The much needed UCI loller thread

[tobydawq]

That's because the Premier League takes the issue more seriously than UEFA. Let's guess whether UCi looks more like UEFA or the Premier.

How are we supposed to know that now? It would be a bit stupid to assume today that UCI are about to implement a rule fully in the knowledge that they're never going to enforce it.

 

[Samamba]

Wonder what the budget is, but this is a step back for cycling

I'm sorry but you sound a bit hypocritical here. You're the guy that always tells people to see and wait when they criticize Plugge and his "ideas" and then you say stuff like this.

It also absolutely doesn't have to be a step back, fully depends on how they would implement it. Knowing the UCI they probably f it up tho.

 

[ice&fire]

How are we supposed to know that now? It would be a bit stupid to assume today that UCI are about to implement a rule fully in the knowledge that they're never going to enforce it.

People will look for and find loopholes. Does Red Bull sponsorship of Van Aert count as Visma's budget? That'd be a way to off-shore a significant chunk of a team budget: find external sponsors for behind the curtains' deals.

 

[Berniece]

Shouldn't you wait for the actual proposal first?

I'm sorry but you sound a bit hypocritical here. You're the guy that always tells people to see and wait when they criticize Plugge and his "ideas" and then you say stuff like this.

It also absolutely doesn't have to be a step back, fully depends on how they would implement it. Knowing the UCI they probably f it up tho.

I literally say that I wonder what the budget is (leaving room for a decent one) and that it sounds like a step back. “Sounds like” literally means what something “seems like”, but this not necessarily is. Again leaving room for it not being a step back.

 

[tobydawq]

People will look for and find loopholes. Does Red Bull sponsorship of Van Aert count as Visma's budget? That'd be a way to off-shore a significant chunk of a team budget: find external sponsors for behind the curtains' deals.

Yes, and as I said: maybe they will be punished for that. There's no way to know now that UCI will just let loopholes be found.

 

[roundabout]

I literally say that I wonder what the budget is (leaving room for a decent one) and that it sounds like a step back. “Sounds like” literally means what something “seems like”, but this not necessarily is. Again leaving room for it not being a step back.

Your post literally said that it is a step back. Not sounds like or seems like a step back.

 

[ice&fire]

Yes, and as I said: maybe they will be punished for that. There's no way to know now that UCI will just let loopholes be found.

And who do you punish in the example I describe? The team, the rider or the external sponsor? How can UCI ban riders to have deals with sponsors external to the teams? That just needs someone with the will and the resources to take the case to a Justice Court and defeat UCI the same way UEFA has been defeated many times. Superleague anyone?

 

[Brullnux]

There are also a lot of teams in the Premier League who get point deductions for that.

It's also a very different system in fairness, it isn't a salary cap but a profit/loss restriction. The premier league teams who got point deductions did so bc they just ended up making losses beyond the limit they were allowed, but these losses are public information and published in annual accounts. City tried to get around them and have not yet been punished, as they did so in some more complex methods.

Rugby has salary caps, and teams circumvent them in some very rudimentary ways (buy a house for someone, a sponsor gifts a kitchen to a player, etc.). With the aggressively obvious ones, teams get caught; sponsor gifts are more murky and limiting them might end up with interacting with various other domestic/EU laws.

 

[Berniece]

Your post literally said that it is a step back. Not sounds like or seems like a step back.

lol, why did I think this then 😂 it was very early this morning though, might not have been awake properly

 

[Armchair cyclist]

lol, why did I think this then 😂 it was very early this morning though, might not have been awake properly

Errrm, it was at quarter past seven yesterday evening your time...

 

[Berniece]

Errrm, it was at quarter past seven yesterday evening your time...

No, I mean when I responded to them. When I said this.

I literally say that I wonder what the budget is (leaving room for a decent one) and that it sounds like a step back. “Sounds like” literally means what something “seems like”, but this not necessarily is. Again leaving room for it not being a step back.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

So you present a more reasoned point at 7am than at 7pm ?

 

[Berniece]

So you present a more reasoned point at 7am than at 7pm ?

Haha, I might just be too grumpy at the end of the day

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

So you present a more reasoned point at 7am than at 7pm ?

I think it's been scientifically proven your brain works better at the beginning of your day, than at the end.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

I think it's been scientifically proven your brain works better at the beginning of your day, than at the end.

Nah, not mine.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Nah, not mine.

That explains a few things.
jk

It's been said though (not sure if there is scientific evidence for that) that creative minds work better at night.

 

[Berniece]

Evenepoel said why they didn’t ride with the sock anymore, because they thought it was illegal already.

Apparently the UCI said in an email that they couldn’t starting from the 1st of April, but on their website it’s the 2nd of April.

Classic UCI communications

 

[AmRacer]

Evenepoel said why they didn’t ride with the sock anymore, because they thought it was illegal already.

Apparently the UCI said in an email that they couldn’t starting from the 1st of April, but on their website it’s the 2nd of April.

Classic UCI communications

Have to learn ride without it, so it was a good practice ride.

 

[Ricco']

Since being a UCI bureaucrat seems like a good career move, I'll start a debate here about an idea that came into my mind.

Given yesterday's situation in Itzulia time trial, that retired any interest that a spectator could have to watch the race with the start times of the key riders, losing indirectly appeal for the sponsors of the race, should start order be standardized?

The problem is not present with TTs that are held in the middle of the race, with the GC timings giving us the start order. Should prologues and Stage 1 Time Trial order be set by UCI ranking, with each order within the team be set by the ascending UCI ranking of the riders selected?

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Since being a UCI bureaucrat seems like a good career move, I'll start a debate here about an idea that came into my mind.

Given yesterday's situation in Itzulia time trial, that retired any interest that a spectator could have to watch the race with the start times of the key riders, losing indirectly appeal for the sponsors of the race, should start order be standardized?

The problem is not present with TTs that are held in the middle of the race, with the GC timings giving us the start order. Should prologues and Stage 1 Time Trial order be set by UCI ranking, with each order within the team be set by the ascending UCI ranking of the riders selected?

I don't know if UCI rankings is the ideal metric for what you wish to achieve. For the moment that would seem like a good solution, but i think not very long ago, such a list would have had guys like Sagan, Van Avermaet, Boonen, Cancellara, Gilbert etc in prime time, and other than Cancellara, nobody would give two craps about how those other guys were going to do their TT, neither would they themselves for that matter.

Then you also have guys that are certifiable outsiders for a 1 week stage race, but simply don't have the points to back up their claim. Mas, Bardet, Bernal, Van Eetvelt... are currently outside the top 50 on the UCI rankings. Compared to the top 5, they would possibly ride in completely different weather conditions (be it better or worse). Perhaps looking at UCI points gained in WT stage race GC's would be a better option if your intent is to have all the GC favorites close together. Or combine that with UCI points from ITT's. Because now Tarling is 98 on the all-round UCI list.

 

[Ricco']

Yeah, a TT ranking would be the best option, but so far there isn't one in place and with the declining amount of TT mileage during a season, I'm not sure it would be easy to create one that would depict accurately the rider order in the specialty outside of the top ones.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Yeah, a TT ranking would be the best option, but so far there isn't one in place and with the declining amount of TT mileage during a season, I'm not sure it would be easy to create one that would depict accurately the rider order in the specialty outside of the top ones.

But if you look only at a TT ranking, then someone like Gall will never in his life ride in the same timeframe (and possibly same conditions) as the GC favorites.

 

[ManicJack]

Given yesterday's situation in Itzulia time trial, that retired any interest that a spectator could have to watch the race with the start times of the key riders, losing indirectly appeal for the sponsors of the race, should start order be standardized?

No

 

[Wyndbrook]

I quite like the idea, pretty sure if the responsibility to create and maintain a ranking was assigned to this forum it would work perfectly.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Since being a UCI bureaucrat seems like a good career move, I'll start a debate here about an idea that came into my mind.

Given yesterday's situation in Itzulia time trial, that retired any interest that a spectator could have to watch the race with the start times of the key riders, losing indirectly appeal for the sponsors of the race, should start order be standardized?

The problem is not present with TTs that are held in the middle of the race, with the GC timings giving us the start order. Should prologues and Stage 1 Time Trial order be set by UCI ranking, with each order within the team be set by the ascending UCI ranking of the riders selected?

I understand the argument, but maybe there is something to be said for team judgement and tactics (perhaps too strong a word for the limited range of choice available) coming into play more than historical performance.

The decision as to the value of somebody going before your star and providing feedback over and above him going 40 minutes earlier, and the skill in balancing that knowledge against judgement as to how much impact a change in weather conditions might make is a management skill that should have significance.
Was viewership yesterday much lower than it would otherwise have been? There was plenty of footage of the big names and everything significant to see was shown. I wonder how viewing figures stack up against regular stages anyway: when the race in GC order; I guess many only watch the last half hour anyway, so yesterday those people watched the first half hour instead.