Acquarone's Gauntlet

[skippy]

Well we knew it was coming ? Michele has tossed his two cents worth into the fray :

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/acquarone-the-worldtour-must-have-18-teams

“What a mess. Now we have 19 teams so I’m curious to see what’s going to happen. We’ve planned everything for 18 teams and then the wildcard teams. We’re not ready for 19 WorldTour teams. Logistically everything has been set up for races like Tirreno and the Giro. I really don’t know how we’d have one more team in the race,”

Goes on with :

" Maybe they’ll take one team out of the WorldTour because as it stands we’ve got an agreement for 18 teams, not 19. I just don’t know. At the moment I think we have to go back to 18 teams "

 

[Dazed and Confused]

almost everything involving UCI belongs in the Clinic....

 

[Eshnar]

Moved to the Pro Road Racing Subforum.

 

[ElChingon]

They say its a mess but the answer to this mess is in the stinking story!

Let the races (ASO, RCS and <insert the Spanish acronym>) decide who races, what happened in 2007 with the ASO and le Tour actually capturing dopers instead of generating lists of suspicion and sitting on their hands (UCI).

 

[Eshnar]

They say its a mess but the answer to this mess is in the stinking story!

Let the races (ASO, RCS and <insert the Spanish acronym>) decide who races, what happened in 2007 with the ASO and le Tour actually capturing dopers instead of generating lists of suspicion and sitting on their hands (UCI).

Unipublic.

 

[The Hitch]

Maybe teams should spread out the wt loss. Some team which cares jack **** about the giro and wanted WT only for the Tour (which applies to half of them, though maybe less so this year). can take the hit for the Giro (Saxo wont mind probably). Then someone else for the Vuelta. EE can take the hit for the cobbled classics. For the Tour just dont invite Coledeportes who should focus on the GIro anyway and have Katusha basically have that last wildcard space.

There will probably be more volunteers for the week long stage races.

Done.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

argos out, at all costs

 

[Dazed and Confused]

They say its a mess but the answer to this mess is in the stinking story!

Let the races (ASO, RCS and <insert the Spanish acronym>) decide who races, what happened in 2007 with the ASO and le Tour actually capturing dopers instead of generating lists of suspicion and sitting on their hands (UCI).

meh, can't run serious professional teams without firm commitments about the calendar. The amateur days are long gone.

Instead UCI needs to run its ranking system in a transparent and open manner (read: redesigned system) so stakeholders can follow whats going on throughout the season without being surprised about what teams are in 1st division the following year. Having a bunch of suits in a room deciding who get to go where at the end of the season based on some subjective ideas simply drives corruption, scandals and otherwise.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Maybe teams should spread out the wt loss. Some team which cares jack **** about the giro and wanted WT only for the Tour (which applies to half of them, though maybe less so this year). can take the hit for the Giro (Saxo wont mind probably). Then someone else for the Vuelta. EE can take the hit for the cobbled classics. For the Tour just dont invite Coledeportes who should focus on the GIro anyway and have Katusha basically have that last wildcard space.

There will probably be more volunteers for the week long stage races.

Done.

Along those lines, my solution for the Giro would be for each of the 23 teams involved to submit a sealed bid which would contain the number of WT points they would gain by staying at home:- team with the lowest bid gets those points and drops out. Similar could apply for the other races

That should mean that the team with the least ambition stays at home which is good for us and also provides some compensation for the team that has been messed around

 

[ElChingon]

meh, can't run serious professional teams without firm commitments about the calendar. The amateur days are long gone.

Instead UCI needs to run its ranking system in a transparent and open manner (read: redesigned system) so stakeholders can follow whats going on throughout the season without being surprised about what teams are in 1st division the following year. Having a bunch of suits in a room deciding who get to go where at the end of the season based on some subjective ideas simply drives corruption, scandals and otherwise.

What, why can't you run a serious pro team with semi-solid commitments, as in if you go against the rules you are out! Don't race enough and get some quality placings, you are out!

This would only raise the bar, races want the best not just riders who train for one race a year. Why, because those riders riding the most garner the most fans. Sure winning le Tour gets a rider top billing but not if they don't qualify to ride le Tour by sitting on the bench the whole early season.

 

[The Hitch]

Along those lines, my solution for the Giro would be for each of the 23 teams involved to submit a sealed bid which would contain the number of WT points they would gain by staying at home:- team with the lowest bid gets those points and drops out. Similar could apply for the other races

That should mean that the team with the least ambition stays at home which is good for us and also provides some compensation for the team that has been messed around

Lotto Belisol- 0

 

[BroDeal]

Along those lines, my solution for the Giro would be for each of the 23 teams involved to submit a sealed bid which would contain the number of WT points they would gain by staying at home:- team with the lowest bid gets those points and drops out. Similar could apply for the other races

That should mean that the team with the least ambition stays at home which is good for us and also provides some compensation for the team that has been messed around

I sort of like this idea. It might be interesting to create a bidding system for the entire season. Teams amass points then use them to bid on races they want to attend.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

What, why can't you run a serious pro team with semi-solid commitments, as in if you go against the rules you are out! Don't race enough and get some quality placings, you are out!

This would only raise the bar, races want the best not just riders who train for one race a year. Why, because those riders riding the most garner the most fans. Sure winning le Tour gets a rider top billing but not if they don't qualify to ride le Tour by sitting on the bench the whole early season.

It is already very difficult to sell $10M sponsorships at the top of our sport. Without a firm understanding of where the exposure will come from it will be impossible. If you prefer to give race organisers more discretionary power simply reduce the number of teams in the first division to say 12-15.

A well designed ranking system will take care of the commitment to the races at the top, just like it does in many other professional sport.

The alternative will be a bunch of Savio type teams scrambling to find space on the jersey for $100K sponsor donations.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

I sort of like this idea. It might be interesting to create a bidding system for the entire season. Teams amass points then use them to bid on races they want to attend.

perhaps workable, but fans are often driven by certain rivalries: Boonen vs Cancellara, Froome vs Contador etc. Personally prefer top riders targeting similar races like the one in Oman. I can see lots of deal making behind the scenes with such a bidding system.

 

[ILovecycling]

8 riders for GTs...simple as that

 

[icefire]

8 riders for GTs...simple as that

Not that simple

Regardless of number of riders per team, one more team means more logistics: more cars and support staff in the race, one more bus, more space requirements for stage finishes and additional hotel bookings.

 

[ILovecycling]

Not that simple

Regardless of number of riders per team, one more team means more logistics: more cars and support staff in the race, one more bus, more space requirements for stage finishes and additional hotel bookings.

I know,but also more space in the bunch,hotels,dop.controls...IMO its the best option.(ok,best option is send Argos to proconti)

 

[Dutchsmurf]

I know,but also more space in the bunch,hotels,dop.controls...IMO its the best option.(ok,best option is send Argos to proconti)

More space in the bunch maybe, but less space in the hotels. Each team has to take their own staff after all, which number doesn't really change if you have 9, 8 or even 6 riders per team.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Each team may drop up to two WT races; every race guaranteed at least 16 WT teams. Any WT race that has already announced its wild cards can be guaranteed a drop out if they require it. Teams get to choose which races they drop in order of their finishing order in team rankings last year.

 

[Froome19]

I am waiting for ASO to have a say.
Currently what they say goes, well it should if the UCI have any sense.

 

[ElChingon]

Well the real solution is to dump the ProTour and the UCI and start anew. As this season progresses or actually does not progress (as improve) the more I see that it will have to be stopped till things are more properly addressed <insert clinic discussions>.

Things are really bad and people (cycling) are trying to ignore the mess its in. Its going to get worse as court cases are finalized and people start talking when its their last resort to losing their jobs/career.

 

[pastronef]

Each team may drop up to two WT races; every race guaranteed at least 16 WT teams. Any WT race that has already announced its wild cards can be guaranteed a drop out if they require it. Teams get to choose which races they drop in order of their finishing order in team rankings last year.

that would be perfect. Euskaltel drop Flanders and Roubaix, Lotto drops the Giro, someone will drop Poland or Gent or E3 or Plouay, and so on

 

[avanti]

Each team may drop up to two WT races; every race guaranteed at least 16 WT teams. Any WT race that has already announced its wild cards can be guaranteed a drop out if they require it. Teams get to choose which races they drop in order of their finishing order in team rankings last year.

Some, if not most, teams might want to drop out of Tour Down Under and/or Tour of Beijing if it not a good market for team sponsors (not to mention the expense),

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Some, if not most, teams might want to drop out of Tour Down Under and/or Tour of Beijing if it not a good market for team sponsors (not to mention the expense),

Which is why my proposal would have a minimum number of teams in each race (I suggested 16 of the now 19) to preserve the prestige for the race sponsors/organisers.

Sky's "prize" for winning last year's team classification would be the opportunity to avoid travelling to China (I suspect they have enough Aussie links to retain TDU in their programme) Katusha's reward for second place last year is being able to opt out of the TDU in 2013: oops, they already have...

 

[skippy]

Breaking THEIR OWN RULES , seems to run deep in the UCIless pyche !

Here is the latest example :

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-confirms-19-worldtour-teams-for-2013

Now we have 19 Pro World Teams !

Wonder who is wearing custard at the next UCI ExecMeet ?