July 4, 2013
The International Cycling Union (UCI) today published the full report from the UCI Stakeholders Consultation, ‘A Bright Future for Cycling’.
The Deloitte report, which was presented to the UCI Management Committee at its meeting in Bergen, Norway, on 13 June, is expected to lay the foundation for the future development of the sport.
After publishing the Executive Summary on May 23rd, the UCI is now making the report in its entirety available on the UCI website.
“We place enormous importance on transparency, which is why the UCI Management Committee agreed to make this report public,” declared UCI President Mr Pat McQuaid. “We invited all cycling’s stakeholders to take part in the consultation, and it is only natural that they now have access to the ensuing report.”
More than 6300 men and women from 73 countries took part in the consultation, responding to the online questionnaire between 21 February and 15 March. They included fans, riders, team officials, race organisers, sports bodies and the media.
In parallel with the survey, five meetings were organised with all the stakeholder groups involved in cycling. These meetings dealt with the consultation’s four pillars: anti-doping, cycling calendar, globalisation and riders.
The Deloitte report is a result of the analysis of these two initiatives. It details the positive response from stakeholders to many aspects of the UCI’s activities and also pinpoints areas for potential improvement, making a number of “crucial” and “high priority” recommendations.
Earlier in June, the Management Committee announced that it accepted in principle the 11 ‘crucial’ and ‘high-priority’ recommendations in the report – and agreed to establish an action plan based on these recommendations.
July 4, 2013
The International Cycling Union (UCI) today published the full report from the UCI Stakeholders Consultation, ‘A Bright Future for Cycling’.
The Deloitte report, which was presented to the UCI Management Committee at its meeting in Bergen, Norway, on 13 June, is expected to lay the foundation for the future development of the sport.
After publishing the Executive Summary on May 23rd, the UCI is now making the report in its entirety available on the UCI website.
“We place enormous importance on transparency, which is why the UCI Management Committee agreed to make this report public,” declared UCI President Mr Pat McQuaid. “We invited all cycling’s stakeholders to take part in the consultation, and it is only natural that they now have access to the ensuing report.”
More than 6300 men and women from 73 countries took part in the consultation, responding to the online questionnaire between 21 February and 15 March. They included fans, riders, team officials, race organisers, sports bodies and the media.
In parallel with the survey, five meetings were organised with all the stakeholder groups involved in cycling. These meetings dealt with the consultation’s four pillars: anti-doping, cycling calendar, globalisation and riders.
The Deloitte report is a result of the analysis of these two initiatives. It details the positive response from stakeholders to many aspects of the UCI’s activities and also pinpoints areas for potential improvement, making a number of “crucial” and “high priority” recommendations.
Earlier in June, the Management Committee announced that it accepted in principle the 11 ‘crucial’ and ‘high-priority’ recommendations in the report – and agreed to establish an action plan based on these recommendations.
July 4, 2013
The International Cycling Union (UCI) today published the full report from the UCI Stakeholders Consultation, ‘A Bright Future for Cycling’.
The Deloitte report, which was presented to the UCI Management Committee at its meeting in Bergen, Norway, on 13 June, is expected to lay the foundation for the future development of the sport.
After publishing the Executive Summary on May 23rd, the UCI is now making the report in its entirety available on the UCI website.
“We place enormous importance on transparency, which is why the UCI Management Committee agreed to make this report public,” declared UCI President Mr Pat McQuaid. “We invited all cycling’s stakeholders to take part in the consultation, and it is only natural that they now have access to the ensuing report.”
More than 6300 men and women from 73 countries took part in the consultation, responding to the online questionnaire between 21 February and 15 March. They included fans, riders, team officials, race organisers, sports bodies and the media.
In parallel with the survey, five meetings were organised with all the stakeholder groups involved in cycling. These meetings dealt with the consultation’s four pillars: anti-doping, cycling calendar, globalisation and riders.
The Deloitte report is a result of the analysis of these two initiatives. It details the positive response from stakeholders to many aspects of the UCI’s activities and also pinpoints areas for potential improvement, making a number of “crucial” and “high priority” recommendations.
Earlier in June, the Management Committee announced that it accepted in principle the 11 ‘crucial’ and ‘high-priority’ recommendations in the report – and agreed to establish an action plan based on these recommendations.
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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 3 Section Page Contents 2 Glossary of terms 3 Executive summary 5 Introduction, objectives and methodology 16 Consultation results 21 Recommendations 82 Appendices 95 Glossary of terms UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 5 Section Page Contents 2 Glossary of terms 3 Executive summary 5 Introduction, objectives and methodology 16 Consultation results 21 Recommendations 82 Appendices 95 Executive summary UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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. UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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; UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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
UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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. UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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) High priority recommendations 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. UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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. UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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. UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Consultation results (continued) 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. UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Consultation results (continued) 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. UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Consultation results (continued) 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. UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 16 Section Page Contents 2 Glossary of terms 3 Executive summary 5 Introduction, objectives and methodology 16 Consultation results 21 Recommendations 82 Appendices 95 Introduction, objectives and methodology UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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). UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Introduction, objectives and methodology 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Introduction, objectives and methodology 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. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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. UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Introduction, objectives and methodology 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. UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 21 Section Page Contents 2 Glossary of terms 3 Executive summary 5 Introduction, objectives and methodology 16 Consultation results 21 Involvement in cycling 21 Anti-doping 33 Calendar 43 Globalisation 55 Riders 70 Verbatim responses 79 Recommendations 82 Appendices 95 Involvement in cycling Consultation results UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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%. Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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. Involvement in cycling UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Note: Respondents were able to select more than one response, thus percentages add up to more than 100%. Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. Involvement in cycling - general public Involvement in cycling UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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. Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. Involvement in cycling UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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% Encouraging more women to partici pate in cycli ng Developi ng cycl ing opportunities for di sabled people Being an environmentally friendly sport Fighting against doping Deliveri ng a successful UCI WorldTour Regulating equipment used in competition Developi ng the disciplines of cycl ing around the world Organisation of cycling events at the Olympic / Paralympi c Games 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 Championshi ps and UCI World Cups Areas of focus for the UCI: Performance - cycling family Poor Very poor Good Excellent Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. Involvement in cycling UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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. Fighting against doping 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. Involvement in cycling UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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% Regulating equipment used in competition Developi ng cycl ing opportunities for di sabled people Being an environmentally friendly sport Setting the dates of races on the internati onal calendar Deliveri ng a successful UCI WorldTour Organisation of cycling events at the Olympic / Paralympi c Games Developi ng the disciplines of cycl ing around the world Encouraging more women to partici pate in cycli ng Establ ishi ng the regulations for the cycling disci pl ines Organisation of the UCI World Championshi ps and UCI World Cups Fighting against doping Areas of focus for the UCI: Importance - general public Not very important Not at al l important Quite important Very important Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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. Involvement in cycling UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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% Encouraging more women to partici pate in cycli ng Fighting against doping Developi ng cycl ing opportunities for di sabled people Being an environmentally friendly sport Developi ng the disciplines of cycl ing around the world Regulating equipment used in competition Establ ishi ng the regulations for the cycling disci pl ines Organisation of cycling events at the Olympic / Paralympi c Games Deliveri ng a successful UCI WorldTour Setting the dates of races on the internati onal calendar Organisation of the UCI World Championshi ps and UCI World Cups Areas of focus for the UCI: Performance - general public Poor Very poor Good Excellent Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. Involvement in cycling UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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. Fighting against doping 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. Involvement in cycling UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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. Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte 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. Involvement in cycling UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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! Involvement in cycling UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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. Involvement in cycling UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Anti-doping Consultation results 33 Section Page Contents 2 Glossary of terms 3 Executive summary 5 Introduction, objectives and methodology 16 Consultation results 21 Involvement in cycling 21 Anti-doping 33 Calendar 43 Globalisation 55 Riders 70 Verbatim responses 79 Recommendations 82 Appendices 95 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 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. Source: Deloitte analysis. Anti-doping UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 The rider whereabouts system (ADAMS) 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents prov ided an opinion. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents prov ided an opinion. Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. 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 Disagree Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents prov ided an opinion. Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. Anti-doping UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 rider whereabouts system (ADAMS) The educati on of young riders Out-of-competi tion testing Biological passport Qui te ineffective Very ineffective Qui te effective Very effective Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents prov ided an opinion. Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. 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 Disagree Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents prov ided an opinion. Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. Suggestions for ensuring the success of anti-doping in professional cycling - cycling family Anti-doping UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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% Don't know / No opinion Strongly opposed Somewhat opposed Somewhat in favour Strongly in favour Opinion of a rider "amnesty" to disclose information general public cycli ng family Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. Anti-doping UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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% Don't know / No opinion Far too severe Too severe About right Too lenient Far too lenient View of the current penalties for riders caught doping general public cycli ng family Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 4% 3% 12% 8% 29% 11% 33% 4% 5% 15% 12% 26% 11% 29% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Don't know / No opinion 1 year suspension 2 year suspension 3 year suspension 4 year suspension More than 4 year suspension Automatic lifetime ban general public cycli ng family Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cyling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. Length of suspension for a rider found guilty of serious doping Anti-doping UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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% Don't know / No opinion 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 general public cycli ng family Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. Satisfaction with the current process in relation to doping sanctions - cycling family Anti-doping UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 (General public stakeholder) Anti-doping UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Calendar Consultation results 43 Section Page Contents 2 Glossary of terms 3 Executive summary 5 Introduction, objectives and methodology 16 Consultation results 21 Involvement in cycling 21 Anti-doping 33 Calendar 43 Globalisation 55 Riders 70 Verbatim responses 79 Recommendations 82 Appendices 95 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. Calendar UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 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. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 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. Source: Deloitte analysis. The UCI's performance rating in setting the dates of races on the international calendar Calendar UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Disagree Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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% Don't know / No opinion Far too many Too many Enough Not enough Not nearly enough Opinion on the number of UCI WorldTour races general public cycli ng family Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 Base: 646 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 general public cycli ng family Note: Respondents were able to select more than one response, thus percentages add up to more than 100%. Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. Factors to consider when awarding a professional team a position in the UCI World Tour Calendar UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Disagree Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. 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 Disagree Strongl y disagree Agree Strongl y agree Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. Current UCI WorldTour team and rider points systems - general public Calendar UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Disagree Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree * if meeting all other criteria. Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. Calendar UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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. Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. Womens cycling is crucial to develop, both in terms of equality and the grassroots effect. (General public stakeholder) Calendar UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents prov ided an opinion. Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. 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 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents prov ided an opinion. Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. Ideas to make cycling events more attractive for fans - cycling family Embrace technology, in fact encourage it, and dont get bogged down in regulation. (General public stakeholder) Calendar UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Disagree Strongl y disagree Agree Strongly agree Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. Calendar UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Globalisation Consultation results 55 Section Page Contents 2 Glossary of terms 3 Executive summary 5 Introduction, objectives and methodology 16 Consultation results 21 Involvement in cycling 21 Anti-doping 33 Calendar 43 Globalisation 55 Riders 70 Verbatim responses 79 Recommendations 82 Appendices 95 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. Globalisation UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Disagree Strongl y disagree Agree Strongly agree Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Base: 428 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 Note: Respondents were able to select more than one response, thus percentages add up to more than 100%. Base: 428 respondents. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 Note: Respondents were able to select more than one response, thus percentages add up to more than 100%. Base: 5,638 respondents. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents prov ided an opinion. Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. 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 Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents prov ided an opinion. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 64 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 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 Not enough Not nearly enough races Don't know / Not sure Number of races in South America general public cycling family Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Not enough Not nearly enough races Don't know / Not sure Number of races in North America general public cycling family Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 Not enough Not nearly enough races Don't know / Not sure Number of races in Oceania general public cycli ng family Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Not enough Not nearly enough races Don't know / Not sure Number of races in Asia general public cycli ng family Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cy cling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 Not enough Not nearly enough races Don't know / Not sure Number of races in the Middle East general public cycling family Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Not enough Not nearly enough races Don't know / Not sure Number of races in Europe general public cycling family Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. Working group comments 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. UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Disagree Strongl y disagree Agree Strongl y agree Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents prov ided an opinion. Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. 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 Disagree Strongl y disagree Agree Strongl y agree Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents prov ided an opinion. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Riders Consultation results 70 Section Page Contents 2 Glossary of terms 3 Executive summary 5 Introduction, objectives and methodology 16 Consultation results 21 Involvement in cycling 21 Anti-doping 33 Calendar 43 Globalisation 55 Riders 70 Verbatim responses 79 Recommendations 82 Appendices 95 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Disagree Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 133 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 72 The riders working groups put forward a number of points regarding how to improve relations and communication between the UCI and riders Working group comments 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 133 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. 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 accomodation (hotel and food) Race road safety Calendar length / structure Quality of commissaires 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 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 133 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Calendar length / structure Quality of commissaires Equipment Course design (length, dif ficulty, etc.) Race transfers Rider insurance arrangements Race accomodation (hotel and food) 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 Base: 133 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as not all respondents provided an opinion. Base: 133 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 76 The riders working groups put forward a number of points regarding the rider ranking / points system and race rules / regulations Working group comments 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Base: 133 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 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 Base: 133 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. 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%. Base: 101 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Verbatim responses Consultation results 79 Section Page Contents 2 Glossary of terms 3 Executive summary 5 Introduction, objectives and methodology 16 Consultation results 21 Involvement in cycling 21 Anti-doping 33 Calendar 43 Globalisation 55 Riders 70 Verbatim responses 79 Recommendations 82 Appendices 95 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 80 The word cloud provides a pictorial snapshot of the most common words and phrases in comments by cycling family respondents Verbatim responses UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Consultation results 81 The word cloud provides a pictorial snapshot of the most common words and phrases in comments by general public respondents Verbatim responses UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 82 Section Page Contents 2 Glossary of terms 3 Executive summary 5 Introduction, objectives and methodology 16 Consultation results 21 Recommendations 82 Critical recommendations 82 High priority recommendations 89 Appendices 95 Critical recommendations Recommendations UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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. Critical recommendations UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Recommendation Rationale 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. Critical recommendations UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Recommendation Rationale 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. Critical recommendations UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Recommendation Rationale 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. Critical recommendations UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Recommendation Rationale 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. Critical recommendations UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Recommendation Rationale 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. Critical recommendations UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential High priority recommendations Recommendations 89 Section Page Contents 2 Glossary of terms 3 Executive summary 5 Introduction, objectives and methodology 16 Consultation results 21 Recommendations 82 Critical recommendations 82 High priority recommendations 89 Appendices 95 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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) Recommendation Rationale 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. High priority recommendations UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Recommendation Rationale 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. High priority recommendations UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Recommendation Rationale 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. High priority recommendations UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Recommendation Rationale 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. High priority recommendations UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Recommendation Rationale 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 High priority recommendations UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 95 Annex No. Demographics 1 Limitations 2 Demographics Appendices UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 general public cycling family Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 general public cycling family Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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 Base: 5,638 general public respondents; 731 cycling f amily respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. 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. UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Base: 5,638 respondents. Source: Deloitte analysis. Demographics UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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 Base: 731 respondents. Source: Deloitte analy sis. Demographics UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential Limitations Appendices 101 Annex No. Demographics 1 Limitations 2 UCI Stakeholder Consultation: A Bright Future for Cycling Final Report 22 May 2013 2013 Deloitte LLP - Private and Confidential 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