The big problem here is that in the UCI rules, there is a clause that appears to prohibit teams from having riders from a diverse sponsor...
The big problem here is that in the UCI rules, there is a clause that appears to prohibit teams from having riders from a diverse sponsor background unite under one team. It's going to hurt groups of privateers banding together, and its going to stop progression for riders. If TLD gives you your first break, are you supposed to ditch them the first time a major team comes knocking, even though you've had a relationship for years, and you are all happy?
Frankly, I applaud the Syndicate gang because they have done exactly that, and bucked the roadie trend. The team is made up a diverse group, all of whom bring unique sponsors. They unite under a bike manufacturer, and still get to help a LARGE swath of industry players. If anyone can point to data that Ratboy's success didn't help Minnaar's sponsors by getting more impressions for the whole Syndicate crew, I would be amazed. A rising tide floats all boats!
If this hurts the Syndicate gang in any way, it would be amazing to see the rest of the WC guys and girls band together and give the UCI the collective finger. Do it, kids. These guys are your friends, and frankly, such an important part of promoting your sport, in years past, and in years to come. It's time to stand up and teach the UCI that this "rag-tag" bunch of "wild" kids have power. Don't let them subjugate your sport, or your opportunities!
I agree with many of your points, and disagree with a few.
My opinion is that if someone is fortunate enough to get picked up by a major UCI Elite team, then yeah, they may have to drop one of their lesser sponsors to get in line with the team. Sponsors drop athletes all the time. Athletes should be able to do the same if it's in their best interest. Being sentimental and loyal to first sponsors sounds wonderful on the Internet, but nothing lasts forever. Peat isn't still riding a GT and Minnaar ain't rollin' on an Orange or a Haro, even though I'm sure those guys had great relationships with those companies while it lasted.
I don't think it is unreasonable for UCI to request team kits be nearly identical. Governing bodies of all other sports do the exact same thing...
Disclaimer: yeah, yeah, I know the UCI is comprised of horrible people who personally hate cycling. And, I fully expect to see Syndicate at all the races this summer in slightly modified kits. No big deal.
I agree with many of your points, and disagree with a few.
My opinion is that if someone is fortunate enough to get picked up by...
I agree with many of your points, and disagree with a few.
My opinion is that if someone is fortunate enough to get picked up by a major UCI Elite team, then yeah, they may have to drop one of their lesser sponsors to get in line with the team. Sponsors drop athletes all the time. Athletes should be able to do the same if it's in their best interest. Being sentimental and loyal to first sponsors sounds wonderful on the Internet, but nothing lasts forever. Peat isn't still riding a GT and Minnaar ain't rollin' on an Orange or a Haro, even though I'm sure those guys had great relationships with those companies while it lasted.
I don't think it is unreasonable for UCI to request team kits be nearly identical. Governing bodies of all other sports do the exact same thing...
Disclaimer: yeah, yeah, I know the UCI is comprised of horrible people who personally hate cycling. And, I fully expect to see Syndicate at all the races this summer in slightly modified kits. No big deal.
I think what you fail to see here is, that we are talking mtb downhill, not Formula 1 or any other sport with insanely high paychecks.
Those guys don´t make millions and they don´t even last as long in their sport compared with other sports like football (soccer).
They have to grab what they can get in the short time they are successful.
So calling it unreasonable to not drop a sponsor for being on a team is just wrong.
Even more so, when there is just no reason for this rule. Why do they have to be in matching clothes? They are not acting as a team. They are individuals racing against each other. It just so happens they are riding for the same sponsor.
Why would they limit their support options to just the teams suppliers and/or sponsors?
Would you like to ride in a helmet that fits you poorly or is of inferior quality if you could easily grab a sponsoring deal with a manufacturer whose helmets are of higher quality and work better for you?
Or ride on shitty tires, just because the team happens to be sponsored by them, effectively limiting your performance as an athlete?
It´s just unreasonable. It´s not in the athletes best interest. It´s not in the best interest of growing the sport.
You don´t see stupid regulations like that in other individual sports. Formula 1 pilots have individual sponsors, so do Moto GP or MX riders. Those sports flourish and the athletes are able to make a living out of them whereas downhill is still a sport for underpaid idealists who do it because they love the sport. Then the governing body steps in and basically tells riders to cut their income by dropping sponsors. Way to go and support the riders...
Yes, I believe people use ill fitting equipment all the time because that is what their sponsors have issued them.
I have a hard time feeling sorry for people who get paid to ride a bicycle, even if it's only for 5 or so years (although I can think of several riders whose careers far outlasted any footballers.). Hypothetically speaking, If someone is too sentimental to drop Lizard Skins just because they were the first to kick them down some free grips, then I think they should decline any factory team offers and go it alone as a privateer.
Zo, I think we're a lot more sympatico than my initial post explained.
Of course, when signing on to certain Elite teams, people are going to have drop or gain sponsors. I'd wager that in general, that's a zero sum gain/loss.
However, when a team is formed, functions with a major bike sponsor and has been allowed by the UCI to exist in said form (with athletes having different sponsors, kits, etc) and gain the special designation in the Elite category PREVIOUSLY, I'm amazed they revoked the designation this year.
There you go guys, issue solved. Your team colours are red, white and black for the 15 season and the issue is solved. I'd prefer my payment in the form of a V10 rather than cash thanks very much.
There you go guys, issue solved. Your team colours are red, white and black for the 15 season and the issue is solved. I'd prefer my...
There you go guys, issue solved. Your team colours are red, white and black for the 15 season and the issue is solved. I'd prefer my payment in the form of a V10 rather than cash thanks very much.
You really think that Fox, Royal and Oneal would be happy with the designs above? The point of them being different is so it's easier to sell...
The UCI probably loses out here more than anyone as they won't get the trade team fee.
The jersey rule has been in place for years and it was only a matter of time before it was clamped down.
Shitty situation, but the racing stays the same and everyone's hatred for the UCI intensifies.
I'm no fan of the UCI, and the ruling is lame! Equally the kits have barely any likeness. A little more graft and creativity could have surely got everyone what they want? Could the sponsors not knock their heads together and re-submit a new design following the UCI's response? I guess it's not deemed worth it. Syndicate will rock anyway!
I'm no fan of the UCI, and the ruling is lame! Equally the kits have barely any likeness. A little more graft and creativity could have...
I'm no fan of the UCI, and the ruling is lame! Equally the kits have barely any likeness. A little more graft and creativity could have surely got everyone what they want? Could the sponsors not knock their heads together and re-submit a new design following the UCI's response? I guess it's not deemed worth it. Syndicate will rock anyway!
are you serious, logos pretty much a match for placement, colors pretty close except for a splashes of green, yellow or blue to identify the riders, a key component for team, sponsors and photographers, if its this petty, Huston we have a problem!
3 different sponsor manafactures, to me this is pretty dam good effort, people dont realise how much work this takes behind the scenes running putting a team together, its a great gig, but as with anything its tough has its challenges, people who say they dont pity anyone being paid to cycle grow up, just jealousy! These guys gals risk alot for what they love, if they can make money good on them!
Most people here sell theyre soul to a souless corp for income, then put boot in to justify theyre own unhappiness with said soulless selled out job! We all do things we dont want to at times, but dont take that away from the lucky few who can, they earned it and work hard for it too. If they love it thats inspirational to the rest of us, slaves to society.
This is just Nazi BS control..
Cant people, see whats going in here! This carry on is hurting the sport, people are trying to grow and expand it which will be better for all, this situation destroys that.
We need rules, but fair and open rules that suit the given disipline of the sport, what works for XC may or may not work for Enduro or DH, obviously did not work for Enduro, as said EWS proves once again, why can people not see with open eyes what works and what dosent, imo far too many in this industry are self promoting and not for greater good at expense of sport in longer run.
These are not new rules. If they wanted Trade Team status, then Santa Cruz Syndicate should have done so like each Team did in order to achieve it. The matter somewhat irks me having read about this as 'rag tag' discipline and SCS electing to personify the stereo-type. Great Job.
I like to be able to differentiate between riders due to the uniqueness in riding style, persona and kit. I feel that the uniformity the uci wishes to impose detracts from from the nature of the sport which celebrates individuality instead turning people into simple billboards racing down the hill. I think it's a highly damaging attitude to force conformity from people who do this sport because they love it. In the end if you micro manage enough, people will get bored and just lose interest in watching or competing.
I like to be able to differentiate between riders due to the uniqueness in riding style, persona and kit. I feel that the uniformity the uci...
I like to be able to differentiate between riders due to the uniqueness in riding style, persona and kit. I feel that the uniformity the uci wishes to impose detracts from from the nature of the sport which celebrates individuality instead turning people into simple billboards racing down the hill. I think it's a highly damaging attitude to force conformity from people who do this sport because they love it. In the end if you micro manage enough, people will get bored and just lose interest in watching or competing.
Yes Sir, quite silly. Personally, I don't obey silly laws. So, lets revolt!!! How about all of the industry teams just give up their industry status and just send all of their riders to the World Cups with a fresh bike and a pocket of cash as privateers. Some random dude might set up a tent to service all comers, who knows?, and all of the big companies would be there to help out. Why try to be like road cycling? We're Mountain Bikers! Bring back the camp outs. Bring back the pit bikes. Bring back the pit berm! FIT! We're in MTB for fun, not glory!
Speaking of the pit berm, I suggest that the next Bar Drag Bounty be solely Pit Berm based. One would have to carve the tire berm,then the BB berm, then the pedal berm, and finally the bar berm. Bring it!
Seems very idealistic.
Yes, I believe people use ill fitting equipment all the time because that is what their sponsors have issued them.
I have a...
Seems very idealistic.
Yes, I believe people use ill fitting equipment all the time because that is what their sponsors have issued them.
I have a hard time feeling sorry for people who get paid to ride a bicycle, even if it's only for 5 or so years (although I can think of several riders whose careers far outlasted any footballers.). Hypothetically speaking, If someone is too sentimental to drop Lizard Skins just because they were the first to kick them down some free grips, then I think they should decline any factory team offers and go it alone as a privateer.
So, what you´re saying is basically, that you would be alright with somebody telling you, you could not earn more money in your job, because you actually like to do that job?
Like, it´s ok to get paid shittons of money for working 16h a day, but if you actually enjoy it, you should earn less?
Doesn´t make sense in any way.
Of course people use ill fitting equipment because of sponsoring. That´s just not the point. The point is, if you are in the lucky situation to cherrypick your sponsors, be it for monetary reasons or because of the kit itself (which might actually pay off in the long run because of better results), it is ok for the governing body of your sport to limit your options and therefore your salary?
Despite your own opinion about being lucky and having the opportunity to ride bikes for a living, that is not what´s in the best interest of the athlete. And THAT is what the UCI´s main interest should be. Making regulations to protect and support athletes and grow a healthy invorenment that motivates young talent to enter the professional scene.
Look at it this way. In a normal job, you have a lifetime to climb up the ladder and earn money. It´s no big deal to at some point cut back on salary (= dropping sponsors) and do the shitty job for a few years to prove your value. For an athlete that´s not an option.
I´m not saying they are wrong for enforcing a law that has been there for a long time. Of course the Syndicate could have just submitted three identical designs and streamlined their sponsor list.
I´m saying they are wrong for making regulations like that in the first place.
What the UCI is doing is driving sponsors away from the sport and that´s not good for the sport in general.
I'm no fan of the UCI, and the ruling is lame! Equally the kits have barely any likeness. A little more graft and creativity could have...
I'm no fan of the UCI, and the ruling is lame! Equally the kits have barely any likeness. A little more graft and creativity could have surely got everyone what they want? Could the sponsors not knock their heads together and re-submit a new design following the UCI's response? I guess it's not deemed worth it. Syndicate will rock anyway!
are you serious, logos pretty much a match for placement, colors pretty close except for a splashes of green, yellow or blue to identify the riders...
are you serious, logos pretty much a match for placement, colors pretty close except for a splashes of green, yellow or blue to identify the riders, a key component for team, sponsors and photographers, if its this petty, Huston we have a problem!
3 different sponsor manafactures, to me this is pretty dam good effort, people dont realise how much work this takes behind the scenes running putting a team together, its a great gig, but as with anything its tough has its challenges, people who say they dont pity anyone being paid to cycle grow up, just jealousy! These guys gals risk alot for what they love, if they can make money good on them!
Most people here sell theyre soul to a souless corp for income, then put boot in to justify theyre own unhappiness with said soulless selled out job! We all do things we dont want to at times, but dont take that away from the lucky few who can, they earned it and work hard for it too. If they love it thats inspirational to the rest of us, slaves to society.
This is just Nazi BS control..
Cant people, see whats going in here! This carry on is hurting the sport, people are trying to grow and expand it which will be better for all, this situation destroys that.
We need rules, but fair and open rules that suit the given disipline of the sport, what works for XC may or may not work for Enduro or DH, obviously did not work for Enduro, as said EWS proves once again, why can people not see with open eyes what works and what dosent, imo far too many in this industry are self promoting and not for greater good at expense of sport in longer run.
Like I say, I don't think the UCI's ruling is good, but no I don't think the designs are alike. I'm a graphic designer and so I appreciate what nightmare trying to please a whole committee of different opinions is, but there aren't two identical elements on any of them! But like Cathy mentions, they're probably just not that concerned about it. (That or she's just being diplomatic).
Matt5311 - I think most DH riders have enough individuality that you can easily spot them even with the same Jersey... that and the different helmets.
Personally I think having identical kits would be super lame. Each rider has their own signature look and that's rad. I think it's retarded how Ryan Villopoto and Adam ciancarulo looked identical last season. Ryan, the best rider in recent memory, should be able to stand out from his team mate. Same goes for any kind of racing. Racing is an individual sport, let them set themselves apart. Stupid rule IMO.
Ive seen a couple people say the kits look alot different, but I have to back up Sess and say they achieved an "overall look" pretty darn well. Alot more similar than last year. And I applaud them for not taking the color out and giving the UCI the finger.
from Kathy Sessler of the Syndicate when asked why the Syndicate wasn't on the trade team list...pretty crazy.
[i]It's true. When I submitted the 3 jersey...
from Kathy Sessler of the Syndicate when asked why the Syndicate wasn't on the trade team list...pretty crazy.
It's true. When I submitted the 3 jersey designs for our riders from ONeal, Royal and Fox, the graphic layout was really close to each other in what our perception of the rule was. Bear in mind this is no easy task with 3 clothing companies trying to produce jerseys to sell and they can't look exactly alike. With the exception that Greg's jersey had neon yellow added, and Steve's had blue added to give an slight individual identity to each rider, UCI didn't think the jerseys met their rule. They declined our elite trade team application based on the jerseys not meeting their criteria.
"All riders within a team are obliged to wear clothing that has identical major sponsor placement, layout and overall look, although the colours of men and women’s outfit can be different. In this case two designs must be submitted".
Certainly this rule can be interpreted many ways. We felt the jerseys were similar in "overall look", UCI did not.
what do you all think of this?
men's and woman's can be different.Pretty sure I have seen video of ratty with his long hair an mangina, just send that to uci problem solved
Do we have an official count of all the major players who didn't get granted trade team status? Or are the Syndicate all we care about? Sess confirmed Giant and Devinci, any others?
- what´s the point of beeing a Trade team? Besides of having benefits like reserved pit space?
- what´s the point of beeing individuals racing against each other beeing formed in a team?
Beeing a team I guess is about representation. Beeing on that team means representing a team and it´s supporters. Supporting that team means, supporting the people that run the team, supporting the athletes competing in the way of providing funds and material support and probably additional technical "factory" support.
Yes downhill is a sport of indiviual athletes competing against each other - like so many other, actually every sport except teamsports.
Do they need individual kits? - no they don´t.
Could it be nice? - yes it could.
Is it in a TEAMS interest to have it´s members in individual outfits?- i doubt it.
Could a team and its members benefit from that rule? - Hmm, supporting women, juniors and not-(yet)-race-winning racers by bigger funds tied to top-tier-racers come to mind, maybe even funds from outside the industry that come solely for advertising/marketing reasons are more attracted to teams, rather than individuals racing.
Interesstingly all things the Sydicate doesnt do. Maybe for reason?
So maybe the UCI´s decesion to ban them from acquiring trade team status is for reason.
And maybe the Syndicate is just a syndicate rather than an actual Team...
Seems very idealistic.
Yes, I believe people use ill fitting equipment all the time because that is what their sponsors have issued them.
I have a...
Seems very idealistic.
Yes, I believe people use ill fitting equipment all the time because that is what their sponsors have issued them.
I have a hard time feeling sorry for people who get paid to ride a bicycle, even if it's only for 5 or so years (although I can think of several riders whose careers far outlasted any footballers.). Hypothetically speaking, If someone is too sentimental to drop Lizard Skins just because they were the first to kick them down some free grips, then I think they should decline any factory team offers and go it alone as a privateer.
So, what you´re saying is basically, that you would be alright with somebody telling you, you could not earn more money in your job, because you...
So, what you´re saying is basically, that you would be alright with somebody telling you, you could not earn more money in your job, because you actually like to do that job?
Like, it´s ok to get paid shittons of money for working 16h a day, but if you actually enjoy it, you should earn less?
Doesn´t make sense in any way.
Of course people use ill fitting equipment because of sponsoring. That´s just not the point. The point is, if you are in the lucky situation to cherrypick your sponsors, be it for monetary reasons or because of the kit itself (which might actually pay off in the long run because of better results), it is ok for the governing body of your sport to limit your options and therefore your salary?
Despite your own opinion about being lucky and having the opportunity to ride bikes for a living, that is not what´s in the best interest of the athlete. And THAT is what the UCI´s main interest should be. Making regulations to protect and support athletes and grow a healthy invorenment that motivates young talent to enter the professional scene.
Look at it this way. In a normal job, you have a lifetime to climb up the ladder and earn money. It´s no big deal to at some point cut back on salary (= dropping sponsors) and do the shitty job for a few years to prove your value. For an athlete that´s not an option.
I´m not saying they are wrong for enforcing a law that has been there for a long time. Of course the Syndicate could have just submitted three identical designs and streamlined their sponsor list.
I´m saying they are wrong for making regulations like that in the first place.
What the UCI is doing is driving sponsors away from the sport and that´s not good for the sport in general.
From such a basic, simple Rule this drama is ridiculous. And Santa Cruz Syndicate now have free reign to allow their sponsors to embed themselves as an uncontrollable force. No doubt this is now a tactic to push outside money hedging itself on the sport. Monster Beverage, what'd Peat do a Volvo Truck commercial last season.
If they do not want to be considered a Team, then hire three individual Managers and be done with it. That's tradition, and that's how things get done. Instead a simple rule as wearing a shirt needs days of time on the Internet and a call for boycott. What a year this is going to be!
Also, it's not like fans of the World Cup don't know which rider is on which team, and any new viewers will quickly learn from listening to commentators anyway.
I can totally understand the relevance of the rule in team events, where you have more than one member of the same team competing at the same time. For example in a road race, it's very useful to be able to easily distinguish when team riders are riding together. The common visual identity that each team has makes them easily recognisable and is definitely good for sponsors and the sport.
Downhill is an individuals sport, making this rule completely irrelevant. You never have two riders on the track at the same time so being able to recognise which team they are on is not necessary. In fact, having each rider in a different kit will more than likely benefit the rider in terms of exposure and uniqueness.
It just shows how the UCI blindly applies the same rules across all disciplines of cycling, regardless of the consequences. Either the UCI needs to form a seperate governing body, that is specific to MTB and DH, and understands the needs of these niche sports. Or disciplines such as DH need to break away from the UCI in order to realise their full potential.
The thing that is ridiculous about this is that rule hasn't been enforced with the Syndicate before and the rule itself is ambiguous "All riders within a team are obliged to wear clothing that has identical major sponsor placement, layout and overall look." Its open to being subjective. If you want teams to look the same then say "All riders within a team are obliged to wear clothing that is identical," and enforce it every year.
Personally, I don't think the UCI likes Rob Roskopp and SC's heavy support of enduro, the syndicate, and Ratboy. They were ok with GM winning world champs, but there is no way the liked that Ratboy was the overall winner and one huck to flat away from winning the double. Look at Rat's jersey last year, it was nothing like anyones and the UCI didn't give a shit because he wasn't consistently on the podium.
This is makes things a little harder for SCS, but I don't think it will be a big deal. Hopefully it pisses Peaty off and he goes out and gets another turn on the top step.
Santa Cruz? Really!?! All this over your riders in personal kits? Gimme a break! If your going to compete at the highest levels of professional mountain biking and you employ professional athletes then it makes sense to have a uniform to represent your team/organization. Who wouldn't be stoked to wear a team kit? This "ragtag" image that is perpetuated by the syndicate as well as much of the bike industry, is in my opinion a huge disservice to the athletes that work hard to compete at World Cup levels. All the professional sports leagues have uniforms and we still celebrate their individual accomplishments. I think professional mountain biking should be more professional at the highest levels and the athletes should be paid more by the teams employing them.
Santa Cruz? Really!?! All this over your riders in personal kits? Gimme a break! If your going to compete at the highest levels of professional mountain...
Santa Cruz? Really!?! All this over your riders in personal kits? Gimme a break! If your going to compete at the highest levels of professional mountain biking and you employ professional athletes then it makes sense to have a uniform to represent your team/organization. Who wouldn't be stoked to wear a team kit? This "ragtag" image that is perpetuated by the syndicate as well as much of the bike industry, is in my opinion a huge disservice to the athletes that work hard to compete at World Cup levels. All the professional sports leagues have uniforms and we still celebrate their individual accomplishments. I think professional mountain biking should be more professional at the highest levels and the athletes should be paid more by the teams employing them.
Downhill is an individuals sport so the reference to sports leagues is irrelevant in this case.
I really don't see how preventing riders having their own personal kit and/or equipment sponsors will equate to more earnings for them. As the most successful team on the world cup circuit for the past decade, SC Syndicate must be doing something right. Their success has done so much for popularity of the sport that I feel this decision is very short sighted.
It is the individual personalities and style of each rider that makes downhill what it is. Look at Ratboy last year - a long haired Mancunian with a wild style totally dominating the world cup, and he has become the most popular rider in a very long time. Imagine if his look and personality had been stifled by commercial intervention and silly rules. These riders are doing this for a living, they are fighting for exposure and to prevent them being individuals is doing them a disservice.
Take the world champs race as an example. How much more media interest is there when each rider turns up with personalised kit and custom bikes/graphics representing their individual countries.
The graphics maybe?
My opinion is that if someone is fortunate enough to get picked up by a major UCI Elite team, then yeah, they may have to drop one of their lesser sponsors to get in line with the team. Sponsors drop athletes all the time. Athletes should be able to do the same if it's in their best interest. Being sentimental and loyal to first sponsors sounds wonderful on the Internet, but nothing lasts forever. Peat isn't still riding a GT and Minnaar ain't rollin' on an Orange or a Haro, even though I'm sure those guys had great relationships with those companies while it lasted.
I don't think it is unreasonable for UCI to request team kits be nearly identical. Governing bodies of all other sports do the exact same thing...
Disclaimer: yeah, yeah, I know the UCI is comprised of horrible people who personally hate cycling. And, I fully expect to see Syndicate at all the races this summer in slightly modified kits. No big deal.
Those guys don´t make millions and they don´t even last as long in their sport compared with other sports like football (soccer).
They have to grab what they can get in the short time they are successful.
So calling it unreasonable to not drop a sponsor for being on a team is just wrong.
Even more so, when there is just no reason for this rule. Why do they have to be in matching clothes? They are not acting as a team. They are individuals racing against each other. It just so happens they are riding for the same sponsor.
Why would they limit their support options to just the teams suppliers and/or sponsors?
Would you like to ride in a helmet that fits you poorly or is of inferior quality if you could easily grab a sponsoring deal with a manufacturer whose helmets are of higher quality and work better for you?
Or ride on shitty tires, just because the team happens to be sponsored by them, effectively limiting your performance as an athlete?
It´s just unreasonable. It´s not in the athletes best interest. It´s not in the best interest of growing the sport.
You don´t see stupid regulations like that in other individual sports. Formula 1 pilots have individual sponsors, so do Moto GP or MX riders. Those sports flourish and the athletes are able to make a living out of them whereas downhill is still a sport for underpaid idealists who do it because they love the sport. Then the governing body steps in and basically tells riders to cut their income by dropping sponsors. Way to go and support the riders...
Yes, I believe people use ill fitting equipment all the time because that is what their sponsors have issued them.
I have a hard time feeling sorry for people who get paid to ride a bicycle, even if it's only for 5 or so years (although I can think of several riders whose careers far outlasted any footballers.). Hypothetically speaking, If someone is too sentimental to drop Lizard Skins just because they were the first to kick them down some free grips, then I think they should decline any factory team offers and go it alone as a privateer.
Of course, when signing on to certain Elite teams, people are going to have drop or gain sponsors. I'd wager that in general, that's a zero sum gain/loss.
However, when a team is formed, functions with a major bike sponsor and has been allowed by the UCI to exist in said form (with athletes having different sponsors, kits, etc) and gain the special designation in the Elite category PREVIOUSLY, I'm amazed they revoked the designation this year.
All because of fashion.
The UCI probably loses out here more than anyone as they won't get the trade team fee.
The jersey rule has been in place for years and it was only a matter of time before it was clamped down.
Shitty situation, but the racing stays the same and everyone's hatred for the UCI intensifies.
I don't remember seeing '14 Ratboy replica jerseys available anywhere? If that's "the point" then I'm afraid, you've lost me.
3 different sponsor manafactures, to me this is pretty dam good effort, people dont realise how much work this takes behind the scenes running putting a team together, its a great gig, but as with anything its tough has its challenges, people who say they dont pity anyone being paid to cycle grow up, just jealousy! These guys gals risk alot for what they love, if they can make money good on them!
Most people here sell theyre soul to a souless corp for income, then put boot in to justify theyre own unhappiness with said soulless selled out job! We all do things we dont want to at times, but dont take that away from the lucky few who can, they earned it and work hard for it too. If they love it thats inspirational to the rest of us, slaves to society.
This is just Nazi BS control..
Cant people, see whats going in here! This carry on is hurting the sport, people are trying to grow and expand it which will be better for all, this situation destroys that.
We need rules, but fair and open rules that suit the given disipline of the sport, what works for XC may or may not work for Enduro or DH, obviously did not work for Enduro, as said EWS proves once again, why can people not see with open eyes what works and what dosent, imo far too many in this industry are self promoting and not for greater good at expense of sport in longer run.
dave
Speaking of the pit berm, I suggest that the next Bar Drag Bounty be solely Pit Berm based. One would have to carve the tire berm,then the BB berm, then the pedal berm, and finally the bar berm. Bring it!
Like, it´s ok to get paid shittons of money for working 16h a day, but if you actually enjoy it, you should earn less?
Doesn´t make sense in any way.
Of course people use ill fitting equipment because of sponsoring. That´s just not the point. The point is, if you are in the lucky situation to cherrypick your sponsors, be it for monetary reasons or because of the kit itself (which might actually pay off in the long run because of better results), it is ok for the governing body of your sport to limit your options and therefore your salary?
Despite your own opinion about being lucky and having the opportunity to ride bikes for a living, that is not what´s in the best interest of the athlete. And THAT is what the UCI´s main interest should be. Making regulations to protect and support athletes and grow a healthy invorenment that motivates young talent to enter the professional scene.
Look at it this way. In a normal job, you have a lifetime to climb up the ladder and earn money. It´s no big deal to at some point cut back on salary (= dropping sponsors) and do the shitty job for a few years to prove your value. For an athlete that´s not an option.
I´m not saying they are wrong for enforcing a law that has been there for a long time. Of course the Syndicate could have just submitted three identical designs and streamlined their sponsor list.
I´m saying they are wrong for making regulations like that in the first place.
What the UCI is doing is driving sponsors away from the sport and that´s not good for the sport in general.
Matt5311 - I think most DH riders have enough individuality that you can easily spot them even with the same Jersey... that and the different helmets.
Ive seen a couple people say the kits look alot different, but I have to back up Sess and say they achieved an "overall look" pretty darn well. Alot more similar than last year. And I applaud them for not taking the color out and giving the UCI the finger.
- what´s the point of beeing a Trade team? Besides of having benefits like reserved pit space?
- what´s the point of beeing individuals racing against each other beeing formed in a team?
Beeing a team I guess is about representation. Beeing on that team means representing a team and it´s supporters. Supporting that team means, supporting the people that run the team, supporting the athletes competing in the way of providing funds and material support and probably additional technical "factory" support.
Yes downhill is a sport of indiviual athletes competing against each other - like so many other, actually every sport except teamsports.
Do they need individual kits? - no they don´t.
Could it be nice? - yes it could.
Is it in a TEAMS interest to have it´s members in individual outfits?- i doubt it.
Could a team and its members benefit from that rule? - Hmm, supporting women, juniors and not-(yet)-race-winning racers by bigger funds tied to top-tier-racers come to mind, maybe even funds from outside the industry that come solely for advertising/marketing reasons are more attracted to teams, rather than individuals racing.
Interesstingly all things the Sydicate doesnt do. Maybe for reason?
So maybe the UCI´s decesion to ban them from acquiring trade team status is for reason.
And maybe the Syndicate is just a syndicate rather than an actual Team...
If they do not want to be considered a Team, then hire three individual Managers and be done with it. That's tradition, and that's how things get done. Instead a simple rule as wearing a shirt needs days of time on the Internet and a call for boycott. What a year this is going to be!
Also, it's not like fans of the World Cup don't know which rider is on which team, and any new viewers will quickly learn from listening to commentators anyway.
Downhill is an individuals sport, making this rule completely irrelevant. You never have two riders on the track at the same time so being able to recognise which team they are on is not necessary. In fact, having each rider in a different kit will more than likely benefit the rider in terms of exposure and uniqueness.
It just shows how the UCI blindly applies the same rules across all disciplines of cycling, regardless of the consequences. Either the UCI needs to form a seperate governing body, that is specific to MTB and DH, and understands the needs of these niche sports. Or disciplines such as DH need to break away from the UCI in order to realise their full potential.
Personally, I don't think the UCI likes Rob Roskopp and SC's heavy support of enduro, the syndicate, and Ratboy. They were ok with GM winning world champs, but there is no way the liked that Ratboy was the overall winner and one huck to flat away from winning the double. Look at Rat's jersey last year, it was nothing like anyones and the UCI didn't give a shit because he wasn't consistently on the podium.
This is makes things a little harder for SCS, but I don't think it will be a big deal. Hopefully it pisses Peaty off and he goes out and gets another turn on the top step.
I really don't see how preventing riders having their own personal kit and/or equipment sponsors will equate to more earnings for them. As the most successful team on the world cup circuit for the past decade, SC Syndicate must be doing something right. Their success has done so much for popularity of the sport that I feel this decision is very short sighted.
It is the individual personalities and style of each rider that makes downhill what it is. Look at Ratboy last year - a long haired Mancunian with a wild style totally dominating the world cup, and he has become the most popular rider in a very long time. Imagine if his look and personality had been stifled by commercial intervention and silly rules. These riders are doing this for a living, they are fighting for exposure and to prevent them being individuals is doing them a disservice.
Take the world champs race as an example. How much more media interest is there when each rider turns up with personalised kit and custom bikes/graphics representing their individual countries.
Post a reply to: 2015 Racing Rumours - MTB Musical Chairs