2020 Tour de France route rumors

Page 27 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I said before on another forum, about another sport - but it applies not just to sport, but to life as well. Going forward we are going to have to be flexible.
If and when, some 'normality' returns, then cycle racing will be no different. Having la Vuelta in November seems a pretty good idea - the weather is still good, why not?
Giro in September, the Worlds a week later, then Le Tour in October, and la Vuelta in Nov.
However, I'm sure it won't happen like that.
Swap Giro and Tour, like I wrote in the other thread the UCI Vice President said the plan they are working on is the Tour ending on September 20 then the Worlds and the Giro starting the 7th or the 14th of October. And also RCS previously said that the target is having the Giro in October.
 
I said before on another forum, about another sport - but it applies not just to sport, but to life as well. Going forward we are going to have to be flexible.
If and when, some 'normality' returns, then cycle racing will be no different. Having la Vuelta in November seems a pretty good idea - the weather is still good, why not?
Giro in September, the Worlds a week later, then Le Tour in October, and la Vuelta in Nov.
However, I'm sure it won't happen like that.
I think everything is focused on the Tour de France right now. Some coaches already mentioned it. That was a clear hint on what the sponsors want. Not just the the fans. So I would think the first GT will be the Tour. Whether the Vuelta crosses over or is moved to November, that is of lesser priority for the sponsors.
 
Reactions: pastronef
Posted earlier that your big races need to be in the September to November window. The ASO needs to realise it will probably have to be a closed race and it needs to be in September or October - Forget about starting in August.
 
I said before on another forum, about another sport - but it applies not just to sport, but to life as well. Going forward we are going to have to be flexible.
If and when, some 'normality' returns, then cycle racing will be no different. Having la Vuelta in November seems a pretty good idea - the weather is still good, why not?
Giro in September, the Worlds a week later, then Le Tour in October, and la Vuelta in Nov.
However, I'm sure it won't happen like that.
Sadly I feel like its already over for a 2020 Giro
 
Swap Giro and Tour, like I wrote in the other thread the UCI Vice President said the plan they are working on is the Tour ending on September 20 then the Worlds and the Giro starting the 7th or the 14th of October. And also RCS previously said that the target is having the Giro in October.
Stelvio and Agnello in October can be a bit risky...
 
Reactions: Brullnux
The hell are you guys talking about. Cycling was way way bigger back in the day than what it is today. Road Cycling is a mere fringe sport these days.
It's kind of a paradox, right? Cycling is more global than ever, and more professional than ever, but it's a smaller sport!

Back in the day there was a week of flat stages. But domestiques were often less strong, as the péloton had a greater disparity between the strongest and weakest individual riding, and the fields drawn by the different races were different with much stronger regional focus, which attracted fans to the side of the road - no Euskaltel-in-Roubaix or first-year-Greenedge-in-the-Giro outliers, with smaller teams who were more passionate about those races and added something to them entered instead.

Also when for most stages only the last part of the stage was broadcast, the race could weather a lot more of those flat stages, especially given that the break often got a lot more rope in those days before the big teams started reeling them in, they didn't just sit at an easily bridgeable gap that was held at the same level all day, so there was a bit more tension involved in the chase. While the sprint stages were hardly the most exciting part of the race back then, they were also less formulaic than flat stages now as a result, or at least less repetitive in the formulae they used.

Nowadays the professionalism at the top of the sport is greater than it's ever been. The flip side of that is that it has homogenised the calendar, with the same teams bogarting over 80% of the major race invites, which limits the colorfulness and exoticism of each individual race bringing its own character to the table, and means that all the strongest riders will congregate in those teams, especially since Pat McQuaid closed the loophole that Cervélo and BMC found that enabled them to essentially get all the benefits of being ProTour without the drawbacks of the compulsory flyaway races. This means that the general field of a given major race tends to be stronger than it was 30 years ago; but simultaneously there is greater equality in the bunch, meaning more riders hold on for longer and more control is exerted over racing. Especially in flat stages, which are now more or less interchangeable in any World Tour race.

Simultaneously, we're now treated to start-to-finish broadcasting of every stage at major races. While I appreciate that we can look at historic feats that happened before TV went live, such as Heras on La Colladiella and Contador on the Collado de Hoz, and say we need to tune in lest we miss something, the fact is that we really don't need 4 hours of live broadcasting of a sprint stage; even more, we don't need to watch 4 hours of live broadcasting of a sprint stage. The old broadcasts got it right for these stages: get in, establish who's in the break, how far they are away, show clips of them duking out the metas volantes and GPM, watch the chase, catch and sprint. There's no need for hours of them in a holding pattern just because we can broadcast it.

The increased professionalism has led to a series of templates which work for almost any World Tour race, and have resulted in a reduction in the variety, and reduced the time gaps between the major contenders because they're fighting mano a mano less often, and for a shorter time, save for the occasional outlier where somebody gets desperate and goes from deep. This is also the major driver for the reduction in TT mileage - not the TV coverage. The TV viewing figures were a leading reason for why Zomegnan went mountain stage frenzy and eventually lost his job, but if TTs were being marginalised because of the televisual spectacle, they'd be showing sprint stages in the same way they used to. And in the world of Unipuerto stages we don't really need full start-to-finish broadcasting either. Maybe the early 2000s Giri are the way to go - full broadcast start to finish of selected stages - queen stage, a couple of mountain stages, the one with the Cima Coppi - and last 90 minutes or so of everything else. As long as they keep filming so that we can see if we missed anything important (the split in L'Aquila 2010, Contador's attack in 2012 - I think Pajáres would have been one of the stages broadcast in full in 2005 if this was the template), and it can be put into the start of the broadcast in a "the stage so far" 5 minute package, this would be beneficial I feel.

And the thing is, I'm not meaning for people like us. We're hardcore enough cycling fans to be discussing in the forum. I mean for the casual fan. If the first time I saw cycling I switched on and saw 4 hours of the péloton riding serenely 3 minutes behind a breakaway of people I'd never heard of and the commentators didn't really sell as having a chance to win, I wouldn't even have tuned back in. Really, that's where things like the Hammer Series have come from, this idea that regular cycling is boring, and needs spicing up. Regular cycling isn't boring, if the people behind it accentuate its positives and hide its negatives, and unfortunately they aren't doing that at present by and large, which has led people to draw the conclusion that road cycling is broken and needs freshening up, rather than that road cycling is fine but being utilised wrong, just like a perfectly good centre-forward who is not scoring goals, but it's because he's being played out of position or just doesn't fit the system of the team he's in at the time. ASO broadcasting a featureless transitional stages for four hours, or Unipublic broadcasting hours of flat valley riding before all the action is in a final 3 minutes of garage ramp climbing is accentuating the negative. Velon introducing complex track-inspired points systems to reduce the value of completing the course in the fastest time is hiding the positive (with a regular bike race, anytime you turn on the TV, you instantly know, even if you don't know anything about cycling, the objective is to complete the course fastest, and all your subsequent considerations are with that in mind).

"Back in the day", fewer races were broadcast in any great depth, too. Nowadays it's easy to reach saturation point, so people will lose patience with a couple of dull sprint stages in a row if they've already watched a dozen of them in the last month across several smaller races.
 
It's kind of a paradox, right? Cycling is more global than ever, and more professional than ever, but it's a smaller sport!

Back in the day there was a week of flat stages. But domestiques were often less strong, as the péloton had a greater disparity between the strongest and weakest individual riding, and the fields drawn by the different races were different with much stronger regional focus, which attracted fans to the side of the road - no Euskaltel-in-Roubaix or first-year-Greenedge-in-the-Giro outliers, with smaller teams who were more passionate about those races and added something to them entered instead.

Also when for most stages only the last part of the stage was broadcast, the race could weather a lot more of those flat stages, especially given that the break often got a lot more rope in those days before the big teams started reeling them in, they didn't just sit at an easily bridgeable gap that was held at the same level all day, so there was a bit more tension involved in the chase. While the sprint stages were hardly the most exciting part of the race back then, they were also less formulaic than flat stages now as a result, or at least less repetitive in the formulae they used.

Nowadays the professionalism at the top of the sport is greater than it's ever been. The flip side of that is that it has homogenised the calendar, with the same teams bogarting over 80% of the major race invites, which limits the colorfulness and exoticism of each individual race bringing its own character to the table, and means that all the strongest riders will congregate in those teams, especially since Pat McQuaid closed the loophole that Cervélo and BMC found that enabled them to essentially get all the benefits of being ProTour without the drawbacks of the compulsory flyaway races. This means that the general field of a given major race tends to be stronger than it was 30 years ago; but simultaneously there is greater equality in the bunch, meaning more riders hold on for longer and more control is exerted over racing. Especially in flat stages, which are now more or less interchangeable in any World Tour race.

Simultaneously, we're now treated to start-to-finish broadcasting of every stage at major races. While I appreciate that we can look at historic feats that happened before TV went live, such as Heras on La Colladiella and Contador on the Collado de Hoz, and say we need to tune in lest we miss something, the fact is that we really don't need 4 hours of live broadcasting of a sprint stage; even more, we don't need to watch 4 hours of live broadcasting of a sprint stage. The old broadcasts got it right for these stages: get in, establish who's in the break, how far they are away, show clips of them duking out the metas volantes and GPM, watch the chase, catch and sprint. There's no need for hours of them in a holding pattern just because we can broadcast it.

The increased professionalism has led to a series of templates which work for almost any World Tour race, and have resulted in a reduction in the variety, and reduced the time gaps between the major contenders because they're fighting mano a mano less often, and for a shorter time, save for the occasional outlier where somebody gets desperate and goes from deep. This is also the major driver for the reduction in TT mileage - not the TV coverage. The TV viewing figures were a leading reason for why Zomegnan went mountain stage frenzy and eventually lost his job, but if TTs were being marginalised because of the televisual spectacle, they'd be showing sprint stages in the same way they used to. And in the world of Unipuerto stages we don't really need full start-to-finish broadcasting either. Maybe the early 2000s Giri are the way to go - full broadcast start to finish of selected stages - queen stage, a couple of mountain stages, the one with the Cima Coppi - and last 90 minutes or so of everything else. As long as they keep filming so that we can see if we missed anything important (the split in L'Aquila 2010, Contador's attack in 2012 - I think Pajáres would have been one of the stages broadcast in full in 2005 if this was the template), and it can be put into the start of the broadcast in a "the stage so far" 5 minute package, this would be beneficial I feel.

And the thing is, I'm not meaning for people like us. We're hardcore enough cycling fans to be discussing in the forum. I mean for the casual fan. If the first time I saw cycling I switched on and saw 4 hours of the péloton riding serenely 3 minutes behind a breakaway of people I'd never heard of and the commentators didn't really sell as having a chance to win, I wouldn't even have tuned back in. Really, that's where things like the Hammer Series have come from, this idea that regular cycling is boring, and needs spicing up. Regular cycling isn't boring, if the people behind it accentuate its positives and hide its negatives, and unfortunately they aren't doing that at present by and large, which has led people to draw the conclusion that road cycling is broken and needs freshening up, rather than that road cycling is fine but being utilised wrong, just like a perfectly good centre-forward who is not scoring goals, but it's because he's being played out of position or just doesn't fit the system of the team he's in at the time. ASO broadcasting a featureless transitional stages for four hours, or Unipublic broadcasting hours of flat valley riding before all the action is in a final 3 minutes of garage ramp climbing is accentuating the negative. Velon introducing complex track-inspired points systems to reduce the value of completing the course in the fastest time is hiding the positive (with a regular bike race, anytime you turn on the TV, you instantly know, even if you don't know anything about cycling, the objective is to complete the course fastest, and all your subsequent considerations are with that in mind).

"Back in the day", fewer races were broadcast in any great depth, too. Nowadays it's easy to reach saturation point, so people will lose patience with a couple of dull sprint stages in a row if they've already watched a dozen of them in the last month across several smaller races.
Ehm... one thing that maybe should be mentioned, too, though not supposed around here, is that the doping connotation of cycling is very, very strong in people's minds. At least in Germany. For the average person it's cycling=doping=no point in viewing it. (My mother, when she last saw me watching a race: "You're still watching that?" (My mother who supported Ullrich and had the autobiography of Armstrong next to her bed. Some strong disappointment there).

But... people are just not watching the "classic" sports anymore. There's netflix now. People are less drawn to a certain sport, more to "events" in general. In Germany there are basically two sports that people watch: Football, because it's big (and the bigger something is the bigger it becomes nowadays), and biathlon (okay, the format obviously appeals to spectators, but also especially among the women there's always a German in contention for the win, and that's what people care about, not the sport itself :p).
 
The hell are you guys talking about. Cycling was way way bigger back in the day than what it is today. Road Cycling is a mere fringe sport these days.
Completely disagree with you. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Maybe in Germany is different where the media has been hard with the doping news cycling is not as big as before. But we can see how salaries, equipment expenses, TV rights, teams costs have gone up and up. Not even close to what it was in the 80's. Not even think about the 70's or 60's. Remember that cycling is more global now than what it was back then. Colombia cannot even afford to have a WT team.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
One stage I would have loved to see in full is stage 17 from last year's Vuelta. Holy *** that was crazy!
That would actually be a really interesting balancing point: races where we saw hours that we didn't need to see, vs. races where we didn't see hours but would have been better to. It would be interesting to see if it bore out the perceived wisdom, because obviously stage 17 from the 2019 Vuelta was flat, or at least rolling. Plus another one that I thought of was Tour of Turkey 2016 stage 3, when Lotto battered the péloton into submission in the echelons.
 
Reactions: Poursuivant
The hell are you guys talking about. Cycling was way way bigger back in the day than what it is today. Road Cycling is a mere fringe sport these days.
That depends what you mean.

It may have been bigger in terms of participation (what exactly is "back in the day"?) - but that is also a function of the much wider array of sports/pasttimes, for young people to get into today, than ever before in human history.

But cycling is definitely a bigger and much more professional business today.
 
Completely disagree with you. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Maybe in Germany is different where the media has been hard with the doping news cycling is not as big as before. But we can see how salaries, equipment expenses, TV rights, teams costs have gone up and up. Not even close to what it was in the 80's. Not even think about the 70's or 60's. Remember that cycling is more global now than what it was back then. Colombia cannot even afford to have a WT team.
I was talking 1990s to mid 2000s
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS