to zero in on the UCI and their pattern of behaviour. You don’t pick on an award winning bloke who has a history of standing up, because then he becomes a M-A-R-T-Y-R for others to gain a backbone. Like Joe Lindsey. Looks like the line for journos’ collective mouths up the UCI’s arse like that centipede horror film has shrunk to almost zero. And it’s only January. Well folks, grab your popcorn, as we’re in for a long year of bullshite politics. It’s an Olympic year after all.

Now that we’ve come to the end
I’ve been trying to piece it together,
Not that distance makes anything clearer.
~ Paul Muldoon

The story of the Tour de France began in Paris. Montmartre to be precise. That was where the offices of  L’Auto-Vélo were located and where Géo Lefèvre first punted the idea that became the Tour de France. In order to put some symmetry on this thing, let’s draw this series of articles on aspects of the revenue-sharing debate to its conclusion by returning to Paris. Issy-les-Moulineaux to be precise. That’s where Amaury Sport Organisation is headquartered, next door to the offices of L’Auto‘s spiritual successor, L’Équipe.

Most days, the story goes, you’ll find the matriarch of the Amaury family dining in L’Équipe‘s staff canteen. While it is her thirty-something son, Jean-Etienne, who heads up the sporting arm of the family empire, it is Marie-Odile Amaury who is the Amaury Group’s chief executive. The buck stops with her. And, as a hands-on chief executive, she undoubtedly seeks to stay aware of all the bucks heading her way. She keeps a watchful eye over the affairs of ASO.

What does Amaury see today when she looks at ASO? She sees a Dakar Rally that is going from strength to strength. She sees a Tour de France that is back on an even keel. She sees ASO’s cyclo-sportif footprint growing, with the creation of new events like the Etapa Argentina and the acquisition of events like the Roc d’Azur.

But Amaury must also be aware of the storm clouds gathering on the horizon. There are the ever-present clouds of those who call for a greater share of ASO’s wealth, more money, a bigger slice of the cake, more crumbs from the table. Nor can Amaury be unaware of the threats posed by would-be sporting-magnates like Arnaud Lagardère.

Even if Lagardère proves to be the sort who would pull a gun in a fistfight, I’d like to think that the Amaurys would still be able to take the media-to-munitions mogul. They’re not without a few dirty tricks up their own sleeves, as Laurent Fignon discovered after he snapped up Paris-Nice from under their noses. But that is a fight that is unlikely to come to a single stand-up knock-down session. The Amaurys and Lagardère are digging in for a long war, an attritional war, each chipping away at the other bit by bit.

What of the other notable rival, the UCI’s new race-organising arm, Global Cycling Promotion? Could ASO take them? Fighting the UCI is not easy. Not because they don’t play by Marquess of Queensberry rules (the Amaurys can pay scant attention to them too, when the need arises) but because, as cycling’s sole governing body, the UCI ultimately write the rules and referee the fight.

The Amaurys – to their cost – know that fighting the UCI is not easy. I’m not just referring here to the ProTour Wars. There’s older history than that. Back in the eighties, when Hein Verbruggen set in motion the changes which would turn the UCI from being a toothless tiger into a force to be reckoned with, the organisers of the Tour attempted to halt him in his tracks.

Starting out as a marketing executive with the candy confectioner Mars, Verbruggen rose to power within the UCI’s professional arm, the Fédération Internationale du Cyclisme Professionnel  (FICP), before – following the death of Luis Puig in 1990 – taking the helm of the UCI itself. While still with the FICP, Verbruggen took an idea from Vélo magazine and introduced the FICP World Rankings, which put a value on the head of every rider in the peloton, based on the points they accumulated over the course of a season.

Then Verbruggen expanded his power base with the introduction of the World Cup, supplanting the Super Pernod Prestige Trophy. FICP points became the key to gaining entry into the World Cup races. Félix Lévitan and the men of the Société du Tour de France saw Verbruggen’s initiative as being an attempt to stake a claim on sponsorship income, an attempt by the UCI to bring their own sponsors to others’ events. A move which would ultimately, they calculated, see the UCI muscle in on the TV revenues generated by the race organisers.

The Tour’s organisers became résistants, fighting the UCI with word and deed. In 1988, with the Société du Tour de France in turmoil as race directors fell like flies (three leaving in the space of just eighteen months) the Tour’s organisers even offered Verbruggen the gig that would neutralise the threat he posed to them: become Jean-Pierre Courcol’s replacement as director of the Tour de France. The men of the Tour know the truth of the old adage about keeping your friends close, your enemies closer still.

Hein Verbruggen, though, was not for turning and declined the offer from the Société du Tour de France. The World Cup ploughed ahead, eventually morphing into the ProTour before being rebranded as the WorldTour. For sure, the Tour’s organisers won some important skirmishes. The battlements around the Tour’s TV revenue withstood the brickbats the UCI tried to throw at them. And the World Cup was never successful at attracting its own sponsorship income.

A story for you: if you’ve ever worked in the media industry, there’s a trick you might be familiar with when faced with new rivals (or when threatening existing operators in the market): sponsors (advertisers) are advised or induced to stay away from the new kid on the block. The new kid is left to slowly wither away, expenses mounting up, reserves being run down, little or no income coming in. Eventually they fold and go away. Some people call this bullying. Others call it business. Whatever the name, it’s a trick that the Amaurys are not unfamiliar with, on both the media and sporting sides of their empire.

Whether this is why the World Cup singularly failed to attract sponsors, or whether the World Cup was just a pointless event that no one could see any merit in, well that’s a question that remains unanswered. But it was an attractive enough proposition when Pernod used to sponsor it. Back then, though, L’Équipe were supportive of the Super Pernod Prestige Trophy and gave it plenty of column inches.

All victories come at a cost. ASO were made to pay a price for their defiance. Showing his contempt for the sport’s traditional stakeholders, Verbruggen rode roughshod over them. One example: he added a time trial to the UCI-organised World Championships. In doing this he killed ASO’s end-of-season time trial, the Grand Prix des Nations. The UCI’s lesson was clear: don’t fuck with us.

Back to the present. The storm clouds on the horizon. What threat does Global Cycling Promotion pose to ASO, when all ASO’s races are within cycling’s traditional heartland? GCP is, after all, supposed to be charged with bringing bike racing to the rising economies of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). Where’s the beef in that?

The beef is that all of ASO’s races are not within cycling’s traditional heartland. ASO, for a long time, have been involved with developing cycling in Africa, through their Tour du Faso. That seems to have slipped quietly off the calendar this year. The why and the how I don’t know, perhaps someone reading this will tell me one day. But Africa is not the end of ASO’s international interests. ASO are partnered with AEG, the organisers of the Tour of California. They’re also helping to bring cycling to the Arab world, with the Tours of Oman and Qatar. And ASO partnered with Oman in their bid for the 2015 World Championships.

With ASO’s cyclosportif footprint expanding into Argentina on the back of the success of the Dakar Rally, can it be long before they set their sights on organising races in countries visited by the Dakar (Argentina, Chile and Peru)? Or look at Indonesia. Earlier this year ASO had advisors at the Tour of Singkarak (a 2.2 event, held in June). Advisors, fans of military history love to point out, frequently turn into boots on the ground.

So the UCI, through GCP, are not the only ones trying to expand cycling beyond its traditional borders. As ASO’s Christian Prudhomme pointed out a few months back, none of this is new for the Amaurys. “Riding a bike is universal,” Prudhomme explained during this year’s Tour, “but cycling competitively isn’t yet. We have to go everywhere […]. International development is important for ASO.” He then went on to highlight the history of the Tours of Oman and Qatar, before offering his audience another slice of history: “But this isn’t new to us. In 1954, four years before the foundation of the common European market, we organised the start of the Tour de France in Amsterdam, outside France. We went to Berlin in 1987 before the fall of the Wall, etc.”

The UCI can, at times, be thin-skinned and Prudhomme’s boasting might have been seen by some as a put-down of the UCI’s efforts to internationalise cycling. The UCI never took kindly to Dick Pound’s little barbs. And, in more recent months, they were stung by comments from USADA’s Travis Tygart having to do with foxes and hen houses. If the UCI and ASO were really entering into another petty little struggle for the soul of cycling, the UCI could easily have responded to Prudhomme’s braggadocio by reminding us of all the non-traditional nations they have sent the World Championships to down through the years. Or maybe they could have just pointed out that the reason the Tour went to Berlin had little to do with bringing cycling to the Communists and everything to do with capitalism: the good burghers of Berlin paid the Société du Tour a king’s ransom in order to entice them across the Iron Curtain.

But would the UCI waste their time fighting ASO with words when they can fight them with deeds? Time to recall a story told in the first part of this series. Back in 1946, when the post-Libération fight for title to France’s Grand Tour was going on, the UCI settled the first round by choosing Jacques Goddet’s Tour de France over its rival – Ce Soir‘s Ronde de France – for the calendar slot. Today, the UCI still have control over those calendar slots. Events can be shifted around the calendar to rival existing events. Or new events can meet considerable resistance in their attempts to gain a calendar slot. And, of course, old events can always lose their place on the calendar. While we would all notice were the UCI to attempt to remove the Tour de France from the calendar, how many of you had heard of the Tour of Singkarak before ASO sent advisors there?

So let’s ask the question again: what threat does Global Cycling Promotion pose to ASO? Some drippy hippy shit here: if a smile is just a frown turned upside down, then a threat is just an opportunity in disguise. Rather than asking whether GCP represent a threat to ASO, we should wonder instead whether GCP are really an opportunity. ASO and the UCI have, after all, kissed and made up since the ProTour Wars. And ASO have partnered with the UCI to bring cycling to the Chinese. Those aforementioned words from Prudhomme, they were made at the media launch of the Tour of Beijing.

But aren’t ASO still fighting with the UCI? Despite Marie-Odile Amaury’s edict that L’Équipe should give over banging on about doping and report news rather than make it, wasn’t it L’Équipe who broke the story about the UCI’s Index of Suspicion? Had the UCI done something to upset the Amaurys, causing them to respond in such an unkind fashion?

That Index of Suspicion story, how did it really hurt the UCI? Why, it hurt them by showing that they suspected certain riders of doping more than they suspected others! That really is utter balls. The Index of Suspicion was exactly what many in the anti-doping community have long called for: greater use of intelligence-based target testing, as opposed to inefficient blanket testing. Wasn’t this exactly how the AFLD and the FFC caused such a stir at the 2008 Tour, by profiling riders in advance of the race and then using those profiles to draw up a list – an index – of who the testers needed to pay the most attention to? Look at how successful that was.

The people who were hurt by the Index of Suspicion were the riders. Their teams felt the pain too. Because the cycling community saw the Index of Suspicion as being an Index of Guilt, rather that what it really was, an index of priority for the testers, partly based on something as simple as when a rider was last tested. Whoever gave that list the title of the Index of Suspicion was a clever little operator.

When did the Index story break? May time, wasn’t it? Not long after the AIGCP’s deadline for “drastic action” should the UCI fail to rescind the ban on race radios. That drastic action, we all knew even before the May Day deadline, was a boycott of the Tour of Beijing. A race organised by the UCI in collaboration with (among others) ASO.

Step back in time to just a few weeks before L’Équipe revealed the leaked Index. Recall that little strop some managers pulled, walking out of a meeting with the UCI. Some of the managers claimed that their walkout was spurred by the UCI trying to give them a history of the bicycle, which is always a contentious issue, with the French and the British going at one another, each claiming they got there first. Only for the Germans to get chippy at their contribution being overlooked. And all the while the Italians just sit there looking smug, knowing that they hold the trump card, some doodles in one of Leonardo’s notebooks. It’s usually around that time that the fists start flying. There are days when I actually admire Pat McQuaid.

The day after that meeting, L’Équipe carried a report of its proceedings, a report which claimed McQuaid had informed the managers that, thanks to the bio-passport, he held precise information on each team’s riders, before brandishing “the spectre of public revelations that would cause damage.” One AIGCP member, Roberto Amadio (Liquigas), disputed L’Équipe‘s version of events but in doing so seemed to confirm that McQuaid had in fact threatened them with the public revelation of a list of targeted riders.

And then, by one of those strange coincidences life throws up all the time, such a list of targeted riders happened to find its way into the hands of someone at L’Équipe. Someone who, despite Amaury’s edict to the contrary, banged the doping drum and made the news instead of just sitting back and reporting what others had uncovered. Did a head roll in L’Équipe that day? There’s more than enough blood on Amaury’s carpet to suggest that, had the Index of Suspicion story offended her, the journalists and editors responsible would have faced the guillotine.

Am I just peddling a conspiracy theory here, demonstrating that I read far too many thrashy thrillers? Of course I am. For the UCI were hurt by L’Équipe‘s release of the Index of Suspicion. They were cut to the quick. They were shocked – shocked I tell you – that someone could leak such a list, quite possibly someone in their own organisation. And so McQuaid promised to do a George Smiley and root out the traitor in the UCI’s ranks. Except, of course, that I see McQuaid as less like George Smiley and more like George Stroud, from Kenneth Fearing’s The Big Clock.

And so when I picture Marie-Odile Amaury sitting in her Issy-les-Moulineaux office, gazing out at the Paris skyline and the storm clouds gathering on ASO’s horizon, I don’t see her frowning when she views the cloud caused by GCP. I see her smiling. Happy in the knowledge that ending the ProTour Wars was – for ASO – the right thing to do, for in so doing she finally enabled ASO and the UCI to unite in a common purpose: sharing the revenue to be generated by the global expansion of cycling.

Marie Odile Amaury, PDG du groupe Amaury (Crédits photo: HAMILTON/REA)

And I see her smiling, happy in the knowledge that Hein Verbruggen has left the stage and gone off to play World Mind Games with his new toy, SportAccord. But look closely at that smile. Is that a frown forming at its edges? SportAccord is, after all, just a new stage from which Verbruggen is waging his war to allow sports’ international federations to seize control of the TV revenues generated by their sports. The battlements around the Tour’s TV revenues are already being reinforced in preparation for Verbruggen’s next assault.

Tour of Qatar (photo: REUTERS/Fadi Al-Assaad)

Last time out we looked at the prize funds on offer at ASO’s races and discovered that only four ASO races – the Tour de France, the Tour of Oman, the Tour of Qatar and the Ladies Tour of Qatar – offer team prizes. Time now to turn to what is happening in the WorldTour as a whole.

The first thing you will notice in the above table is that it is incomplete. (So much for research, eh?) Of the 27 WorldTour races, I don’t have prize figures for 10 of them. Prize funds are not covered by the official secrets act. It should be easy to find out how much each race pays out. In fact, you would think most races would want to boast about their generosity, no? For a lot of races – particularly ASO’s – finding the information is easy, it’s just a click away on their websites. For other races though … oh dear.

For those races I couldn’t find the information I was looking for – either on the race’s website, or elsewhere on the net – I emailed the race organisers. Out of about a dozen-and-a-half emails I sent, only two race organisers could be bothered enough to reply. And one of them is still trying to find the information for me. (If any of you want to help fill in the blanks, you can find me on Twitter @fmk_RoI.)

So, my poor research skills aside, what is there to say of the races for which information is available? As per last time out, these figures are before considering participation allowances. If getting basic prize fund information isn’t easy, you can imagine the difficulty in getting participation allowances. The information I have though is that, the Grand Tours aside, only the Tour Down Under and the Tour of Beijing are paying more than the UCI-mandated €7,500 participation allowance (the actual amounts being paid by the Tour Down Under and the Tour of Beijing I don’t have, but it’s somewhere between $20,000 and $40,000 per team).

My real interest here is again in that portion of their prize funds race organisers set aside for teams. Of the above races for which I do have information, just five pay out team prizes: Tierreno-Adriatico (€11,000), the Giro (€118,340), the Tour (€201,000), the Eneco Tour (€1,000) and the Vuelta (€52,000). The Tour we’ve already covered, when looking at ASO’s races. The Giro and the Vuelta, you would expect them to pay team prizes. That Tierreno-Adriatico pays team prizes is not entirely unexpected, given its placement on the calendar. That the Eneco Tour is the only other race paying out a team prize is a surprise. (Again, it’s necessary to stress that there are ten WorldTour race organisers who couldn’t be bothered answering a simple question about how much they pay out in prizes. Some of them may, and probably do, pay team prizes.)

So let’s go back to the question I left hanging last time out: should ASO pay out more to the participating teams? The knee-jerk response is obviously yes. But let’s not be jerks. Rather, we should note that the Tour is already paying out considerably more than its nearest rival, and that ASO are, generally, more generous than most all of their rivals. Rather than demanding more from ASO, shouldn’t the AIGCP be doing more to level the playing field among all the race organisers, make the other races pay out more first?

But what if those other races can’t afford to pay out more? Anecdotal evidence tells us that the Tour de France makes a profit, as does Paris-Roubaix. The tours in Qatar and Oman have rich sugar-daddies. The profitability of the other races is open to question. My own opinion – and it is just that, an opinion – is that ASO is not a charity and would not be running races if there wasn’t a profit in it.

But what of others? Take the GP Ouest France-Plouay. Out of the generosity of their hearts, the good men and women in Aigle who ruin this sport kindly allocated €30,000 from the ProTour reserve to the GP Ouest France-Plouay in 2010, to help meet the increased costs of being on the WorldTour calendar (most of which costs go back into the pocket of the UCI – it’s just like giving aid to Africa, really). Making races pay their way is never easy, as all of us who have been involved in organising them at any level can attest. (It’s also worth recalling that the good men and women in Aigle have also generously used the ProTour reserve to sub Global Cycling Promotions €445,000 in 2010 and €177,000 in 2009. Given that GCP organises just one race, you might see that as a subvention to the Tour of Beijing.)

Does the failure to pay out team prizes mean that those races that don’t can’t afford the extra prize money? Possibly. But, as we saw last time out, even at ASO’s races there’s only four paying team prizes. So how about we consider the size of the overall prize fund and see what that tells us? The UCI sets a minimum prize money figure for different races, which covers stages and GC. Comparing how far ahead of the minimum different races are might offer some guidance as to how flush with cash they are.

Let’s do this in two stages, the first looking just at ASO races, the second looking at WorldTour races.

What’s interesting here is that there are only three races at which ASO pay the absolute minimum prize money: the Flèche Wallonne Femmes, Paris-Tours Espoirs, and the Critérium du Dauphiné. Of the last, it’s worth remembering that ASO only took over the race last year. So while they can afford to find extra money for riders at most all of their races, they can only afford to find money to reward the teams at four of them. If you were writing their end of term school report, you’d be inclined to put ‘could try harder’ at the bottom of it.

At the WorldTour races, the picture looks like this:

Of the WorldTour races for which I have information, you can see that 11 are paying above minimum prize money (and almost half of them are ASO events). But remember, just 5 of the above races (for which I have information) pay out team prizes.

There’s a point I’d like to introduce here, but for which I don’t have detailed information. Someone else will pick it up and run with it, perhaps. The point is this:  increasingly, race organisers are turning to cyclo-sportifs to help boost their bottom line. Consider the list of World Tour races above and the number of them that have associated cyclo-sportifs. Cyclo-sportifs which feed off pro races. It is easy for some race organisers to put on the poor mouth and argue that they are barely covering their costs in organising pro races. It’s even easier to use accouning sleights of hand to prove this should anyone ever look hard enough. But if race organisers are making money off the back of those races via a cyclo-sporif, then some of that money should, I think, feed back into the pro race. And from there back to the teams (and riders) who make that race popular.

Does any of this help answer the question as to whether the playing field among all the race organisers can be levelled, whether other race organisers should also be called upon to pay out more to the teams? Even without the cyclo-sportif point, I think it does, and that the answer is yes. If race organisers can afford to be generous to the riders, they can afford to be generous to the teams. Even if that means they have to be less generous to the riders. That’s just my opinion, and you’re welcome to disagree with it. And, by the end of the week and the conclusion of this series, I may be disagreeing with it myself.

Focusing the revenue-sharing debate on the richest race on the calendar is obviously the easy thing for the AIGCP to do; it is the story that will gain them the most publicity. But, if you were in ASO and the AIGCP were trying to embarrass you into giving them more crumbs from the table, don’t you think that you’d tell them to get other race organisers to improve their act first? Or maybe you’d want to tell them that, rather than using the media to demand meetings with Marie-Odile Amaury (bypassing the head of ASO, her son, Jean-Étienne Amaury, which is a bit like saying ‘I’ll tell your ma’ when the big boys won’t let you play with them) they should take their problem to the UCI and get them to set minimum prize money for teams and not just for riders?

Next: The CADF and the sharing of costs between teams and race organisers.

Previous: Revenue sharing at ASO races.

Daft analogy time. (Even I hate this analogy, but I’ll use it anway.) We began this examination of the UCI’s financial statements by saying that the UCI had taken a long, hard look at itself in the mirror and found the reflection to be far from flattering. The UCI was fat and flabby and in serious need of some body sculpting. The UCI also needed to consider its cholesterol levels.

Imagine if you can – and please, just run with me on this one, it’s a dumb analogy, I know, but it works – the UCI’s prime artery and all the cholesterol clinging to its walls. Let’s pretend you can measure the width of an artery in Swiss francs (look, I’ve already admitted this is dumb, get over it and run with the idea). At the end of 2007 the UCI’s artery was 12.8 million Swiss francs wide (in the real world, that was the value of the UCI’s accumulated reserves at the end of 2007).

Over the course of 2008, with more cholesterol clinging to the walls of the UCI’s blood vessels, the artery only measured 8.7 million Swiss francs in width (in the real world, that was the value of the UCI’s accumulated reserves at the end of 2008). If the UCI had continued adding cholesterol at its 2008 rate the artery would have been fully blocked in two years. The UCI was a basket case. The doctors ordered the patient to change its diet or die.

The UCI’s changed diet meant that less cholesterol was added to its artery walls in 2009. But the artery still shrank some more. At the end of 2009, it was only 7.6 million Swiss francs wide (again, in the real world, that was the value of the UCI’s accumulated reserves at the end of 2009). If the UCI continued to add cholesterol at the 2009 rate, the artery would be fully blocked in six years. An improvement over the previous year, but still leaving the UCI as a bit of a basket case.

In 2010, the UCI seems to have finally put some control on its diet. No new cholestrol was added to its artery walls. In fact, a small amount of cholesterol was scraped away, the artery measuring 7.8 million Swiss francs in width at the end of 2010 (yes, you’ve got it by now, that was the value of the UCI’s accumulated reserves at the end of 2010).

Does this mean that the UCI has a clean bill of health? Hardly. We’ve already seen how the effects of fluctuating currencies can catch the UCI unawares. So even though the UCI made a small surplus last year, the patient still needs to be monitored. All that’s happened is that its condition appears to have stabilised. It would be very easy to slip back into bad habits. Like being caught unawares by fluctuating exchange rates. Or the cost of taking major anti-doping cases to the CAS.

The general trend, then, has been favourable over the last two years. The rest of 2011 could still be quite ropey, though. For starters, there’s the cost of the interminable case of Alberto Contador, which is exacerbated somewhat by WADA taking their appeal independent of the UCI’s appeal. Thankfully, though, the rest of the peloton has been sufficiently careful to protect the UCI from unexcepted financial outlays this year. Though clearly not as careful as they should be, not if Pat McQuaid’s recent warning to the peloton about the dangers of micro-dosing is anything to go by.

* * * * *

Dumb and all as the cholesterol analogy is, it beats talking about burn rates and the like and it does capture how close the UCI is to running out of money. But really, can you seriously imagine the UCI running out of reserves? Here you have to recall that the UCI is not really a business. It’s actually little more than a club. A bloody big club yes, but still a club.

What happens when clubs run out of money? They organise a raffle and all the members buy tickets and pester their friends and family into buying tickets. How many tickets do you think Igor Makarov and his oil-rich Russian friends would buy were the prize the presidency of the UCI? Or would maybe Hein Verbruggen’s SportAccord be willing to pop for a couple of books of tickets were the prize the CADF? And how many tickets do you think ASO or Lagardère Unlimited would be willing to purchase were the prize the UCI’s new race promotion arm, Global Cycling Promotions?

Some of you are no doubt shaking your head and thinking I’m just talking up some bogeymen here. There may even be some truth to that. Accountants are, after all, just story-tellers and maybe some of the story I’m telling here is just a scare before bedtime.

But the UCI has already organised a number of raffles in recent memory. In one of them the prize was a slot in the Olympic track cycling programme. The Japanese keirin promoters were the lucky winners of that. And, if some are to be believed, another prize was the magicking away of a non-negative doping control at the Tour de Suisse some years back. The truth is, I don’t need to try very hard to scare you: reality is frightening enough as it is.

The answer then to my question as to whether there was ever a real danger of the UCI running out of reserves is that, while there is always a theoretical danger, it’s actually a very unlikely scenario. The real danger is in what would have to be raffled were the UCI caught unawares by a financial catastrophe and need to raise funds in a hurry.

* * * * *

Though the UCI is just a glorified club, it would like to think of itself as a major player on the global sporting stage. Look at how Pat McQuaid set his sights on making the UCI the recognised Olympic body for skateboarders. Whatever it takes to extend the UCI’s powerbase, McQuaid will do it. But just how major is the UCI really? We’ve already looked at different aspects of its income statement and will be coming back to other items buried within that as this series progresses. Let’s now look at the UCI’s balance sheet and see what story it tells us.

I have slightly altered the layout of the balance sheet, as compared with the version shown in the UCI’s accounts. If you’ve looked at the UCI’s accounts, my reason for doing this will be obvious to you. If you haven’t, don’t sweat it.

Of the numbers themselves, what is there to say? Detailed and all as the picture appears to be to be, there’s actually very little in it. The UCI’s is actually quite a simple balance sheet.

Some of you may be looking at the 5.2 million Swiss francs in the bank and the other 5.5 million held in securities. Scroll down a few lines though and consider the 12.1 million figure for income in advance. As we established earlier in this series, the UCI can receive money one, two, or more years in advance, from sponsors, race organisers or teams.

Most of the assets need to be considered in association with their matched liabilities. While a total assets figure of 37.1 million Swiss francs looks wonderful if considered in isolation, once you consider the matched liabilities of 29.4 million it’s not nearly as impressive as it at first seems.

Large amounts of the UCI’s balance sheet don’t actually belong to the UCI. Take the Assigned Assets of 8.8 million Swiss francs. Scroll down a few lines and you will see the liabilities matching these. While the assets sit on the UCI’s books, technically they don’t belong to the UCI. The money is, so to speak, ony resting in the UCI’s accounts. The guarantees figure, for instance, is the money lodged by teams to pay salaries in case they go bust. That’s a necessary precautionary measure, as riders from teams like Mercury, Team Coast or the Linda McCartney Pro Cycling Team will tell you. But that’s all it is: a precautionary measure.

One of those allocated funds though is worth considering in more detail: the ProTour reserve. When it comes to this, there’s some major obfuscation going on in the UCI’s accounts, with this being the only section denominated in Euros. You’d almost think there was something being hidden here. Like the €445,000 of Global Cycling Promotion’s costs picked up – via the ProTour reserve – by the UCI in 2010 and the €177,000 picked up in 2009. Or the €30,000 subvention given to the GP Ouest France-Plouay to ease the cost of being on the World Tour calendar (increased prize fund, inceased CADF contribution, increased calander fee and increased licence fee – what the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh).

The most interesting number is the one we’ve already looked at using the rather silly blocked-artery analogy: the UCI’s total reserves (or, looked at from the other side of the balance sheet, it’s total net assets). For a global sporting behemoth, 7.8 million Swiss francs is not a very big bottom line. At the year-end exchange rate, that was only €6.2 million ($8.3 million). You could win more on the Lottery most weeks. And certain members of the UCI’s management and other committees are worth more than the UCI is.

The question though needs to be asked as to whether the UCI should have a large accumulated reserve. Should we be demanding a bottom line of massive proprtions or should we just be happy with what’s on offer? The answer to that is another question: what is the UCI there to do and how much money does it really need to do it?

This is a question I have no intention of attempting to answer, claiming it’s beyond the scope of the revenue-sharing issues I want to look at in the rest of this series. But, as we progress, and you see the large amounts of cash the UCI is taking from teams and race organisers, it’s a question you might want to ask others to answer. Or even try and formulate an answer of your own to.

Next: Revenue sharing as it exists today.

Previous: Where do you hide a tree?