To take a step forward from social posts, we reached Brent Copeland, team manager of the Jayco-AlUla, while yesterday afternoon he was driving to Lausanne for a refresher course at the UCI. His position on the Cian Uijtdebroeks story It earned him a call from Alex Carera, who has been a long-time friend and who also explained the point to him. In recent days, su sites and social media are circulating photos of the young Belgian dressed in black in retreat with the Jumbo VismaIt's clear that the step has been taken, whatever the cost. And this is precisely the root of the South African's irritation at this moment.
Why did you get so angry this time?
I'm not angry, I'm worried. A dangerous precedent could be created for the teams and also for the rider and his agents.Dangerous for everyone. What's the point of having a contract if it's so easy to terminate without sufficiently serious reasons? I don't know the details or the real reasons. I saw that some explanations came out today (we've read about the Belgian being teased during the Vuelta and about a WhatsApp group being created for this purpose behind his back, ed.), but it all seems exaggerated to me. If you want to do a rider transfer, that's fine.These are things that are done between all the teams. This year we took two riders who were under contract: one is Plapp, the other is Caleb ewan. But there is a procedure to follow.
What is it about?
You have to ask first the authorization to PCC, the Professional Cycling Council chaired by Tom Van Damme. Even The rules He says you need to ask for authorization before speaking to the rider or his agent. Obviously, this is difficult, because if there's a possibility of a transfer, it means you've already had contact. Then an agreement is made between three parties: the old team, the new one and the rider for the financial part related to the costs of the transfer.Only then can the contract between the athlete and the new team be signed.
Quite laborious…
But if this procedure is followed correctly, there are no problems. Is the rider unhappy with his team, looking for something else, or perhaps a new team has made him a higher offer or something else? These are the protocols to follow. Instead, it seems to me that nothing has been followed here., because if a team announces that a rider has signed with them and after an hour the current team says that he is staying there, it seems to me that it passes the image of a sport that is anything but professionalAnd in my opinion it means that the correct procedures were not followed. It means that a twenty-year-old rider, with little experience, made a difficult decision. And so I ask myself: who is responsible for this? Who should guide the boy? Who should take care of these aspects?
Good question: whose turn is it?
I believe they are the team and the agent, then the CPA and a lot also depends on the teamWhen a rider comes to us, we try to teach him our culture, our way of doing things. We try to be transparent and respect everyoneWhen there's disrespect or something isn't right, you have to speak up. And at that point, it's the responsibility of both the team and the agent. The UCI has clear rules for handling the situation.
Whose fault is it if they are not followed?
The agent certainly makes a deal, though I guess it was the rider who asked him to look for a new teamI certainly don't think the agent puts such things into the rider's head, at least I hope so. We need someone to educate the boy well before it gets to this point.Someone who makes him understand that he signed the contract. Maybe they were good at making you sign for three years, they got a deal, but now you have to respect that contract.Then if the rider goes strong and grows, the agent will have to sit down with the team, trying to increase his salary, as always happens.
So the officer always follows his client's instructions?
I spoke to Alex Carera, who was angry with me because I did that post on X asking myself these very questions. And I answered him that there is not only one person responsible and in any case it is not only the fault of the officerIt's also the team's fault, because If you get to the point where you can't talk to your rider anymore, then yes, it's best to let him go., but that it's done with the right protocol. That's why I'm more worried than angry. If this thing goes through and theUCI does not require a disciplinary hearing, it sets a precedent for the future, where kids can break the contract more easily.
The same thing happened with Van Aert, who went to Jumbo Visma for a ruling.
Yes, more or less, although I don't remember the details exactly. Maybe that case was a little different because they were not two WorldTour teams and in the previous one he only did crosses and little road. But maybe on a bureaucratic level it was the same thing.
Does the current system work or would it be better to switch to a card system like in football?
In my opinion the system works if the regulations are respectedThe steps are simple. If all three parties agree, there are no problems. But if the team where he has a contract doesn't agree to his departure, then it becomes complicated. Of course. Nobody wants to ruin the rider's career, no, but what they did this week is shameful to me.Anyone who sees certain things wonders what's going on, especially since in the meantime the boy is there training with them dressed in black. It's clear that Uijtdebroeks will race for Jumbo, I don't think he will stay at Bora, but things should be done better. Until December 31st, the salary comes from Bora and even if there are agreements whereby a rider can test the new bike before the end of the contract, from the point of view of visibility and image he has the obligation to respect those who pay his salary (According to Carera, the contract was terminated on December 1st, ed.).
Do you think there's a way to protect yourself from these situations when writing contracts?
This is also very complicated. Each team is subject to the law of the country in which it is registered, plus it is necessary to see the country in which the rider is resident.In this case, I understand that Uijtdebroeks could go to a Belgian court to ask for the contract to be terminated. Then there's the issue of self-employed or employed contracts: freelancer or employee. If he's self-employed, then he has more leeway. But in any case there is something unethicalThere needs to be some respect, and that's worrying.
Do you ever discuss these topics as team managers?
It depends on the relationship you have with individuals. We, for example, three years ago we took over Groenewegen from Jumbo, following the procedures correctlyWe asked Tom Van Damme for permission to proceed with the negotiations. At that point we asked Jumbo how much he wanted for the rider. Then we signed all the agreements and the transfer went through without any problems. Here it is clear, even without knowing the details, that the boy is not happy with the team and that there is some friction, regarding the materials, the treatments he receivedWhatever the issue, we sit down at a table, ask the team if they're willing to pay a certain amount, negotiate, hammer out an agreement between the three parties, and move on. Instead it seems to me that the rider has decided to break the contract without closing well with the current teamMaybe Bora did something wrong, I don't know, but that doesn't relieve you of having to respect the rules.
What it seems is that in the end it will only be a question of money…
But we're getting ridiculous. Let's say the CCP says no, who have evaluated the situations and the athlete must respect his contract and remain at Bora. Uijtdebroeks then goes to court, asks to break the contract and the court accepts the request and he goes racing for Jumbo-Visma without paying the penaltyWho's to say that next year you won't find yourself with 3-4 riders who, faced with the ease of doing certain passages, won't try the same route? This is why I say that now it is up to the UCI to call the parties together and hold a disciplinary hearing., otherwise we fall into anarchy.
