December 8, 2007 – The conflict continues between the UCI and Grand Tour organizers, (Unipublic, ASO and RCS Sport) who announced in September that they would organize their races (Giro d’Italia, Vuelta a España, Milano-Sanremo, Paris-Roubaix, Liège-Bastogne-Liège, Giro di Lombardia, Flèche Wallonne, Paris-Nice, Tirreno-Adriatico and Paris-Tours) outside of the ProTour. As a result, the UCI put the races, except the Tour de France, on the UCI European Tour calendar, while the TdF was listed on the World Tour (non-ProTour) calendar.

On November 28, six of the most influential national cycling federations (Austrian, Belgian, Spanish, Italian, French and Luxembourg) became involved when they sent a letter to the UCI, stating essentially they were siding with the organizers in question.

Here is UCI President Pat McQuaid’s response to a letter sent to the UCI on November 28 by the Cycling Federations.

Dear Presidents,

Thank you for your letter of 28 November.

You call attention to the difficulties encountered on the occasion of the creation of the UCI ProTour, attributable in particular to the refusal by the organizers of the three major tours to join this series. I share your observation and deplore the fact, as no doubt do a great majority of the members of the cycling family, that the tours in question have refused to join this series.

But this is nevertheless a fact and the UCI can only take note of it. You go on to criticize the regulatory link which the UCI has, in your view, sought to maintain between the UCI ProTour and the Tour de France. Even assuming that such a link were perceived to exist, how could its existence constitute an “exceptional situation of necessity and extreme gravity” to quote your own words?

The Tour de France no longer figures on the UCI ProTour calendar. However, this does not mean that the UCI agrees, by the same token, to this event being released from all obligations to comply with the rules of participation by which it is governed. As the Tour de France figures on the world calendar, the UCI has decided that the best teams in the world (and there can be no doubt that the UCI ProTeams are the best teams in the world from the sporting point of view) are entitled to take part in it. This participation condition has been based on objective criteria: sporting as I have already pointed out, but also ethical and structural. The UCI ProTeams are indeed by definition groups which satisfy a number of quality criteria.

The decision taken by the UCI is therefore in no way prejudicial to the Tour de France, in sporting terms, or more generally, in terms of the quality of the teams which take part. For three years, the Tour de France figured on the UCI ProTour calendar (including two years at least with the agreement of ASO which contributed to the drafting of the rules governing events without a licence). Was its prestige diminished as a result? Did it suffer from the participation of the best teams in the world? The answer is of course no.

What would happen if the rules of participation imposed by the UCI were to be abolished? The answer is simple: the teams would be at the mercy of arbitrary decisions (the organizer would choose them according to subjective criteria), while the average sporting standard of the teams would be diminished. That is an outcome which we must of course reject. I therefore fail to see how the decision taken by the UCI to allow the world’s best teams to participate in the Tour de France would place cycling in an “exceptional situation of necessity and extreme gravity”.

The ten other events in question do not appear on the UCI ProTour either. Their respective organizers had asked for this to be the case. You say that the inclusion of these events on the UCI Europe Tour calendar downgrades them. I must say that I would have preferred, in common no doubt with you, for these events to remain part of the UCI ProTour at world level.

However, this was not possible because their organizers declined to agree. The UCI was therefore obliged to place them on a different calendar, while endeavouring to respect their status. There is surely no need for me to remind you of the rights and obligations associated with the new Super Class of the UCI Europe Tour and the “H.C.” group of that Tour. You must admit that the rights granted for example to the Giro, to the Vuelta and Liège-Bastogne-Liège, together with the obligations by which they will in future be governed in the UCI Europe Tour, in no way diminish their prestige and do not render their organization more difficult. These events will in fact be able to admit the teams of their own choice (UCI ProTeams, professional continental teams with the Wild Card Label and Continental Teams from the country concerned).

There is therefore no reason to fear the consequences of what you regard as a downgrading. This fear, which seems to be more in the nature of a symbolic statement, leaves us perplexed when we consider your own intention of favouring the organization of these races at the national level.

In the light of the above facts, I therefore refute your finding and would like you to explain exactly how the decisions taken are prejudicial in practice to the proper conduct of the events in question and, even more, just how they would plunge cycling into an “exceptional situation of necessity and extreme gravity. ” As I see it, the reasons which you quote do not justify the measures that you propose.

On the other hand, in the present situation, there is one thing which in my view can indeed be regarded as extremely dangerous: that is the position adopted by you and the actions which you announce. That attitude might indeed create a situation of extreme gravity in which the risk of a split would be very real because that would be its logical consequence.

What then is this peril which your sporting heritage is purportedly facing and which you must guard against despite the decisions taken by your International Federation? Why do you think that it is urgent to come to the aid of the events held by the most powerful organizers in the world of cycling, knowing as you do that other events organized in your countries which belong to the UCI ProTour to their own satisfaction, give you no grounds for concern? I fail to understand your position.

But there is one more fundamental element: you want to favour the wishes of the organizers who refuse to respect the regulation, even though you have a statutory obligation to comply with this regulation and make sure that it is respected by others.

I must tell you that your sporting heritage is not at risk. Your actions make no contribution whatsoever to cycling and are beneficial only to the aims of private players who seek to derive the maximum possible profit from the events organized by them which they believe they can enhance still further by breaching the regulations governing the sport. That is extremely serious and I cannot imagine that it is what you really want.

You have “heard” the three organizers in your own words, but without even consulting your International Federation whose regulations are being called into question and you simply bow down at once to their refusal to respect the regulation instead of calling upon them to comply with it. Worse still, you take rapid measures to organize the departure of their events from the federative framework, despite the fact they you are responsible for ensuring respect for this framework, at least if you believe that your Federations still have a place in it.

In this regard, I would ask you to clarify the following points: what is the exact nature of the cooperation agreement concluded between your Federations? Can you send me a copy and a further copy to your Confederation, the UEC? What are we to understand in practice by an organization of the eleven events “on a purely contractual basis”? Which parties are bound by this contract? Can you confirm whether or not these events will be held outside the international calendar? Outside the national calendar? Outside the framework of the UCI regulation?

If you intend, as your letter implies, to apply or ensure the application of the regulations and decisions of the UCI or to respect its authority as an International Federation, do you then intend to leave the UCI which would be the logical consequence? In fact, either you regard yourselves as members of the UCI and respect its constitution, regulations and decisions, or you do not intend to respect them and therefore place yourself outside the UCI.

While you claim to be acting in the interest of the unity of cycling, you in fact enter into undisclosed cooperation agreements designed to place a significant part of the heritage of cycling outside its federative and historical framework and you are paving the way for your own departure from the UCI by refusing to acknowledge and apply its rules.

You are taking these risks and exposing cycling in its entirety to them on the basis of the purported existence of a “regulatory link between the Tour de France and the UCI ProTour” and the “downgrading of eleven events at European level”? In the light of my above comments, do you not understand that this makes no sense? You cannot take this risk, as Federations, by invoking the arguments put forward by organizers whose interests are, as you must surely understand, totally different from those by which you should be guided. Do not facilitate a split by giving your active cooperation to actors whose intentions are, I must repeat, radically different from your own, even if there may be, at least in the medium term, some points of convergence!

It is particularly painful to note that National Federations are subscribing in their own name and without any reflection on the sporting aspect, to the position of an organizer who is seeking not only to dominate the economic aspect of the sport, but also its sporting governance in order to place the latter at the service of his own financial interests.

It is indeed regrettable to find that National Federations should be seeking to undermine the authority of their International Federation and fail to recognize that if this goal were to be achieved – and what is more with their cooperation – they would no longer have any role to play themselves. Instead of being the guardians of the sporting heritage, these federations would, if their master so wishes, become the mere caretakers of a heritage which they have handed over entirely to commercial interests.

Your action has another separatist aspect. You are well aware of the decisions taken by the UCI which you intended to breach at the time when the Congress was held in Stuttgart. You carefully avoided informing that Congress of the position which you put forward in your letter even though, in your own words, cycling is in “an exceptional situation of necessity and extreme gravity”, which might lead to an imminent split in the cycling family.

Your silence at the Congress apparently signified that this was not a matter of concern to the other Federations. Do you regard yourselves as the sole guardians of the cycling heritage?

Must the law be laid down for the UCI and with it all of the National Federations by a few organizers and a few national federations? You are well aware that if you had spoken out at the Congress in the terms which you use in your letter, your colleagues might well have regarded you as contributing to the split in the cycling family, and they would not have been mistaken in reaching that conclusion.

Since you apparently wish to maintain the unity of the cycling family – which you incidentally failed to consult and even inform – and since your actions effectively concern the entire family, I am taking the liberty of forwarding a copy of our correspondence to all its members.

The other Federations, and the Confederations, beginning with the European Cycling Union, will certainly be interested to learn that six of their colleagues have concluded a cooperation agreement to oppose the UCI, to organize a breach of its regulations, to renounce their obligations and loyalty laid down in the constitution for the benefit of private economic interests, to put part of the cycling heritage outside the family and finally to place the entire family under the guardianship of the ASO.

I look forward to your reply at the earliest opportunity.

I remain,

Yours sincerely,

Pat McQuaid President

CC : European Cycling Union National Federations