The federations are members. It’s not like the UCI is passing out franchises to the highest bidder. What are the chances that Cycling USA ceases to be the national federation in the US in favor of some other organization? - zero.
1 Like
I’m going to argue that the TDF was bigger than WC for Lemond and Armstrong. Heck, I was like 6 when Lemond won and I was aware, and I was generally not that aware of a lot of stuff back in the day
1 Like
Nobody ever argued the other way. Of course, the TDF is the biggest race in the world.
You can’t deny though that winning the worlds was a springboard for their careers.
One also can’t judge by the sentiment in the USA. We are not a cycling crazy nation. Most Americans couldn’t name a single gravel race.
Fair enough 
But not about growing the sport generally
No, the chances are 100% because the UCI controls how teams are sent to international competitions, like the Olympics. So USAC cycling could try and exist, but their members would never go to the Olympics or other international events because the UCI would not recognize them.
UCI says “this is the licensing / governing body for this country” and everything then flows through them. They would then reinforce that decision by saying anyone who has dual membership or participates in other sanctioned races is not eligible.
This has all been done before…the IOC, and through it the UCI, governs who the national bodies are.
A legitimate world championship grows the sport worldwide because competitors all over the world will come out to try and earn the title if it exists. Otherwise, a top cyclist from Belgium or the UK probably won’t come and race DK or Gravel Worlds for the fun of it.
Granted, this may not do much at all for getting the average Joe on a gravel bike if that is what people mean by “grow”.
Here’s my definition of grow:
- More events
- More participants, not just pros
- More TV coverage - drives the above
1 Like
Given that the UCI was established in 1900, it’s a little difficult to point to virtually anything in organized cycling that it hasn’t had an effect on. Would tens (hundreds?) of millions of people around the world follow bike racing if it wasn’t organized with some sort of governing body? Would we have the races we have without a governing body? Would billions of dollars each year pour into the bike industry, pushing both technology and access? Would training options like TR exist if cycling was just a niche hobby enjoyed by individuals?
4 Likes
Bike shops cell more bikes to average Joes during teh TdF. Average Joes see cycling on TV and get excited, regardless of whether you’re talking road, gravel, MTB, CX, or whatever. Sports grow when more people want to do them, and people enjoy doing sports they see on TV.
1 Like
I’m not sure how many of what you mention were delivered by the UCI vs. ASO. I would argue the ASO has had a greater influence on popularizing cycling than the UCI.
And then on technology, I would argue the UCI has been an impediment, not a positive force. Let’s talk about the UCI banning the super tuck & throwing water bottles to fans vs. making sure that finishing circuits / straights are safe.
The UCI has almost nothing to do with the TdF.
ASO is the dominant force in driving the popularity of cycling, not the UCI.
Great job of missing the big picture. The point is that a governing body and set of rules allow the sport to be standardized. A standardized sport is easier to organize and promote. A widely organized and promoted sport creates opportunities and demand for more people to be involved.
Passing thought - Have the UCI’s critic considered forming an alternative organization? The UGI, perhaps, devoted to the “spirit of gravel” or more laid back races that aren’t really races but are?
4 Likes
Being critical of an organization does not require those critics to organize alternatives.
ASO are no bastion of good for cycling. They’ve dragged the chain on Women’s cycling more than many.
One positive to UCI involvement is a requirement to provide across a wider range of opportunities based on class of race.
The UCI is a largely flawed organisation in many manners, but their involvement in Gravel should prove only to provide greater opportunities and more legitimate Championship level racing.
The anti-UCI argument seems counter to wanting clarification of rules in the American Gravel scene. Or more specifically, a form of gate-keeping that was referred to in the other thread.
1 Like
Not on my part…my concerns re: the UCI are clearly outlined above. Has nothing to do with rules or gatekeeping.
Kinda does if they want to run bicycle races that aren’t affiliated with the UCI, doesn’t it?
I honestly cannot understand how the UCI’s involvement impacts anybody other than the pros racing for the win/national/world champs jersey, and even for them it’s only due to standardised equipment (or, more correctly, limits on what might be able to be used, e.g. no aero bars. By the way, where do aero bars fit in the spirit of gravel?) and drugs testing, to level the playing field.
When I do a club race on the road or mtb - both of which are run by clubs affilated with a national organisation, ergo under UCI ‘control’ - there’s literally no difference to doing a gran fondo or MTB marathon race run by a private promoter not affiliated with anybody, except the non club run events are usually heaps more expensive. Both are great, they’re just different.
Agreed. UCI have said they would like to develop a Gravel wing, likely due to the success of some of the American events.
When ITU decided to establish a Long Course World Championships, they didn’t just force Ironman to hand over the keys. It’s the same thing here, the gravel scene will be largely unaffected as they are businesses that can charge what they want, to whomever they pick.
Now if you choose Gravel as your preferred discipline, and want to compete in a legitimate World Championships whereby different countries have equal opportunity for entry as opposed to just lottery, location, or whatever, you will have that opportunity.
That doesn’t take away any of the shine from SBT or Unbound or any small race. They will carry on as ever they did.
The concerns people have are all outlined in this thread multiple times.
Aero bars. People get bent out of shape over them. I don’t have them on a gravel bike but have thought about it. I would never ride them in a group but doing long gravel races one often finds themselves alone for long stretches and aero bars just give you another position to chill in. I can understand people’s complaints when riders use them in a group
For me, it’s more than just people riding them. I don’t want anyone in a group I’m in to have them on their bike period. Call me cautious, but in a group where crashes happen I don’t want to get speared by someone’s aero extensions.