And (for once) it's not my orthopedic boot.
 |
| But...but...but...he just won the 'effing Vuelta! |
Geox-TMC riders shocked
The Italian shoemaker decides to pull its money out of team, leaving riders and staff scrambling for jobs.
This is in the wake of September's bombshell from Bob Stapleton that the winningest team of the last four years—HTC-Highroad (née Columbia-Highroad) had to shut down for lack of sponsorship. Let's put that into perspective: the team that won more than 440 races, providing exceptional exposure for its sponsors, folded.
A lot of pixels have been generated about HTC. Many not-so-labored comparisons to the NY Yankees and Manchester United have been made.
But no one is talking about Geox!
(And heaven forbid that I reference the Dr. Moreau-style vivisectionist horrorshow of the Leopard-Trek-RadioShack-Nissan-smallfurryanimalsfromAlphaCentuari merger. The announcements were hysterical!)
Bookends
HTC was the winningest. Geox was a an up-and-comer, certainly more than a wannabe, had a small cadre of quality riders (Sastre, Menchov...Cobo?), and they seemed to never get their wheels steadily underneath. Even so, they showed some mettle in the Giro, and famously won the Vuelta. From a exposure standpoint, they provided.
So what happened?
Geox (a shoe manufacturer) determined that cycling was no longer strategic.
Okay.
A business is a business and it needs to operate accordingly.
Hmmm...
When will cycling realize that it's business model is broken? Others have written more knowledgeably about this. I defer to commentaries like Joe Lindsey's Boulder Report.
Cycling needs a plan. I don't trust McQuaid or the UCI to get anything right. They make rules without consultation with those most affected by those changes (Get rid of race radios! They're killing the sport! ...really? Really?), they promote events that don't make any sense whatsoever (Tour of Bejing...really? Really?), and the entire doping mis-management fiasco cluster embarrassment (Contador and myriad others...really? Really?).
So, how does cycling get the grubby UCI paws out of...cycling?
The sport needs a sea change. I hate to admit it (because I consider him to be an insufferable prat), but Jonathan Vaughters makes a lot of sense.
TV revenue needs to be shared. The teams need to have an entirely different foundation upon which they can build a real structure.
Think about the history of cycling, and what do you remember? Riders and teams. But how many of those team's still exist?
 |
| Whither Eddy's Molteni? |
Where's Coppi's Bianchi? Merckx's Moltini (or Faema)? Hinault's Renault (or La Vie Claire)? LeMond's Z (or ADR)? Armstrong's Motorola (or Postal, or Disco)?
How many of the current teams will be around in two years? Three years? Five years?
If Highroad couldn't cut it...what team will?
Beauty
My sport is beautiful. It's a compelling blend of elegance and suffering. Remember the old Wide, Wide, World of Sports intro? That's cycling. It's the thrill and the agony. Every event can become epic in a split second. Every event has the potential for...greatness.
Someone, please, fix my sport. Give it what it needs to thrive...not merely survive. Stop the squabbling, grow up, and realize your potential!
This sport is greater than we've seen. I dearly hope to see its becoming.
Got a Facebook response to this post from a friend who has moved on from his bike shop management experience...
ReplyDeleteHE SEZ:
I've got a model that will work... at least for a bit. Make Lance Armstrong ride!
I SEZ:
It would increase TV coverage, if for no other reason than to watch the train wreck...but it won't "fix" what's wrong! Come on, Mr. Business Analyst...analyze! ;-)
HE SEZ:
While my response was flippant, it does point out one of the big issues with cycling. There are no elite riders who are easy for an audience to cheer, or even to hate. Cav is the closest thing has he fills both roles nicely, but he doesn't stand a shot at the grandslam, or superbowl, or world series... a grand tour! The most prolific rider in the sport doesn't even have a chance of realizing that kind of glory. Why am I watching, or more importantly, who am I watching?
I SEZ:
Interesting. I love futbol. I have been a Liverpool fan since I was a kid overseas watching static-laden antenna tv. Doesn't matter the player. I watch Liverpool. I also love to watch the great players play (Messi, Xavi, Rooney). Cycling lacks that identity with a team entity. Where is "tradition" or "team culture/character"? It changes *constantly*, which is why the Highroad loss is such a body blow. Established, successful, distinct, and now gone. It's this *constant* re-building that diminished what *could* be. Sure, marquee riders are great! They help *promote*, but you can't build a sport around singularities.
HE SEZ:
this conversation needs face to face interaction... and a beer, but here it goes in brief. Part of the problem is that cycling is not a team sport to the general public. Sure, you and I realize how strong a team has to be for you to win, but the glory ultimately goes to the individual. It's more like NASCAR than futbol. Sure you have a team, but at the end of the day, it's about the person who crosses the line first. A true cyclist can watch bike races and understand all that it has to offer, but the casual fan cannot. How do you explain the intricacies of pacelines and equipment selection? All the casual fan sees is that a bunch of funny colored jersey's are handed out, and the team that is one of the most prolific in cycling (HTC) can't even win the sports biggest event... they don't even have a realistic shot at it. I love this sport, but it's popularity has been based around the individual, where I believe it needs to change it's rules to shift the focus to the team.
Man, I could say so much more... where is this beer?