[Downhill.Ben]

Essentially, National Champions in all disciplines will have to wear a UCI-regulated jersey for all official race and timed runs throughout the season: The runs that attract the greatest/only media coverage.

It's all here to see.... http://www.uci.ch/includes/asp/getTarget.asp?type=FILE&id=NDE5NTA

Don't agree with it, join here...

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/pages/Petition-to-the-UCI-to-scrap-the-rule-of-wearing-the-National-Champs-jersey/291998471910?ref=ts
... and sign here...
http://www.petitiononline.com/UCIrule/petition.html

Can anyone explain why this rule has been re-introduced? Boredom? Stupidity?
Surely there must be some advantageous reason for the ruling?

Ben

 

[b1k3_r1d3r]

if you read that site, members are great but what they really need is people to sign this:

http://www.petitiononline.com/UCIrule/petition.html

I just did and i was the 1100ish member on the facetube but only the 86th signature.

 

[Downhill.Ben]

I'm quite aware. If you read the page it says something like "By joining the page you are joining the petition".

But yer, even better to sign the official thing.

 

[Alpha Kenny Body]

im 87th

 

[b1k3_r1d3r]

yeah not going to argue but the first post says "1000 members and hardly any sigs".

The way I see it is facebook is the least legit way to see if people really care, its one button and people join thousands of things for fun weekly. Signing the petition would have much better pull.

 

[Farmer.]

Thanks Ben!

Never really expected this to get as big as it has. Just under 1100 members now along with some very influencial names.
As b1k3_r1d3r said, it'd be great if you could all sign the petition I made up this morning.

Hopefully this won't ruin my chances of getting a Media Pass for Fort William this year!

 

[rollertoaster]

#92 and counting

 

[jammie654]

Thanks Ben!

Never really expected this to get as big as it has. Just under 1100 members now along with some very influencial names.
As b1k3_r1d3r said, it'd be great if you could all sign the petition I made up this morning.

Hopefully this won't ruin my chances of getting a Media Pass for Fort William this year!

LOL, good luck with that

 

[Farmer.]

LOL, good luck with that

Well, technically my name isn't associated with it anywhere...yet.

 

[Downhill.Ben]

Well, technically my name isn't associated with it anywhere...yet.

I'll take all responsibility. Happily.

 

[5150dhbiker]

#112

So stupid.

 

[Banshee Rider]

..Edit..

 

[mccdh]

facebook groups for social change dont do **** for social change....(i joined that facebook group)

 

[the F.H.B]

123, need a few more me thinks...

 

[stringbean]

146.........

 

[Downhill.Ben]

Can anyone see another side to this ruling that we may have missed? What were the UCI thinking at the time? Can someone enlighten me?

 

[Racerx7734]

I'm sig 230

 

[JRogers]

I am not really sure I understand what the big issue is here...did you guys look at the regs? You're allowed to have advertising space- a decent amount of it too.

This is the way it has been on the road for a little while now. I don't think people there see it as a problem. If anything, it allows the national champions to wear a different/standout kit and the teams to remind people that they employ a national champion. The road kits that operate under the same regulations look fine and, mostly, pretty similar to what teams normally wear. Maybe the sponsor space or something could be increased, but it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

 

[IH8Rice]

i want to see people wearing pajamas all the time!

as james also pointed out, theres still plenty of room for sponsors on the jerseys.

do people really care that much that they are worrying about rules that will NEVER apply to them. the only person on RM that might care is Graves.

this comment also made me LOL

Kathy Sessler- If riders must wear the National Jersey I will instruct my riders not to win, or not to even show up. Then you have a National Chump instead of Champ....demeans the National Championship title when top riders don't race or race halfheartedly. Sponsors pay the teams to pay the riders, they need to get the jersey exposure. Arm Bands!

 

[WillCollins]

I am not really sure I understand what the big issue is here...did you guys look at the regs? You're allowed to have advertising space- a decent amount of it too.

This is the way it has been on the road for a little while now. I don't think people there see it as a problem. If anything, it allows the national champions to wear a different/standout kit and the teams to remind people that they employ a national champion. The road kits that operate under the same regulations look fine and, mostly, pretty similar to what teams normally wear. Maybe the sponsor space or something could be increased, but it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

The financial side of downhill isn't very strong, what incentives do sponsors have to support top level riders when there is a possibility they will not be able to display the logo the company paid for. The advertising space is far from a "decent amount":

"1.3.069 On the national champion’s jersey, the following advertising spaces shall be authorised:
• on the front and back of the jersey, in a rectangle 10 cm high,
• area comprising shoulders and sleeves : maximum 5 cm high in a single line,
• on the sides of the jersey : a 9 cm wide strip,
• the manufacturer’s label (25 cm2) may appear once only on the jersey and once on each leg of the shorts.
These advertising spaces shall be reserved for the rider’s usual sponsors.
The wearer of a national champion’s jersey shall be entitled to match the colour of his shorts to that of the jersey."

Riders can still give credit to their biggest supporters, but there is not much room for the them all. If a rider feels inclined to wear the National Champions Jersey let him, but regulating it as the UCI has is detrimental to our sport. There are much more sensible regulations such as an arm-band that still allow recognition without causing possible repercussions sponsorship wise. If anyone has a different perspective, by all means I would like to hear it...

 

[Downhill.Ben]

Additionally to what has been said above, Road Teams *tend* to get their funding from just one or two big sponsors. DH isn't as priviledged, and riders' income comes from a much greater amount of smaller sponsors. The room allocated in the UCI regs really isn't sufficient to promote all of these sponsors as they deserve to be.

As for why I care about rules that won't ever effect me.. I suppose it's because I care a lot about the sport. These sort of rulings have effects beyond just the riders wearing that jersey.

 

[bdamschen]

i want to see people wearing pajamas all the time!

They just need national champ pajamas! Viola! it's a kit again!

 

[Iridemtb]

#334..

 

[Damo]

1300 'fans' on facebook and only 300 signatures?

 

[Jettj45]

#351 signed.

 

[JRogers]

Fair enough reasons, but I still somewhat disagree. Road teams generally do have a lot of sponsors, but they don't always put all the logos on the jersey, nascar-style. Maybe it's because they have more money so they don't have to, I don't know.

I see the issue, I just don't think it's the end of the world or a good reason to tell riders not to race their national championships. Arm bands are not a bad idea (though, that would not allow people to know who the former vs. current champs are), but I just don't think the jersey thing is so bad either if that's the way it's going to go. And it almost assuredly is going to go that way, given how the UCI seems to work.

There is an upside to having a jersey: being a current national champ gives more exposure to the riders and, by extension, the sponsors, even without a logo. I can name maybe 2 current DH national champs, but could name quite a few more road race/TT champs and their teams.

 

[Akula_7]

Can anyone see another side to this ruling that we may have missed? What were the UCI thinking at the time? Can someone enlighten me?

I'm not sure if you know, maybe you do, but this isn't a new rule, it has been around for a long time, since early 2000 maybe. In 2009 however the UCI where a little more easy going on a national federations interpretation of a national jersey (Leading to Aus, NZ etc... running armbands). So for 2010 the UCI are just gonna really enforce a JERSEY.

There are quite a few good points on here, a lot of downhillers just have a rebellious attitude to these rules, but I always thought in the past that instead of being against the jersey rule if the teams and team managers of national champion riders designed a full kit around the jersey then it wouldn't look as bad as just slapping on a jersey (with some ironed on spornsor logos) over current kit.

Having said that, some national champs jerseys are just ugly as sin. I just don't know why the UCI didn't keep quiet and just allow the armbands.

 

[JaredGraves]

Forcing a rider to wear the national champ jersey is a VERY good reason to not race national champs. Not one team likes the rule.

I think WillCollins hit the nail on the head with his last post.

Also a lot of teams/riders have clothing sponsors where they wear their sponsors stock Jerseys with iron-on logos....eg, Peaty with Royal, Sam Hill with TLD, Minnaar with Alpinestars. How happy do you think those sponsors will be when their riders cant run the jersey they are paid to wear, and have to run the national champ jerseys instead. Sure those companies (Royal ,TLD Alpinestars, some other company) could make up some of their own jerseys in national champ colours for the riders, But it wont be a jersey that is for sale, that the public can buy. Here is Australia, pretty much every grom out there wears whatever kit their favourite rider wears, and that why these companies put money into the sport, to help sell their product.


What I would love to know is what on earth is the UCI's reason behind this rule, even with the armbands? What does the UCI get from making a rider be seen in the national champ jersey? Every single rider would rather represent ALL their sponsors, instead of being seen as a national champion

In many cases for riders that are national champions of smaller countries, riders that maybe aren't consistant top 50 WC riders......the sponsors they have are the ones that pay for them to be at the world Cups, so they can compete and do what they love, If they lose some sponsors due to this rule (which they will) then those riders might not be able to afford to attend world cups at all! Have the UCI even considered that? Isn't the fact that every rider and team is against this rule enough for them to scrap it?

MTB IS NOT ROAD RACING!

 

[Damo]

Forcing a rider to wear the national champ jersey is a VERY good reason to not race national champs. Not one team likes the rule.

I think WillCollins hit the nail on the head with his last post.

Also a lot of teams/riders have clothing sponsors where they wear their sponsors stock Jerseys with iron-on logos....eg, Peaty with Royal, Sam Hill with TLD, Minnaar with Alpinestars. How happy do you think those sponsors will be when they cant run the jersey they are paid to wear, and have to run the national champ jerseys instead. Sure those companies (Royal ,TLD Alpinestars, some other company) could make up some of their own jerseys in national champ colours for the riders, But it wont be a jersey that is for sale, that the public can buy. Here is Australia, pretty much every grom out their wears whatever kit their favourite rider wears, and that why these companies put money into the sport, to help sell their product.


What I would love to know is what on earth is the UCI's reason behind this rule, even with the armbands? What does the UCI get from making a rider be seen in the national champ jersey? Every single rider would rather represent ALL their sponsors, instead of being seen as a national champion

In many cases for riders that are national champions of smaller countries, riders that maybe aren't consistant top 50 WC riders......the sponsors they have are the ones that pay for them to be at the world Cups, so they can compete and do what they love, If they lose sponsors due to this rule (which they will) then those riders wont be able to attend world cups at all! Have the UCI even considered that? Isn'tthe fact that every rider and team is against the ruling enough for them to scrap it?

Bah! What would you know!

 

[Killerbarbies]

# 370 ... first year our company is sponsoring a national DH champion so we'd like to see our logo / brand logos on her jersey

 

[JaredGraves]

# 370 ... first year our company is sponsoring a national DH champion so we'd like to see our logo / brand logos on her jersey

That is probably what the UCI need to hear more of, straight from the people it is affectings mouth (or keyboard), if sponsors don't get their advertising, then what is the point of them supporting riders, and how is that a good thing for the sport.

 

[Killerbarbies]

do people really care that much that they are worrying about rules that will NEVER apply to them. the only person on RM that might care is Graves.

Make me and my partner in our company 2 more people here on RM that this ruling affects

 

[Downhill.Ben]

I'm not sure if you know, maybe you do, but this isn't a new rule, it has been around for a long time, since early 2000 maybe. In 2009 however the UCI where a little more easy going on a national federations interpretation of a national jersey (Leading to Aus, NZ etc... running armbands). So for 2010 the UCI are just gonna really enforce a JERSEY.

I understand this mate, yer. It just seems daft of them to do a complete U-Turn. As Mr Graves points out; What is the need to show you're national champion. I can't think of another sport that requires a nation's best to wear kit that identifies themself as Champ(I am sure there will be though...).

The UCI doesn't really benefit from this ruling at all, and obviously teams and riders lose out!

 

[Farmer.]

Wow, can't believe the response we've got!

I really can't see why the UCI would do a complete u-turn with this rule. The armbands were fine in 2009.
I already know who's National Champ because I keep up to date with the DH news, I don't need to see them in a Jersey to tell me again.
Riders need sponsorship to make a living doing a sport they love. Why the UCI are hindering this I don't know.

Anyway, more signatures please! when we reach a healthy number I'll write an email to the UCI and see what can be done about changing this rule!

 

[JaredGraves]

I'm not sure if you know, maybe you do, but this isn't a new rule, it has been around for a long time, since early 2000 maybe. In 2009 however the UCI where a little more easy going on a national federations interpretation of a national jersey (Leading to Aus, NZ etc... running armbands). So for 2010 the UCI are just gonna really enforce a JERSEY.

Actually the rule began in 2004, and from what I understand it stated that the national champion was required to wear what they were presented with at their national championships, which was a full national champion jersey, which was, before that year, to be hung on the wall with pride, and nothing more.

For 2010, UCI has changed this rule, so that a rider must wear the full jersey, the armbands are no longer allowed.

For Australia (im pretty sure we were the first country to run the armbands) the Armbands began in 2006 with Rennie, after the national champs in 2005 became a joke, all the media coverage on national champs was all about the jersey rule, and how a lot of the top riders rolled down the hill in their race runs, therefore making a mockery of the whole event. Cycling Australia saw that this was a very bad thing for the sport, which led to the presentation to the winner, of just the armbands in 2006.

With the full jersey coming back into effect again, our 2011 national championships will again become a joke with riders rolling down the hill....

After Gwinny won the 2009 US nationals, he was required to wear the full jersey for the remainder of the year, and will again for the first half of the world cups, until your 2010 champs. Which is something that Yeti Bossman Chris Conroy was far less than pumped on. For Yeti, its not just about the sponsor advertising restrictions, but its important to have all team riders looking like a team....I guarantee Gwinny will not be allowed to win the national champs this year.

So the effect of this rule then trickles down, if a sponsor of a national championships sees that the top riders are rolling down the hill on purpose, to NOT win, do you think they will be back supporting the event the next year?

 

[blackohio]

yeah and i think if you rode half as good as you...


wait, what?

 

[Akula_7]

Actually the rule began in 2004, and from what I understand it stated that the national champion was required to wear what they were presented with at their national championships, which was a full national champion jersey, which was, before that year, to be hung on the wall with pride, and nothing more.

For 2010, UCI has changed this rule, so that a rider must wear the full jersey, the armbands are no longer allowed.

For Australia (im pretty sure we were the first country to run the armbands) the Armbands began in 2006 with Rennie, after the national champs in 2005 became a joke, all the media coverage on national champs was all about the jersey rule, and how a lot of the top riders rolled down the hill in their race runs, therefore making a mockery of the whole event. Cycling Australia saw that this was a very bad thing for the sport, which led to the presentation to the winner, of just the armbands in 2006.

With the full jersey coming back into effect again, our 2011 national championships will again become a joke with riders rolling down the hill....

After Gwinny won the 2009 US nationals, he was required to wear the full jersey for the remainder of the year, and will again for the first half of the world cups, until your 2010 champs. Which is something that Yeti Bossman Chris Conroy was far less than pumped on. For Yeti, its not just about the sponsor advertising restrictions, but its important to have all team riders looking like a team....I guarantee Gwinny will not be allowed to win the national champs this year.

So the effect of this rule then trickles down, if a sponsor of a national championships sees that the top riders are rolling down the hill on purpose, to NOT win, do you think they will be back supporting the event the next year?

Yeah I knew the jersey rule appeared in the early part of the 2000's, wasn't exactly sure though. My first recollection of a rider with the national champs jersey was Sam Hill in Schladming '04.

What I can;t understand is that the UCI know for a fact that the riders and sponsors don't want to have to wear a national champs jersey. For all the obvious reasons listed here. So who is it within the UCI that sees it fit to make rules as detremental as this. Surely the rule makers in Lausanne must consult with the likes of Chris Ball or the rider reps before making such rules?

Or is it a case that someone in UCI head quarters just wants parity between all cycling disciplines regardless of their huge differences?

I'm not 100% but BMX does not have such a rule on Nat champs jerseys? Not for UCI supercross competiton anyway?

 

[ska todd]

Well, this is something that Jared & I finally see eye-to-eye on

As someone who has had to deal with this issue on a few occasions from sponsored athletes, at least for once the UCI has clarified their position on something. Before it was pretty scattered and random in it's enforcement. The onus of enforcement/interpretation seemed to vary from season-to-season, event-to-event, commissaire-to-commissaire. At least now it is unfortunately rather well spelled out well in advance of the first event...

I am in favor of this rule if and only if the UCI is going to mandate that the National Federations of each country are pay their National Champion the competitive market wage for his/her services, bonuses, entry fees, lodging, and support. Who does the athlete represent; their trade team/sponsors or the Federation?

We have by tradition one event that trade teams must support athletes to race in but receive minimal sponsorship exposure. As sponsors and trade teams we respect this tradition. We also all respect the tradition of the reigning World Champion to wear the rainbow jersey in competition and by virtue of those stripes do generally receive additional coverage.

If the UCI is going to force athletes onto "trade teams" that are financially backed and supported by endemic and non-endemic sponsors, why should the trade teams essentially give away their jersey space free-of-charge to National Federations? The trade teams control their own branding, image, sponsors, and rosters so why not in turn charge the Federations for this space? I think that the jersey space for the National Champions of GBR, FRA, RSA, AUS, NZL, USA, and others could fetch a good amount and be a good revenue stream for trade teams. Surely they pay for the pit space, lodging, etc on top of the salaries of these "National Champions" so why not charge for it?

But, lets also look at the positive of this situation. With the UCI mandating National Champion jerseys, perhaps less riders with UCI points will contest their National Championship events thus opening up some big points to non-ranked riders so that they can race World Cups. Look at it as the top dogs paying it forward.

The easiest & fastest way I could see that this rule could be effectively changed is to petition each National Federation to void/repeal the wearing of an official National Champion jersey in gravity disciplines and to submit to the UCI the trade team jersey of the National Champion winner as their winning jersey. This could effectively circumvent this ruling.

However, before any rider not race their National Championship or purposely throw the race I would highly recommend that they are 1. confirm IN WRITING from their Federation that they are pre-qualified for World Championships and/or 2. notify their National Federation and trade team that they are not competing or are throwing the race. Do it out of protest yes, but also CYOA.

-ska todd

 

[Downhill.Ben]

The easiest & fastest way I could see that this rule could be effectively changed is to petition each National Federation to void/repeal the wearing of an official National Champion jersey in gravity disciplines and to submit to the UCI the trade team jersey of the National Champion winner as their winning jersey. This could effectively circumvent this ruling.

I like this approach...

When the petition gathers enough names, as I'm determind it will, it could be quite a useful tool for a representative of Downhill and 4X within a country to approach their governing body with. Rather than perhaps going straight to the UCI with a few signitures we should convince the likes of BC, USC etc etc.

The most worrying thing about the rule is that the UCI seem blind to what effects it could have. This rule (as detrimental as it could be) will not single-handedly ruin the sport completely, but when the governing body of the sport don't see it, there's a real worry a more devistating rule could come along in the future. Thanks for the positive responses guys!

Ben

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

I think having an armband or some kind of distinguishing mark for national champions is pretty cool, but agree the whole jersey goes too far. Plus, red, white, and blue just looks like crap with yeti turquoise.