"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - Unibet quits after this year

Another victim of the wars between the UCI and Grand Tour organizers. The decision was taken after being denied entry to the Vuelta Espana. The did not ride a single GT.

As if there weren't enough problems already.

why were they denied entry??

Because the GT organizers run the real Pro Tour, not the UCI.

Because the GT organizers run the real Pro Tour, not the UCI.

Well at least in France, there is a law against advertising online betting establishments. That was what the ASO used.

And before you ask, PMU is a betting service run from storefronts - bars, etc. - not online.

Better chance of Slipstream in the TdF next year.

Well at least in France, there is a law against advertising online betting establishments. That was what the ASO used.

And before you ask, PMU is a betting service run from storefronts - bars, etc. - not online.


PMU?? That stands for an industry that makes Premarin, a drug for menopause. It's made from pregnant mare's urine. That explains the horse logo that goes along with the PMU on the jerseys. It has nothing to do with horse racing although the logo might make it seem that way. Although Premarin helps a lot of women, another side issue is all the foals that are "left over" at the end of the process. There are a lot of organizations involved with the "rescue" of these foals so they don't go to the slaughterhouse after they are weaned so the mare can get pregnant again.

PMU?? That stands for an industry that makes Premarin, a drug for menopause. It's made from pregnant mare's urine. That explains the horse logo that goes along with the PMU on the jerseys. It has nothing to do with horse racing although the logo might make it seem that way. Although Premarin helps a lot of women, another side issue is all the foals that are "left over" at the end of the process. There are a lot of organizations involved with the "rescue" of these foals so they don't go to the slaughterhouse after they are weaned so the mare can get pregnant again.

Nah, different PMU. The tour Green Jersey sponsor is indeed a French betting organization:

http://www.pmu.fr/pmu/html/eng/corporate/pc_bguide.htm

Well at least in France, there is a law against advertising online betting establishments. That was what the ASO used.

And before you ask, PMU is a betting service run from storefronts - bars, etc. - not online.

The betting law is an excuse not a reason. Unibet was denied entry as a tactic in the conflict between the Grand Tour Organizers (GTO) lead by ASO (French company that does the TdF) versus the UCI backed ProTour. The French organizers used a French law to bar Unibet's entry to their races wearing the Unibet jerseys. They road with some cool "?" jerseys until they went to a secondary sponsor for their main jersey placement. I can't imagine the actual company of Unibet being happy with that arrangement.

I have not read if it is the sponsor that is quiting cycling or if the cycling team is folding (ala Disco). Either way, this doesn't help pro cycling's future- it might be neutral but it certainly doesn't help. The last thing pro cycling needs right now is less stable sponsor/team relationships.

Another one bites the dust. Yep, pro cycling's not in any crisis. :rolleyes:

... Unibet was denied entry as a tactic in the conflict between the Grand Tour Organizers (GTO) lead by ASO (French company that does the TdF) versus the UCI backed ProTour. ...

Possibly.

Unibet terminated their sponsorship after 2007.

Is the "Possibly" a doubt that ASO and the ProTour have a greater conflict than the legality of Unibet sponsoring a cycling team on French soil or is it a question over whether the two bodies have a conflict at all?

The cycling team is concerned that they won't find a sponsor for next year given the recent scandals and problems. An interesting and telling problem. I wonder just how big a problem finding a big enough sponsor is now.

This will, however, make the "question mark" jersey's a little more fun to own.

Is the "Possibly" a doubt that ASO and the ProTour have a greater conflict than the legality of Unibet sponsoring a cycling team on French soil or is it a question over whether the two bodies have a conflict at all?

The cycling team is concerned that they won't find a sponsor for next year given the recent scandals and problems. An interesting and telling problem. I wonder just how big a problem finding a big enough sponsor is now.

The possibly refers to whether Amaury was, or at least felt, pressured enough by the RF to obey the law, thereby surpassing their obvious disagreements with the UCI.

There is a law, however, for a fact. In France, and Belgium if I recall correctly. If you search around the TdF and Road Racing forums, you will find my threads regarding the conflict between GT organizers and the UCI.

As for big sponsors? Big problems. One would have to be very altruistic to put up millions a year as a sponsor in hopes of escaping the possible fallout regarding doping. But a few are sticking around. As money seems to drive almost everything these days, it will be an interesting few years ahead for pro cycling.

Regardless of the existence of the law, ASO used it in their ongoing conflict with the ProTour. If not for the law it would have been some other tactic. It is very possible that French non-cycling interests also want the law enforced for their own ends but the importance of the issue was that ASO was pushing it and refused to budge.

Potential sponsors would have to be beyond altruistic to chance fallout from sponsoring pro cycling (doping or GT vs. PT fallout). US based companies such as CSC (a public US based company) also have to worry about breaking laws regarding profit seeking for stock holders. Sponsoring a pro cycling team right now appears to be a bad business decision- especially to title sponsor a team. If things continue and many more teams fold it might not be interesting anything in pro cycling.

You seem to have had answers to your own questions, so why ask me?

The law in question is no longer applicable under EU agreements. And even if it was, it would only explain the TDF exclusion, not the Giro or Vuelta. And it hasn't been enforced in any number of instances. And finally, there's a tremendous amount of precedent of tobacco sponsors doing their own version of the "question mark" in a variety of other sports, so the argument holds as much water as a sieve.

So what we are left with is clearly a company willing to spend millions being told to shove off because they are stuck in the middle of a battle of egos and who gets the extra odd million or so.

You are very hungry.

Here is a nice big cookie.

Ouch. Your teeth are sharp.

Anybody else want to feed this thing?

Guess not.


Great example of this is the CART/Indy squabble. They took the world's premier auto race and turned it into a commercial footnote to NASCAR.

Buffoons.