≡ Menu

Do You Get The Picture?

Sorry for the low resolution. For reasons to be explained in due course I’ve blanked out the sums of money involved.

But maybe you get the picture? There’s more to come.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Anonymous Sunday, 16 January 2011, 5:22 pm

    Some nice investigative journalism going on? Good work. Will the UCI be interested or at least Jonathan Vaughters and Bob Stapleton?

  • Anonymous Sunday, 16 January 2011, 5:49 pm

    I'm thinking that this is a UCI approved project, and therefore won't come under the "scrutiny" or obstacles a recent Australian cycling project encountered. It's all part of the Master UCI plan.

  • Elmer Fudd Sunday, 16 January 2011, 6:34 pm

    High Road are not in a position to point fingers.

    How JV reacts is the key.

  • TheInnerRing Sunday, 16 January 2011, 6:58 pm

    Anonymous 1 and 2: it'll be interesting to see just how interested people become.

    Elmer Fudd: with you on JV but I suspect Riis, Nygaard and others might be curious too.

  • Nick Sunday, 16 January 2011, 7:12 pm

    It's also interesting that pay-for-UCI-points has already started.

  • Anonymous Sunday, 16 January 2011, 7:36 pm

    Just interesting Matthew Goss wants to start getting his UCI points up – and happily declaring it in the media. It's a win/win situation for the rider and Greenedge, but how would Renshaw (who is signed to THR until 2012) feel about this? Wouldn't Bob prefer to see Mark step up and take the points/win when Cav can't, not Goss?

  • Anonymous Sunday, 16 January 2011, 8:04 pm

    ^^ "I'm thinking that this is a UCI approved project"

    Why would the UCI be in on this? Why would they want to ruffle feathers with Jonathan Vaughters, Riis and Bob Stapleton

  • Anonymous Sunday, 16 January 2011, 10:56 pm

    Puts the Pegausus problems into perspective, the UCI and CA combining to get the outcome that they prefer.

    Very little honesty and integrity left in the sport that we love, time to move on?

  • Anonymous Sunday, 16 January 2011, 10:59 pm

    I don't think for one moment that Green Edge's cash reserves are a problem at all. They have enough sitting in the bank for a good 2-4 years insiders suggest. About 40-60 Mil?

  • Anonymous Sunday, 16 January 2011, 11:20 pm

    Everyone's missing the point. If the new riders are all contesting for UCI points so they get better salaries (the GreenEdge get the amount of points needed to go Pro), yet their existing teams find out they are doing this, wont their existing team be less likely to enter them in high ranking events/situations.

    If Riis finds out Richie Porte is set to leave, would Riis allow Richie to contend for high points in Giro, TDF etc.

  • Touriste-Routier Sunday, 16 January 2011, 11:39 pm

    Please remember that all riders' current teams still need wins and performances to appease their sponsors. While they need to worry about next season, they still have to perform this season.

    Some riders are worth a lot even without points, as long as they are helping get other riders points. In general I believe it will be up to team management to get contracts better aligned to keep interests aligned.

    There is no question that there needs to be a better system of team licensing and race entry guarantees. Perhaps some form of points sharing will help reduce the conflict of interest under the current system.

  • Anonymous Monday, 17 January 2011, 5:36 am

    Its moreso a question of loyalty, I would think.

  • Anonymous Monday, 17 January 2011, 8:31 am

    The cash for points issue is more about setting up a corrupt transfer system were the rules force the cash for points.

    If points stayed with the team and did not move with an individual there would be no cash for points.

    If you set up this type of transfer market, cash is king.

    The UCI either did not forward think or they implemented a rule that would get this very outcome. Interesting, set a rule that determines a riders worth on the open market.

  • TheInnerRing Monday, 17 January 2011, 9:59 am

    Thanks for all the comments. Too many to respond to individually but I'll try and pick up some of the themes.

    1) Points are a new currency
    2) I would be concerned about riders being paid to get points whilst on team duty. The issue here is the aspect of secrecy, if the riders don't tell about this then it's very sneaky.

    On a broader point, I do wish the team well and like the concept suggested by the marketing. BUT anyone in the sport using underhand methods has got some explaining to do. Let's not assume every other team plays by the rules either.

  • Elmer Fudd Monday, 17 January 2011, 10:20 am

    Interesting Points = Contract Value dilemma….

    English racer David Millar stated the UCI points / value contract was an incentive to dope.
    Cofidis riders were chasing points to increase their own value, and ride for themselves…..

  • Anonymous Monday, 17 January 2011, 10:34 am

    I have to agree with Millar there.

    Also, as far as I know, all the price money won by riders in an event goes into a pot and every rider, mechanic aso get their share of it, to ensure better team work. Sure they are pros and get paid to do their job, still this could be undermining team spirit in some situations besides all the other obvious conflicts of interests it bring along.

  • Tom P Monday, 17 January 2011, 10:35 am

    Be interesting to see if lower ranking riders are incentivised to help their leaders gain UCI points; i.e. Renshaw for Cav/the likes of O'Grady for Cancellara and the Schlecks.

  • TheInnerRing Monday, 17 January 2011, 10:39 am

    Like many issues in the sport, this comes back to transparency. We can all have one employer and take income from a second source but often have to get this cleared with our employer, and in this case it proves tricky if you are being well paid by one team and stand to gain from a direct competitor.

  • AH Monday, 17 January 2011, 2:22 pm

    "We can all have one employer and take income from a second source but often have to get this cleared with our employer, and in this case it proves tricky if you are being well paid by one team and stand to gain from a direct competitor."

    Exactly. And in most industries doing so results in immediate termination.

  • Anonymous Monday, 17 January 2011, 6:45 pm

    @AH: But not in politics….

  • roomservicetaco Monday, 17 January 2011, 7:05 pm

    Curious why you would redact the amounts of the signing bonus and the per point bonus? Since we don't know the specific rider/team, there is no confidentiality issue. And, knowing the amounts or relative amounts will help spell out the magnitude of the issue. If, for example, the signing bonus is 1000x the maximum amount of bonus dollars for UCI points, it's a much more benign issue than if the bonus dollars are highly significant compared to other forms of compensation.

  • Anonymous Monday, 17 January 2011, 7:39 pm

    Has this been done recently by other new teams? Would make for some interesting sifting through results or explain some interesting tactics in races.

  • TheInnerRing Monday, 17 January 2011, 9:36 pm

    roomservicetaco: why the edits? Because in airing this subject I don't want to put the whole thing out in one go in case it causes the people involved too much embarrassment. I'm especially thinking of the rider involved. But I'll add that for the riders being linked, they could well expect more from the per-point bonus that the signing bonus.

    Anonymous: a comment on the "New Australian team poaching riders?" item says "I have it on reasonably good authority from a rider on Garmin 2009-2010 that Sky was doing more or less the same thing during the 2009 season. In particular Shane Sutton was the Sky rep doing the dealing". Make of that what you will…

  • Anonymous Saturday, 6 August 2011, 4:05 pm

    *bump* Apt time to read this again.

    So Jacky & Meyers get a 4 figure signing on bonus and a 3 figure sum per UCI point. Cam’s shout?