• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Amgen Tour of California 2019, May 12-18

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

Broccolidwarf said:
So NBC doesn't want a producer and camera crew that know what they are doing?

Ok then...... :)

They aren't going to pay MORE MONEY for it. They'll use their own that they are already paying for it. They pay the least amount possible because cycling isn't a cash cow like the NFL and NASCAR are.
 
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
Then you'll end up with a WT race with no TV coverage at all.
You'd end up with a race that would quickly lose it's WT label. That's what you'd end up with if teams and sponsors don't get decent (or no) media coverage and stay away.

Also, the coverage would be greatly improved, simply by flying over a director who knows cycling, who knows the riders, who can tell the bikes/chopper which group or riders to follow, and decide which footage is going on air. This wouldn't be a big cost at all. You don't need new equipment, you don't need to replace all your camera guys or pilots. Just fly in one or two guys that know what they're doing. That small cost would be earned back tenfold by having superior footage, that would much more easily be sold in Europe to news stations. But as it stands, if you are missing the decisive jump, the race leader that is getting dropped, or other important race facts, then nobody is going to pay for your lousy footage. In the process, you might get to actually get more Americans to appreciate the sport and gain viewers, by knowing what you're doing and showing relevant footage instead of filming some guy way down in GC while the number 2 in GC is on the attack.

I think they could greatly improve the broadcast with minimal efforts that could pay off big time.
 
Re: Re:

Logic-is-your-friend said:
Koronin said:
Then you'll end up with a WT race with no TV coverage at all.
You'd end up with a race that would quickly lose it's WT label. That's what you'd end up with if teams and sponsors don't get decent (or no) media coverage and stay away.

Also, the coverage would be greatly improved, simply by flying over a director who knows cycling, who knows the riders, who can tell the bikes/chopper which group or riders to follow, and decide which footage is going on air. This wouldn't be a big cost at all. You don't need new equipment, you don't need to replace all your camera guys or pilots. Just fly in one or two guys that know what they're doing. That small cost would be earned back tenfold by having superior footage, that would much more easily be sold in Europe to news stations. But as it stands, if you are missing the decisive jump, the race leader that is getting dropped, or other important race facts, then nobody is going to pay for your lousy footage. In the process, you might get to actually get more Americans to appreciate the sport and gain viewers, by knowing what you're doing and showing relevant footage instead of filming some guy way down in GC while the number 2 in GC is on the attack.

I think they could greatly improve the broadcast with minimal efforts that could pay off big time.

As NBC won't pay for it, who's going to pay for it. Also not sure of what US laws on are on that.

The Tour de France is on live TV, used to be on replays all day, now just the 8pm replay. That's European coverage and ratings have continually declined the last a couple of years.

It's likely NBC is hardly paying anything for the coverage to start with as literally the only other US coverage is either paid streaming services (that can't do a live broadcast to begin with) or a local cable stations that would end up with worse coverage and pay even less for it. You're talking about a very niche sport in the US that the stations don't particularly care about.
As for the race it's self, well there's a bill in the California legislature to require if you are going to ask for permits to close a road for a sports event to require there must be a men and women's event over the entire course of the permit you are asking for. If that becomes law it very well could kill the entire race anyway.
 
Re:

RedheadDane said:
Here are a few fun facts:

1. This was the first time since 2011 with no repeat stage winners. One guy won a stage in both of those editions, that guy was - of course - Peter Sagan.

B. Peter Sagan was - at 29 - the only stage winner over the age of 24. The other stage winners being; Asgreen (24), Cavagna (23), Jakobsen (22), Garcia, (23), Pogačar (20), and Bol (23).

III None of the (major) jerseys were won by anyone over 24. With the green and the polka-dot jersey both being won by 24-year-olds (Asgreen and Ballerini, respectively), while the yellow - and thus also the white - was won by a 20-year-old (Pogačar).
Very good sign for cycling, it looks to me like cycling is cleaning itself up.
 
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
Logic-is-your-friend said:
Koronin said:
Then you'll end up with a WT race with no TV coverage at all.
You'd end up with a race that would quickly lose it's WT label. That's what you'd end up with if teams and sponsors don't get decent (or no) media coverage and stay away.

Also, the coverage would be greatly improved, simply by flying over a director who knows cycling, who knows the riders, who can tell the bikes/chopper which group or riders to follow, and decide which footage is going on air. This wouldn't be a big cost at all. You don't need new equipment, you don't need to replace all your camera guys or pilots. Just fly in one or two guys that know what they're doing. That small cost would be earned back tenfold by having superior footage, that would much more easily be sold in Europe to news stations. But as it stands, if you are missing the decisive jump, the race leader that is getting dropped, or other important race facts, then nobody is going to pay for your lousy footage. In the process, you might get to actually get more Americans to appreciate the sport and gain viewers, by knowing what you're doing and showing relevant footage instead of filming some guy way down in GC while the number 2 in GC is on the attack.

I think they could greatly improve the broadcast with minimal efforts that could pay off big time.

As NBC won't pay for it, who's going to pay for it. Also not sure of what US laws on are on that.

The Tour de France is on live TV, used to be on replays all day, now just the 8pm replay. That's European coverage and ratings have continually declined the last a couple of years.

It's likely NBC is hardly paying anything for the coverage to start with as literally the only other US coverage is either paid streaming services (that can't do a live broadcast to begin with) or a local cable stations that would end up with worse coverage and pay even less for it. You're talking about a very niche sport in the US that the stations don't particularly care about.
As for the race it's self, well there's a bill in the California legislature to require if you are going to ask for permits to close a road for a sports event to require there must be a men and women's event over the entire course of the permit you are asking for. If that becomes law it very well could kill the entire race anyway.
I understand NBC aren't paying for it NOW, but they should. And if not for the US viewers, then for the EU viewers. Like i said, better coverage means they can likely sell it to more EU channels and it would pay back the small investment. I don't know if you read my post, because it feels like you didn't, but all you need is flying in know-how from Europe, even one guy to manage things in the studio as a director on scene, could make a huge impact. And that doesn't have to cost a lot. Or do you think these guys live like kings in Italy, Spain or Belgium? One extra ad sponsor or one extra network buying the broadcast or recap multiplies that amount.

I also don't know what you mean by "Also not sure of what US laws on are on that." What could possibly be the issue? A company hires a guy from abroad for a few weeks, until the job is done and he moves back. Happens all the time. The footage is already being sold to Eurosport, so selling it to other EU channels/networks should not be an issue either.
 
Re: Re:

Logic-is-your-friend said:
Koronin said:
Logic-is-your-friend said:
Koronin said:
Then you'll end up with a WT race with no TV coverage at all.
You'd end up with a race that would quickly lose it's WT label. That's what you'd end up with if teams and sponsors don't get decent (or no) media coverage and stay away.

Also, the coverage would be greatly improved, simply by flying over a director who knows cycling, who knows the riders, who can tell the bikes/chopper which group or riders to follow, and decide which footage is going on air. This wouldn't be a big cost at all. You don't need new equipment, you don't need to replace all your camera guys or pilots. Just fly in one or two guys that know what they're doing. That small cost would be earned back tenfold by having superior footage, that would much more easily be sold in Europe to news stations. But as it stands, if you are missing the decisive jump, the race leader that is getting dropped, or other important race facts, then nobody is going to pay for your lousy footage. In the process, you might get to actually get more Americans to appreciate the sport and gain viewers, by knowing what you're doing and showing relevant footage instead of filming some guy way down in GC while the number 2 in GC is on the attack.

I think they could greatly improve the broadcast with minimal efforts that could pay off big time.

As NBC won't pay for it, who's going to pay for it. Also not sure of what US laws on are on that.

The Tour de France is on live TV, used to be on replays all day, now just the 8pm replay. That's European coverage and ratings have continually declined the last a couple of years.

It's likely NBC is hardly paying anything for the coverage to start with as literally the only other US coverage is either paid streaming services (that can't do a live broadcast to begin with) or a local cable stations that would end up with worse coverage and pay even less for it. You're talking about a very niche sport in the US that the stations don't particularly care about.
As for the race it's self, well there's a bill in the California legislature to require if you are going to ask for permits to close a road for a sports event to require there must be a men and women's event over the entire course of the permit you are asking for. If that becomes law it very well could kill the entire race anyway.
I understand NBC aren't paying for it NOW, but they should. And if not for the US viewers, then for the EU viewers. Like i said, better coverage means they can likely sell it to more EU channels and it would pay back the small investment. I don't know if you read my post, because it feels like you didn't, but all you need is flying in know-how from Europe, even one guy to manage things in the studio as a director on scene, could make a huge impact. And that doesn't have to cost a lot. Or do you think these guys live like kings in Italy, Spain or Belgium? One extra ad sponsor or one extra network buying the broadcast or recap multiplies that amount.

I also don't know what you mean by "Also not sure of what US laws on are on that." What could possibly be the issue? A company hires a guy from abroad for a few weeks, until the job is done and he moves back. Happens all the time. The footage is already being sold to Eurosport, so selling it to other EU channels/networks should not be an issue either.

Oh, I agree or heck just hire a fan and they'd have a better broadcast. The problem here is US broadcast TV. I'm not entirely sure they care. For sports the networks here make their money on the NFL and NASCAR. The ad buy time for a 30 second commercial for the Super Bowl is insane. The NBA is a bit off from that. You can tell the difference in broadcast quality between the NFL and say the NHL which is well below the other major sports. Cycling is well below that. Yesterday and today just trying to watch Indy qualifying was an issue. Today was qualifying for the final 3 spots and they go to commercial when a car is getting ready to start it's run and come back after it's run 1-2 of the 4 laps. That is not fan friendly. I doubt that's something they are thinking about. It's more like well we have to do something with this so here you go. Would it help them sell more to Euro TV sure, but not sure the execs at NBC (or any other major network) would understand that. I think a lot of that is due to how cycling is looked at over here. Remember they will cut the Tour de France coverage as soon as a stage ends if it's gone over the allotted time for pre game stuff or pre race stuff for NASCAR.

As for US laws, those would be the work Visa laws. That entire part of our system is a mess and needs a major overhaul.
 
Re: Re:

Koronin said:
Logic-is-your-friend said:
Koronin said:
Logic-is-your-friend said:
Koronin said:
Then you'll end up with a WT race with no TV coverage at all.
You'd end up with a race that would quickly lose it's WT label. That's what you'd end up with if teams and sponsors don't get decent (or no) media coverage and stay away.

Also, the coverage would be greatly improved, simply by flying over a director who knows cycling, who knows the riders, who can tell the bikes/chopper which group or riders to follow, and decide which footage is going on air. This wouldn't be a big cost at all. You don't need new equipment, you don't need to replace all your camera guys or pilots. Just fly in one or two guys that know what they're doing. That small cost would be earned back tenfold by having superior footage, that would much more easily be sold in Europe to news stations. But as it stands, if you are missing the decisive jump, the race leader that is getting dropped, or other important race facts, then nobody is going to pay for your lousy footage. In the process, you might get to actually get more Americans to appreciate the sport and gain viewers, by knowing what you're doing and showing relevant footage instead of filming some guy way down in GC while the number 2 in GC is on the attack.

I think they could greatly improve the broadcast with minimal efforts that could pay off big time.

As NBC won't pay for it, who's going to pay for it. Also not sure of what US laws on are on that.

The Tour de France is on live TV, used to be on replays all day, now just the 8pm replay. That's European coverage and ratings have continually declined the last a couple of years.

It's likely NBC is hardly paying anything for the coverage to start with as literally the only other US coverage is either paid streaming services (that can't do a live broadcast to begin with) or a local cable stations that would end up with worse coverage and pay even less for it. You're talking about a very niche sport in the US that the stations don't particularly care about.
As for the race it's self, well there's a bill in the California legislature to require if you are going to ask for permits to close a road for a sports event to require there must be a men and women's event over the entire course of the permit you are asking for. If that becomes law it very well could kill the entire race anyway.
I understand NBC aren't paying for it NOW, but they should. And if not for the US viewers, then for the EU viewers. Like i said, better coverage means they can likely sell it to more EU channels and it would pay back the small investment. I don't know if you read my post, because it feels like you didn't, but all you need is flying in know-how from Europe, even one guy to manage things in the studio as a director on scene, could make a huge impact. And that doesn't have to cost a lot. Or do you think these guys live like kings in Italy, Spain or Belgium? One extra ad sponsor or one extra network buying the broadcast or recap multiplies that amount.

I also don't know what you mean by "Also not sure of what US laws on are on that." What could possibly be the issue? A company hires a guy from abroad for a few weeks, until the job is done and he moves back. Happens all the time. The footage is already being sold to Eurosport, so selling it to other EU channels/networks should not be an issue either.

Oh, I agree or heck just hire a fan and they'd have a better broadcast. The problem here is US broadcast TV. I'm not entirely sure they care. For sports the networks here make their money on the NFL and NASCAR. The ad buy time for a 30 second commercial for the Super Bowl is insane. The NBA is a bit off from that. You can tell the difference in broadcast quality between the NFL and say the NHL which is well below the other major sports. Cycling is well below that. Yesterday and today just trying to watch Indy qualifying was an issue. Today was qualifying for the final 3 spots and they go to commercial when a car is getting ready to start it's run and come back after it's run 1-2 of the 4 laps. That is not fan friendly. I doubt that's something they are thinking about. It's more like well we have to do something with this so here you go. Would it help them sell more to Euro TV sure, but not sure the execs at NBC (or any other major network) would understand that. I think a lot of that is due to how cycling is looked at over here. Remember they will cut the Tour de France coverage as soon as a stage ends if it's gone over the allotted time for pre game stuff or pre race stuff for NASCAR.

As for US laws, those would be the work Visa laws. That entire part of our system is a mess and needs a major overhaul.
I'm sorry, but your assertion that "NBC won't pay for it" is honestly ridiculous.

We are talking about a race, that 500+ people fly in to, from all over the world, and you are saying NBC does not have it in their budget, to fly in an experienced cycling producer for the production booth?

Their choice HAS to be, to use a worse producer, thereby deteriorating the value of their product for future sponsors?

I don't think so.

Unless you can prove that claim, I call BS :)

Also, you seem to think NBC has a huge staff of producers under contract, that they divide amongst their various productions..... that's not how modern TV productions work..... they will most probably have hired a production company to handle production for them.
 
So, sometimes I like reading race reports from various races, and take a look at the report from NBC.
In particular this part:

Philipsen’s third-place finish helped him secure the best young rider jersey, while Asgreen won the points jersey as the top sprinter and Ballerini secured the king of the mountains jersey.
What? What?! WHAT???
 
Re: Re:

Broccolidwarf said:
Koronin said:
Koronin said:
Logic-is-your-friend said:
Koronin said:
Then you'll end up with a WT race with no TV coverage at all.
You'd end up with a race that would quickly lose it's WT label. That's what you'd end up with if teams and sponsors don't get decent (or no) media coverage and stay away.

Also, the coverage would be greatly improved, simply by flying over a director who knows cycling, who knows the riders, who can tell the bikes/chopper which group or riders to follow, and decide which footage is going on air. This wouldn't be a big cost at all. You don't need new equipment, you don't need to replace all your camera guys or pilots. Just fly in one or two guys that know what they're doing. That small cost would be earned back tenfold by having superior footage, that would much more easily be sold in Europe to news stations. But as it stands, if you are missing the decisive jump, the race leader that is getting dropped, or other important race facts, then nobody is going to pay for your lousy footage. In the process, you might get to actually get more Americans to appreciate the sport and gain viewers, by knowing what you're doing and showing relevant footage instead of filming some guy way down in GC while the number 2 in GC is on the attack.

I think they could greatly improve the broadcast with minimal efforts that could pay off big time.

As NBC won't pay for it, who's going to pay for it. Also not sure of what US laws on are on that.

The Tour de France is on live TV, used to be on replays all day, now just the 8pm replay. That's European coverage and ratings have continually declined the last a couple of years.

It's likely NBC is hardly paying anything for the coverage to start with as literally the only other US coverage is either paid streaming services (that can't do a live broadcast to begin with) or a local cable stations that would end up with worse coverage and pay even less for it. You're talking about a very niche sport in the US that the stations don't particularly care about.
As for the race it's self, well there's a bill in the California legislature to require if you are going to ask for permits to close a road for a sports event to require there must be a men and women's event over the entire course of the permit you are asking for. If that becomes law it very well could kill the entire race anyway.
I understand NBC aren't paying for it NOW, but they should. And if not for the US viewers, then for the EU viewers. Like i said, better coverage means they can likely sell it to more EU channels and it would pay back the small investment. I don't know if you read my post, because it feels like you didn't, but all you need is flying in know-how from Europe, even one guy to manage things in the studio as a director on scene, could make a huge impact. And that doesn't have to cost a lot. Or do you think these guys live like kings in Italy, Spain or Belgium? One extra ad sponsor or one extra network buying the broadcast or recap multiplies that amount.

I also don't know what you mean by "Also not sure of what US laws on are on that." What could possibly be the issue? A company hires a guy from abroad for a few weeks, until the job is done and he moves back. Happens all the time. The footage is already being sold to Eurosport, so selling it to other EU channels/networks should not be an issue either.

Oh, I agree or heck just hire a fan and they'd have a better broadcast. The problem here is US broadcast TV. I'm not entirely sure they care. For sports the networks here make their money on the NFL and NASCAR. The ad buy time for a 30 second commercial for the Super Bowl is insane. The NBA is a bit off from that. You can tell the difference in broadcast quality between the NFL and say the NHL which is well below the other major sports. Cycling is well below that. Yesterday and today just trying to watch Indy qualifying was an issue. Today was qualifying for the final 3 spots and they go to commercial when a car is getting ready to start it's run and come back after it's run 1-2 of the 4 laps. That is not fan friendly. I doubt that's something they are thinking about. It's more like well we have to do something with this so here you go. Would it help them sell more to Euro TV sure, but not sure the execs at NBC (or any other major network) would understand that. I think a lot of that is due to how cycling is looked at over here. Remember they will cut the Tour de France coverage as soon as a stage ends if it's gone over the allotted time for pre game stuff or pre race stuff for NASCAR.

As for US laws, those would be the work Visa laws. That entire part of our system is a mess and needs a major overhaul.
I'm sorry, but your assertion that "NBC won't pay for it" is honestly ridiculous.

We are talking about a race, that 500+ people fly in to, from all over the world, and you are saying NBC does not have it in their budget, to fly in an experienced cycling producer for the production booth?

Their choice HAS to be, to use a worse producer, thereby deteriorating the value of their product for future sponsors?

I don't think so.

Unless you can prove that claim, I call BS :)

Also, you seem to think NBC has a huge staff of producers under contract, that they divide amongst their various productions..... that's not how modern TV productions work..... they will most probably have hired a production company to handle production for them.[/quote]


They have their own sports network. If there was a production company it would be listed. Sports events are produced by the networks themselves. Most of the networks over here own their own production companies. The only one currently that doesn't is Fox because they just sold it to Disney. Disney owns ABC. Yes the crew working the race or whatever sporting event is working directly for that network.
 
Just got a post on my FB to say that the ToC will not take place in 2020.
Slightly extreme reaction to Sagan deciding to ride the Giro instead....

 
WOW. Although with the new laws California passed I was wondering if this would happen.
Oh yeah, the equal races for women? I’d forgotten about that. If that turns out to be a factor, it’ll be a real backward step.

Just checking, and the law was equal PAY for women, but there were objections to the Women’s race having fewer days, so adding up to less pay overall. Like I said, it’d be a shame for the race to get punished for not doing enough, despite the fact they do more than almost all other races out there.
 
Last edited:
Wait, what? California passed a law that there has to be an equal race for women? (And where did the Confused emoji go?)
I misremembered slightly. California passed a law that says any sporting event using public lands (ie, having a bicycle race on public streets) has to have equal pay for men and women.

The ToC does offer equal prize money for the men’s and women’s stage winners, overall winners etc. but the objection of some is that since the Women’s race is only 3 stages, this equates to paying the women less.

 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Yeah, that law. I wondered at the time it was passed if that would mean the end of the ToC. I would not be at all surprised if it had a major impact on this decision to cancel next year's race. I also don't expect to see it come back. There were questions as to whether the women's race would be required to be lengthened or the men's race shorted to fit the law as well. I don't think the organizers want to deal with the headaches of that.
 
I hope the law wasn’t a major sticking point, because if it was, it’ll just be ammunition for the wingnut anti-progressive “Title 9 killed my son’s football team” types to rally behind.
If it was a problem, though, I hope the organizers come out and say it, and make it clear to those who pushed the law through that it was an overreach whose time had not yet come, and all they’ve done is eliminate one of the races that was actually showing signs of moving in the right direction.
 
Reactions: Koronin
I hope the law wasn’t a major sticking point, because if it was, it’ll just be ammunition for the wingnut anti-progressive “Title 9 killed my son’s football team” types to rally behind.
If it was a problem, though, I hope the organizers come out and say it, and make it clear to those who pushed the law through that it was an overreach whose time had not yet come, and all they’ve done is eliminate one of the races that was actually showing signs of moving in the right direction.
I suspect it was likely the straw that broke the camel's back. They had be losing money for a few years, but the new laws likely ended up with the organization and sponsors decided it wasn't worth it to keep going. For me, I get the intent of the law, but unfortunately when it was passed I was afraid this was going to happen. You can't legislate full equality in sports. You have to have the fan support and sponsor support or it won't happen. They do mention financing as a reason for shutting down the race.
 
It's probably too easy to blame that legislation though. The problem with so many of the American races has been, in the aim of taking the race to a larger public audience for what is a minority sport, trying to sell something they could never deliver. The move to May drove some painfully inaccurate self-aggrandising marketing about the importance of the race, and it was sold as something it simply wasn't - the calendar spot meant that the GT specialists who rode it were miles away from top form, and the classics stars who rode it were coming off a rest period. They got the stars, but they didn't get a race. Afterwards, they managed to set the race into the niche Romandie had 10-15 years ago of being a stage racer's proving ground, and it seemed to have found quite a nice niche as that too, but the problem is, it's a lot harder to sell host towns and sponsors on the potential stars of the future when you originally, a few years ago, promised the stars of today. Like so many American races before it, the marketing showed the need to be seen as an equal to races it could never match for history and prestige in order to sell the public on the race, and the sponsors' and hosts unwillingness to settle for anything less than the fanciful and largely undeliverable promises they were made left it ailing.

A really disappointing parcours in 2018 didn't help, but I also feel that the race handicapped itself from an audience point of view and left itself on the back foot throughout its run since the move to May - the hard sell likely disappointed casual US fans who might have expected more effort from most of the stars that were drawn across the pond for it in the early days, while the talk of it being the fourth Grand Tour and its fast ascent and importance alienated a lot of potential fans outside of the US who saw this as arrogant and delusional, while talk in the press of the Giro and Vuelta being shortened to two weeks to make room for a GT-status Tour of California (which happened in 2010-11 kind of time) led to some sections of the fanbase to view the race and the intentions of its organisers with suspicion if not outright hostility, which it's not really recovered from in its perceptions.

I'm sure the legislation will have played a role, given the women's race has largely been pretty lazy to date - one replica of a fairly decisive stage, then a flat stage and a crit, except 2016 when they had a TTT to ensure Kristin Armstrong got some Olympics qualification points. Not as lazy as ASO or Unipublic, to their credit, but nevertheless. However, running parallel five day races would have been possible, you'd have thought. Was it that the race was outright unviable anymore, or that they couldn't produce a race that they felt did the race justice, and didn't want to organise a dreadful facsimile of the race's glory days akin to some of the recent editions of the Vuelta a Castilla y León?
 
Reactions: Red Rick
Jeez, LS, never write a short post when an elongated transmission will be sufficient.

I don't think anyone ever genuinely kidded themselves that the ToC was a "3rd Grand Tour." Talking about being the "4th biggest race in the World" is just something pretty much any stage race that isn't a GT does.

I think the race had found a niche. It was (is?) a 1-week prep race with good weather and a testing course, but they liked to keep the sprinters (Cav, Sagan, Kristoff, Gaviria) happy, so they always made sure they had enough sprint stages that it wasn’t overly taxing (they even had crosswinds in the Central Valley a couple times). It had earned its place as a WT event by having decent racing and drawing competitive fields, but still giving local kids a shot at a stage win or a KOM jersey for a few days.

There's still so much potential for some great stages on the California terrain, too. Wherever you are in the state, you're never too far from a few multi-thousand ft climbs, but also some dead flat roads.
 
Right, even if it isn't because of the equality law, it would still be rather cool if the organisers use this hiatus to actually make equal races for the men and the women. One thing I've noticed is that quite often when there is a woman's race at the same day as a men's race (same race, not like... the Giro Rosa overlapping with the Tour de France) the women's race will be treated almost as a "warm up" event before the "main race". However, why not switch it up a little? Have them take turns for who starts first.
As for the ITT - if such is held - does it even need to be "first the women and then the men" (or the other way)? If the stages before are completely identical, surely it'd be possible to make an "overall GC" for both, then send them off according to that.
 
Nov 20, 2018
48
1
85
Right, even if it isn't because of the equality law, it would still be rather cool if the organisers use this hiatus to actually make equal races for the men and the women. One thing I've noticed is that quite often when there is a woman's race at the same day as a men's race (same race, not like... the Giro Rosa overlapping with the Tour de France) the women's race will be treated almost as a "warm up" event before the "main race". However, why not switch it up a little? Have them take turns for who starts first.
As for the ITT - if such is held - does it even need to be "first the women and then the men" (or the other way)? If the stages before are completely identical, surely it'd be possible to make an "overall GC" for both, then send them off according to that.

I think that the most interesting way would be to make a really joint races as in the Czech and Slovak NCs. That is, same route and same starting time for both men and women (OTL rules may differ). As in NCs there should be two official results list, while the combined positions would be unofficial and maybe used for TT(T).


I presume that the results in such a race would be very surprising.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS