Help make a change for the best in DH!

 Sorry? I created the Facebook group on Monday after seeing Si's thread on SDH...

 EDIT: Just looked, the facebook group was created last Friday. That's 1 week ago.

 chill out guys, this stuff needs to be said. doesn't really matter who said it first.

 Yeah

 facebook is g*y.

 ya for sure, people base ther whole life on them these days lol

 Julien Camellini has signed it as well now. good effort on supporting this so much. i agree it is a terrible terrible move by the UCI

 Are you mad? How is that a good thing? The National Champs is meant to decide the best rider in the UK. How is that going to happen if the top ones aren't there.

 Sure as hell gives us a better chance

Naw you have a point, they bring sponsors, scouts and money to national races, aswell as top class entertainment of course.

 didnt think of that tbh, was just trying to see some logic in it
maybe they feel the importance of nationals has gone down so want to boost its rep or something

 So what are you saying? The sport of DH needs less money? Get real. People need money to live and making the National champion lose sponsors is absurd.

 i agree wiht timlake, its their job and they need ot make a decent living like everyone, so if they dont get paid to do it how are they going to make a living and race away all the time ?

 You can't live off riding because "you love to do it". It is definitely a job for these pros, and they should be compensated as such, any way they can. It's not like they're NBA/NFL players where they might be able to sacrifice some sponsorship dollars; they work their asses off for peanuts practically. They endure through seasons of hardship through traveling, injury, being away from family.

 Many athletes compete in many world cup circuits and other events, take downhill skiing and boarder cross for example, and run off similar sponsorships. When it becomes time to compete for their country, the Olympic jersey is worn, and they are sponsored by the country, showing the respects to their home country that got them to where they are. Until the sport becomes more known and draws publicly country's won't be sponsoring these athletes, but its only a matter of time before the sport explodes with live feeds available now..
Till that time, flying across the world costs money, and someone has to pay it.

 yhea , it's very hard for me not to agree 100% whit Peaty on this one , god only knows how much i respect and love the man , but i have to go whit freeride05.
i think riders should give their best that's all. Sponsors are making this sport , no argue there , but they should not own it.
i understand Peaty's view , but what about not being world champ because those rainbow stripes are interfeering whit the Santa Cruz logo ?....hard to choose hey ? , the big sponsor or the ultimate podium position ?

sponsore have to be educated , they have to be part of the sport , not make it what they want , that goes for flying your country's color or wanting to wear skin suits.

may i add

 I am with freeride05 and wickrider
Steve Peat is a legend in the sport, but rules are rules, throwing teddy etc. to get rules changed is not the way to do things. Neither Steve Peat or his Sponsors are bigger than the sport.
Suggesting Sam Hill threw a race because he did not want to wear a jersey, now I think you have gone a little OTT with that one.
Must suck to be fast enough to be the champ? How many people on the list will be effected by this rule and not get to wear their sponsors jersey?

 I am pretty sure they will. If Steve Peat goes to his sponsors and says "I want your sponsorship for another season, but your logo wont be displayed on the podium or on my timed runs" they aren't going to give him money are they...

 As i said in my signature, Its the riders that deserve the money and publicity, not the events. What would an event be without Riders...

 There is no reason. They haven't released a reason why they changed it. And according to Jared Graves, there is no reason.

 just fancied a change ? there must be more to it than that but if not what are they thinking lol

 Can you contact UCI and get a statement? Let's not just run on hearsay. I mean granted the rule change is being handed down- find out who changed it and why for us?

 Fail, too much time on their hands is hardly an excuse. Tim. Something as important as UCI rule changes should include all the facts. I'm reading your post that was hastily thrown together........I dig your voice but your leaving racer's in the know hanging. UCI must have a reason and I'd like to hear it before I sign your petition. Should I just email Kathy Sessler to get the justs of the change? It seems she would know allot more.........

 Or why don't you contact the UCI yourself?
Update us with full facts and figures and let us know what kathy said too. see if she knows.
If you don't then you fail too.
xxx

 You can learn a lot more by clicking the link to Si Paton's blog at the bottom of this blog.

 As dirtbiker100 said. If you were so worried you could have done it yourself.

To save you the time. I have emailed them. Don't expect a reply too quickly though.

 I see I'm talking to a 'gang mentality' here- OK one DB100, I didn't ask readers to sign a petition. I don't sign just anything put infront of me, I like to know all the facts involved- Since Tim was the 'whistle-blower' I figured he would take the challenge on and keep us all updated. But apprently I'm in the wrong for asking a legit question. Biscuits anyone? Tea?

 Wow, resulting to insults about the British culture? That's really mature of you? How old are you? I thought you would know better. Burgers anyone?

 That is what you assumed, farthest from the truth. I was making light of this subject. If your butt-hurt over my comments then your a sensitive one. I see your petition and efforts losing scope. I for one am not impressed at your responses. So I will leave this topic alone going forward. Your taking this personal and I feel sorry for you. It was a legit question.

 it's like the skinsuits and tight clothes banning all over again...

 I would also like you to present us with all the facts from the UCI, I would also not sign anything without the facts.

As you have written and had posted an article to the public, you have a duty to complete the article and present the public you have addressed with the facts.

 I know this is a long time after the publication of the article. But I'd just like to let you know that I sent them an email on the 16th Feb, asking why they changed the rule.

I have still had no email back. But hey ho. They've changed the rules so there can't have been a good enough reason!

 It's not my first one! Hahaha.

 No... Plus, sponsors don't care about grassroots riders. For this sport to grown and survive we need money, not grassroots riders.

 Their view is biased? Well course it is, they are trying to save their sport and their national champs. To be honest, this rule doesn't affect 'part time amateur racers' at all except from the fact they won't see their top riders competing at the National champs.

 They kinda have to be paid to be billboards. It's not like basketball or hockey. When you have individual sports like this sponsors are a big part of the cash flow and are a big necessity in order for the athletes to make a living. (please note before anyone jumps down my throat I'm not stating any opinion about this UCI ruling and just discussing a different matter.)

That said, I think a basic national jersey with the ability to add their sponsors logo in a more noticeable fashion would be a good middle ground for both groups to meet on. I think both sides of this issue are being pretty damn stubborn to be honest.

 We don't need grassroots riders competing in the National Champs. The Regional Series' etc re for Grassroots riders, not the National Championships. If we lose Peaty at the National champs, say another younger rider gets to race. That isn't going to make any difference what-so-ever to the amount of money the event gets from sponsors is it...

 I agree, they already have the Yellow Plates in the WC for the leaders of the Team Championship, they should have different coloured ones for the winners of the Nat Champs.

 Yes, that would be okay too. But the point is, people wouldn't want to buy a National Champs jersey even if it was sold for reproduction. The majority of pros run a Stock jersey made by whoever their kit sponsor is, they then put their own sponsors on it and Royal/TLD/Alpinestars sell loads of kit. If they were constantly wearing a National Champs jersey no-one would buy the kit. This rule is basically taking money away from the sport.

 I buy my riding clothes because I like the way it looks on me...not because sam hill wears it

 You evidently don't represent the majority of people then. If Greg Minnaar didn't wear Alpinestars reckon you'd get many people buy Astars stuff? No.

 Tim, when someone gives you an example of an exception to a generalisation you make, you can't really tell them theyre wrong. I know lots of people who buy things to be different, not to copy a pro. Also, personally I dont know anyone who wears astars, mostly tld etc, though obviously lots of people do.

 I didn't tell him he's wrong. I told him he didn't represent the majority. The majority of people buy things because a pro uses it. Even you said it in your last comment. Why do you think people sponsor pro's?

 I meant products rather than branding, but again fair point. But then again, the kit (i.e. the product) thats being used is the brand that it says on the kit. Whereas a sponsor is not the object that its printed on, if you see what I mean, so again it goes back to race winning product, rather than brand placement.

 Really? A complete insult? We already know Sam hates wearing anything but his own jersey...

No they don't. Sponsors pay to get the name out about their brand. Anything they tell you otherwise is bullshit. They're in it for the money and that's all. They couldn't give a shit if a rider isn't pushing it or not, all they care about is if their brand is getting exposure.

 Yes, a complete insult. At least I would be insulted if I was accused of diving. And how do you think they make the money? By selling the stuff that the cool guys ride. I don't buy stuff because I see a brand on a shirt, I buy it because I see a guy winning a race using it.
Using sam as and example, I don't buy monster, I know for a fact it doesnt help him win races, but I do own two sets of 5050s.

 This isn't about biking related sponsors. Those get exposure anyway. This is about non-biking companies that sponsor riders by putting a logo on their jersey. They won't be getting the exposure they're paying for on a Nat Champs jersey.

 I see your point, but I dont think it will make too much difference. I wouldn't worry, marketing teams will always find a way to let you know about things to buy.

 I agree with redrook, i think the view that sponsors are only in the sport for money is pretty pessimistic, look at what redbull have done with the rampage, you can’t say that hasn’t pushed riders and our sport to new limits? I think you would be surprised how much companies do care about the sport progressing and while making money is their main focus they still care about their sponsored rider(s)pushing the sport forward, apart from anything it does mean more exposure. Also suggesting that Sam crashed on purpose is ridiculous, while im not the guys biggest fan he wouldn't crash so that he didnt have to wear a jersey that isn't his own, i dont think he and other mountain bikers are that shallow?

 Well even finacially, pushing the sport does benefit companies beacuse it creates more exposure for the brand, and creates brand association which will in turn give them a demographic. e.g. red bulls association with extreme sports will make the fans and participants of that sport more likely to choose red bull over its competitors.

By-the-by how many non-biking sponsors are on peatys jersey? I cant really read whats on it anyway other than royal and santacruz, which are both products he is using at the time.

 I'm not suggesting he did. It has been suggested on other forums and I purely asked the question that he may have. I agree Red Bull have done a lot, but still they are in it for the money.

 ok man sorry, didnt realise you were just saying what you heard. As for redbull would they put so much money into the sport if they didn't care about it progressing?

 Exactly what i was trying to say man, well done. As for the jerseys and national champs wearing one with out a sponsor on it i dont think the sponsers will drop riders or put less money in for the sake of 5-6 mins max less advertising time each day, espessially, as its already been pointed out this is only for the nationals and not the world champs or world cup rounds which are far bigger, and can generate sponsors much more money and exposure

 I thought that was what all the fuss was about? I thought they would have to wear the Nat Champ jersey during wc rounds? If its just for the Nat Champ race its no big deal at all!

 Nope, the rule change requires them to wear the National Champs jersey in ALL Timed runs. This is Timed practice, qualifying, race runs, AND on the podium. The reason why it has angered so many people (and pro's) is that they had armbands last year that worked fine. They haven't given a reason as to why they changed it.

 So its at Nat Champs and World Cups? or just Nationals?

 Yeah I thought so. Didn't think anyone would care if it was just the Nat Champs races.

 Ben: it requires them to wear it in ALL timed runs, no matter what event, as long as it's a BC/UCI affiliated event they must wear it.

 cool man, cheers, wasnt clear before

 Okay, a few points.

Road racing: Comparing DH to Road racing is plain stupid. One logo on a Road jersey probably equates to twice as much money as all of the logos on a DH jersey.

This isn't about greed. It's not so much the top riders but the ones that don't have a big company backing them. Suppose a not so well known rider wins then they can't afford to race the World Cups?

Also, many riders are now contemplating having their own series outside of the UCI. How many rounds are there this year? 6 as opposed to last years 8. What is the leading sponsor of the WC's this year? It sure as hell isn't Nissan. I think the answer you're looking for is 'There isn't a leading sponsor this year'.

The UCI pretty much doesn't care much about DH these days.

I think you are the one that needs to think outside the bubble. This sport needs money to expand and grow. How can this happen if the UCI are trying to limit the amount that can come in?

 I'm sorry tim, you really havn't convinced me that they will be limiting revenue enough to affect the sport as a whole at all.

 In fact I don't believe it will even affect any individual at all. Peaty, and now Gee, will not be affected by having to wear that jersey. When youre at that level the proportion of earnings you get from having a name on your jersey is utterly miniscule compared to that of equipment endorsements, team wages, and advertisements. Also you are starting to raise issues that far bigger than that of this blog. If you want to have a go at the UCI don't make your blog about a jersey, make one about the failings of the uci. My replies thus far have been concering the specific issue of the jersey, when it comes to the general running of the uci my opinions are probably closer to yours. But the jersey is abosolutely no issue at all as far as I can see.
It will stand riders in good stead to be able to show that they are nat champ and will increase interest in them, and therefore competition from sponsors to outbid each other to associate themselves with riders, thus increasing the riders income. Consider the number of films about the sport that include private sections and interviews with riders, the number of photo shoots for adverts, and the number of equpiment endorsements the top guys get. There is no way they will lose any significant income. You are not taking into account all the factors.

 Yes, the whole issue with the running of the WC's shouldn't be discussed here. I was just replying to a part of Rob's post.

I agree it won't affect Gee/Peaty so much, but it obviously will affect Peaty enough for Kathy Sessler to sign the petition and say that she will be telling Steve/Josh not to try their hardest or even compete at all.

This rule is really going to affect those riders that come from countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, and places where the riders that race the WC's need every penny they can. For people like that it might make the difference between racing a WC and staying at home.

 Racers are racers. You dont make it past the grassroots level by not caring about winning. I don't think that any WC level rider would not try their hardest at a national championship for any reason. Especially if its for something so small as a Jersey.

As for the small "penny pinching" racers winning a national championship would boost their sponsorship potential so much that I think it would offset the potential loss of a big name sponsor that is obviously not sponsoring them or they wouldn't be penny pinching.

That being said I am all for people expressing their opinions, and changing the system. If the petition is a success, then good for them and their sponsors, if not then to bad but they will all still show up and race.

 They will all show up huh? Not what a few big team managers have said...

 I think its a bunch of posturing right now. They can say all they want to try and get the rule changed, but if it doesn't get changed they will show up.