UCI Stakeholder Consultation by Deloitte

UCI Stakeholder Consultation:
A Bright Future for Cycling

22 May 2013
Private and confidential to members of the UCI Management
Committee
2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential
Report to the UCI
This report was prepared for the UCI Management Committee to summarise the findings of the stakeholder consultation exercise and
recommendations arising. No party other than the UCI is entitled to rely on our report for any purpose whatsoever and we accept no duty of care or
liability to any other party who is shown or gains access to this report. Refer to the appendices for Limitations.
UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential
2
Section Page
Contents 2
Glossary of terms 3
Executive summary 5
Introduction, objectives and methodology 16
Consultation results 21
Recommendations 82
Appendices 95
Contents
3
Section Page
Contents 2
Glossary of terms 3
Executive summary 5
Recommendations 82
Appendices 95
Glossary of terms
Glossary of terms
4
ADAMS (The Anti-
Doping
Administration &
Management System)
A web-based system designed to assist anti-doping
organisations in running and coordinating their anti-doping
activities in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Code
AIGCP (Association
International des
Groupes Cyclistes
Professionnels)
The representative body for professional cycling teams
ASO (Amaury Sport
Organisation)
Responsibility for the organisation of a number of UCI
WorldTour and Continental Circuit events including the Tour
de France, Vuelta a Espaa, Paris-Roubaix and Lige-
Bastogne-Lige
Athletes Commission UCI commission created to oversee the interests of cyclists of
all disciplines
CADF (Cycling Anti-
Doping Foundation)
The body responsible for managing the activities and funding
of cyclings anti-doping programme
[the] Code (The World
Anti-Doping Code)
The regulations governing anti-doping in all sports across the
world
Commissaire(s) Individual(s) in charge of officiating competitive cycling events
Continental Circuit The second tier of competitions of elite male professional road
cycling
CPA (Coureurs
Professionnels
Associs)
A representative body for professional cyclists
Cycling family Collective reference to the population of c.3,800 individuals on
the UCIs database, including professional teams,
professional riders, event commissaires, event organisers
(both professional and amateur), National Federation
representatives, stakeholders connected to professional
cycling teams, media / journalism representatives, anti-doping
bodies, UCI Commission members, UCI employees and other
bodies connected with cycling
GPS Global Positioning System
Grand Tours Collective reference for the three major European
professional cycling stage races, namely the Tour de
France, Giro dItalia and the Vuelta a Espaa
IOC International Olympic Committee
IPC International Paralympic Committee
KPIs Key Performance Indicators
Monuments Collective reference for five one-day cycling races, namely:
Milan-San Remo, the Tour of Flanders, Paris-Roubaix,
Lige-Bastogne-Lige and the Giro di Lombardia
MPEs Mass-Participation Events
NADO (National
Anti-Doping
Organisation)
Responsible for the implementation and regulation of
national athletes, together with athletes from other countries
competing in competitions taking place within the nation, in
accordance with the World Anti-Doping Code
National
Federations
National governing bodies for cycling
RCS (RCS
MediaGroup S.p.A)
Responsibility for the organisation of a number of UCI
WorldTour events including the Giro dItalia, Milan-San
Remo and Tirreno-Adriatico
TRC Truth and Reconciliation Commission
[the] UCI (The
Union Cycliste
Internationale )
The international federation responsible for the regulation,
direction, development, promotion and control of cycling
disciplines worldwide
UCI WorldTour The top tier competition of elite male professional road
cycling
WADA (World Anti-
Doping Agency)
The body responsible for the promotion, coordination and
monitoring of fighting against drugs in sport, with
responsibility for the World Anti-Doping Code
5
Section Page
Contents 2
Glossary of terms 3
Executive summary 5
Recommendations 82
Appendices 95
Executive summary
Executive summary
We note that whilst the Consultation exercise has been running, the UCI has
continued to work on a number of related projects based on a participative
stakeholder approach (for example relating to the professional road racing
calendar, new technology and financial fairness).
We further note that many stakeholders, survey respondents and working
group participants have presented ideas and submitted written materials
which, for reasons of brevity, are not reproduced in full in this report. All of
these have been passed to, and gratefully received by, the UCI who will
consider and use those submissions as appropriate in the further
development of a bright future of cycling.
Methodology
Two online surveys were designed by Deloitte in consultation with the UCI.
Both surveys went live on 21 February 2013. The general public survey
was available via the UCI website and was promoted through press releases
and the UCI twitter account. The cycling family survey was emailed to
c.3,800 cycling family stakeholders on the UCIs database.
The surveys closed on 15 March 2013 and achieved 6,369 responses,
including 5,638 members of the general public and 731 cycling family
stakeholders (a response rate of 19%, that is positive and in line with
response rates we have seen with similar surveys for other sports
organisations and sporting events).
Whilst there are some limitations inherent to any web-based survey
approach conducted on a global basis, the strong response means the
results provide a solid base for identifying key findings and consequent
recommendations.
6
This executive summary provides an overview of the consultation process, including its
objectives and methodology, the opinions of the stakeholders and Deloittes recommendations
to the UCI
This executive summary is a prcis of our findings. Reading it is no
substitute for reading the full report.
Introduction
Following a pilot consultation called Common Ground, in November 2012,
the UCI announced its intention to conduct a wide-ranging stakeholder
consultation exercise to help develop A Bright Future for Cycling.
Subsequently, in December 2012, the UCI President wrote to cycling
stakeholders (including riders, teams, race organisers, sponsors, sports
institutions, the media and fans) inviting them to contribute their ideas to the
core pillar topics to be covered by the consultation exercise, to ensure that all
perspectives and areas of concern were considered.
The UCI wished to demonstrate to its stakeholders, including cycling fans,
that it wanted to listen and respond to their views. The results of this
consultation process therefore provide insights into the opinions expressed
as to some of the changes to be considered for cycling to improve its
organisation, functioning and image. In other words, the consultation will
inform the UCIs overall vision for the next generation of cyclists and cycling
fans globally.
The UCI engaged Deloitte (we, us, our) to conduct the consultation
process across the broad spectrum of cyclings stakeholders.
With the support of the UCI, Deloitte designed two online surveys and
conducted a series of stakeholder working groups to better understand
cycling stakeholders opinions regarding the current status and future
development of the sport in respect of the designated themes of
globalisation, anti-doping, calendar and riders.
The results of the survey and working group discussions, together with our
recommendations to the UCI Management Committee, are presented within
this report.
Executive summary
Held over two days in London, the Globalisation working group was attended
by journalists, media companies, sponsors and partners of professional
cycling, merchandise representatives, representatives of womens and
mens cycling teams, National Federations and mass participation event
organisers;
25 professional riders attended the Rider working group meetings to voice
their opinions. Representatives from every WorldTour team were invited to
attend;
The CPA the body responsible for representing professional cyclists
attended each of the five working groups to ensure that rider views were
reflected; and
At least three members of UCI senior management were present at each
pillar working group to listen to the opinions of stakeholders.
7
Working groups were attended by over 85 key stakeholders, including Grand Tour and other
race organisers, team and rider representatives, anti-doping officials, sponsors, journalists and
National Federations
Methodology (continued)
Working groups
To supplement the results from the online surveys, Deloitte facilitated five
stakeholder working groups in March 2013 to cover the core pillar topics of
the consultation exercise.
The purpose of the working groups was to provide key relevant stakeholders
with the opportunity to input their opinions, which have been used to inform
the consultations findings and recommendations.
Over 85 stakeholders were present across the five working groups,
including some of cyclings most influential organisations and individuals:
Representatives for 15 professional road cycling teams provided input
across the four pillars;
Several representatives of National Federations were present across
the five stakeholder working groups;
Representatives from all three Grand Tour organisers were actively
involved in the working groups on anti-doping, calendar and globalisation;
A further nine race organisers also attended these working groups,
allowing for views from the Grand Tours, Classics and other stage and
day races to be reflected;
Representatives at the calendar working group included event organisers,
teams, the AIGCP, the Riders Athletes Commission, the Professional
Cycling Council, representatives of womens cycling, the CPA and event
officials;
The 18 attendees at the anti-doping working group included scientific
and legal advisors, an ethics professor, current and former professional
riders, National Federation members, a national public health body
representative and members of the UCIs anti-doping commission;
Executive summary
8
Our headline recommendations span the four pillars as shown below. We have also identified
detailed recommendations for each pillar that will be communicated separately to stakeholders
Recommendation Anti-doping Calendar Globalisation Riders
Critical priority recommendations
1. Restore credibility and public perception

2. Make a clear decision on an inquiry into historic
doping cases and rider amnesty

3. Develop a long-term strategic plan

4. Further strengthen the anti-doping culture

5. Improve the UCIs relationship with WADA

6. Restructure the professional road cycling calendar

High priority recommendations
7. Increase the independence of the Cycling Anti-Doping
Foundation

8. Appoint an independent anti-doping body to sanction
professional riders

9. Review the existing points system for professional
teams

10. Develop womens cycling

11. Improve communication with professional road riders

Executive summary
Critical priority recommendations
We consider the following to be critically-important recommendations:
1. The UCI must take the steps necessary to restore cyclings and its own
credibility, in particular in relation to the public perception of cyclings
anti-doping measures and current UCI leadership;
2. A clear decision should be made as soon as possible as to what the
objectives of an inquiry into historic doping cases and any related
amnesty would be, whether they would be practically and legally
possible, and whether the potential benefits would be worthwhile; any
ultimate decision should be made only after consultation with WADA and
USADA.
3. Develop an overarching long-term strategic plan to define the UCIs
mission, objectives and priorities, in order to optimise the development of
cycling globally;
4. The extent and consistency of professional teams anti-doping obligations
should be increased in order to strengthen further the anti-doping
culture within top level cycling, as well as make it even harder for riders
to dope;
5. The UCI should continue and step-up its actions to improve its
relationship with WADA at a political level so that it can work, in unison
with WADA, towards developing anti-doping practices that are the
leading benchmark for other sports; and
6. The UCI should work with key stakeholders to restructure the existing
calendar to create a simpler multi-tiered competition structure that
promotes the ideal of the best riders in the best races, and includes a
set of criteria against which aspiring WorldTour races, particularly in
underrepresented parts of the world, can be assessed.
9
Deloitte have made 11 key recommendations, including six classified as critically-important,
for the UCI to consider and act upon to enable cycling to achieve a bright future
Recommendations
Deloittes key recommendations to the UCI are based upon the results of the
consultation exercise.
Throughout the consultation, stakeholders commented on many positive
aspects of the UCIs performance, for example:
the improvements that had been made in anti-doping activities in the last
five years, based on the biological passport programme;
the very positive day-to-day working relationship many cycling family
members have with the UCI;
its role in helping cycling to be seen as a fundamentally attractive and
entertaining product.
We acknowledge the good work the UCI has done in these areas and
recommend they continue this.
However, it is natural that an exercise of this projects nature will tend to
focus on areas where changes should be made, to enable future
improvements.
We have classified our recommendations in terms of importance.
Additionally, we would make the overarching observation that for many
stakeholders this consultation exercise, whilst seemingly viewed positively so
far as a tool to assist the UCI to make the changes necessary to create A
Bright Future for Cycling, will only continue to be regarded positively if the
UCI demonstrates in as short a timeframe as possible, that it has acted on
the results and recommendations.
Executive summary
10
We also acknowledge the positive factors about the UCIs work stakeholders have identified,
including the improvements made in anti-doping measures in the last five years, and the areas
where stakeholders have a particularly good relationship with the UCI
Recommendations (continued)
The following should be treated as a high priority recommendations:
7. Changes should be made to increase the independence and
communications enhanced to improve the perceived independence - of
the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (the foundation delegated
responsibility for managing the operation of the UCIs anti-doping
programme), including ensuring its controlling board members are
external from the UCI;
8. An independent anti-doping body, rather than National Federations,
should be responsible for sanctioning all professional riders found
guilty of doping offences, regardless of their nationality;
9. The existing points system for professional teams and riders should be
reviewed alongside the mens road cycling calendar, to support the
proposed changes, as well as make the points system be considered
fairer for riders;
10. Develop womens cycling by focussing on the professional calendar in
order to promote the sport at an elite level by working with organisers,
teams and broadcasters. National Federations should be encouraged to
take responsiblity for developing womens cycling at a grass roots level;
and
11. Improve communication with professional road riders, including
appointing a Rider Relationship Manager.
Executive summary
Anti-doping
72% of all respondents (cycling family and general public) believe cyclings
anti-doping measures have strengthened in the last five years (78% cycling
family and 71%general public).
Whilst 60% of general public respondents concur that cycling is leading the
way in anti-doping practices and a similar proportion agree that significant
progress has been made in anti-doping in the last five years, only 21%
believe that cycling will be a clean sport within the next five years.
61% of all respondents believe the current penalties for riders caught doping
to be too lenient.
52% of cycling family respondents were dissatisfied with the current doping
sanctions process (where National Federations are responsible for deciding
on doping sanctions), including 22% who consider the process to be very
unsatisfactory.
Only 4% of all respondents thought that National Federations should be
responsible for deciding on doping sanctions.
74% of general public respondents were in favour (strongly or somewhat) of
a rider amnesty, compared with 52%of cycling family respondents.
42% of all respondents believe the decision on doping sanctions should be
the responsibility of an independent anti-doping tribunal (rather than a riders
National Federation);
Only 35% of cycling family respondents believe the recently-introduced anti-
doping helpline for professional riders to be an effective method to reduce
doping.
Several stakeholders called for better collaboration between the UCI and
WADA. For example, one general public respondent commented: I think the
battle of personalities between the UCI, WADA and USADA and so on is very
bad for the sport please focus on where you can cooperate, not on being
right.
11
There was a very positive response to the survey, with almost 6,370 respondents in total,
including over 730 cycling family stakeholders, spread across 73 countries
Consultation results
In producing our report, we read the open text responses provided by
stakeholders. We have considered these in formulating our findings and
recommendations, along with the working group discussions which we
facilitated.
Below we have summarised the key consultation results.
The UCIs overall performance
56% of the cycling family respondents described their relationship with the
UCI as either good (36%) or very good (20%).
However, only 48%of sponsors or investors in cycling and only 41%of riders
described their current relationship with the UCI in a positive way.
Public perception of the UCI in certain areas is less positive. In particular,
72% of respondents rated the UCIs performance in fighting against doping
as either poor (22%) or very poor (50%).
A number of the cycling fans who responded to the survey expressed their
lack of support for the UCIs leadership.
Executive summary
In terms of ranking teams annually, 50% of general public respondents
agreed that a single points system should be used for the annual ranking of
teams
The results show a very strong overall level of support for measures to
develop womens cycling. As one general public stakeholder noted,
Womens cycling is crucial to develop, both in terms of equality and the
grassroots effect.
The overall opinion of stakeholders was that new technology options would
be a positive development in terms of making cycling more attractive for fans.
Working groups comments (professional road cycling calendar)
Working group members acknowledged the following:
in globalising the UCI road calendar a balance is required between
maintaining traditional events in the cycling calendar and creating new
events in growth markets;
developing new competitions where there is no base of local support is
challenging and that, in these cases, the UCI should help to ensure high
quality broadcaster and event organiser are used;
races need to provide the viewer with a narrative that is easy to follow;
new events should prove themselves to be included on the UCI
WorldTour calendar, by meeting a set of criteria.
Working groups also discussed the recent proposals for a World Series
Cycling competition format, that include the creation of 10 new four-day
races to take place alongside established races. An opinion held by some
working group members was that such a format would be too restrictive to
reflect the different circumstances in each potential new-race destination,
and that creating 10 entirely new races would risk diluting the quality of
races. Additionally, concerns were raised about the number of days racing
that would be required of riders.
12
The majority of all respondents supported the principle that the UCI WorldTour should
represent the best riders in the best races
Consultation results (continued)
Professional road cycling calendar
87%of the cycling family (68%of the general public) believe the UCIs role in
setting the dates of races on the international calendar is important or very
important. Over half of all respondents noted that the UCIs performance in
this regard was good or very good.
The majority (51%) of general public respondents supported the principle that
the professional calendar format should encourage the best riders to
participate in the best races.
Only 28%of the general public respondents understand the UCI World Team
points system and 31% understand the UCI WorldTour rider points system .
Unsurprisingly, given the above, most respondents noted that they did not
understand the sporting evaluation currently used to determine teams
participation in UCI WorldTour events.
General public respondents were divided in terms of whether the UCI
WorldTour and Continental Circuit hierarchy is clear and understandable
(37%in favour, 36%against).
The majority of both general public (60%) and cycling family (54%)
respondents thought that there were enough UCI WorldTour races. One
quarter of the cycling family respondents (25%) believe there are too many
WorldTour races.
31% of the cycling family who expressed an opinion agreed that the duration
of selected stage races should be reduced in order to enable the
development of the calendar.
The anti-doping record and policy of teams, as well as a teams sporting
performance in the previous season, were both seen as the key factors that
should determine whether a team participates in the UCI WorldTour.
Executive summary
Among those who expressed a view, there is broad agreement amongst the
general public and cycling family that UCI Continental Circuit races play a
positive role in cycling's development across all regions; albeit 44% of the
general public did not feel able to express an opinion.
81% of general public respondents agree or strongly agree that the UCI
should better promote women cyclists and womens events. 81% of general
public respondents also thought that the UCI should help National
Federations to establish grassroots, high performance and coaching
programmes for women.
Working groups comments (globalisation)
The globalisation working group discussed the topic of grassroots cycling
development, notably regarding the UCIs role and influence at the
grassroots level. Key points included:
The UCI should provide an endorsement role in grassroots events, and
not try to regulate too far down the pyramid;
Investment in cycling for all should be pursued through commercial
partners and local affiliations with organisers and local government
funding;
Mass participation events (MPEs) were highlighted as a positive way to
encourage participation for all. Scheduling of elite events and MPEs
together would heighten general public interest further;
The UCI should provide guidance for National Federations and local
school programmes in respect of educating young cyclists; and
The UCI should act as a medium to connect experts, National Federations
and governments in areas relating to the global development of amateur
cycling that are beyond the UCIs direct remit.
13
81% of general public respondents agree or strongly agree that the UCI should better promote
women cyclists and womens events
Globalisation
79% of the general public sample agreed that there are opportunities to take
part in cycling leisure events where they live, 78% that there are
opportunities to take part in cycling races / events and 78% that cycling is an
environmentally-friendly and sustainable sport.
However, 49% disagreed that cycling was well supported / funded nationally
and 59%disagreed it was well supported by government. 63%disagreed
there was a well-developed bicycle lane infrastructure where they lived and
55%disagreed that they felt safe on roads. 61% disagreed that cycling was
equally popular amongst men and women.
In terms of the priorities for the UCI on the globalisation of cycling, investing
in grassroots cycling was a priority for 75%of the general public and
developing cycling infrastructure was a priority for 59%. Amongst the cycling
family, 65%thought the priority should be investing in grassroots cycling.
Regarding access to cycling locations and facilities to participate, access to
road cycling and off-road cycling were viewed most positively; 79% of the
general public rated access to road cycling as good or excellent and 61%
for off-road cycling. However, 46% viewed access to track cycling to be
poor or very poor. Cycling family views on access mirrored those of the
general public very closely.
Regarding the number of UCI WorldTour races in different regions, 46% of
the general public and 42% of the cycling family felt there were insufficient
races in Africa. For South America, 47% of the general public and 38% of
the cycling family thought there were not enough races. For North America,
the figures were 48% and 41%respectively.
Conversely, for the Middle East, 58% of the general public and 39% of the
cycling family thought there were enough or too many races. For Europe,
81% of the general public and 81% of the cycling family thought there were
enough or too many races.
Executive summary
Amongst riders, satisfaction ratings in relation to team delivery were high,
showing that teams generally seem to be getting the important matters right
for their riders.
82% of professional riders were satisfied or very satisfied with their teams
delivery in relation to creating a strong anti-doping culture.
Regarding the perceived effectiveness of the UCI Athletes Commission,
23% of riders did not have a clear opinion on the matter. 24% rated the
Commission as effective or very effective but 23%rated it as ineffective or
very ineffective.
76% of professional riders stated they were interested in working in cycling
after retirement. The most popular areas were the roles of elite coach (51%),
directeur sportif (49%) and team management (48%).
Working groups comments (riders)
The riders working groups discussed how to improve UCI-rider relations.
Key points included:
The importance of riders feeling represented by the UCI within the wider
cycling family;
Important issues should be promptly communicated to riders, and
communication with riders should be undertaken in a clear and concise
manner; and
Dialogue should be established with the CPA and UCI Athletes
Commission to identify the best means for these bodies to support and
represent riders and act as another form of connection between the riders
and the UCI. There was strong support among riders for the appointment
of a former professional rider as a Rider Relationship Manager. This was
seen by working group members as the preferred option for improving
communications.
14
Amongst riders, satisfaction ratings in relation to team delivery were high, showing that teams
generally seem to be getting the important matters right for their riders
Riders
Within the sample of 731 cycling family respondents, there were 133 riders -
89 UCI WorldTour riders and 44 UCI Professional Continental team riders.
These results were supported by the views expressed by 25 professional
riders that participated in the working group meetings.
Although 41% of riders rated their relationship with the UCI positively, 33%
rated it as average and 20% rated it negatively; this indicates room for
improvement in UCI/rider relations.
66% of riders felt the appointment of a former professional rider to act as a
Rider Relations Manager would improve their working relationship with the
UCI.
65% think better communication via the Professional Cyclists Association
would improve their working relationship with the UCI, and 63%felt that
having UCI staff / management present at races on a regular basis would
have a beneficial effect.
Riders were asked to rate the importance and satisfaction in a number of
areas related to professional cycling. 98%felt race road safety was
important, 95% race accommodation, 93%rider insurance arrangements and
92%race transfers.
Riders were generally satisfied with most areas although 23% were
dissatisfied with race accommodation (hotel and food), 30%dissatisfied with
planning for a career after being a professional rider and 31%with race
transfers.
Race transfers, race accommodation and race road safety are all above
average in terms of importance for riders but are below average in terms of
rider satisfaction. Therefore, these appear to be the areas requiring most
attention from the UCI.
Executive summary
15
There was a strong bias towards road cycling amongst survey respondents, with 78% of
respondents indicating they participated in road cycling either often or very often
Respondent demographics
Given the nature of the online survey, the population of respondents is not
necessarily fully representative of the cycling community globally. The
general public survey was completed by 5,638 respondents, spread across
73 countries.
12 countries accounted for 90%of the responses, with the UK and USA
collectively accounting for 46%of respondents.
63% of general public respondents came from Europe, followed by North
America (24%) and Oceania (10%). Asia, South America, Africa and the
Middle East collectively accounted for the remaining 3% of respondents.
731 cycling family stakeholders from 55 countries completed the cycling
family survey. There was a strong bias towards Europe (77%) and North
America (11%). Oceania accounted for 5%of responses with Asia, South
America, Africa and the Middle East each under 3% of respondents.
Almost 90%of respondents were male.
In terms of cycling participation, there was a strong bias towards road
cycling, with 78% of respondents indicating they participated in road cycling
either often or very often. Commuting (43%) and mountain biking (26%)
were the next most popular forms of participation in cycling, with other forms
far less popular among respondents.
16
Section Page
Contents 2
Glossary of terms 3
Executive summary 5
Recommendations 82
Appendices 95
Introduction, objectives and methodology
Research methodology and sample
Two online market research surveys were designed by Deloitte after
consultation with the UCI.
The surveys went live on 21 February 2013. The general public survey was
available via the UCI website and was promoted by press releases and the
UCI twitter account. The cycling family survey was emailed to c.3,800
cycling stakeholders on the UCIs database, including:
professional teams;
professional riders;
event commissaires;
event organisers (both professional and amateur);
National Federation representatives;
stakeholders connected to professional cycling teams (e.g. employees,
sponsors / investors);
media / journalismrepresentatives;
anti-doping bodies (including Doping Control Officers);
UCI Commission members and UCI employees; and
other bodies connected with cycling (e.g. equipment manufacturers).
The surveys was made available in both English and French, the official
languages of the UCI.
The surveys closed on 15 March 2013 and achieved 6,369 responses,
including 731 cycling family stakeholders and 5,638 members of the general
public. This is in line with (and exceeds some) previous surveys we have
conducted for other sports organisations and events. It demonstrates the
high level of interest amongst cycling fans and allows for a robust and
meaningful set of results.
17
The UCI consulted with stakeholders, including the general public and the cycling family in
order to listen and to gain insights into the future organisation, functioning and image of
cycling
Introduction, objectives and research methodology
Introduction
Following a pilot consultation called Common Ground, in November 2012,
the UCI announced its intention to conduct a wide-ranging stakeholder
consultation exercise to help develop A Bright Future for Cycling.
Subsequently, in December 2012, the UCI President wrote to cycling
stakeholders (including riders, teams, race organisers, sponsors, sports
institutions, the media and fans) inviting them to contribute their ideas to the
core pillar topics to be covered by the consultation exercise, to ensure that all
perspectives and areas of concern were considered.
The UCI wished to demonstrate to its stakeholders, including cycling fans,
that it wanted to listen to their views. The results of this consultation have
therefore provided insights into the views expressed as to the changes
required for cycling to improve its organisation, functioning and image. In
other words, the consultation will inform the UCIs overall vision for the next
generation of cyclists and cycling fans globally.
Deloitte were engaged by the UCI to conduct the consultation process across
the broad spectrum of cyclings stakeholders.
With the support of the UCI, Deloitte designed two online surveys and
conducted a series of stakeholder working groups to better understand
cycling stakeholders opinions regarding the current status and future
development of the sport in respect of the designated themes of
globalisation, anti-doping, calendar and riders.
The results of the survey and working group discussions, together with our
recommendations to the UCI Management Committee, are presented within
this report.
We note that whilst the Consultation exercise has been running, the UCI has
continued to work on a number of related projects based on a participative
stakeholder approach (for example relating to the professional road racing
calendar, new technology and financial fairness).
The web-based methodology is self-selecting (i.e. those invited to take
part decide if they will do so or not). Therefore the sample may be biased
towards those with a greater affinity to, and interest in, cycling. However,
given the nature of the background to the consultation exercise and the
intended use of its results this is not a material weakness and indeed may
be a strength.
The survey results contained in this report must be read in context of the
respondent demographics (e.g. age, sex, location, etc.) as these will have
influenced responses.
The cycling family survey was distributed to c.3,800 stakeholders listed on
the UCIs database. Any conclusions drawn from responses to this
survey should consider the extent to which this list is representative of the
wider cycling family.
Whilst there are some limitations in inherent to any web-based survey
approach conducted on a global basis, the strong response means the
results provide a solid base for identifying key findings and consequent
recommendations.
18
The survey had a very positive response level, with 6,369 respondents in total, over 730
cycling family stakeholders and more than 5,630 members of the general public
Research methodology and sample (continued)
The chart opposite outlines how the number of responses to the surveys
increased over time, as well as the split of responses from the cycling family
and general public stakeholders.
The overall response rate to the email invitation to cycling family
stakeholders was c.19%, which is very positive and in line with (and in
excess of some) response rates we have seen with similar surveys for other
sports organisations and sporting events.
Note that some of the charts in this report exclude those respondents who
did not express an opinion and, accordingly, the totals of all charts do not
always sum to 100%.
Research limitations and interpreting the results
We acknowledge there are several factors that need to be highlighted about
this methodology:
The web-based methodology will (de facto) be skewed towards those with
regular email and internet access . However, as over 70% of individuals
in the developed world (where most cycling fans are based) have access
to the internet, the number of people who could not take part owing to the
web-based methodology will have been relatively small. Hence the
results may be considered indicative of the overall cycling family and
general public stakeholder population. (Source: International
Telecommunications Union, 2013).
We acknowledge that the proportion of individuals using the internet is
much lower in developing nations (25%), however response rates from
these countries are likely to be much lower, given cyclings stakeholders
are typically based in developed countries.
The surveys were in both English and French, however given the global
nature of the sport, there are many countries in which cycling is popular in
which these two languages are not as commonly spoken, which may
influence the profile of the sample of respondents.
1,784
2,236
2,725
3,974
4,647
4,819 4,935
5,638
179
245
386
481
555
576
657
731
1,963
2,481
3,111
4,455
5,202
5,395
5,592
6,369
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Survey response timeline
General public Cycl ing family Source: Deloitte analysis
General public respondents
The general public survey yielded a total of 5,638 respondents, spread
across 73 different countries.
12 countries accounted for 90% of the responses, the UK and USA,
accounting for 46% of total respondents.
The vast majority of respondents were located in countries where English or
French is commonly spoken, an inevitable consequence of a survey in these
two languages.
One notable outlier in the results of the general public survey was a small
number of respondents from Italy which accounted for only 1% of general
public responses. Respondents from South American countries were also
few in number.
19
The profile of respondents, whilst skewed towards particular countries, still provides a large,
robust sample size and hence insight into the views of thousands of cycling fans
27%
19%
9%
7%
5% 5%
4% 4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
10%
(61 countries)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Respondent location - general public
Base: 5,638 respondents.
Source: Deloitte analysis.
19%
9%
8%
8%
7%
6%
5%
5% 4%
3% 3%
2%
20%
(43 countries)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Respondent location - cycling family
Base: 731 respondents.
Cycling family respondents
A total of 731 stakeholders from 55 countries responded to the cycling family
survey, a response rate of c.19% (of the c.3,800 stakeholders who were
invited to complete the survey).
The top 12 countries by respondent location accounted for c.80% of the
cycling family respondents.
It is difficult to make comparisons between the location of respondents in the
general public and cycling family surveys, as respondents to the latter were
based on a population of c.3,800 stakeholders taken from the UCIs
database. Contrary to the general public survey, it is noticeable that 9% of
the cycling family respondents were from Italy, a significantly higher
representation than in the general public survey.
Riders
The riders working group meetings were held on 2 March in Paris and 5
March in San Vincenzo and together were attended by 25 professional riders
from 14 different teams and the CPA. All UCI WorldTour teams were invited
to attend.
Globalisation
The globalisation working group met in London on 13 and 14 March and was
attended by 17 people from 11 different countries, including representatives
from professional and amateur event organisers, sponsors, professional
teams, sports rights marketing companies, the UCI Management Committee,
National Federations, the CPA and the media.
Anti-doping
The anti-doping working group met in Geneva on 15 March and was
attended by 18 people including organisers, current riders, former riders who
had admitted doping, legal, medical and scientific experts, academics,
National Federations, members of the UCI Anti-Doping Commission, the
CPA and the CADF.
Calendar
The calendar working group met in Milan on 16 March and was attended by
22 people including race organisers (including RCS and ASO), National
Federations, representatives of womens cycling, commissaires, team
directors, AIGCP, the CPA, the UCI Athletes Commission and the media.
20
To supplement the results from the online surveys, we facilitated five working groups, each
composed of a mix of relevant stakeholders. The purpose of the working groups was to
provide key stakeholders with the opportunity to express their opinions interactively and in
more depth
Working group meetings
On 3 December 2012, the UCI President wrote to cycling stakeholders
inviting them to contribute their ideas to the core pillar topics to be covered by
the consultation exercise, to ensure that all perspectives and areas of
concern were considered. Approximately 100 emails and letters were
received and read by Deloitte and the UCI.
To supplement the results from the online surveys, working groups were held
in March 2013, to cover the core pillar topics of the consultation exercise.
The purpose of the working groups was to provide key relevant stakeholders
with the opportunity to input their opinions, which have been used to inform
the consultations findings and recommendations.
Participants were encouraged to speak freely and respect the confidentiality
of the opinions of participants and the detailed discussions held. Accordingly,
no comments included within this report have been attributed to any
individual.
The working groups were facilitated by representatives of Deloitte, and UCI
representatives were also present to listen to stakeholders views. Deloitte
made notes of stakeholders comments.
Each working group was composed of a mix of relevant stakeholders. All
individuals who had expressed an interest to be involved in the consultation
exercise were invited to attend a meeting.
Working groups lasted between half a day and two days.
Working group attendees were invited to submit further comments direct to
Deloitte by email before and after the meeting to ensure stakeholders had
additional opportunity to submit their ideas.
After the working groups, Deloitte circulated a brief summary of key matters
discussed in the meeting to each meetings invitees.
21
Section Page
Contents 2
Glossary of terms 3
Executive summary 5
Involvement in cycling 21
Anti-doping 33
Calendar 43
Globalisation 55
Riders 70
Verbatim responses 79
Recommendations 82
Appendices 95
Involvement in cycling
It is important to be aware that the results of the cycling family survey should
be interpreted in the context of the population of c.3,800 stakeholders invited
to participate (i.e. the results will reflect the composition of the list of c.3,800).
The principal involvement of cycling family respondents was as regulators of
the sport, with over one-quarter (26%) of respondents working as
commissaires.
Responses from stakeholders involved at an elite level of the sport will assist
in drawing some useful conclusions about the professional cycling
environment.
Of the 731 respondents, 138 (19%) are professional riders, with 91 (12%) of
respondents working for a professional cycling team and 71 (10%) as a
sponsor / investor in cycling.
A significant proportion of respondents also indicated they had some
involvement in the organisation of cycling events; a similar proportion of
survey respondents was involved in the organisation of professional (17%) or
amateur (16%) cycling events.
An analysis of survey respondents involvement in cycling therefore suggest
that a diverse range of cycling stakeholders is represented, including
individuals participating directly (e.g. riders and teams) and indirectly (e.g.
regulatory bodies, event organisers, manufacturers, etc.) in professional
cycling .
There were low numbers of responses from governing bodies and from
regulatory bodies connected with anti-doping. This is representative of the
cycling family population invited to participate (i.e. individuals from these
organisations formed a small proportion of the UCIs database).
22
Cycling family respondents represent a diverse range of cyclings stakeholders, including
those both directly (e.g. riders and teams) and indirectly (e.g. regulatory bodies) involved in
professional cycling
0%
1%
2%
3%
6%
7%
9%
10%
12%
12%
14%
16%
17%
19%
26%
0% 10% 20% 30%
UCI staff member
Anti-doping authority
Doping Control Officer
UCI Commission member
Equipment manufacturer
Other
Sponsor / Investor
Work for a professi onal cycling team
Another cycl ing body
Journalist / Media
National Cycling Federation
Amateur event organisti on
Professi onal event organisation
Professional ri der
Commi ssai re
Note: Respondents were able to select more than one response, thus percentages add up to more than 100%.
Involvement in cycling - cycling family
Cycling family survey
In conjunction with the general public survey, a separate survey was
distributed to a population of c.3,800 individuals in the UCIs database. The
survey that was sent to this population, the cycling family, was designed to
focus on issues that were more suitable for their input, given a closer
involvement in professional cycling.
General public survey
A key objective of the stakeholder consultation exercise was to demonstrate
the UCIs willingness to listen to the views of cycling fans.
Like many other sports, cycling is reliant on the interest and engagement of
its fan base for the sport to continue to grow at both elite and amateur levels.
This interest can manifest itself in a number of ways, from involvement in
amateur cycling events through to watching cycling on television and at the
roadside.
As noted in the research limitations, one potential consequence of
conducting a web-based survey is that it is inherently self-selecting, such that
respondents will have actively chosen to complete the survey and therefore
are innately interested in the sport. However, this approach means that
respondents are more likely to be from the desired target population of
cycling fans willing to express their opinions on A Bright Future for Cycling.
Of the 5,638 general public respondents, 4,861 (86%) indicated that they
were cycling fans, with over three quarters (76%) of respondents describing
themselves as amateur or recreational cyclists, and almost half (47%) as
cycling club members. This demonstrates that the principal involvement of
survey respondents is at a grassroots level.
Whilst the cycling family survey focussed on cycling stakeholders, it is also
important to understand how general public respondents are involved as
cycling stakeholders. For example, over 1,000 respondents indicated that
they were fromone or more of the following stakeholder groups:
a sponsor or investor in cycling (333);
working in the media profession or as a journalist (311);
working for or involved in another body relating to the organisation of
cycling or sport (216); and
working for or involved in a National Federation (205).
23
86% of general public respondents indicated that they were cycling fans, providing a
reasonable sample size from which to elicit the views of one of the most important stakeholder
groups for the sport of cycling
0%
0%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
4%
4%
6%
6%
15%
47%
76%
86%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
UCI Commission member
Anti-doping authority
UCI staff member
Work for a professi onal cycling team
Organisation of professional events
Former professi onal rider
Professional ri der
Other
National Cycling Federation
Another cycl ing body
Journalist / Media
Sponsor / Investor
Organisati on of amateur events
Cycling club member
Amateur / recreational cycli st
Cycling fan
Involvement in cycling - general public
24
Overall most of the options provided to respondents were considered to be important areas of
focus for the UCI; the fight against doping was seen as the most important issue, with 82% of
cycling family respondents rating it as very important
The chart above shows how cycling family respondents rated the importance of a range of areas for the UCI to focus on. In general, most areas were considered to be
either very or quite important, with at least 60% of cycling family respondents indicating as such (note the chart does not display percentages for those choosing
neither important nor unimportant). No area of focus was rated as unimportant (either not very important or not at all important) by more than 13% of cycling family
respondents.
Results were broadly similar to those from the general public survey, with two notable exceptions. Setting the dates of races on the international calendar was seen as
more important by the cycling family, with 87% of respondents ranking this as either quite important or very important, compared with 68%of the general public.
In contrast to the general public results, the importance of encouraging women to participate in cycling was seen as marginally less important by the cycling family.
In keeping with the results of the general public survey, the most important area for the UCI to focus on is the fight against doping, with 94% of respondents indicating
this was either very important or quite important, and only 3%of respondents believing this was not an area of concern.
8%
8%
8%
6%
4%
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
1%
3%
5%
5%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
42%
36%
31%
38%
40%
34%
40%
32%
35%
32%
12%
20%
31%
36%
32%
38%
46%
40%
55%
52%
57%
82%
20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Developi ng cycling opportunities for disabled people
Regulating equipment used in competition
Deliveri ng a successful UCI WorldTour
Encouraging more women to partici pate in cycli ng
Being an environmentally fri endly sport
Organisation of cycling events at the Olympic / Paralympi c Games
Developi ng the disciplines of cycling around the world
Establ ishi ng the regulations for the cycling disci pl ines
Setting the dates of races on the internati onal calendar
Organisation of the UCI World Championships and UCI Worl d Cups
Fighting against doping
Areas of focus for the UCI: Importance - cycling family
Not very important Not at all important Quite i mportant Very important
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion.
25
Whilst cycling family respondents viewed the UCIs performance more positively than the
general public, they identified the same two clear areas where the UCIs performance could be
improved fighting doping and encouraging womens participation in cycling
The chart above illustrates cycling family respondents opinions on the performance of the UCI across a range of areas (note that the chart above does not show the
results where respondents chose an average rating).
A comparison with the results of the general public survey shows that cycling family respondents were broadly more positive in their view of the UCIs performance,
with performance in all but two areas seen as at least 10 percentage points more positive by cycling family respondents.
More than three quarters (77%) of cycling family respondents rated the UCIs performance in organising the UCI World Championships and UCI World Cups as either
excellent or good, whilst a further four areas of focus received more than 50%positive results.
However, there were two clear areas (the same as for the general public) that received the weakest scores, with the UCIs performance in encouraging women to
participate in cycling rated as poor or very poor by 26% of cycling family respondents. Moreover, 37% of respondents viewed the UCIs performance in the fight
against doping as inadequate.
19%
9%
11%
18%
12%
12%
8%
5%
9%
8%
3%
7%
2%
4%
19%
5%
7%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
21%
24%
30%
28%
36%
39%
44%
43%
43%
48%
52%
4%
3%
5%
10%
12%
10%
8%
11%
13%
12%
25%
60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Developi ng cycl ing opportunities for di sabled people
Being an environmentally friendly sport
Developi ng the disciplines of cycl ing around the world
Organisation of the UCI World Championshi ps and UCI World Cups
Areas of focus for the UCI: Performance - cycling family
Poor Very poor Good Excellent
26
Cycling family respondents believe that the fight against doping and encouragement of women
to participate in cycling are the two clear areas of focus for the UCI
By overlaying performance and importance, potential discrepancies can be identified. Areas have been ranked on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 means highest
importance / performance and 1 means lowest important / performance. The chart has been scaled accordingly.
Overall the results are broadly positive, with performance rated more highly in those areas considered of greater importance by cycling family respondents.
This chart emphasises the areas of importance for the UCI as the same as those identified in the general public survey, namely fighting against doping and
encouraging more women to participate in cycling. The UCIs performance in developing cycling opportunities for disabled people also scored lower than most other
areas, albeit that cycling family respondents viewed this as a less important area relative to the other options available.
In common with the general public survey results, the chart above indicates that the UCI scored most favourably in its ability to organise the UCI World Championships
and UCI World Cups, seen as an important area by cycling family respondents.
Encouraging women's participation
Environmentally f riendliness
Developing opportunities f or disabled
people
Regulating equipment
Successful UCI WorldTour
Developing the disciplines of cycling
Establishing the regulations
Setting the international calendar
Organisation of Olympic / Paralympic
Games events
Organisation of World Champsionships /
World Cups
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Importance
Areas of focus for the UCI: Importance vs performance - cycling family
Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis.
27
Most of the options provided to respondents were considered to be important areas of focus for
the UCI; the fight against doping was seen as the most important issue (by 92% of general
public respondents)
16%
7%
8%
7%
7%
6%
7%
4%
4%
2%
1%
8%
4%
5%
3%
6%
3%
3%
3%
2%
1%
2%
35%
39%
34%
41%
32%
40%
38%
31%
42%
38%
12%
18%
23%
30%
27%
39%
31%
36%
46%
38%
48%
80%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Areas of focus for the UCI: Importance - general public
Not very important Not at al l important Quite important Very important
The chart above shows how general public respondents rated the importance of a range of areas for the UCI to focus on. In general, most areas were considered to
be either very or quite important, with at least 50% of general public respondents indicating such (note the chart excludes percentages for those choosing neither
important nor unimportant). This indicates that the general public believes that the UCIs existing overarching objectives and activity areas are broadly appropriate,
and shows the order of priority with which cycling fans viewthem.
The most important area for the UCI to focus on is the fight against doping, with 92%of respondents indicating this was either very important or quite important.
The area of least importance for general public respondents was the regulation of competition equipment, with almost one quarter of respondents rating this as not
very important or not at all important.
28
General public respondents identified two clear areas where the UCIs performance could be
improved with 72% of respondents rating the UCIs performance in fighting against doping
as either poor or very poor
The chart above illustrates general public respondents opinions on the performance of the UCI across a range of areas (note that the chart above does not show the
results where respondents chose an average rating).
Over 50% of respondents rated the UCIs performance in organising the UCI World Championships and UCI World Cups, and setting the dates of the international
calendar as either good or excellent. The UCIs performance in six other areas was broadly rated as positive, although respondents were neutral overall on the
development of cycling opportunities for disabled people.
However, two clear areas received the weakest scores, with the UCIs performance in encouraging women to participate in cycling rated as poor or very poor by
48%of general public respondents. Moreover, almost three quarters of respondents viewed the UCIs performance in the fight against doping as inadequate.
30%
22%
13%
15%
13%
16%
13%
9%
13%
7%
4%
18%
50%
5%
5%
5%
12%
7%
4%
7%
3%
2%
9%
9%
12%
21%
25%
30%
33%
32%
36%
44%
51%
1%
2%
1%
4%
3%
5%
4%
5%
7%
7%
14%
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Areas of focus for the UCI: Performance - general public
Poor Very poor Good Excellent
29
General public respondents believe the fight against doping and encouragement of women to
participate in cycling are the two clear areas of focus for the UCI
By overlaying performance (horizontal axis) and importance (vertical axis), potential delivery gaps can be identified. Areas have been ranked on a scale from 1 to 5,
where 5 means highest importance / performance and 1 means lowest importance / performance. The chart has been scaled accordingly.
Overall the results show a declining trend, with the UCIs performance rated less highly in the more important areas by general public respondents. As highlighted on
the previous page, the UCIs performance in fighting against doping and encouraging womens participation in cycling are notable outliers, with general public
respondents rating performance significantly lower than other areas.
In contrast, the UCIs performance in organising the UCI World Championships and UCI World Cups was viewed positively by general public respondents, as well as
being seen as an important area of focus for the UCI.
Encouraging women's participation
Developing opportunities for disabled
people
Regulating equipment
Environmental friendliness
Developing the disciplines of cycling
Establishing the regulations
Successful UCI WorldTour
Organisation of Olympic / Paralympic
Games events
Setting the international calendar
Organisation of World Champsionships /
World Cups
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Performance
Areas of focus for the UCI: Importance vs performance - general public
Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis.
Broadly speaking, respondents with an above average positive relationship
with the UCI were those from bodies involved in the regulation and
organisation of cycling. The most positive were UCI Commission members,
with 96% of respondents describing their relationship as either good or very
good. This was followed by commissaires (75%), those involved in
organising events (69%), National Federation representatives (67%), and
anti-doping officials (65%).
In contrast, respondents with a below average relationship with the UCI were
typically those directly involved in professional cycling. 20% of professional
riders described their relationship with the UCI as either poor or very poor
(41% described it in a positive way), followed by sponsors/investors in
cycling (15%), those employed in professional cycling (15%) and cycling
equipment manufactures (14%).
Respondents from the media were fairly ambivalent in their description of
their relationship, although 41% of media respondents described their
relationship as positive.
Relationship with the UCI - open text responses
On the next two pages we provide a selection of verbatim comments from
stakeholders about the positive and negative aspects of their relationship
with the UCI. Whilst the overall tenor of responses to this question is
encouraging, we recommend the UCI reflects on stakeholders criticisms with
a viewto making improvements where possible:
For those describing positive features about their relationship with the
UCI, comments were received from a broad range of cycling family
stakeholders, with commissaires, those involved in the organisation of
professional and amateur events and respondents from National
Federations contributing half of all comments.
For those providing further information on the negative aspects of their
relationship with UCI, almost 30% of comments came from professional
riders, with a further 27% coming from sponsors / investors and
professional cycling teams.
30
Over half of the cycling family respondents described their relationship with the UCI as either
good (36%) or very good (20%)
3%
6%
28%
36%
20%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Very poor Poor Average Good Very good Don't know /
No opi nion
Current relationship with the UCI - cycling family
Note. The analy sis abov e includes 133 prof essional riders who f orm the base of respondents f or the Riders section
of the consultation analy sis.
Relationship with the UCI
The cycling family stakeholder survey asked respondents to describe their
relationship with the UCI.
As illustrated in the chart above, over half (56%) of stakeholders described
their relationship as either good or very good.
Only 6% of cycling family respondents considered their relationship with the
UCI to be poor, and only 3%described it as very poor.
Overall, the survey responses to this question are positive, but should be
viewed in the context of the composition of survey respondents (see chart on
page 22), as it is a natural limitation of the methodology that those
stakeholders with a better relationship with the UCI may have been both
more likely to be on the database and more inclined to complete the survey.
It is useful to analyse the cycling familys relationship with the UCI in further
detail to consider the contribution of each type of cycling family respondent to
the overall picture shown above.
31
The survey asked the cycling family to tell us about the positive features about their
relationship with the UCI. Here is a selection of their comments:
Although I do not always agree
with the UCIs plans, my
relationship with the people I
know (from the President, the
Press Officer to the people who
are working at the office in Aigle),
is very good.
At UCI World Cup events I
have always been treated
promptly, friendly and with
great respect. I commend
the UCI on this.
Open trustful
relationship
Having worked with many UCI
staff I have a good working
relationship with them that makes
communication with them
easier.
I strongly agree with the brave
measures considering anti-doping
the UCI has taken the last few
years in comparison with other
sports.
Generally, the people at the UCI I
deal with try to assist me in doing
my job to the best of their ability,
subject to constraints placed upon
them.
The day to day communication is good
and I always get an answer if I ask for one.
However sometimes the UCI changes
regulations without informing the affected
parties in an appropriate way.
When contacting UCI, I
always get a fast and clear
answer. Helpful and polite
whatever the question is
The UCI has tried to get in
contact with its
stakeholders. Thats a
start!
32
The survey asked the cycling family to tell us about the negative features about their
relationship with the UCI. Here is a selection of their comments:
Currently we have very little that is positive in
regards to our relationship with UCI.
Communication is one way, poor and late.
Public perception of the sport and how UCI
conduct themselves is poor.
I lost a lot of trust in the UCI since the
Armstrong case. Taking donations from
riders like Armstrong cannot be possible,
and having a bad image in terms of anti-
doping is the logical result.
No dialogue unless the UCI
wants it. A one-sided
relationship.
The last six months have resulted
in so much controversy, the
current administration should
resign. This is the honourable and
necessary thing to do.
In regards to technical matters, the
UCI has had a history of changing
the rules and vague rules that get
defined differently. In addition, the
technical rules themselves do not
make sense, as they are very
arbitrarily designed.
The UCI represents itself as
an incompetent organisation,
which time after time, make
decisions that do more
damage to the sport instead of
helping it.
Rule changing and rule
bending whenever needed.
No straight line policy.
Very pedantic about small
issues.
Anti-doping Consultation results
33
Section Page
Contents 2
Glossary of terms 3
Executive summary 5
Anti-doping 33
Calendar 43
Globalisation 55
Riders 70
Recommendations 82
Appendices 95
Importance of anti-doping and the UCIs performance
It is clear from respondents that in terms of the UCIs activities, fighting anti-
doping, in order to restore cyclings credibility, should be prioritised. Indeed,
over 90% of the general public and cycling family stakeholders indicated that
fighting against doping was either very important or important.
This is not surprising what is more interesting is understanding how
stakeholders believe the UCI has performed in this regard, and here there is
a marked difference in the views of the general public and cycling family.
Almost 75% of the general public answered that the UCIs performance in
respect of anti-doping was poor or very poor, with half of general public
respondents stated that it was very poor. Only 11% of people thought that
the UCI was doing a good (9%) or very good (2%) job in this area.
This contrasts with cycling family respondents, amongst which there was a
mixed response, with 28% of respondents rating current performance as
good, almost one quarter rating it as average and a further 18% as poor.
Almost a fifth of the cycling family ranked current performance as very poor,
implying potential for improvement.
Our conclusion from these results is that the UCI must prioritise restoring the
publics trust in the governing bodys ability to fight against doping. How this
can be achieved will need to be considered as part of a carefully-designed
communications strategy that reflects the positive actions taken by the UCI
and reports on progress made on this issue.
34
Restoring cyclings credibility in relation to doping should be the UCIs overall aim, as this
will underpin the sports future global success both at the elite and grassroots levels - as well
as commercially
80%
82%
12%
12%
4%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
General public
Cycling family
How important is fighting against doping?
Very important
Quite i mportant
Neither i mportant / unimportant
Not very important
Not at al l important
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents prov ided
an opinion.
Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents.
2%
10%
9%
28%
15%
24%
22%
18%
50%
19%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
General public
Cycl ing family
The UCI's performance rating in fighting against doping
Excellent
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
an opinion.
Anti-doping
35
The public are generally aware of the existence of cyclings anti-doping measures, although
there are areas where the UCI may consider improving public awareness
Awareness of anti-doping measures
Around 90% of general public respondents know about in-competition
testing, out-of-competition testing and the biological passport for riders.
However, almost a quarter (22%) of people did not know what the rider
wherabouts system (ADAMS) was. This was also the case for the anti-
doping helpline and anti-doping education programmes for approximately
half of the respondents.
In conclusion, it would appear that there are a number of areas where the
UCI could make communications to increase public awareness about
cyclings anti-doping measures overall, as this may help to improve public
opinion about the UCIs success in the fight against doping.
25%
31%
9%
4%
2%
2%
31%
25%
13%
10%
8%
6%
44%
44%
78%
86%
90%
92%
50% 0% 50% 100%
Anti-doping education programmes
Anti-doping helpli ne for professional riders
The rider whereabouts system (ADAMS)
Biol ogical passport
Out-of-competi tion testing programme
In-competi tion testi ng programme
I have not heard of this I have heard of this but am not sure what i t is I know what this is
Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis
Awareness of anti-doping measures in cycling - general public
21%
30%
37%
34%
27%
24%
29%
20%
22%
19%
11%
10%
9%
15%
28%
34%
40%
41%
3%
3%
6%
7%
8%
16%
60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60%
Anti-doping helpline for professional riders
Anti-doping education programmes
Out-of-competition testing programme
In-competition testing programme
Biological passport
Rating of current anti-doping measures - general public
Not very effective Not at all effective
Quite effective Very effective
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all
respondents prov ided an opinion.
Base: 3,895 - 5,540 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis.
Effectiveness of anti-doping measures
Overall, general public perception about the effectiveness of current anti-
doping measures was mixed. Whilst 79% of respondents considered the
biological passport to be effective, between c.25-30% of respondents stated
that cyclings in-competition and out-of-competition testing programmes were
not effective.
General public respondents were less positive still about anti-doping
education programmes and the anti-doping helpline for professional riders,
which may partly reflect their level of awareness of each (as noted above).
We recommend that the UCI reviews these results in the context of the
relative prioritisation of anti-doping measures, in terms of how funding is
allocated to each measure, and also in terms of facts the UCI and CADF are
aware of in terms of the level of anti-doping success achieved as a result of
each measure.
Anti-doping
Improvement in cycling anti-doping measures
Overall, both the general public and cycling family thought that cyclings anti-
doping measures have improved in the last five years, with over c.70% of
both populations stating that they thought measures were either much or a
little stronger.
However, the responses indicate an obvious disparity between the extent of
improvement perceived by the cycling family compared with the general
public, with a much stronger level perceived by the better educated cycling
family.
A fifth (20%) of the general public believed that cyclings anti-doping
measures were about the same as five years ago. These results further
emphasise the need for improved public communication around anti-doping
measures.
36
78% of the cycling family and 71% of the general public believed that cyclings anti-doping
measures have improved over the last five years
4%
1%
2%
15%
37%
41%
4%
2%
2%
20%
43%
28%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Don't know / No opinion
Much weaker
A li ttle weaker
About the same
A li ttle stronger
Much stronger
Change in cycling anti-doping measures over last five years
general public cycli ng family
40%
31%
21%
12%
14%
10%
27%
13%
8%
7%
5%
2%
8%
17%
30%
39%
46%
41%
1%
4%
7%
21%
14%
27%
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Cycling is a "clean" sport now
Cycling will be a "clean" sport within the
next five years
There is a strong anti-doping culture
Cycling is leading the way in anti-doping
practices
Significant progress has been made in
anti-doping in the last fi ve years
Doping is still a major problem
Anti-doping in professional cycling - general public
Disagree Strongl y disagree
Agree Strongl y agree
Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis.
Effectiveness of anti-doping measures
Given the public perception of the UCIs performance rating in respect of
fighting against doping, and the overall effectiveness of cyclings anti-doping
measures, it is not surprising to note that two-thirds (68%) of people consider
doping still to be a major problem and that cycling is still not a clean sport,
despite the perceived progress that has been made in anti-doping over the
last five years.
However, this progress is evidenced by the fact that nearly 40% of general
public respondents consider there to be a strong anti-doping culture within
professional cycling.
Despite this, 44% of respondents either disagreed (31%) or strongly
disagreed (13%) that cycling would be a clean sport within the next five
years, implying that more needs to be done, both in terms of existing anti-
doping measures and public communication about these.
Anti-doping
Ideas to combat doping
The overwhelming majority of the public thought that cyclings anti-doping
measures should be evaluated by an autonomous organisation.
We understand that whilst CADF is already in some respects independent
from the UCI there are also several areas in which the autonomy and
perception of autonomy could be increased. Notably, the UCI President is
currently President of the Foundation Board responsible for the strategy and
control of CADF. Other members of UCI senior management are also on
the Foundation Board. We understand that a proposal has been approved
for the Foundation Board to be composed entirely of members external from
the UCI, and we support this proposal.
The CADF could also take a more visible role in public communication about
anti-doping. Additional practical measures, such as changing the email
address of CADF employees should be considered.
There is an overall general view that more can be done to combat doping.
The challenge for the UCI is to explore carefully the effectiveness,
practicality, cost and, in cases, legality of each potential measure, in order to
determine where anti-dopings finite funding should be best allocated.
We recommend that in deciding about potential changes to anti-doping
measures, the UCI works in close collaboration with WADA, National Anti-
Doping Organisations (NADOs), teams and riders to secure their support of
any new anti-doping measures before making rule changes.
Whilst it is acknowledged in the Calendar section of this report that there is a
natural physical limit to the number of days racing a professional cyclist can
maintain, most stakeholders were of the view that restricting the permitted
number of days racing would not be an effective method to combat doping,
largely because the largest incentive to dope is not considered to be related
to the overall volume of racing.
37
Many stakeholders believed that cyclings anti-doping body should be independent from the
UCI, that teams should be required to implement a consistent anti-doping policy and that the
severity of doping sanctions should be increased
31%
9%
9%
7%
3%
2%
1%
20%
4%
4%
2%
1%
1%
1%
15%
30%
29%
24%
30%
26%
16%
7%
24%
44%
53%
54%
65%
76%
60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Restri ct the permi tted number of days racing
Team access to the rider whereabouts
Penalise the team and support staff
Increase the severity of sanctions
Certi fication of coaches / doctors by an
Consistent anti -doping poli cy for all teams
Eval uation by an autonomous organisation
Ideas to combat doping in cycling - general public
Disagree Strongly disagree
Agree Strongly agree
25%
11%
12%
5%
5%
3%
1%
16%
5%
6%
1%
2%
1%
1%
20%
35%
27%
33%
21%
28%
27%
13%
26%
38%
44%
59%
56%
64%
50% 0% 50% 100%
Restrict the permitted number of days racing
Team access to the rider whereabouts
Penali se the team and support staff
Certifi cation of coaches / doctors by an
Increase the severity of sanctions
Evaluation by an autonomous organisation
Consistent anti-doping policy for all teams
Ideas to combat doping in cycling - cycling family
Anti-doping
Ideas to combat doping (continued)
The cycling familys views of anti-doping measures are broadly consistent
with those of the general public, insofar as they consider most existing anti-
doping measures to be quite effective or very effective.
The vast majority of cycling family respondents thought that the CADF should
be autonomous of the UCI, which was in line with the views of the general
public and the open text responses regarding the management of anti-
doping.
A number of further measures were also suggested by working group
members including:
finding a way to incorporate rider power data into the biological passport;
introducing regulations requiring riders to work with only doctors
contracted with teams / sponsors;
introducing a fit and proper persons test for team managers, given that
many existing team managers have a history of personal involvement in
doping. In this regard, for the sport to demonstrate that it has moved on
from the past, some tough decisions regarding the appropriateness of
individuals continued involvement in cycling may be required; and
introducing a consistent set of mandatory internal control practices
regarding anti-doping that teams would need to demonstrate had been
operated effectively throughout the year. These could, if necessary, be
audited by an independent party.
Given the very strong message from all respondents that fighting doping
should be one of the UCIs main priorities, and that the UCI could improve
their performance in this regard, we recommend the UCI critically evaluates
the existing level and allocation of anti-doping funding, as well as existing
and potential measures to combat doping, in order to identify the key
changes that should be made. It is vital that this evaluation is performed in
collaboration with key stakeholders.
38
Given the evident importance of continuing to fight against doping, we recommend the UCI
critically evaluates ways to increase the overall level of funding for anti-doping, as well as
ways in which increased consistency amongst teams in respect of anti-doping can be achieved
12%
9%
11%
9%
4%
7%
4%
3%
11%
10%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
23%
25%
34%
45%
48%
39%
38%
37%
8%
10%
21%
30%
27%
34%
46%
47%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
The 'True Champion or Cheat' programme
The anti-doping helpl ine for professional ri ders
The education of rider entourages
In-competition testi ng
The educati on of young riders
Out-of-competi tion testing
Biological passport
Qui te ineffective Very ineffective
Qui te effective Very effective
Effectiveness of methods to reduce doping - cycling family
4%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
42%
37%
31%
45%
33%
42%
51%
39%
20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The UCI should spend more time and
resources educating young riders
Increase the pool of ri ders participating in the
biological passport programme
The CADF shoul d be autonomous of the UCI
Increase collaborati on between the CADF and
NADO's in designing anti-doping testing
Suggestions for ensuring the success of anti-doping in professional
cycling - cycling family
Anti-doping
Alternatively, the primary purpose could be seen as providing a way for
cycling to deal with historic doping issues, in order to be able to move
forward with credibility.
Certainly, if a purpose could be agreed, the details of any amnesty would
then need to be carefully defined, which would be challenging, not least
because of the number of different stakeholders that would need to be
reconciled around a consensus about the broad spectrum of doping offences
that might be considered under an amnesty.
However difficult an amnesty is to define, there are also several legal and
practical considerations that would be extremely challenging if not impossible
to overcome, before an amnesty could be practically implemented. For
example, existing doping sanctions are defined under the WADA Code and
forbid an amnesty and therefore without special legal exemption, the WADA
Code would need to be applied.
Additionally, achieving a consistent approach for any rider who comes
forward would not be possible when, under current regulations, the
sanctioning of riders is, in the first instance, determined by their National
Federation (and the laws of their home nation).
Despite these theoretical, practical and legal challenges, there is a strong
message that cycling, somehow, needs to deal with its troubled past by
drawing a line in the sand in a way that acknowledges cyclings doping
problems overall (that is, in terms of the sport as opposed to individuals), and
the UCIs role in this history, including, where appropriate, admission of
mistakes made by the UCI.
Given the considerable public pressure to see an amnesty, and the UCIs
previous public announcements in respect of their intention to establish a
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), we recommend the UCI
decides in the fastest possible timescale whether or not a TRC will be
established, but only after consultation with WADA and USADA to ensure
these key stakeholders are aligned before any decision is publicly
announced.
39
Stakeholders have given a strong message that cycling, somehow, needs to deal with its
troubled past. Many are in favour of some kind of amnesty. However, the concept may be
difficult to define, as well as legally and practically challenging to implement
An amnesty for riders
Whilst the majority of the general public respondents (74%) were in favour of
an amnesty for riders (to disclose information about doping in cycling in
order to help create a cleaner sport), opinion amongst the cycling family was
more divided, with equally strong views for and against the idea.
9% of cycling family stakeholders responded dont know / no opinion,
suggesting that unless more details of any amnesty were provided, an
answer could not be provided. This in itself indicates that the concept of an
amnesty may be difficult to define. The following paragraphs are informed
by the discussions of the anti-doping working group.
In considering the topic further, the UCI should first decide on what the
overall purpose of an amnesty would be: if the primary purpose were
considered to be intelligence gathering, in order to combat doping better in
the future by understanding how and why riders doped, then the benefits
would be limited, as an amnesty, by its nature, would mean dealing with
historical doping, whereas arguably the greatest doping risks relate to
modern doping practices.
9%
17%
21%
35%
17%
5%
9%
12%
43%
31%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Strongly opposed
Somewhat opposed
Somewhat in favour
Strongly in favour
Opinion of a rider "amnesty" to disclose information
Anti-doping
View of current penalties
Most general public (61%) and cycling family (62%) stakeholders believe that
the current penalties for riders caught doping are too lenient.
Anti-doping penalties applied in cycling must be consistent with the WADA
Code, which is currently under review.
Length of suspension
In the context of this survey question, serious doping clearly needs further
definition. However, the results are nevertheless indicative of a belief
amongst the general public and the cycling family that suspensions overall
should be made longer. Many of the verbatim public responses
recommended longer bans.
Approximately one third of respondents of both surveys were in favour of a
lifetime ban in the case of serious doping, demonstrating the strength of
attitude towards doping.
Our understanding is that it is anticipated that the new WADA Code in 2015
may see the introduction of four year bans. We understand that the UCI
submission to the WADA Code review is supportive of this principle. The
collective opinion of cycling stakeholders is that longer suspensions and
even lifetime bans should be introduced.
When we tested the question of suspension length at the rider working group
meetings, there were mixed opinions. In general terms, younger riders
tended to hold the view that lifetime bans were appropriate, whereas older
riders, who had ridden throughout some of the years when doping was
prevalent tended to have a more lenient view, whilst still acknowledging that
sanctions should be stronger.
While the survey did not specifically ask about it, given the indication of a
desire for stronger sanctions, the UCI should also consider to what extent
penalties for non serious offences could also be increased to act as a
further deterrent.
40
Respondents feel that the lengths of doping suspensions should be increased, with suspensions
of at least four years being introduced for serious offences
5%
1%
3%
29%
35%
27%
3%
2%
3%
31%
35%
26%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Far too severe
Too severe
About right
Too lenient
Far too lenient
View of the current penalties for riders caught doping
4%
3%
12%
8%
29%
11%
33%
4%
5%
15%
12%
26%
11%
29%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
1 year suspension
2 year suspension
3 year suspension
4 year suspension
More than 4 year suspension
Automatic lifetime ban
Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cyling f amily respondents.
Length of suspension for a rider found guilty of serious doping
Anti-doping
Doping sanctioning process
The UCI currently has delegated responsibility for adjudicating on anti-doping
violation rules, in the first instance, to the National Federations.
However, the survey results and working group discussions were very clear
in this area:
Over half (52%) of cycling family stakeholders responded that the current
process in relation to doping sanctions was either very unsatisfactory or
unsatisfactory;
Only 4% of the general public and 5% of cycling family stakeholders
answered that the riders National Federation should be responsible for
deciding doping sanctions;
Over 40% of both the general public and cycling family stakeholders
stated that riders sanctions in the first instance should be decided by an
independent anti-doping tribunal.
It was evident from consultations that the current system was seen as
presenting a conflict of interest, as National Federations could have an
incentive to protect riders of their own nationality.
Additionally, consultees were concerned with the inconsistency in the
process for sanctioning riders. It was also noted that there remained a
possiblity for riders under suspicion to continue riding. It was noted that this
can generate negative publicity for the sport.
41
Stakeholders did not think National Federations should be responsible for sanctioning their
own riders as this represents a conflict of interest and an inconsistent approach
4%
2%
29%
44%
17%
5%
5%
2%
37%
42%
10%
4%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Other
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
An independent anti-doping tribunal
The UCI
The rider's National Federation
Organisation responsible for deciding on doping sanctions
22%
30%
32%
5%
11%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Very
unsatisfactory
Qui te
unsatisfactory
Quite satisfactory Very sati sfactory Don't know / Not
sure
Satisfaction with the current process in relation to doping sanctions -
cycling family
Anti-doping
Relationship with WADA
Many stakeholders commented how the UCIs relationship with WADA could
be improved significantly.
Our understanding from discussions with CADF is that at an operational
level, the relationship is good and effective. However, at a political level the
relationship is perceived to be very poor, evidenced by the public exchanges
between UCI and WADA in early 2013.
Not only does a breakdown in relationship limit the UCI in practical terms, it
is also damaging to its credibility in respect of anti-doping.
Doping has been the single biggest issue within professional road cycling
since the Festina scandal in 1998. Cyclings stakeholders have shown how
important fighting against doping is to them, with over 90% of both general
public and cycling family respondents describing it as the most important
issue.
As the UCI must abide by the WADA Code in applying anti-doping measures
in cycling, there are clear benefits in the UCI being closely aligned with
WADA at every level, to help optimise the development of a new Code that is
appropriate for cycling and in accordance with WADAs broader
responsiblities and objectives.
We therefore recommend that the UCI takes immediate steps to re-build its
relationship with WADAat a political level.
42
The UCI should improve its relationship with WADA at a political level so that it can work, in
unison with WADA, towards developing anti-doping practices that are widely recognised as a
leading benchmark for other sports
The constant arguing between WADA
and the UCI is an embarrassment to the
sport.Work with WADA to actually
fight doping, not just avoid doping
scandals.
(General public stakeholder)
The key issue that needs
to be addressed in cycling
is that of doping and how it
is handled.
(Cycling family stakeholder)
I think the battle of personalities between
UCI, WADA and USADA and so on is very
bad for the sport please focus on where
you can cooperate, not on being right
Anti-doping
Calendar Consultation results
43
Section Page
Contents 2
Glossary of terms 3
Executive summary 5
Anti-doping 33
Calendar 43
Globalisation 55
Riders 70
Recommendations 82
Appendices 95
44
By way of introduction, we asked the general public their opinion about road cycling as a
product
Opinions of professional road cycling
A large proportion of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with positive
statements (road racing is an exciting spectator event, watching cycling on
TV makes them more likely to visit another country on holiday, they were
inspired by professional teams or cyclists, that cycling was easy to follow and
that it provides good value for sponsors).
Responses to these questions of course should be understood in the context
of who has responded, i.e. people who are already cycling fans.
Less positive responses were noted in respect of the coverage or road
cycling on TV, and the extent to which professional road cycling is well-
publicised and promoted, both of which are indirectly associated with some of
the issues around the cycling calendar, which are considered in this section
of the report.
Overall, it may be concluded that road cycling as a product is
fundamentally attractive. This section focuses on the changes stakeholders
believe should be made in order to improve the cycling calendar.
35%
39%
40%
23%
30%
27%
9%
5%
11%
9%
6%
7%
9%
6%
47%
28%
20%
10%
15%
7%
2%
2%
2%
3%
4%
3%
3%
1%
5%
9%
13%
24%
29%
32%
41%
43%
52%
32%
43%
45%
35%
41%
2%
2%
4%
12%
7%
6%
14%
24%
17%
38%
29%
28%
38%
39%
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The only interesting part of the race is the l ast two mi nutes
It takes too l ong to watch
It is predictable
There are not enough races outside Europe
There is good coverage of road cycl ing on TV
Professi onal road cycling is well-publi cised / promoted
Races are spectator-friendly (i.e. faci liti es, access, etc.)
It provides good val ue for sponsors
It is easy to foll ow
I would like to see more TV coverage of cycling discipl ines other than men's road cycling
I am inspired by the professional teams or cyclists
Watchi ng road cycling on TV makes me more likely to visit another country on holi day
The sport is domi nated by the issue of doping
Road racing is an exciting spectator event
Opinions of professional road cycling - general public
Disagree Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree
Calendar
The UCI calendar
As noted in the chart opposite, the majority of stakeholders believe that the
UCIs role in setting the dates on the international cycling calendar is
important. This view is particularly strong within the cycling community,
where nearly 90% of respondents saw this as important or very important.
This result may therefore be taken as strong confirmation from stakeholders
that the UCI should retain the core objective of setting the dates on the
international calendar.
Over half of the general public and cycling family stakeholders were also of
the opinion that the UCIs performance in setting the dates of races on the
international calendar was good or very good.
Nonetheless, as noted later in this section, stakeholders also believed that
fundamental changes are required to the international calendar, in order to
benefit the sport overall, including the ability to grow revenues and increase
financial stability for teams and organisers.
45
Stakeholders agreed that setting the dates on the international calendar was an important part
of the UCIs job, and that it performed well in this area.
27%
52%
41%
35%
20%
8%
7%
2%
3%
1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
General public
Cycling family
Very important
Qui te i mportant
Neither i mportant / unimportant
Not very important
Not at al l important
an opinion.
How important is setting the dates of races on the international calendar?
7%
12%
44%
48%
30%
26%
7%
8%
3%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
General public
Cycl ing family
Excellent
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
an opinion.
The UCI's performance rating in setting the dates of races on the
international calendar
Calendar
The existing calendar format does not have a clear narrative as it contains
a range of different types of races (one day classics, preparation races
and Grand Tours, as well as newly created races) that sometimes
overlap. For example, Paris-Nice and Tirreno-Adriatico were both
historically held at the same time and considered as preparation races
for the seasons first big classic, Milan-San Remo;
There should be fewer races in the UCI WorldTour;
The UCI WorldTour should be understandable;
Changes therefore need to be made to the calendar. A working group of
key stakeholders (including the major race organisers and the UCI) should
be established to agree the required amendments and create a strategic
plan;
Globalisation of the calendar should only be promoted as part of a clear
commercial strategy. Any strategy should recognise that European
cycling is core to the calendar;
Any change will take time given the existing sponsorship and broadcast
deals with teams and organisers;
In order to make changes, some compromise will be required, for
example in terms of the timing and duration of races;
A multi-tiered structure of the elite competition may be an appropriate
format for a new competition structure. This would separate the more
established races from newer races seeking to reach a WorldTour
standard. Tiers below the top tier of races could also include preparation
races, used for the development of younger riders.
In reality, because of various constraints, achieving all of the best riders
in all of the best races may be more a theoretical ideal than a practically
achievable objective. Nonetheless, it is an ideal that should be strived for.
A simple and clear competition structure that promotes the ideal of the
best riders participating in the best races will optimise fan interest, and
therefore investment fromsponsors and broadcasters.
46
A simple and clear competition structure that promotes the ideal of the best riders
participating in the best races will optimise fan interest, and therefore investment from
sponsors and broadcasters
26%
26%
19%
10%
5%
5%
31%
25%
41%
6%
13%
10%
60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60%
The hierarchy of the UCI WorldTour and
Continental Circuits competitions i s cl ear and
understandabl e
There should be no overlap in the dates of
races on the UCI WorldTour calendar
The best riders participate in the best races
respondents provided an opinion.
UCI WorldTour and UCI Continental Circuit calendar formats - general
public
Calendar format
The majority (51%) of general public respondents supported the idea that the
professional calendar format should encourage the best riders to participate
in the best races.
However, opinions were relatively mixed (38% in favour, 31% against) of the
idea that there should be no overlap in the dates of the races on the UCI
WorldTour calendar.
Stakeholders were also divided in terms of whether the UCI WorldTour and
Continental Circuit hierarchy is clear and understandable (37% in favour,
36%against).
The calendar working group which comprised the major race organisers
as well as team, rider, National Federation and media representatives had
strong views on the calendar. Whilst working group members did not always
share the same views, there were a number of common ideas and principles:
Calendar
The number of UCI WorldTour races
The majority of both general public (60%) and cycling family (54%)
stakeholders, thought that there were enough UCI WorldTour races.
One quarter of the cycling family respondents (25%) believe there are too
many races. The rationale for this viewpoint tended to focus around creating
a calendar that has meaning and is understandable, and also acknowledging
the physical demands of riders who are required to race many days over a
long season.
47
The majority of stakeholders considered there to be enough UCI WorldTour races, and a
quarter of the cycling family think there are too many
11%
8%
17%
54%
10%
1%
11%
2%
7%
60%
17%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Far too many
Too many
Enough
Not enough
Not nearly enough
Opinion on the number of UCI WorldTour races
15%
28%
15%
18%
13%
12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Strongl y
disagree
Disagree Neither agree
nor di sagree
Agree Strongly agree Don't know /
No opi nion
Opinion on shortening the duration of selected stage races - cycling
family
The number of UCI WorldTour races
31% of the cycling family agreed that the duration of selected stage races
should be reduced in order to enable the development of the calendar.
Clearly any such changes would need to be supported by ASO and RCS,
who organise the three Grand Tours and several other major UCI WorldTour
races.
We recommend that potential changes to stage races are therefore
considered as part of the remit for a working group, established to review and
develop the cycling calendar / competition structure.
Calendar
Determining a teams UCI WorldTour status
The anti-doping record and policy of teams, as well as a teams sporting
performance in the previous season, were seen as the key factors that
should determine whether a team participates in the UCI WorldTour.
A majority of respondents felt compliance with UCI legal and financial
regulations should also be taken into account. The implication is that whilst
this should not be the primary driver of a teams position, it should be a
compulsory requirement for a team to qualify for a UCI WorldTour licence.
In contrast, less than a third of stakeholders thought that a teams UCI
WorldTour status should be based on the teams projected performance for
the next season (i.e. based on the next seasons roster of riders, as is
currently the case).
There may be a number of advantages from increasing the prominence given
to a teams overall performance in a previous season, including improving
the understanding of the UCI WorldTour by increasing consistency in the
competitions narrative fromone season to the next.
In connection with this, we recommend that the appropriateness of a
promotion / relegation system for UCI WorldTour teams is considered as part
of the remit of a working group, created to discuss developing the cycling
calendar / competition structure.
48
The anti-doping record and policy of teams, as well as teams sporting performance in the
previous season, were seen as the key factors that should determine whether they participated
in the UCI WorldTour
8%
6%
25%
42%
63%
69%
74%
4%
8%
31%
38%
62%
82%
81%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Don' t know / No opinion
Another factor
The team's projected performance for the next season
A combination of sporting and non-sporting measures
The team's compliance with UCI legal & financial
regulations
The team's performance i n the previous season ( i.e.
points won by the team's riders)
The team' s r ecord and policy in respect of anti-doping
issues
Source: Deloitte analy sis.
Factors to consider when awarding a professional team a position in the
UCI World Tour
Calendar
Developing the cycling calendar, including determining how events qualify for
UCI WorldTour status, should assist in this regard. It is acknowledged that
many races beyond a select few do not currently generate significant profits.
We therefore recommend that the UCI introduces a set of criteria by which to
assess races seeking UCI WorldTour status. This topic was discussed by
the calendar working group, with the following key points raised:
The definition of UCI WorldTour events should be reviewed such that they
have meaning and value attached to them;
Races should have to demonstrate their fulfilment of a number of criteria
(including broadcast quality standard, proposed timing, commitment of
investors, promotional plan, organisation, road conditions / safety,
accommodation, etc.);
Newly created races in the future might therefore need to demonstrate
their success at a level outside of the UCI WorldTour. This might be as
part of a new multi-tier competition format, as previously suggested;
A consistent, broadcastable product across all UCI WorldTour events
could be beneficial for many stakeholders in terms of increasing revenues;
and
A strong and cohesive unit should be responsible for marketing and
promoting professional cycling, and assisting event organisers to generate
exposure for their events, particular on television.
49
We believe that the basis for improving the financial stability of professional cycling, is to
establish a successful competition structure. If the fundamentals are right, teams, riders and
organisers will have the best opportunity to share in increased revenues
12%
7%
8%
4%
3%
13%
3%
5%
2%
2%
26%
32%
37%
37%
30%
21%
26%
28%
37%
50%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Setting sal ary caps for riders
Raisi ng the minimum salary for riders
Introducing 'financial fair play' regulations
Compensating teams for i nvestment in the
devel opment of ri ders
Generating new media and sponsorship
revenues
Improving the financial stability of professional road cycling - cycling
family
Improving financial stability within cycling
It is not surprising that the significant majority of cycling family respondents
were supportive of the principles suggested in the chart above to improve the
financial stability of professional road cycling. The key challenge is to
understand, in practice, how these principles could be achieved.
We believe that the basis for improving the financial stability of professional
cycling is to establish a successful competition structure. If the fundamentals
of the calendar are right, the opportunity for organisers, teams and riders to
share increased revenues will follow.
Financial regulation, such as financial fair play regulations will enhance and
facilitate financial stability, but will not be the primary driver of it. Indeed, 25%
of respondents disagreed with the proposal to set salary caps for riders.
Rather, commercial development of the sport will underpin improved financial
stability.
Calendar
The UCI WorldTour and rider point system
In terms of ranking teams annually, only 13% of general public respondents
disagreed that a single points system should be used for the annual ranking
of teams.
Respondents who understood how the existing points system allocated
points to teams, riders and races were outnumbered by those who didnt.
Indeed, the existing points system (and calendar structure) is part of the
complexity of the sport, insofar as cycling is both a team and an individual
sport, as well as there being different types and lengths of races, and
different types of riders suited to gathering points in different ways.
Unsurprisingly, given the above, most respondents noted that they did not
understand the sporting evaluation currently used to determine teams
participation in UCI WorldTour events.
Working group members noted that individual and team rankings are
important to the public and to event organisers, as both want to see the best
riders in the best races. A weakness of the current points system is that it
can encourage riders to participate in perceived lesser races, simply to earn
points for their team to contribute towards their ranking and eligibility for UCI
WorldTour status.
As noted in the Riders section of the consultation results there is a view that
the existing individual rider points system is not fair to different types of
riders. For example, domestiques, whose job it is to support the team
leaders, do not currently share in the team leaders overall points to which
they may have contributed through their supporting role, despite individual
points being a form of currency for riders when negotiating contracts for
forthcoming seasons.
We recommend that the existing point system is reviewed in conjunction with
the calendar. A clearer, more understandable points system will be easier to
communicate to the public, as well as recognised as being fairer for riders.
50
Individual rider rankings are important to the public and event organisers, as both want to see
the best riders in the best races. In addition, a clearer, more understandable points system
will be easier to communicate to the public, as well as being recognised as fairer for riders
17%
16%
13%
16%
18%
17%
20%
27%
28%
3%
4%
4%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40%
The 'sporting evaluation' the UCI used for
determing teams' participation
UCI WorldTour rider points system
UCI WorldTour teams points system
Poor Very Poor
Good Excellent
Opinion of the UCI's current ranking systems - cycling family
31%
31%
29%
27%
8%
36%
22%
21%
17%
5%
11%
22%
25%
26%
32%
2%
6%
6%
6%
18%
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60%
I understand the 'sporting evaluati on' the UCI
uses to determine teams' parti cipation
I understand the UCI WorldTour team points
system
I understand the UCI WorldTour rider points
system
I understand the points allocati on structure
between di fferent races
A single points system shoul d be used for the
annual ranking and division of teams
Current UCI WorldTour team and rider points systems - general public
Calendar
51
In terms of womens cycling, the challenge for the UCI is also to develop a calendar that is
clear and understandable. The strategic plan to develop womens cycling should seek to use
elite level womens cycling to encourage mass participation by female cyclists globally
Womens cycling was discussed by the working groups. Evidence from
event organisers would suggest that the reaction to womens races is
positive (i.e. from spectators and broadcasters). At present, the lack of
money within womens cycling, notably low revenues generated from
sponsorship, is seen as a barrier to the sport.
The challenge for the UCI is to create a strategic plan to develop womens
cycling globally that seeks to create a virtuous circle between the
development of womens cycling at the elite and grassroots levels, in doing
so drawing on the support of National Federations, organisers, teams and
broadcasters.
Developing womens cycling cycling family
The cycling family were generally supportive of the measures suggested to
develop womens cycling, though there was some doubt in respect of
prioritising events and teams seeking UCI WorldTour status if they also have
a womens race / event.
That said, stakeholders noted that from a logistical and financial perspective
there are obvious advantages in connecting womens races to mens. Whilst
the development of the calendar is on-going, in seeking to develop the
womens cycling calendar, it need not wait for cycling to address the
challenges noted elsewhere in this chapter in respect of the mens calendar.
13%
19%
9%
10%
4%
4%
6%
5%
4%
8%
6%
3%
5%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
29%
27%
33%
34%
34%
38%
37%
39%
40%
14%
17%
17%
18%
19%
18%
19%
26%
26%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Teams seeking UCI WorldTour status should be given priority if they have a women's team*
Olympic funds should be equally split for the development of women's and men's cycl ing
A more global ised calendar for the Women's World Cup is needed
Events seeking WorldTour status should be given priority i f they have a women's event*
More women should hold deci sion making-positions within cycling
The format of the UCI Women's World Cup should be reviewed to be made more attractive
Prize money for women's cycling should be increased
The UCI should help National Federations to establish grassroots, high performance and coaching
programs for women
The UCI should better promote women cycli sts and women's events
Statements about women's cycling - cycling family
* if meeting all other criteria.
Calendar
52
General public stakeholders were clearly of the view that measures should be taken to develop
womens cycling.
Womens cycling
Considering that c.90% of respondents were male, the general public survey
results show a very strong overall level of support for measures to develop
womens cycling. In terms of the womens elite calendar, one of the current
weaknesses noted is that it is not understandable by the general public and
lacks a clear narrative.
A large number of verbatim comments also referred to the importance of
developing womens cycling.
11%
5%
5%
11%
6%
3%
3%
2%
2%
6%
1%
2%
3%
4%
2%
2%
1%
1%
28%
35%
34%
27%
33%
31%
33%
39%
34%
30%
27%
29%
37%
35%
39%
43%
42%
47%
20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Teams seeking UCI WorldTour status should be given priority if they have a women's team*
The format of the UCI Women's World Cup should be reviewed to be made more attractive
A more global ised calendar for the Women's World Cup is needed
Olympic funds should be equally split for the development of women's and men's cycl ing
Events seeking WorldTour status should be given priority i f they have a women's event*
More women should hold deci sion making-positions within cycling
Prize money for women's cycling should be increased
The UCI should help National Federations to establish grassroots, high performance and coaching
programs for women
The UCI should better promote women cycli sts and women's events
Statements about women's cycling - general public
Disagree Strongl y disagree Agree Strongly agree
* if meeting all other criteria.
Womens cycling is crucial to develop,
both in terms of equality and the
grassroots effect.
Calendar
Making cycling events more attractive
The overall opinion of stakeholders was that new technology options would
be a positive development in terms of making cycling more attractive for
fans.
The less favoured of the suggested options were new race formats and
incentives for attacking, such as time bonuses.
On the topic of in-race communication, it should be noted that in the working
groups riders stated that they were opposed to the UCIs banning of race
radios on the basis that they did not believe race radios impacted on how
exciting a race could be. Moreover, riders also referred to the safety benefits
of using race radios.
We therefore recommend that the UCI works closely with race organisers,
teams and broadcast companies to assess the attractiveness, feasibility and
cost of the suggested new technology options.
It is important to recognise that correcting the fundamentals of professional
cycling, notably the competition structure, calendar and points system is the
priority.
53
Respondents supported using new technology to make cycling events more attractive for fans.
12%
12%
7%
8%
8%
5%
3%
5%
5%
2%
4%
4%
1%
2%
33%
33%
38%
34%
32%
40%
34%
20%
22%
32%
37%
39%
33%
48%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
New race formats
Incentives for attacking, time bonuses
Video footage from team cars
Viewer access to in-race communication
Bike-mounted cameras
Split-screen options
GPS tracking of riders
Poor Very poor
Good Excellent
Ideas to make cycling events more attractive for fans - general public
13%
15%
8%
9%
10%
5%
7%
6%
7%
6%
3%
4%
1%
3%
35%
34%
34%
42%
36%
44%
39%
17%
25%
22%
26%
29%
23%
37%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Incentives for attacking, time bonuses
Viewer access to in-race communication
New race formats
Video footage from team cars
Bike-mounted cameras
Split-screen options
GPS tracking of riders
Poor Very poor
Good Excellent
Ideas to make cycling events more attractive for fans - cycling family
Embrace technology, in fact encourage
it, and dont get bogged down in
regulation.
Calendar
54
The general view of working group members was that the UCI Continental Circuit races are an
appropriate structure to support the top tier of competition
Responses should be viewed in the context of the profile of respondents
origins (see pages 19 and 56), as this will inevitably influence responses.
The appropriateness of the UCI Continental Circuit structure was discussed
by the Calendar working group. The overriding opinion was that the structure
was appropriate to support the top tier of competition, i.e. the UCI WorldTour.
UCI Continental Circuit races
The UCI Continental Circuit races are the second tier of elite male road
cycling, organised on a global basis.
The overall view of the general public was that the races generally
contributed towards the development of cycling in the respective regions,
with responses ranked frommost to least positive in the chart above.
10%
6%
8%
7%
6%
7%
4%
4%
2%
3%
2%
3%
3%
1%
17%
23%
22%
24%
24%
32%
34%
4%
5%
6%
5%
5%
6%
14%
20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Middle East
South America
Africa
Asi a
Oceani a
North America
Europe
Contribution to the development of cycling by UCI Continental Circuit races - general public
Calendar
Globalisation Consultation results
55
Section Page
Contents 2
Glossary of terms 3
Executive summary 5
Anti-doping 33
Calendar 43
Globalisation 55
Riders 70
Recommendations 82
Appendices 95
56
For both the cycling family and general public surveys, responses were predominantly from
Europe, with a significant minority from North America
3554 (63%)
1365 (24%)
539 (10%)
86 (2%)
42 (1%) 30 (1%) 12 (0%) 10 (0%)
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Europe North
Ameri ca
Oceania Asi a South
America
Africa Middle
East
Other
Respondent location - general public
Globalisation
This section of the report looks are responses to survey questions related to
the globalisation pillar, along with relevant points raised at the globalisation
working group.
Location of survey respondents
The charts opposite show the breakdown of the 5,638 general public
respondents and the 731 cycling family respondents by continent.
For the general public, responses were mainly received from Europe, North
America and, to a lesser extent, Oceania. The survey was generally lacking
in responses fromAsia, South America, Africa and the Middle East.
This is probably not surprising, given the traditional centres of cycling
globally and the fact the survey was in the dual UCI languages of English
and French. However, it means it is not possible to examine in detail the
views of those from outside Europe, North America and Oceania as distinct
sub-sets of the sample, due to the small sample sizes fromAsia et al.
The UCI should therefore consider if it should carry out and/or support
similar, follow-up surveys in the continents where responses have been
lowest. Such research would most probably require close partnership with
cycling federations in those regions. Such tailored research on cyclings
emerging markets could provide useful further insight for the UCI, to build
on the findings fromthis consultation exercise.
As with the general public survey, cycling family survey responses were
mainly received fromEurope and North America, particularly Europe.
For continents other than Europe and North America, it is therefore again not
possible to examine in detail the views of respondents from those continents
as distinct sub-sets of the sample, due to the small sample sizes from
Oceania, Asia et al.
561 (77%)
80 (11%)
39 (5%)
19 (3%) 15 (2%)
9 (1%) 4 (1%)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Europe North
America
Oceania Asia Africa South
America
Middle East
Respondent location - cycling family
Globalisation
57
The views of the cycling family were generally similar to those of the general public, with
concern over the same areas related to the funding of cycling, infrastructure development,
safety and gender balance
31%
26%
36%
29%
28%
23%
17%
6%
13%
8%
5%
5%
19%
10%
12%
19%
12%
15%
6%
2%
3%
4%
1%
1%
20%
21%
24%
24%
25%
26%
41%
45%
42%
39%
50%
53%
6%
9%
8%
9%
10%
11%
13%
23%
29%
35%
27%
30%
60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I feel safe cycling on the roads
Urban development plans include bike parks
Cycling is equally popular with men and women
There is a well-developed bicycle lane infrastructure
Cycling is well supported / funded nationally
Cycling is wel l supported by the government
There is a clear talent development pathway for cycling
Cycling is an environmentally-friendl y and sustai nable sport
Cycling is popular amongst people of all age groups
There are well-establ ished professional cycling events
There are opportuni ties to take part in cycling leisure events
There are opportuni ties to take part in cycling races / events
Statements about cycling where you live - cycling family
Disagree Strongly disagree Agree Strongl y agree
Both the general public and cycling family were asked about cycling where they lived.
Results fromthe cycling family were generally in line with results of the general public.
There were six areas of general agreement, the same six areas as for the general public. Over three quarters of the cycling family sample agreed that there are
opportunities to take part in cycling races / events (83%) and leisure events (77%). There was agreement that there were well-established professional cycling events
(74%) and that cycling is popular across all age groups (71%). There was also agreement that cycling is an environmentally-friendly and sustainable sport (68%) and
that it has a clear talent development pathway (54%).
Six areas had net negative scores (i.e. those disagreeing outnumbered those agreeing); these related to cycling being well supported / funded nationally (40%
disagreement) or well supported by government (38% disagreement), urban plans including bike parks (36% disagreement) and there being a well-developed bicycle
lane infrastructure (48% disagreement), feeling safe on roads (50%disagreement) and cycling being equally popular amongst men and women (48% disagreement).
Globalisation
58
The general public were mostly positive about opportunities for cycling where they lived but
there was negativity around areas related to the funding of cycling, infrastructure development,
safety and gender balance
34%
31%
45%
33%
30%
30%
20%
17%
17%
5%
6%
5%
25%
32%
16%
22%
16%
19%
9%
7%
4%
1%
2%
1%
15%
14%
18%
21%
21%
20%
32%
40%
44%
44%
54%
53%
6%
8%
5%
5%
6%
9%
13%
17%
20%
34%
24%
26%
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Cycling is wel l supported by the government
There is a well-developed bicycle lane infrastructure
Cycling is equally popular with men and women
I feel safe cycling on the roads
Urban development plans include bike parks
Cycling is well supported / funded nationally
There is a clear talent development pathway for cycling
There are well-establ ished professional cycling events
Cycling is popular amongst people of all age groups
Cycling is an environmentally-friendl y and sustai nable sport
There are opportuni ties to take part in cycling races / events
There are opportuni ties to take part in cycling leisure events
Statements about cycling where you live - general public
There were three areas of strong agreement, with over three quarters of the general public sample agreeing that there are opportunities to take part in cycling leisure
events (79%) or cycling races / events (78%) and that cycling is an environmentally-friendly and sustainable sport (78%).
A further three areas showed net positive agreement (i.e. those agreeing outnumbered those disagreeing); these related to cycling being popular across all age groups
(64%agreement), there being well-established professional cycling events (57%) and there being a clear talent development pathway (45%).
As with the cycling family, there were six areas with net negative scores (i.e. those disagreeing outnumbered those agreeing); these related to cycling being well
supported / funded nationally (49% disagreement) or well supported by government (59% disagreement), urban plans including bike parks (46% disagreement) and
there being a well-developed bicycle lane infrastructure (63% disagreement), feeling safe on roads (55% disagreement) and cycling being equally popular amongst
men and women (61%disagreement).
Globalisation
59
Cycling family respondents concur with the general public that the UCI priority should be
investing in grassroots cycling
0.57
0.59
0.79
0.82 0.83
0.90
1.50
Developing competi tive
events for non-
professional riders
Securing new Olympic /
Paralympic events
Developing top l evel
cyclists
Developing cycling
infrastructure
Developing new events
on the UCI calendar
Developing new
formats of professional
racing
Investing in grassroots
cycling
Priorities for the globalisation of cycling - cycling family - mean score
14%
18%
12%
14%
13%
17%
12%
10%
12%
12%
13%
20%
12%
21%
8%
5%
14%
15%
10%
16%
32%
32%
35%
38%
41%
43%
45%
65%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Securing new Olympic / Paralympic events
Developi ng competitive events for non-
professional riders
Developing top level cycli sts
Developi ng new events on the UCI calendar
Developing cycling infrastructure
Developing new formats of professi onal racing
Investing in grassroots cycling
Priorities for the globalisation of cycling - cycling family
Third priority Second priority First priority
Source: Deloitte analysis
Both the general public and cycling family were asked what they thought the priorities for the globalisation of cycling should be (from the list of options, respondents
were able to choose their first, second and third priorities.
Amongst the cycling family, the priorities were not as clear cut as for the general public, although the highest priority was investing in grassroots cycling (65%).
The remaining priorities were fairly evenly spread, possibly reflecting the diverse set of stakeholders who were contacted in the cycling family survey, including a mix
of those involved in elite cycling as well as those involved in the grassroots and recreational aspects of the sport.
Hence, perhaps the most interesting point is that cycling family respondents concur with the general public that the UCI priority should be investment in grassroots
cycling.
Consensus amongst working group members was that the UCIs role in grass roots cycling must be clearly defined. Providing appropriate support to local National
Federations and governments is important.
Globalisation
60
The general public respondents thought the priorities for the globalisation of cycling should
relate to cycling grassroots, infrastructure and non-elite level competitions
0.43
0.49
0.49
0.76 0.80
1.28
1.68
Securing new Olympic /
Paralympic events
Developing new
formats of professional
racing
Developing new events
on the UCI cal endar
Developing top level
cyclists
Developing competi tive
events for non-
professional riders
Developing cycl ing
infrastructure
Investing in grassroots
cycli ng
Priorities for the globalisation of cycling - general public - mean score
11%
11%
12%
14%
23%
14%
14%
7%
9%
8%
10%
16%
21%
28%
6%
7%
7%
14%
8%
24%
32%
24%
27%
27%
38%
47%
59%
75%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Securing new Olympic / Paralympic events
Developi ng new events on the UCI calendar
Developing new formats of professi onal racing
Developing top level cycli sts
Developi ng competitive events for non-
professional riders
Developing cycling infrastructure
Investing in grassroots cycling
Priorities for the globalisation of cycling - general public
Third priority Second priority First priority
Source: Deloitte analysis
For the general public there were some clear priorities which, unsurprisingly, mainly related to grassroots / recreational cycling as opposed to elite cycling. Investing in
grassroots cycling was a top three priority for three quarters (75%) of general public respondents and developing cycling infrastructure was a priority for 59%.
In contrast, far fewer general public respondents saw developing new formats of professional races (27%) as a priority. The same was true for developing new events
on the UCI calendar (27%) and securing new Olympic / Paralympic events (24%).
The results show there is an expectation amongst grassroots cycling fans and participants (who formed the general public sample) that the UCI should prioritise
grassroots cycling, infrastructure and events.
Globalisation
61
The globalisation working group put forward a number of points regarding UCIs role in
developing the grassroots of the sport
Working group comments
The globalisation working group discussed the topic of grassroots cycling
development, notably regarding the UCIs role and influence at the
grassroots level. Key points made included:
The UCI should provide more of an endorsement role in grassroots
events, and not try to regulate too far down the pyramid;
Investment in cycling for all shouldnt need to come from the UCI
directly; this could be pursued through commercial partners and local
affiliations with organisers and local government funding;
Mass participation events (MPEs) were highlighted as a positive way to
encourage participation for all. Scheduling of elite events and MPEs
together would heighten general public interest further, in a similar way to
marathon running events (e.g. Velothon);
The UCI rulebook is geared towards the elite level and could be revised
for amateur events;
Lowering the cost of races and the rule requirements would make it easier
to apply and compete in amateur mass participation races;
The process to set-up big races in cities is long, and the UCI name (or
local cycling federation) is important for government funding approval.
Cooperation between event organisers and the UCI is therefore essential;
The basis for educating young cyclists should originate from the UCI, who
should provide guidance for National Federations and local school
programmes; and
It was agreed that transportation should not be part of the UCIs specific
scope (the UCI had no unique expertise and remit here), but should be
determined by National Federations and local governments, as otherwise
the scope of the globalisation effort is far too wide for the UCI to control.
The UCI should act as a medium to connect experts, National Federations
and governments, etc.
Globalisation
62
The UCI has a strategic challenge to improve access to facilities for cycling disciplines other
than road and off-road, with a notable challenge in respect of track cycling
11%
16%
16%
17%
16%
10%
4%
3%
17%
8%
9%
12%
7%
5%
1%
1%
5%
6%
8%
22%
18%
28%
36%
44%
2%
2%
3%
9%
6%
10%
21%
34%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Indoor cycling
Para-cycling
Trial s
Track cycling
BMX
Cyclo-cross
Off-road cycling
Road cycl ing
Access to locations and facilities - cycling family
Poor Very poor
Good Excellent
2.2
2.5
2.6
3.0
3.0
3.4
3.8
4.1
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Indoor cycling
Para-cycling
Trial s
Track cycling
BMX
Cyclo-cross
Off-road cycling
Road cycl ing
Access to locations and facilities - cycling family - mean score
Access to cycling locations and facilities
Both the general public and cycling family were asked to rate (on a scale
from very poor to excellent) their access to locations and facilities to
participate in various cycling disciplines.
The results exclude respondents who stated dont know / no opinion (which,
as can be seen from the length of bar in the top chart opposite, were very
significant amounts for para-cycling, indoor cycling, trials and BMX for
example). Hence, results and average scores are based only on those who
expressed an opinion.
Cycling family views on access to locations and facilities to participate in
various cycling disciplines mirrored those of the general public very closely.
Access to road cycling and off-road cycling were viewed most positively; 78%
of respondents rated access to road cycling as good or excellent and 57%
for off-road cycling. On balance, access to cyclo-cross facilities were also
generally seen as positive.
For BMX, similar numbers rated access to be positive (24%) as negative
(23%).
One minor exception, where cycling family views diverged slightly from those
of the general public, was track cycling; access to facilities was generally
viewed more positively by the cycling family than by the general public.
The remaining disciplines were rated more negatively than positively (mean
scores below 3). Again, the disciplines with the lowest mean scores, para-
cycling and indoor cycling, had the greatest number of respondents not
expressing an opinion. Hence, the results show that although these
disciplines are niche, there are some issues around their accessibility.
The overall conclusion, from the general public and cycling family results, is
that the UCI has a strategic challenge to improve access to facilities for
cycling disciplines other than road and off-road, with a notable challenge in
respect of track cycling.
Globalisation
63
Access to locations and facilities for road and off-road cycling were viewed positively by the
general public, although there appear to be issues with access to other disciplines, which
tended to be viewed less positively
7%
10%
22%
11%
15%
12%
8%
4%
18%
12%
24%
11%
8%
9%
2%
1%
3%
3%
17%
9%
16%
22%
36%
40%
2%
1%
7%
2%
5%
11%
25%
39%
60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Indoor cycling
Para-cycling
Track cycling
Trial s
BMX
Cyclo-cross
Off-road cycling
Road cycl ing
Access to locations and facilities - general public
Poor Very poor
Good Excellent
Base: 5.638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis.
2.0
2.1
2.6
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.8
4.1
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Indoor cycling
Para-cycling
Track cycling
Trial s
BMX
Cyclo-cross
Off-road cycling
Road cycl ing
Base: 5.638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis.
Access to locations and facilities - general public - mean score
Access to cycling locations and facilities
Overall, access to road cycling and off-road cycling were viewed very
positively; 79% of respondents rated access to road cycling as good or
excellent and 61% for off-road cycling. On balance, access to cyclo-cross
facilities were also generally seen as positive.
For BMX, similar numbers rated access to be positive (21%) as negative
(23%).
The remaining disciplines were rated more negatively than positively (mean
scores below 3), although the disciplines with the lowest mean scores, para-
cycling and indoor cycling, had the greatest number of respondents not
expressing an opinion. Hence, the results show that although these
disciplines are niche, there are some issues around their accessibility.
Of note is track cycling, where the highest absolute percentages of
respondents viewed access negatively (46%). The results therefore suggest
that this is an area of concern.
Globalisation
64
The globalisation working group put forward a number of points regarding UCIs role in
developing the grassroots of the sport
The globalisation working group discussed the topic of developing cycling
disciplines outside of mens road cycling. Key points made included:
At locations or venues where road cycling is not possible (due to structural
or financial limitations), other cycling disciplines need to be encouraged,
particularly in potentially high growth markets;
Cyclings advantage over other sports is the variety of formats available.
This variety also relates to target audiences. For example, alternative
cycling disciplines to mens road cycling are more popular with younger
age groups. For example, for the younger target audience, the X Games
type of competition may be the ultimate target rather than the traditional
Olympic Games;
The UCI could support these separate events by endorsing them as they
currently stand, without necessarily requiring UCI regulation; and
The UCIs role should assist in the promotion of cycling across disciplines,
with exposure and marketing for the World champion in each discipline.
Globalisation
65
On balance, both Africa and South America were viewed as regions with an insufficient
number of UCI WorldTour races at present
1% 1%
20%
33%
13%
32%
1%
2%
24%
31%
11%
31%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Far too many
races
Too many
races
Enough races Not enough Not nearly
enough races
Don't know /
Not sure
Number of races in Africa
general public cycling family
1% 1%
23%
38%
9%
28%
1%
2%
29%
32%
6%
30%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Far too many
races
Too many
races
enough races
Don't know /
Not sure
Number of races in South America
Views on the number of UCI WorldTour races (across regions)
The cycling family and general public were both asked for their opinion on
the number of UCI WorldTour races in the seven different regions. The
results are shown on the following seven charts with summary commentary
and conclusions thereafter.
Africa
The views of the general public and cycling family were similar. Just over
30% of both samples were unsure or did not know about the number of
races in Africa.
Almost half felt that there were insufficient races in Africa (46% general
public and 42% cycling family). A fifth of the general public (20%) and
almost a quarter (24%) of the cycling family felt there were enough races at
present. The numbers who thought there were too many races were very
few indeed.
Hence, the results suggest Africa should be an area with more UCI
WorldTour races.
South America
Opinions on the number of races in South America were broadly similar to
those for Africa.
The majority felt there were insufficient races in South America. Almost half
of the general public sample (47%) and almost two fifths (38%) of the cycling
family thought there were not enough/ not nearly enough races.
Although a significant minority thought there were presently enough races,
the numbers who thought there were too many races were again very few.
As with Africa, the results suggest South America should be an area with
more UCI WorldTour races.
Globalisation
66
Results suggest some expectation for further races in North America whilst the number of
races in Oceania is probably satisfactory at present
1%
2%
33%
37%
11%
16%
1%
2%
36%
34%
7%
21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Far too many
races
Too many
races
enough races
Don't know /
Not sure
Number of races in North America
Oceania
Results for Oceania show a fairly balanced picture, with only a slightly higher
proportion of both the general public and cycling family feeling there are not
enough / not nearly enough races compared with those who feel there are
enough or too many / far too many races.
The most popular answer amongst both samples was that there were
enough races and so the conclusion is that although Oceania is possibly
seen as marginally under-represented in terms of UCI WorldTour races, the
balance is currently tolerable.
1% 1%
34%
29%
9%
26%
2%
2%
31%
29%
9%
27%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Far too many
races
Too many
races
enough races
Don't know /
Not sure
Number of races in Oceania
North America
Compared with Africa and South America, increased numbers of the general
public and cycling family felt there were enough races in North America,
although the largest proportions still felt there were not enough / not nearly
enough (48%of the general public and 41% of the cycling family).
The results suggest some demand for further races in North America.
Globalisation
67
The number of UCI WorldTour races in Asia and the Middle East is probably adequate at
present
3%
8%
33%
26%
6%
25%
2%
7%
34%
28%
4%
25%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Far too many
races
Too many
races
enough races
Don't know /
Not sure
Number of races in Asia
Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cy cling f amily respondents.
Asia
Results for Asia differ somewhat, as the numbers feeling there are enough or
too many / far too many races outweigh those who view there are not enough
/ not nearly enough races.
The results suggest that on balance the number of UCI WorldTour races in
Asia are generally viewed as about right.
4%
12%
42%
15%
4%
24%
1%
5%
33%
25%
6%
29%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Far too many
races
Too many
races
enough races
Don't know /
Not sure
Number of races in the Middle East
Middle East
Results for the Middle East are fairly clear. The numbers feeling there are
enough or too many / far too many races clearly outweigh those who view
there are not enough / not nearly enough races.
The results suggest there is a fairly limited call for an increase in the number
of races in the Middle East.
Globalisation
68
Europe is the region with the lowest requirement for additional races, with the clear majority
of both the general public and cycling family feeling there are sufficient races at present
4%
12%
65%
11%
2%
7%
8%
17%
56%
9%
1%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Far too many
races
Too many
races
enough races
Don't know /
Not sure
Number of races in Europe
The topic of globalisation of the UCI road calendar was discussed at the
working group.
Opinions were that a balance between classic events and new global events
is required, maintaining traditional events in the cycling calendar and also
creating new events in growth markets.
Developing new competitions where there is no base or local support is
challenging. A quality broadcaster and event organiser will aid the delivery
process in such cases.
How an event will look and be broadcast to a global audience should be
carefully considered. Races need to provide the viewer with a narrative that
is easy to follow. Consistent race formats and locations will help the cycling
public understand races.
It was noted that new events should prove themselves to be included on the
UCI WorldTour calendar, by meeting a set of criteria. It might therefore take
a few years for a new event to reach WorldTour status.
A similar approach should be applied to new teams. At present, credibility is
a key issue with regards to the sporting background of teams and how they
achieve UCI WorldTour status.
The working group also discussed the recent proposals for a World Series
Cycling competition format, that include the creation of 10 new four-day
races to take place alongside established races. An opinion held by some
working group members was that such a format would be too restrictive to
reflect the different circumstances in each potential new-race destination,
and that creating 10 entirely new races would risk diluting the quality of
races.
Globalisation
Europe
Results for Europe are clear. The majority of both the general public (65%)
and cycling family (56%) feel there are enough races at present.
There is only a very limited call for an increase in the number of races, and a
slightly higher proportion feel there are too many / far too many races.
The picture for Europe is clearly that there are evidently a sufficient number
of races at the moment.
69
There is broad agreement amongst the general public and cycling family that UCI Continental
Circuit races play a positive role in cycling's development across all regions; albeit significant
numbers did not feel able to express an opinion
10%
6%
8%
7%
6%
7%
4%
4%
2%
3%
2%
3%
3%
1%
17%
23%
22%
24%
24%
32%
34%
4%
5%
6%
5%
5%
6%
14%
20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Middle East
South America
Africa
Asi a
Oceani a
North America
Europe
Contribution to the development of cycling by UCI Continental Circuit
races - general public
9%
5%
6%
7%
4%
6%
5%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
27%
35%
34%
35%
38%
41%
40%
8%
9%
10%
12%
10%
9%
19%
20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Middle East
Oceani a
South America
Africa
Asi a
North America
Europe
Contribution to the development of cycling by UCI Continental Circuit
races - cycling family
The contribution of UCI Continental Circuit races to cyclings development
Finally, in terms of survey questions related to the globalisation pillar, the
general public and cycling family were both asked to what extent they agreed
or disagreed that the UCI Continental Circuit races contribute to the
development of cycling across the seven regions.
The headline is that results show that both the general public and cycling
public view the UCI Continental Circuit races very positively. In all cases, a
significantly higher proportion of respondents agree or strongly agree (that
the races contribute to the development of cycling) compared with those that
disagree or strongly disagree.
The results in the charts opposite exclude respondents who stated dont
know / no opinion. Particularly for the general public, there were significant
numbers of up to 50% of the sample who did not hold an opinion. This
suggests a large section of cycling fans are not really aware of the role and
impact of the UCI Continental Circuit races.
Nevertheless, as stated, for those who did hold an opinion, the consensus
was clearly that the races play a positive role in cycling's development
across all regions, supporting a multi-tier system of professional road races.
Globalisation
Riders Consultation results
70
Section Page
Contents 2
Glossary of terms 3
Executive summary 5
Anti-doping 33
Calendar 43
Globalisation 55
Riders 70
Recommendations 82
Appendices 95
71
The results show a clear desire amongst riders for the UCI to press ahead with initiatives to
improve rider relations, most noticeably by the appointment of a Rider Relations Manager
8%
8%
8%
4%
2%
1%
1%
4%
3%
2%
1%
31%
34%
37%
39%
42%
38%
43%
12%
12%
14%
22%
21%
27%
23%
20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Extension of the rider helpli ne to cover issues other than anti-doping
More use of social media by the UCI to communicate with riders
More regular emai ls from the UCI / more dialogue and communication
Regular forums for riders to engage in meeti ngs / dialogues with the UCI
UCI staff / management present at races on a regul ar basis
Better communi cation via the CPA
Appointment of a former professional to act as a "Rider Relations Manager" to represent riders
Changes to improve a rider's working relationship with the UCI - professional riders
This section of the report focuses on the survey responses of professional riders. Within the sample of 731 cycling family respondents, there were 133 riders - 18%of
the total cycling family sample. These 133 riders comprised 89 UCI WorldTour riders and 44 UCI Professional Continental team riders. This set of 133 riders were
asked a number of specific questions.
Firstly, the riders were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that various options would improve their working relationship with the UCI.
As shown in the chart above, generally riders were positive about all the options put before them. The initiative with the greatest backing from riders was the
appointment of a former professional rider to act as a Rider Relations Manager. This had approval from two thirds of riders (66%) with only 1% disagreeing that this
idea would help rider relations with the UCI (the remainder were neither agree nor disagree).
There was also strong approval for better communication via the CPA (65%), UCI staff / management present at races on a regular basis (63%) and regular forums for
riders to engage with the UCI (61%).
Overall the results show a clear desire amongst riders for the UCI to press ahead with initiatives to improve rider relations, most noticeably by the appointment of a
Rider Relations Manager.
Riders
72
The riders working groups put forward a number of points regarding how to improve relations
and communication between the UCI and riders
The two riders working groups discussed the topic of how to improve UCI /
rider relations. Key points made included:
The importance of riders feeling represented by the UCI within the wider
cycling family. The appointment of a rider relations manager(s) or other
form of representative was seen as a possible way to improve the
connection between the UCI and riders and ensure that the UCI
accurately represents the wider cycling family;
The manner and frequency of communication between the UCI and riders
could be improved. Ideas for changes included more regular forums and
other methods of face-to-face meetings with riders;
Other forms of communication (e.g. emails) to better engage with riders
were considered. It was acknowledged that a one-size fits all approach
may not be the most efficient means of communication;
Important issues should be promptly communicated to riders, and
communication with riders should be undertaken in a clear and concise
manner; and
Dialogue should be established with the CPA and UCI Athletes
Commission to identify the best means for these bodies to support and
represent riders and act as another form of connection between the riders
and the UCI. In the working group discussions there was strong support
for the appointment of a former professional rider as a Rider Relationship
Manager. This was seen by working group members as the preferred
option for improving communications.
Riders
73
Riders felt all of the factors tested in the survey to be of relatively high importance to them.
However, there was more variance in satisfaction ratings and in a number of areas a significant
minority of riders were dissatisfied
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
40%
44%
39%
48%
36%
41%
39%
31%
28%
14%
37%
39%
41%
37%
49%
48%
53%
62%
67%
82%
20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Planning for a career after professi onal cycling
Organisati on of the start and finish of races
Calendar length / structure
Quality of commissaires
Equipment
Course design (length, difficulty, etc.)
Race transfers
Rider i nsurance arrangements
Race accomodation (hotel and food)
Race road safety
Importance of factors - professional riders
Not very important Not at al l important
Qui te important Very important
23%
27%
21%
15%
14%
10%
11%
11%
9%
5%
7%
4%
2%
4%
3%
2%
4%
1%
5%
17%
32%
38%
43%
47%
44%
32%
52%
43%
55%
5%
3%
5%
4%
5%
5%
9%
6%
11%
8%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Planning for a career after professi onal cycling
Race transfers
Race road safety
Rider insurance arrangements
Course design (length, difficulty, etc.)
Equipment
Organisati on of the start and finish of races
Satisfaction with experience - professional riders
Dissatisfied Not at al l satisfied
Quite satisfied Very sati sfied
Rider ratings on importance and satisfaction
Riders were asked to first rate how important (from very important to not at
all important) a number of factors were to them, given their involvement in
professional cycling. They were then asked to rate their satisfaction with the
same factors (from very satisfied to not at all satisfied). Comparing the
importance and satisfaction scores will help identify any delivery gaps.
Importance ratings
Not surprisingly, all the areas mentioned were of importance to the riders.
Most important was race road safety (96%).
Three other areas scored over 90% for importance; race accommodation
(95%); rider insurance arrangements (93%); and race transfers (92%). Of
least importance was planning for a career after cycling, although this still
had an importance score of 77%.
Satisfaction ratings
There was more variance regarding satisfaction ratings.
Whilst riders were still generally positive with their ratings, in a number of
areas a significant minority of riders did express dissatisfaction.
For example, 23% of riders were dissatisfied / not at all satisfied with race
accommodation (hotel and food). There was a 30% dissatisfaction rating
regarding planning for a career after being a professional rider and 31% in
respect of race transfers.
Riders
74
Results show there are some key delivery gaps where satisfaction lags behind importance;
these relate particularly to race transfers, race accommodation and race road safety
Planning for a career after being a
prof essional rider
Organisation of the start and finish of
races
Equipment
Course design (length, dif ficulty, etc.)
Race transfers
Rider insurance arrangements
Race road saf ety
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0
S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
Importance
Factors in professional cycling - importance vs. satisfaction - professional riders
By overlaying performance and importance, potential delivery gaps can be identified. Areas have been ranked on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 means highest
importance / performance and 1 means lowest importance / performance.
The results show that there are some key delivery gaps. Race transfers, race accommodation and race road safety are all above average in terms of importance for
riders but are below average in terms of rider satisfaction.
The results suggest these are the three areas requiring most attention from the UCI. Although planning for a career scores relatively low on satisfaction, it is also lower
in terms of importance for riders and so is not such a concern in terms of a delivery gap.
Riders
75
Amongst riders, satisfaction ratings in relation to team delivery were high, showing that teams
generally seem to be getting the important matters right for their riders
4%
11%
6%
5%
5%
4%
3%
1%
2%
2%
2%
4%
4%
35%
38%
37%
38%
41%
44%
34%
29%
18%
29%
35%
35%
34%
32%
43%
53%
20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Media training
Organising travel to / from races
Designing your racing programme
Group dynamics / leadershi p
Providing you with equipment
Traini ng
Admini stration
Creating a strong anti-doping culture
Satisfaction in relation to team delivery - professional riders
Dissatisfied Not at al l sati sfied Qui te satisfied Very sati sfied
Riders were then asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with their teams delivery in a number of relevant areas.
The overall results are positive, with riders generally satisfied with how their teams are delivering. The most positive score related to creating a strong anti-doping
culture.
Positive results tailed off somewhat for media training although a majority of riders (53%) still were satisfied or very satisfied with this area.
The only area where more than 10%of riders showed dissatisfaction was organising travel to and fromraces.
Riders
76
The riders working groups put forward a number of points regarding the rider ranking / points
system and race rules / regulations
One topic not covered within the survey but which the two riders working
groups discussed, was the rider ranking / points system. Key points made
included:
Transparency of the ranking / points system to both riders and other
cycling stakeholders (e.g. the general public) is important. The system
should be explainable to riders and show a clear connection between a
riders points total and their ability / position;
The allocation of points across races, within races and amongst team
members should be more reflective of a riders achievement and
performance, recognising how different types of riders are valuable to a
team (e.g. the contribution of domestiques);
The ranking / points system should be meaningful to riders, if rider points
are the determining criteria for a riders worth;
The extent to which points attributable to WorldTour and Professional
Continental races are reflective of a races status was discussed, with the
suggestion that this should be structured so as not to encourage riders to
participate in Professional Continental races instead of WorldTour races
simply to gain points;
The regulations for the award of a WorldTour license should be
transparent, including connection to the ranking / points system and
optimum timing of the award of a WorldTour license for the forthcoming
season (i.e. immediately after the end of the prior season); and
The ranking / points system and the award of a WorldTour licence should
promote alignment of individual rider and team goals.
Working group comments race rules / regulations
A further topic, again not covered within the survey but which the two riders
working groups discussed, was race rules / regulations. Key points made
included:
There was agreement that measures should be introduced to make
cycling more exciting and to embrace technological advances, provided
such changes are properly consulted on, with the impact on each
stakeholder group, and any appropriate mitigation methods, given
appropriate consideration;
The importance of changes to rules and regulations being implemented
once they had been fully thought through and following clear
communication to riders and other key stakeholders;
The transparency of the approval process for a race to become
sanctioned by the UCI was discussed, including the importance of riders
input in this process (e.g. through a representative) to consider the race
route / parcours and event related operations (e.g. transfers,
accommodation etc.);
The enforcement of rules and regulations in respect of event organisers
should be done on a timely basis to ensure that any sanctions have a
meaningful impact; and
Where possible and appropriate, the enforcement of rules and regulations
should be equitable to all riders and teams, unaffected by a team or riders
performance in races (e.g. the method of transporting riders from one
stage to another).
Riders
77
The majority of riders were not able to express a clear opinion on the effectiveness of the UCI
Athletes Commission and among those who did have an opinion, there was a split of positive
and negative ratings
11%
12%
31%
20%
4%
23%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Very ineffective Ineffective Neither
effective nor
ineffective
Effecti ve Very effective Don't know /
No opi nion
Effectiveness of the UCI Athletes' Commission - professional riders Effectiveness of the UCI Athletes Commission
A specific question asked riders to rate the effectiveness of the UCI Athletes
Commission.
The key finding is that a majority of riders (54%) did not have a clear opinion
on the matter; 31% rated the Commission as neither effective nor ineffective
and a further 23% chose dont know / no opinion. This suggests that many
riders may be unfamiliar with the Commissions activities, if they are not able
to forman opinion.
Of those who did have an opinion, the results were split. Almost a quarter of
riders (24%) rated the Commission as effective or very effective. However,
23%rated it as ineffective or very ineffective.
The conclusion is that the UCI may need to improve both awareness of the
Commission amongst riders, as well as improving the Commissions
effectiveness.
Riders were provided with the opportunity to state, in their own words, what they found either effective or ineffective. Fairly few riders offered comments. Of those that
did, they mostly related to ineffectiveness.
There were several comments that the relationship between the UCI Athletes Commission and riders was poor, that there is a lack of information and communication
with the Commission. Some riders stated they did not know when the Commission meets, what they discuss, and what results they achieve. There was scepticism
about whether the Commission would deal with and resolve issues raised by riders.
The comments fromriders below highlight the challenge for the UCI to raise the profile of the Commission, and its relevance, to riders.
I don't feel there is anyone on the
commission who I can relate well with
and easily communicate with.
(Rider comment)
I don't know anything about this commission. I don't know who represents me, I
don't know when they meet, I don't know the point of this group, I don't know
how to communicate with them, I don't know how to voice my concerns. I think
as it is now, it is a useless organization. With more interaction with riders, this
could be a huge asset to the sport. Right now, it's useless.
(Rider comment)
Riders
78
Over three quarters of riders are interested in working in cycling after retirement, notably in
elite coaching, as a directeur sportif or in team management
2%
17%
39%
37%
5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Not at all
interested
Not very
interested
Quite interested Very interested Don't know / No
opini on
Interest in working in cycling after retirement - professional riders
21%
22%
23%
27%
33%
36%
48%
49%
51%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Media
Cycling Administration
Race organiser
Grassroots Coach
Equipment design / manufacture
Commercial / Marketi ng
Team Management
Directeur sportif
Elite Coach
Note: Respondents are able to select more than one response, thus percentages add up to more than 100%.
Areas of cycling to work in following retirement from cycling -
professional riders
Interest in working in cycling after retirement
The final questions asked specifically to riders, related to their interest in
working in cycling after retirement.
Over three quarters of riders stated they were either quite interested (39%) or
very interested (37%) in working in cycling after retirement. In contrast,
under one fifth were either not very interested (17%) or not at all interested
(2%).
The 101 riders who expressed an interest in working in cycling after retirement were then asked to choose which areas of cycling they would be interested in working
in.
Three areas were most popular, with roughly half of riders interested in the roles of elite coach (51%), directeur sportif (49%) and teammanagement (48%).
Around a third of riders were interested in a commercial / marketing role, equipment design / manufacture or grassroots coaching.
The less popular career paths related to race organisation, cycling administration and media, although even each of these areas was chosen by at least a fifth of
riders, showing niche demand in these areas as well.
Riders
Verbatim responses Consultation results
79
Section Page
Contents 2
Glossary of terms 3
Executive summary 5
Anti-doping 33
Calendar 43
Globalisation 55
Riders 70
Recommendations 82
Appendices 95
80
The word cloud provides a pictorial snapshot of the most common words and phrases in
comments by cycling family respondents
Verbatim responses
81
The word cloud provides a pictorial snapshot of the most common words and phrases in
comments by general public respondents
Verbatim responses
82
Section Page
Contents 2
Glossary of terms 3
Executive summary 5
Recommendations 82
Critical recommendations 82
High priority recommendations 89
Appendices 95
Critical recommendations
Recommendations
Recommendations
83
Based on the consultation exercise, we have made 11 key recommendations, including six
classified as critically-important, for the UCI to consider and act upon to enable cycling to
achieve a bright future
Recommendation Rationale
1. The UCI must take the steps necessary to restore cyclings and its own
credibility, in particular in relation to the public perception of cyclings
anti-doping measures and current UCI leadership.
A clear, pro-active communciation strategy will be required to do this, which may
encompass aspects such as:
- acknowledging publicly cyclings troubled past and the role that the UCI as an
organisation has played in this;
- developing a framework and policy for managing new doping cases and other
sensitive issues that arise;
- a figurehead for communicating about anti-doping cases that is not the UCI
President; and
- a dedicated media campaign bringing together many stakeholders to help
communicate the anti-doping message.
This consultation exercise should mark the start of a more collaborative approach
with stakeholders, including the media. We recommend the UCI continues to
engage with fans as it is ultimately they who determine how cycling is seen by the
wider world.
The UCI may consider seeking advice from a world-leading marketing company in
order to help devise a communications strategy focussed on restoring cyclings
credibility.
Stakeholders have demonstrated their passion for cycling by responding to the
online survey in large numbers. In addition, consistent feedback from working
groups was that stakeholders within the cycling family were pleased that the UCI
was listening to them.
However, there is also a widespread perception amongst the general public that the
culture of doping within professional cycling has been mis-managed by the UCI for
many years and continues to be mis-managed. It is therefore vital that the UCI
addresses this criticism in order to create trust within the cycling family and restore
the publics faith in cycling.
Cycling fans are one of the most important stakeholders groups as they are
commonly both consumers of the sport (at the roadside or through visual media)
and participants in it at the amateur club and recreational level. It is cycling fans
who drive sponsorship and media values, as well as support the bicycle industry.
It is therefore ultimately in the interests of all stakeholders to build a bright future
for cycling, but currently many important stakeholder groups have a negative and,
in some cases, a very negative attitude towards the UCI and its leadership that
needs to be addressed.
If the UCI does not take steps to restore its image and accordingly public faith in the
sport, there is a risk that sponsors and rights holders will withdraw from the sport,
events and teams will suffer and parents may not promote their children taking up
cycling as a pastime.
Recommendations
84
A quick and clear decision should be made regarding whether an inquiry into historic doping
cases and any related amnesty would be beneficial, and practically and legally possible; but
only after consultation with WADA and USADA
2. A clear decision should be made as soon as possible what the objectives
of an inquiry into historic doping cases and any related amnesty would
be, whether they would be practically and legally possible, and whether
the potential benefits would be worthwhile; any ultimate decision should
be made only after consultation with WADA and USADA.
We recommend that in deciding whether it wishes to create an inquiry into historic
doping cases, the UCI aims to reach agreement with WADA and USADA to ensue
before any decision is publically announced.
Whilst the majority of the general public respondents (74%) were in favour of an
amnesty for riders (to disclose information about doping in cycling in order to help
create a cleaner sport), opinion amongst the cycling family was more divided, with
equally strong views for and against the idea.
There is a clear message from the public that they would like to understand better
the UCIs role in historic doping cases. However, given the recent difficulties in
establishing an Independent Commission, it is evident that all key stakeholders
need to be aligned if an inquiry into historic doping cases is to be successful.
Furthermore, stakeholders have noted various practical and legal restrictions that
may mean an amnesty in relation to historic doping cases would never be
possible.
Recommendations
85
Creating a long term strategy that defines the UCIs role, objectives and priorities will
optimise the development of cycling globally, balancing stakeholders competing needs
3. Develop an overarching long-term strategy to define the UCIs mission,
objectives and priorities, in order to optimise the development of cycling
globally.
The strategy should start with a clear vision for the sport globally, that all
stakeholders, including National Federations, event organisers, teams, riders and
fans, feel a part of.
The strategy which should be reviewed periodically - should address the key
concerns identified in this consultation exercise and prioritise development needs.
A framework of guiding principles will facilitate this, including defining the UCIs role
in a number of areas.
An analysis of the UCIs funds and resources should be performed prior to devising
an implementation plan in order to achieve the vision. Forums and responsibility for
decision making should be confirmed, and responsibility for decision-making agreed
(which may include the creation of an Executive Board).
To ensure the strategy is implemented as planned, KPIs should be identified,
agreed and monitored, to ensure the process is transparent and the UCI is held
accountable to stakeholders.
This stakeholder consultation, by its very nature, has been a wide-ranging exercise
that has encompassed a range of topics within the UCIs remit as an international
governing body.
As identified by stakeholder feedback, there are several areas where changes are
recommended and so it is important that the UCI develops a clear overarching
strategy for the sport, in order to provide clarity on its overall mission, objectives,
priorities, activities and performance.
There is a perception amongst some stakeholders that the UCI commonly reacts to
crises as they emerge, without a clear guiding strategy, and that in some cases it
over-regulates without consultation.
Developing a long-term strategy will therefore provide guidance to the UCI in its
overall governance of cycling.
Strong leadership will be required to execute the strategy.
Recommendations
86
Increasing the extent and consistency of professional teams anti-doping obligations will help
to strengthen the anti-doping culture in top level cycling, as well as make it even harder for
riders to dope
4. The extent and consistency of professional teams anti-doping obligations should be
increased in order to strengthen the anti-doping culture within top level cycling, as
well as make it even harder for riders to dope.
We recommend that the UCI considers implementing some or all of the following suggestions:
Develop a policy of internal controls in respect of anti-doping that all professional teams must
adhere to, demonstrate that they have adhered to, and that can be audited by an
independent body.
Teams adherence to the anti-doping policies should be the first factor considered in
awarding WorldTour team licenses, i.e. before sporting results are considered.
Teams may employ only pre-approved team doctors who should be appropriately certified by
the CADF.
Incorporate rider power output monitoring into the biological passport.
Online publication of all teams / riders results, and clear communication about these to the
media
Apply certain sanctions across teams, for example, including team managers.
Introducing a fit and proper persons test for all existing professional team managers
We recommend the UCI / CADF establishes a working group to explore the practical
implications of each suggestion further, with a view to reporting their findings to the UCI
Management Committee by a suitably agreed date.
Whilst all WorldTour and ProContintental teams are currently required
to demonstrate to the UCI Licensing Commission that they have met the
licensing requirements, there would appear to be a number of areas
where teams internal controls in respect of anti-doping could be
improved.
Throughout the consultation exercise a number of ideas to strengthen
existing anti-doping requirements were proposed.
Recommendations
87
We recommend the UCI increases and steps-up its actions to improve its relationship with
WADA at a political level so that it can work, in unison with WADA, towards developing
anti-doping practices that are the leading benchmark for other sports
5. The UCI should increase and step-up its actions to improve its
relationship with WADA at a political level so that it can work, in unison
with WADA, towards developing anti-doping practices that are the leading
benchmark for other sports.
We acknowledge that in setting anti-doping policies, the UCI must abide by the
WADA Code. The UCI must do everything within its power to work effectively with
WADA to develop a new Code that is appropriate for cycling and in accordance with
WADAs broader responsiblities and objectives.
Doping has been the dominant issue in professional road cycling since the Festina
scandal in 1998.
Cyclings stakeholders have demonstrated how important fighting against doping is
to them, with over 80% of both general public and cycling family respondents
desribing it as very important, and a further 12% as important.
Whilst 71% of general public respondents and 78% of cycling family stakeholders
thought that cycling anti-doping methods had improved in the last five years, the
survey evidence also supported stricter sanctions for doping offences.
In order for cycling to restore its credibility, the UCI should work closely with WADA,
as partners, not rivals, to develop the new WADA Code. Our understanding is that
at an operational level the UCIs relationship with WADA is very good, but at a
leadership level it is not. This should have significant benefits both from a
practical perspective and in terms of public perception of the UCI.
Recommendations
88
The existing WorldTour calendar should be restructured, with a view to creating a simpler,
multi-tiered structure that promotes the ideal of the best riders in the best races
6. The UCI should work with key stakeholders to restructure the
existing calendar to create a simpler multi-tiered competition
structure that promotes the ideal of the best riders in the best
races, and includes a set of criteria against which aspiring
WorldTour races, particularly in underrepresented parts of the
world, can be assessed.
The new calendar should address the key criticisms of the existing
calendar, namely, that:
- existing WorldTour events are not all the best races with the best
riders;
- races overlap;
- the calendar is not understandable;
- the process for granting WorldTour status to races is not transparent or
consistent; and
- the calendar is too long, with too many races.
If / when changes are agreed, there needs to be a clear, consistent
communication about the new calendar format that all key stakeholders are
in agreement with.
The working group should be set a timeframe for reporting its findings to
the UCI Management Committee.
Since the UCI WorldTour replaced the UCI ProTour in 2009, the current top tier of
professional cycling competition contains a variety of types of races, spread over the period
from January to October. The current calendar includes not only the three Grand Tours and
the five Monuments, but also several lesser stage race, which in cases overlap. For
example Paris-Nice and Tirreno-Adriatico both take place in the same week of March and, in
reality, are preparation races for the years first big classic race, Milan-San Remo.
Arguably therefore the existing WorldTour format does not promote the ideal of the best
riders in the best races by giving WorldTour teams both the right and obligation to
participate in WorldTour events as the calendar is not only too long, but also complicated.
There is a commonly held view amongst stakeholders that changes are required in order to
create a simpler elite level calendar that is easier to understand.
Acknowledging that WorldTour races and teams are currently bound by multi-year
commercial contracts, changes will take time to effect. Establishing a working group of
cyclings most influential stakeholders, namely ASO, RCS and the UCI, tasked with
determining how a new calendar would look, including the possibility of events moving
between tiers.
A feature of a multi-tier global calendar for top level professional road cycling is that the
calendar below the top tier would include preparation races, which are also necessary for
the development of younger riders. A second tier could also be used to develop new races
on the global calendar aspiring to reach WorldTour standard.
Whilst any future rights sharing between organisers and teams would be dependent on the
outcome of future discussions, the restructuring of the WorldTour as recommended, and will
create a basis to promote this.
High priority recommendations Recommendations
89
Section Page
Contents 2
Glossary of terms 3
Executive summary 5
Recommendations 82
Critical recommendations 82
High priority recommendations 89
Appendices 95
Recommendations
90
Changes should be made to increase the independence, and communications enhanced to
improve the perceived independence, of the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (CADF)
7. Changes should be made to increase the independence and
communications enhanced to improve the perceived independence - of
the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (the foundation delegated
responsibility for managing the operation of the UCIs anti-doping
programme), including ensuring its controlling board members are
external from the UCI
We recommend that the UCI implements the following steps to increase the
independence, and perceived independence, of CADF.
The UCI President should not be a member of the CADF Foundation Board
responsible for the strategy and control of CADF;
Other members of senior UCI management should not be on the Foundation
Board of CADF;
Communication about high profile doping cases should be delegated to a person
other than the UCI President; and
CADF should use a different email address from UCI employees,
As the International Federation for cycling, it is the UCIs responsibillity and
obligation to ensure that the WADA Code is implemented across all forms of
cycling, including in- and out-of-competition testing, providing education
programmes; and sanctioning those who commit anti-doping rule violations.
There is very strong view from general public stakeholders that they think that anti-
doping activities should be managed and sanctioned by a body that is independent
from the UCI. Legally this would not be possible, however a number of steps have
been identified to increase the actual and perceived independence of CADF from
the UCI.
Evidence from the survey supports this conclusion:
82% of cycling family stakeholders agree or strongly agree that the CADF should
be autonomous of the UCI; and
a large number of verbatim comments support these quantitative results.
We understand that whilst CADF is already in some respects independent from the
UCI there are also a number of areas in which the autonomy and perception of
autonomy could be increased. Notably, the UCI President is currently President
of the Foundation Board responsible for the strategy and control of CADF. Other
members of UCI senior management are also on the Foundation Board. We
understand that a proposal has been approved for the Foundation Board to be
composed entirely of external members from the UCI, and we support this proposal.
Recommendations
91
National organisations should not be responsible for sanctioning their own riders found guilty
of doping offenses as this represents a conflict of interest and an inconsistent approach
8. An independent anti-doping body should be responsible for sanctioning
all professional riders found guilty of doping offenses, regardless of their
nationality
The UCI should establish a uniform and fair system for sanctioning riders, whereby
riders of all nationalities are treated equally, and where national organisations are
not responsible for sanctioning their own riders.
The UCI currently has delegated responsibility for adjudicating on anti-doping
violation rules, in the first instance, to the National Federations.
The survey results and working group discussions were very clear in this area:
Over half of cycling family stakeholders responded that the current process in
relation to doping sanctions were unsatisfactory
Only 4% of the general public and 5% of cycling family stakeholders answered
that the riders National Federation should be responsible for deciding doping
sanctions.
Over 40% of both the general public and cycling family stakeholders stated that
riders sanctions in the first instance should be decided by an independent anti-
doping tribunal.
It was evident from consultations that the current system was seen as presenting a
conflict of interest, as national organisations could have an incentive to protect
riders of their own nationality.
Additionally, consultees were concerned with the inconsistency in the process for
sanctioning riders, and that there remained a possiblity for riders under suspision to
continue riding. It was noted that this can generate negative publicity for the sport.
Recommendations
92
The existing points systems for teams and riders should be reviewed alongside the mens road
calendar, to support the proposed changes, as well make the points system fairer for riders
9. The existing points system for professional teams and riders alongside
the mens road cycling calendar, to support the proposed changes, as
well as make the points system be considered fairer for riders.
We recommend that the calendar working group is also tasked with reviewing the
existing points systems for teams and riders.
Individual and team rankings are important to both the public and event organisers,
as both want to see the best riders particpate in the best races.
However, over 40% of general public respondents stated that they did not
understand the existing point system for riders and teams. A simpler points system
that is more obviously linked to teams performance will help the public to better
understand how teams status in the WorldTour is determined.
Furthermore, as set out on page 76, a strong and commonly held opinion amongst
riders is that the existing rider points system was not fair, as riders employed by
teams as domestiques (who would not by the nature of this role accrue as many
point as their team leaders), were less valuable to teams and therefore
disadvantaged when trying to negotiate team contracts.
Recommendations
93
Womens cycling should be promoted by the UCI through the development of the
international calendar at an elite level and by working with National Federations to increase
mass participation by women
10. Develop women cycling by focussing on the professional calendar in
order to promote the sport at an elite level by working with organisers,
teams and broadcasters. National Federations should be encouraged to
take responsiblity for developing womens cycling at a grass roots level.
Considering that c.90% of respondents were male, the general public survey results
show a very strong overall level of support for measures to develop womens
cycling.
In terms of the womens elite calendar, one of the current weaknesses noted is that
it is not understandable by the general public and lacks a clear narrative.
That said, stakeholders noted that from a logistical and financial perspective there
are obvious advantages in connecting womens races to mens. Whilst the
development of the calendar is on-going, in seeking to develop the womens cycling
calendar, it need not wait for cycling to address the weaknesses noted in the mens
calendar.
Our opinion is that increasing the mass participation in cycling globally is too large
a task for the UCI to achieve on its own. It should therefore work assist National
Federations to promote and develop grass roots cycling for women in their
federation.
The overall aim should thus be to create a virtuous circle between the
development of womens cycling at the elite and grassroots levels.
Recommendations
94
The UCI should improve communications with professional road riders by creating a culture
of regular open dialogue, assisted by the appointment of a Rider Relationship Manager
11. Improve communication with professional road riders, including
appointing a former rider as a Rider Relationship Manager
We recommend the UCI appoints one or more recently retired, trusted, riders as
Rider Relationship Managers to improve communications between the UCI and
riders. The Rider Relationship Manager should report directly to UCI senior
management.
There should be regular opportunities for riders to meet with and contact the Rider
Relationship Manager, for example at off-season training camps, meetings at races,
etc.
Whilst 41% of riders felt they had a good or very good relationship with the UCI,
20% felt that their relationship was poor or very poor.
Evidence from the rider working groups was that many riders did not feel that their
views were adequately represented and that increasingly they were treated as the
animals in the circus.
However, riders congratulated the UCI on their decision to hold a consultation
exercise and for the opportunity for riders views to be heard.
As highlighted in the survey results on page 71, there was a common view amongst
riders that the appointment of trusted former riders who would act as the primary
point go contact
95
Annex No.
Demographics 1
Limitations 2
Demographics
Appendices
Appendices
96
Demographics
The majority of respondents from the general public were located in urban areas, whereas the
location of cycling family respondents was spread more evenly across urban and rural areas
Respondent location description of area
Over half of general public respondents live in a city, capital city or major
conurbation, with a further 34% living in a large or small town.
Only 14% of respondents to the general public survey live in a rural area (i.e.
a village or isolated area). This may, in part, be a result of hosting an online
survey, with access to the internet typically more prevalent in urban areas.
In contrast, the profile of respondent location from the cycling family shows
that 28% of respondents live in a small town, and a further 15% in a large
town.
Just under one fifth of cycling family respondents were located in a village or
isolated area, with a similar proportion living in a city and in a capital city or
major conurbation. This suggested a more even spread between location
types for cycling family respondents.
The location of a respondent will impact their access to facilities for the
various cycling disciplines. Indeed, whilst access to road cycling was rated
similarly between respondents from different locations, access to more rural
forms of cycling (e.g. off-road cycling, cyclo-cross and trials) unsurprisingly
tended to receive a higher rating amongst respondents from more rural
locations.
3%
16%
28%
15%
19%
20%
2%
12%
18%
16%
26%
27%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Farm / Isolated dwelli ng / Isolated place
Village
Small town
Large town
City
Capital city or major conurbation
Description of respondent location
Appendices
97
Demographics
The median age for general public respondents fell in the 35 44 group, whilst the median age
category for respondents from the cycling family was between 45 and 54
Age profile
Almost three quarters of the general public respondents were aged between
25 and 54, with 31% falling into the 35-44 age category.
The most common age categories for respondents from the cycling family
were the 35-44 and 45-54 groups, with 85% of respondents between 25 and
64.
Excluding the two extreme age categories, and those that chose not to
provide their age, the average age for general public respondents was 39
years, compared with a slightly higher average of 44 for respondents from
the cycling family.
The slightly older age profile of cycling family respondents will in part be
attributable to the UCIs database of cycling stakeholders that were invited to
complete the cycling family survey.
The age ranges exhibited amongst respondents to both the general public
and cycling family surveys would suggest that cycling fans and stakeholders
are generally middle-aged, with less than one quarter of total respondents
under the age of 25.
2%
0%
7%
19%
22%
27%
17%
6%
1%
1%
3%
12%
25%
31%
18%
8%
3%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Rather not say
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75 or over
Age profile of respondents
Appendices
98
Demographics
c.90% of respondents to both the general public and cycling family surveys were male, a
similar demographic seen for other sports organisations
88%
89%
10%
8%
2%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
general publ ic
cycling fami ly
Respondent demographics - Gender
Male Female Rather not say
95%
93%
3%
2%
2%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
general publ ic
cycling fami ly
Respondent demographics - Disability
No Yes Rather not say
Gender profile
Males represented 88% of general public respondents and 89% of cycling
family respondents.
The gender ratios here are very similar to the demographics seen in projects
for other sports organisations.
Females represented 10% of the general public respondents and 8% of the
cycling family respondents.
Of these females, 5% of the general public respondents thought that the UCI
did an excellent or good job in encouraging more women to participate in
cycling, compared to 26% of cycling family respondents. Two thirds (66%) of
general public respondents and over one third (35%) of cycling family
respondents feel that the UCI is performing poorly in this respect.
90% of female general public and 81% of the female cycling family
respondents indicated that this was either very important or important for
the UCI.
Disability profile
95% of general public respondents and 93% of cycling family respondents
indicated that they did not have a disability, with those stating that they do
have a disability representing 3% and 2% of respondents respectively.
Focussing on respondents with a disability, developing opportunities for
disabled people is either very important or important for 78% of the general
public respondents and 88% of the cycling family respondents.
28% of cycling family respondents with a disability indicated that the UCI is
good at developing opportunities for disabled people, whilst 15% of general
public respondents with a disability thought the UCI was either excellent or
good in this respect.
Appendices
Participation in cycling general public
Respondents were asked to indicate their participation in a range of cycling
disciplines, with the results for the general public shown opposite.
78% of the 5,638 general public respondents participated in road cycling
either very often or often, with a further 16% partaking in this discipline less
frequently. Only 7% of general public respondents indicated that they never
participate in road cycling.
Almost three quarters of respondents from the general public survey use a
method of cycling to commute to their place of work, with 43% doing so either
very often or often. Whilst commuting is not a discipline of cycling, it ranked
second amongst the results on a positive response basis.
69% of respondents indicated that they participate in mountain biking at least
occasionally, with 26% doing so frequently.
General public respondents participation in cyclo-cross and track cycling
was broadly similar, with around one-third of respondents participating in
these disciplines.
Participation rates for the four remaining disciplines BMX, trials, indoor
cycling (e.g. artistic cycling, cycle ball) and para-cycling were significantly
lower, with around 10% of respondents indicating that they undertook these
forms of cycling at least occasionally, with frequent participation at no more
than 3%.
Responses to this survey question would suggest a bias amongst general
public respondents towards an interest in road cycling.
99
78% of general public respondents indicated that they participate in road cycling either very
often or often, suggesting a high level of interest from respondents towards this cycling
discipline
4%
13%
28%
57%
4%
6%
13%
15%
21%
4%
9%
11%
23%
21%
11%
7%
3%
5%
14%
12%
20%
10%
5%
97%
90%
92%
88%
69%
67%
30%
27%
7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Para-cycling
BMX
Indoor cycling
Trial s
Track
Cyclo-cross
Mountain biki ng
Commuting
Road
Participation in cycling disciplines - general public
Very often Quite often Occasional ly
Not very often Never
Demographics
Appendices
Participation in cycling cycling family
Respondents were asked to indicate their participation in a range of cycling
disciplines, with the results for the cycling family shown opposite.
Of the 731 cycling family respondents, 544 (74%) participated in road cycling
either very often or quite often. In comparison to other disciplines of cycling,
this suggests a majority of respondents had an emphasis upon participating
in road cycling as a pastime.
Whilst not a discipline per se, 49% of cycling family respondents indicated
that they used some formof cycling to commute to their place of work.
Mountain biking was the second most popular discipline amongst the cycling
family, with 21% of respondents participating very often or often, and a
further 37% having participated in mountain biking at some point.
Participation in cyclo-cross and track cycling was broadly similar, with 50%of
respondents partaking in these sports, with participation occurring very often
or often for 15% and 14%of respondents respectively.
The four remaining disciplines BMX, trials, indoor cycling (e.g. artistic
cycling, cycle ball) and para-cycling had participation rates below 20%, with
less than 5% of respondents indicating that they participated frequently in
these forms of cycling (i.e. very often or often).
A clear bias towards participation in road cycling by cycling family
respondents may be influenced by the demographics of the UCIs database
invited to complete this survey. Notwithstanding this, it is evident that the
most common pastime for the vast majority of cycling family respondents (as
for the general public) is road cycling, which suggests a bias in interest
towards this discipline.
100
74% of cycling family respondents indicated that they participate in road cycling either very
often or often, suggesting a high level of interest from respondents towards this cycling
discipline
5%
6%
13%
11%
56%
9%
9%
8%
11%
18%
3%
5%
15%
17%
18%
15%
10%
6%
3%
7%
10%
21%
18%
19%
12%
5%
88%
92%
87%
81%
50%
50%
42%
52%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Para-cycling
Indoor cycl ing
Trials
BMX
Track
Cyclo-cross
Mountain biking
Commuti ng
Road
Participation in cycling disciplines - cycling family
Very often Quite often Occasionally
Not very often Never
Source: Deloitte analy sis.
Demographics
Limitations Appendices
101
Annex No.
Demographics 1
Limitations 2
Appendices
We refer you to the engagement letter dated 25 January 2013 for details of the scope and limitations of our work and other important terms of business agreed between
us. Our work, which is summarised in this report, has been limited to matters which we have identified that would appear to us to be of significance within the context of
our scope.
This report is confidential to the UCI and prepared solely for the purpose set out in our engagement letter, to summarise the stakeholder consultation results and the
consequent recommendations for UCI. We understand and agree that you may use the factual results of the online consultation responses in connection with any
working groups you establish within the cycling family. Aside from this you should not refer to or use our name or the report for any other purpose, disclose them or refer
to them in any other document, or make them available or communicate them to any other party without our prior agreement. In any event, no party other than UCI is
entitled to rely on our report for any purpose whatsoever and we accept no duty of care or liability to any third party who is shown or gains access to this report.
The report has been prepared principally from the information from the stakeholder consultation exercise, including the responses from the general public online survey
and the cycling family online survey, other stakeholder correspondence submitted directly to UCI, and the stakeholder opinions expressed in the working group meeting
discussions.
As agreed with you in our engagement letter, unless otherwise stated in our report, we have not sought to verify the information contained herein nor to perform the
procedures necessary to enable us to express an audit opinion on any of the financial or non-financial information contained in this report. Indeed, as you will appreciate,
the non- financial information contained in this report cannot be subjected to audit or otherwise independently verified.
We have assumed that UCI has drawn to our attention all matters of which you are aware concerning the project and which may have an impact on our work and the
report. Accordingly, we accept no liability howsoever arising, directly or indirectly, from any error or incompleteness of fact or opinion in this report to the extent caused
by inaccuracies or incompleteness in the information on which we have relied.
We have not had access to the separate work undertaken by KPMG for UCI in respect of governance matters.
Insofar as this document contains conclusions and opinions, these are statements of opinion and should not be treated as statements of fact. These opinions and
conclusions are derived from the work we have undertaken, as described herein, and are held at the date hereof but may not be applicable thereafter. We give no
undertaking to update or correct any conclusion, opinion or fact in the light of circumstances arising or information becoming known after the date hereof.
We understand that the UCI may wish to undertake at its own expense a translation of this report, or elements of it, into French, and potentially other languages. In the
event that it does so the English version of this report remains the only definitive version. We will not accept any duty of care or liability to the UCI or any other party in
respect of any other version of this report.
Addendum dated 2 July 2013
The UCI has asked for our consent to make publicly available the full report dated 22 May 2013. We have agreed to provide such consent on the following conditions. (i)
This document may not be suitable for the use of any person other than the UCI. Accordingly, publication of this document to persons other than the UCI is for
information purposes only and no person should place any reliance on this document; and (ii) We do not assume or accept or owe any responsibility or duty of care to any
person. Accordingly, any person who, contrary to the above, chooses to rely on this document does so at their own risk and we will not be responsible for any loss
occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this document.
Some of the matters covered in this document are by their nature technical. The intended recipient of the full report, the UCI management committee, is familiar with the
issues, facts and other matters addressed and the document was written with that in mind.
The English version of this report remains the only definitive version. We will not accept any duty of care or liability to the UCI or any other party in respect of any other
version of this document.
For any queries arising in respect of this document, please contact the UCI (ucimedia@uci.ch).
102
Limitations
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL), a UK private company limited
by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity.
Please see www.deloitte.co.uk/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of DTTL and its member
firms.
Deloitte LLP is the United Kingdom member firm of DTTL. Deloitte LLP is a limited liability partnership
registered in England and Wales with registered number OC303675 and its registered office at 2 New Street
Square, London EC4A 3BZ, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 (0) 20 7936 3000 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7583 1198.
2013 Deloitte LLP. All rights reserved.
Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

UCI Stakeholder Consultation by Deloitte

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

UCI Stakeholder Consultation by Deloitte

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

UCI Stakeholder Consultation:

A Bright Future for Cycling

S-ar putea să vă placă și