Is Franz Kafka still alive?

Thursday, 11 November 2010

Franz Kafka wrote some amusing but tortuous novels. His short story Die Verwandlung (The Metamorphosis) recounts the tale of a salesman who awakes one day to find he’s become a large insect. Der Process (The Trial) is about a man who finds himself on trial for a crime that is never mentioned, the court prosecutes but the defendant does not get to know the allegations against him. The Czech novelist wrote tales that spoke of bureaucracy and absurdity, with a sideline in alienation. Today “Kafkaesque” is part of the English language.

Kafka died in 1924 but I can’t help wonder if his spirit lives on in a valley of Switzerland, namely at the UCI HQ in Aigle. I’d been meaning to explore the way sponsors are put off by the confusing rules, indeed I touched on the ever-changing nature of the UCI’s Pro Tour rules and the way this seems to get badly handed but a new element has come to light: secret UCI rules. I’m not making this up.

Top Secret Criteria
The UCI allots “Pro Team” licences based on a range of criteria, one of which is a “sporting element”, for this the UCI reviews a team’s roster for 2011 and tots up the points these riders scored in 2009 and 2010 using a internal formula. Clearly a team with a big budget doesn’t have to worry but a more modest squad needs to know whether hiring a rider with or without points will get them a ride or not. Why is this formula kept secret?

This is something that’s coming under public criticism from team managers and I agree. How can a team entice sponsors if the important matters like qualification for major events is decided according to a hidden ranking system? It’s not transparent. It’s like Kafka’s The Trial, teams are supposed to plan budgets and recruitments but without being told what the rules are.

Sudden changes
I’m perplexed by the way the rules change so often. There’s nothing wrong with tweaking things but the UCI is doing it in a Kakfaesque manner. First there is no consultation, rules are created without inviting the views from the top teams, race organisers or riders. Second these rules are announced very late in the game, some of the 2011 rules were only made public at the Worlds in September. Announcing new rules when sponsors have already committed for the next season involves a significant relocation of the goalposts.

When the rules become risks
We end up with regulatory risk. The rules are supposed to the bedrock of sport but their changing nature makes them the very opposite of a stable certainty, they become an ever-changing component. Sponsors are already nervous about doping scandals, secret formulas to determine the attribution of a licence only adds to the risk. Often the UCI is adding risk, not removing it.

Consultation
My humble suggestion would be that new rules involve consultation and above all, that any significant changes are announced well in advance. Any framework for 2013 should be public today. Teams and sponsors alike need visibility to plan for the future, no company will commit millions of Euros of a marketing budget based on uncertain rules. Why does the UCI use an internal ranking for such an important external process?

Pin It

{ 6 comments }

Anonymous November 11, 2010 at 11:27 am

I gotta agree, the teams need to know the points scoring system so they know which riders to sign.

Fabrizio November 11, 2010 at 11:56 am

Intelligent point with the rules and changes that augment risk and the consequences on the sponsoring.

TheInnerRing November 11, 2010 at 1:36 pm

Anonymous: yes, plus it is also a tactical factor in a race, does a team try to win or play it safe for points. Either way, setting out the rules in black and white would help.

Fabrizio: thanks. Like I say it is fine to change rules but this needs to happen well in advance. Teams should not make plans for 2011 only to find the rules changed at such a late stage.

Theo November 11, 2010 at 4:12 pm

The new UCI sportive evaluation (first 15/18 of 2011) weakens the standing of the teams. By changing team, nothing of the sportive value remains in the old team. Hiring is everything, training nothing anymore. You have to hire a rider with a lot of points and sell him the end of the season with less points. The UCI foils the modern way of leading a cycling team.

Any evaluation system should be public, the rules as well as the results and announced (at least a year) in advance.

Do the Contador points prevent Saxobank from FDJ's fate? Who knows?
On the other hand, the ASO rules (first 17 of 2010) list them still as a high-ranked qualified team for 2011.

Raouligan November 12, 2010 at 12:16 am

This is a weird one FDJ no, Vaccansolei have said no to Mosquera, although I'm betting Riis hasn't said anything about 'Bert….

The UCI are looking more and more dubious by the day a sorry state of affairs and I thought PWC were acting as auditors for the whole process or they were last year…..

Flashing Pedals November 13, 2010 at 10:04 am

the UCI consistently undertakes to build an element of the professional cycling calendar, which ultimately, attracts or entices the global brands, to use cycling as part of their marketing.

Unfortunately, for every "good idea" the UCI create, they inevitably fail to "think it through enough" the amateurism returns & inevitably they fail to do one thing particularly well.

As a result, their conduct fails to confirm professionalism, which is then reflected in the sports current state, and a certain reluctance of many global corporations to consider any degree of involvement.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: