ASO wants to leave World Tour in 2017

[poupou]

Re:

If the sport is to be global we can't let three separate tours each of three weeks gobble up so much of the calendar.
So to progress and make more room for the tours in Poland, California and the like.... (i) one a year in rotation (Italy then France then Spain), or (ii) a single three-week tour that spends a week in each of the three countries (but never finishing is France as that is too tame a finish).
The message that already comes from the three of them is that their country on its own isn't big enough, what with the TDF starting in Ireland, the Giro in Poland.... they've rather shot themselves in the foot on this score.

So some organisers have done the job for 100 years, and there is some others that want to take their cakes!

By leaving WT, ASO has left pace for others, isn't it?

 

[junkie]

Wow, this is big.
Kudos to ASO for keeping fans entertained during off-season (j/k)

 

[Red Rick]

ASO is bad, UCI is worse. Don't know what would mean exactly.

Still sounds a lot better than some rich chinese dude buying all up to make a profit

 

[Alexandre B.]

Re:

This is very bad for cycling.
With a bit irony one colud say, that if velon teams dont participate on the TDF, maybe the Giro will be the new TDF. If someone buys the Vuelta from ASO, then everybody will ride the Giro and the Vuelta and the TDF wil become a local french race, who nobody cares about. This solves also the problem with 3 too long grandtours, which makes it impossible for the best rides to compete against each other on all of them.

The Tour de France is too important for sponsors.

 

[Carols]

ASO wants to be the gorilla and are fearful that Velon and the UCI working together would threaten their position as top dog. IMO they are on a power trip and should be taken down a notch.

 

[vedrafjord]

I think the World Tour is a joke and I don't see the benefit of forcing the likes of Euskaltel-Euskadi to do Paris-Roubaix. The Tour was run as a non-UCI race in 2008 so there's a precedent.

 

[animir]

Re: Re:

This is very bad for cycling.
With a bit irony one colud say, that if velon teams dont participate on the TDF, maybe the Giro will be the new TDF. If someone buys the Vuelta from ASO, then everybody will ride the Giro and the Vuelta and the TDF wil become a local french race, who nobody cares about. This solves also the problem with 3 too long grandtours, which makes it impossible for the best rides to compete against each other on all of them.

The Tour de France is too important for sponsors.

I agree. That's why I have written, it is bad for cycling. The rest of my post was a bit ironical, like somethig which has small probability, but ASO would deserve it...

 

[Gigs_98]

Don't know what to think about this. Generally I think the tdf will still be the most important race, no matter if it is a WT race or not. The average cycling fan is a julyer and a julyer doesnt care if the watches a WT race or not and he also wont notice if a few WT teams are missing. However I see some problems for the teams, because some teams simply buy their riders because they want them to compete in the tdf or other big WT races. Imagine Cancellara would make his career one year longer to win PR one last time and then he cannot even start because his team isnt invited.

Besides that, I'm not sure if I understood that correctly, but will these races simply be Europe Tour races next year or are these aso races in a complete new class. Whatever, there have to be lots of new WT races next year, right? Or will the WT simply have way less races next year? Thats probably more likely because WT teams have to compete in WT races, but I just think it would be funny, if the UCI makes two or three new WT races during july so the WT teams cannot compete in the tdf, because they have to use their athletes for other races

 

[Alexandre B.]

Besides that, I'm not sure if I understood that correctly, but will these races simply be Europe Tour races next year or are these aso races in a complete new class.

Likely 2.HC, Europe Tour.

Obviously, things will change before 2017.

 

[togo95]

Thats probably more likely because WT teams have to compete in WT races, but I just think it would be funny, if the UCI makes two or three new WT races during july so the WT teams cannot compete in the tdf, because they have to use their athletes for other races

Funny indeed, but it would be suicidal for UCI as well. Not necessarily a bad thing that.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Anybody follow sportscar racing?

Basically, there, the ACO (Automobile Club de l'Ouest) call the shots. The FIA has its GT rules and it creates its own sportscar rules, but for the most part it has to homologate them with the rules the ACO put forward because they own Le Mans. The same applies here.

The UCI's reforms - even in the much neutered form that has eventually been presented as opposed to the original pathetic excuse for cycling that was the "six days maximum for stage races, promote Abu Dhabi and Dubai and dump Catalunya and the like to the wilderness, 22 riders to a team max, no overlapping races" proposal (or the "everything a four day race with one sprint, one hilly stage, one mountain stage, one time trial" idea presented). In fact, no idea that I have seen presented has provided a noticeable improvement over the current status quo, whether it be Brian Cookson's harakiri or Jonathan Vaughters trying to shut the door behind him and prevent other teams increasing in stature. If the choice for the ASO is to go ahead with "improvements" that are anything but, or take on a position that gives them greater freedom to invite who they want without many flaws (given that the races are in general still important enough people will fight to do them), why wouldn't they take the latter?

It's a bit like when Cervélo Test Team was set up. They had a squad strong enough that they could basically get an invite to any race they wanted, so they didn't bother going Pro Tour, cos it cost more and restricted their freedom in selecting their calendar. BMC went the same way after buying Evans, Hincapie and Ballan, until the UCI were forced to reform to make it more advantageous to be World Tour and less advantageous to buy in and go Pro Conti like Cervélo had. Only with races.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Cookson is really bad for cycling, so hopefully ASO's move will rattle the snake a bit.

In any case its a major invitation to teams to just operate at PCT level if they dare taking a few chances.

 

[jaylew]

Re:

Honest question, Who's the lesser evil, the UCI or ASO?

There have been times I wouldn't have said this but UCI by far. As usual, any change ASO even remotely thinks will threaten its power in the sport will be vetoed. ASO only cares about its own self interest, which I guess is understandable but it's disheartening as a cycling fan. As much as I love it, cycling really is a joke sometimes.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

Hope the UCI call their bluff.

ASO don't run the sport and if they want to erode their own races by weakening the field, that's their call.

Considering ASO own some of, if not the, most highly prized races in the cycling calendar I don't think we'll see a weakening of the field riding most them.

You cannot invite more than 70% World Tour teams to .HC events in Europe. Therefore if 30% must come from Pro Continental or below, the field will be weaker. Presently the TdF for example runs at 80% WT teams.

So that means all the WT Teams couldn't get a TDF Invite if these rules were applied?

Correct. There is a max of 70% WT teams allowed. The rest MUST be PC teams or Continental teams.

 

[MTroon]

The ASO is negotiating from a very protective and negative place. Obviously this neuters the 3 year UCI licensing reform because what (new) sponsor will be attracted to cycling if they are tied to a 3 year deal with no guarantee of participation in the biggest races? But why nix a seemingly common sense guarantee? I can only guess that ASO sees any change as ceding power to the UCI and a slippery slope to losing their hegemony and cash cows. They would rather be the only fish in the Euro pond than be the big fish in a growing sea. Tinkov's strategy starts making a lot more sense. Ultimately the power lies with the riders. The riders need strong, well funded leadership and be willing to risk some hardship. The 3rd path, or a new alliance between the UCI and the riders is the only path to growth. Does the spectator market care? The ASO is betting they don't. The big losers are the domestiques, development teams, and team support staff. The work-a-day people. The big riders and owners won't be hurt.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

This is very bad for cycling.
With a bit irony one colud say, that if velon teams dont participate on the TDF, maybe the Giro will be the new TDF. If someone buys the Vuelta from ASO, then everybody will ride the Giro and the Vuelta and the TDF wil become a local french race, who nobody cares about. This solves also the problem with 3 too long grandtours, which makes it impossible for the best rides to compete against each other on all of them.

The Tour de France is too important for sponsors.

any sponsor cannot risk to spend all that money to set up a WT team, and then NOT RACE the Tour. it is unthinkable

 

[Alexandre B.]

ASO is basically the spokesperson of the AIOCC (race organizers rejected the reform with 77 votes against 6).

Velon's goal is to eliminate any risks, any incertitude. They want to control any race they enter. They want to create artificial entertainment.
Well, it's basically what they achieved with that Abu Dhabi Tour (and this joke of a UCI gala).

Interestingly, that gala was held the same day as Paris-Tours, a 1.HC race organized by ASO, and a well-established one. It was a beautiful race. It was a popular race. It was an undecided race. It is what cycling is all about.

 

[Al Lesklar]

Re:

ASO is basically the spokesperson of the AIOCC

I think you have that backwards.
I have no particular brief for the ASO, but you can't get around the fact that it does the heavy lifting by organising the events. If worst came to worst, the TdF could revert to ad hoc national teams and probably remain a going concern. The UCI exists basically as a subcontractor to provide the veneer of impartial officiating.

 

[May0maniac]

Re:

Given that ASO claim the reason for this move is to "give priority to sporting criterion" - i.e. stop the 3-year licences - here is a different question:

Who's the lesser evil: ASO or Velon?

ASO, by far, Velon's ideas aren't great for cycling, stupid circuit races and expensive tickets.
I don't like ASO, but I feel that the UCI and Velon are much worse, their ideas would really harm the sport, having races in those Emirates is just about short term profit and does nothing for the growth of the sport, how about hosting races in countries outside of Europe that actually have a nice domestic cycling scene and where people actually care about cycling?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

The ASO is negotiating from a very protective and negative place. Obviously this neuters the 3 year UCI licensing reform because what (new) sponsor will be attracted to cycling if they are tied to a 3 year deal with no guarantee of participation in the biggest races? But why nix a seemingly common sense guarantee? I can only guess that ASO sees any change as ceding power to the UCI and a slippery slope to losing their hegemony and cash cows. They would rather be the only fish in the Euro pond than be the big fish in a growing sea. Tinkov's strategy starts making a lot more sense. Ultimately the power lies with the riders. The riders need strong, well funded leadership and be willing to risk some hardship. The 3rd path, or a new alliance between the UCI and the riders is the only path to growth. Does the spectator market care? The ASO is betting they don't. The big losers are the domestiques, development teams, and team support staff. The work-a-day people. The big riders and owners won't be hurt.

Yea, because the domestiques and development teams won't be hurt AT ALL by UCI reform plans like 22 rider teams and locking off the top level to teams that build from the ground up.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

The ASO is negotiating from a very protective and negative place. Obviously this neuters the 3 year UCI licensing reform because what (new) sponsor will be attracted to cycling if they are tied to a 3 year deal with no guarantee of participation in the biggest races? But why nix a seemingly common sense guarantee? I can only guess that ASO sees any change as ceding power to the UCI and a slippery slope to losing their hegemony and cash cows. They would rather be the only fish in the Euro pond than be the big fish in a growing sea. Tinkov's strategy starts making a lot more sense. Ultimately the power lies with the riders. The riders need strong, well funded leadership and be willing to risk some hardship. The 3rd path, or a new alliance between the UCI and the riders is the only path to growth. Does the spectator market care? The ASO is betting they don't. The big losers are the domestiques, development teams, and team support staff. The work-a-day people. The big riders and owners won't be hurt.

Yea, because the domestiques and development teams won't be hurt AT ALL by UCI reform plans like 22 rider teams and locking off the top level to teams that build from the ground up.

The 22 rider teams plans really would hurt both WT domestiques and aspiring young riders, both by reducing the number of jobs available and by creating more intense competition for the remaining jobs. In turn that last part would drive wages down, not up, creating an employer's market. It's a reform the UCI were pushing so as to help out teams at the expense of the one group of "stakeholders" with no organised power, the riders.

I don't agree that the three year rule would significantly effect teams that "build from the ground up" though. The teams it would hurt are those that intend to quickly buy their way in at the top tier. That may or may not be a good thing, but it's not quite the same thing. I'm personally quite sympathetic to changes intended to make teams more stable - that's actually one of the few reforms proposed by anybody that would also be of benefit to riders, reducing the number of times any given rider finds himself suddenly scrambling for a new ride at short notice over the period of his career. Last minute searches for a new team because a new sponsor hasn't been found, don't just sometimes fail, leading to unemployment, they nearly always leave the rider negotiating his next contract from a position of weakness.

 

[Jancouver]

Re: Re:

The ASO is negotiating from a very protective and negative place. Obviously this neuters the 3 year UCI licensing reform because what (new) sponsor will be attracted to cycling if they are tied to a 3 year deal with no guarantee of participation in the biggest races? But why nix a seemingly common sense guarantee? I can only guess that ASO sees any change as ceding power to the UCI and a slippery slope to losing their hegemony and cash cows. They would rather be the only fish in the Euro pond than be the big fish in a growing sea. Tinkov's strategy starts making a lot more sense. Ultimately the power lies with the riders. The riders need strong, well funded leadership and be willing to risk some hardship. The 3rd path, or a new alliance between the UCI and the riders is the only path to growth. Does the spectator market care? The ASO is betting they don't. The big losers are the domestiques, development teams, and team support staff. The work-a-day people. The big riders and owners won't be hurt.

Yea, because the domestiques and development teams won't be hurt AT ALL by UCI reform plans like 22 rider teams and locking off the top level to teams that build from the ground up.

The 22 rider teams plans really would hurt both WT domestiques and aspiring young riders, both by reducing the number of jobs available and by creating more intense competition for the remaining jobs. In turn that last part would drive wages down, not up, creating an employer's market. It's a reform the UCI were pushing so as to help out teams at the expense of the one group of "stakeholders" with no organised power, the riders.

I don't agree that the three year rule would significantly effect teams that "build from the ground up" though. The teams it would hurt are those that intend to quickly buy their way in at the top tier. That may or may not be a good thing, but it's not quite the same thing. I'm personally quite sympathetic to changes intended to make teams more stable - that's actually one of the few reforms proposed by anybody that would also be of benefit to riders, reducing the number of times any given rider finds himself suddenly scrambling for a new ride at short notice over the period of his career. Last minute searches for a new team because a new sponsor hasn't been found, don't just sometimes fail, leading to unemployment, they nearly always leave the rider negotiating his next contract from a position of weakness.

Reducing the number of jobs? WTF? This should be the top of the cream elite club. There is toooooo many "pro" cyclist out there anyway. We dont need 2000 or 3000 so called "pro" cyclist.

I would be totally fine watching the best 150-200 riders to battle on a regular basis. Like in football leagues, 16-18 teams of 20 guys is perfectly fine. Or in tennis, the grand slams will have 128 players including qualifiers.

I think even Giro or TDF with the best 128 riders would be more exciting than the current 200 where you have 10 guys chasing the top placings, 5 guys chasing the sprints and the rest is there just to support them. What a boring concept.

I don't really want to watch the current concept where you have 8 SKY domestiques riding like robots looking down on their powermeter towing their leader to the 1km sign.

Give me 2 weeks long TDF, 20 teams of 6, no radios, no powermeters and you will see some exciting battles.

I dont even need the TDF, who cares where they ride. When the best 100 riders shows up for the Tour of Danmark/Poland/Swiss/California etc. it will be a good race to watch. Better than the hyped up boring TDF we have seen the last few years.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

The ASO is negotiating from a very protective and negative place. Obviously this neuters the 3 year UCI licensing reform because what (new) sponsor will be attracted to cycling if they are tied to a 3 year deal with no guarantee of participation in the biggest races? But why nix a seemingly common sense guarantee? I can only guess that ASO sees any change as ceding power to the UCI and a slippery slope to losing their hegemony and cash cows. They would rather be the only fish in the Euro pond than be the big fish in a growing sea. Tinkov's strategy starts making a lot more sense. Ultimately the power lies with the riders. The riders need strong, well funded leadership and be willing to risk some hardship. The 3rd path, or a new alliance between the UCI and the riders is the only path to growth. Does the spectator market care? The ASO is betting they don't. The big losers are the domestiques, development teams, and team support staff. The work-a-day people. The big riders and owners won't be hurt.

Yea, because the domestiques and development teams won't be hurt AT ALL by UCI reform plans like 22 rider teams and locking off the top level to teams that build from the ground up.

The 22 rider teams plans really would hurt both WT domestiques and aspiring young riders, both by reducing the number of jobs available and by creating more intense competition for the remaining jobs. In turn that last part would drive wages down, not up, creating an employer's market. It's a reform the UCI were pushing so as to help out teams at the expense of the one group of "stakeholders" with no organised power, the riders.

I don't agree that the three year rule would significantly effect teams that "build from the ground up" though. The teams it would hurt are those that intend to quickly buy their way in at the top tier. That may or may not be a good thing, but it's not quite the same thing. I'm personally quite sympathetic to changes intended to make teams more stable - that's actually one of the few reforms proposed by anybody that would also be of benefit to riders, reducing the number of times any given rider finds himself suddenly scrambling for a new ride at short notice over the period of his career. Last minute searches for a new team because a new sponsor hasn't been found, don't just sometimes fail, leading to unemployment, they nearly always leave the rider negotiating his next contract from a position of weakness.

Reducing the number of jobs? WTF? This should be the top of the cream elite club. There is toooooo many "pro" cyclist out there anyway. We dont need 2000 or 3000 so called "pro" cyclist.

I would be totally fine watching the best 150-200 riders to battle on a regular basis. Like in football leagues, 16-18 teams of 20 guys is perfectly fine. Or in tennis, the grand slams will have 128 players including qualifiers.

I think even Giro or TDF with the best 128 riders would be more exciting than the current 200 where you have 10 guys chasing the top placings, 5 guys chasing the sprints and the rest is there just to support them. What a boring concept.

I don't really want to watch the current concept where you have 8 SKY domestiques riding like robots looking down on their powermeter towing their leader to the 1km sign.

Give me 2 weeks long TDF, 20 teams of 6, no radios, no powermeters and you will see some exciting battles.

I dont even need the TDF, who cares where they ride. When the best 100 riders shows up for the Tour of Danmark/Poland/Swiss/California etc. it will be a good race to watch. Better than the hyped up boring TDF we have seen the last few years.

NOOOOO!!!! The attrition will not be the same over 2 weeks. You wanna see good racing. Take all your idea's but leave the GT's at 3 weeks. Oh and force the top gc riders to ride all three gt's.

 

[jaylew]

Re: Re:

The ASO is negotiating from a very protective and negative place. Obviously this neuters the 3 year UCI licensing reform because what (new) sponsor will be attracted to cycling if they are tied to a 3 year deal with no guarantee of participation in the biggest races? But why nix a seemingly common sense guarantee? I can only guess that ASO sees any change as ceding power to the UCI and a slippery slope to losing their hegemony and cash cows. They would rather be the only fish in the Euro pond than be the big fish in a growing sea. Tinkov's strategy starts making a lot more sense. Ultimately the power lies with the riders. The riders need strong, well funded leadership and be willing to risk some hardship. The 3rd path, or a new alliance between the UCI and the riders is the only path to growth. Does the spectator market care? The ASO is betting they don't. The big losers are the domestiques, development teams, and team support staff. The work-a-day people. The big riders and owners won't be hurt.

Yea, because the domestiques and development teams won't be hurt AT ALL by UCI reform plans like 22 rider teams and locking off the top level to teams that build from the ground up.

The 22 rider teams plans really would hurt both WT domestiques and aspiring young riders, both by reducing the number of jobs available and by creating more intense competition for the remaining jobs. In turn that last part would drive wages down, not up, creating an employer's market. It's a reform the UCI were pushing so as to help out teams at the expense of the one group of "stakeholders" with no organised power, the riders.

I don't agree that the three year rule would significantly effect teams that "build from the ground up" though. The teams it would hurt are those that intend to quickly buy their way in at the top tier. That may or may not be a good thing, but it's not quite the same thing. I'm personally quite sympathetic to changes intended to make teams more stable - that's actually one of the few reforms proposed by anybody that would also be of benefit to riders, reducing the number of times any given rider finds himself suddenly scrambling for a new ride at short notice over the period of his career. Last minute searches for a new team because a new sponsor hasn't been found, don't just sometimes fail, leading to unemployment, they nearly always leave the rider negotiating his next contract from a position of weakness.

Reducing the number of jobs? WTF? This should be the top of the cream elite club. There is toooooo many "pro" cyclist out there anyway. We dont need 2000 or 3000 so called "pro" cyclist.

I would be totally fine watching the best 150-200 riders to battle on a regular basis. Like in football leagues, 16-18 teams of 20 guys is perfectly fine. Or in tennis, the grand slams will have 128 players including qualifiers.

I think even Giro or TDF with the best 128 riders would be more exciting than the current 200 where you have 10 guys chasing the top placings, 5 guys chasing the sprints and the rest is there just to support them. What a boring concept.

I don't really want to watch the current concept where you have 8 SKY domestiques riding like robots looking down on their powermeter towing their leader to the 1km sign.

Give me 2 weeks long TDF, 20 teams of 6, no radios, no powermeters and you will see some exciting battles.

I dont even need the TDF, who cares where they ride. When the best 100 riders shows up for the Tour of Danmark/Poland/Swiss/California etc. it will be a good race to watch. Better than the hyped up boring TDF we have seen the last few years.

NOOOOO!!!! The attrition will not be the same over 2 weeks. You wanna see good racing. Take all your idea's but leave the GT's at 3 weeks. Oh and force the top gc riders to ride all three gt's.

Doesn't even matter. We (or Velon, the UCI, or anyone else) can can come up with all kinds of different ideas. ASO will always veto any major change or anything they think could in any way affect their power and influence. I'm so sick of their bs.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

The ASO is negotiating from a very protective and negative place. Obviously this neuters the 3 year UCI licensing reform because what (new) sponsor will be attracted to cycling if they are tied to a 3 year deal with no guarantee of participation in the biggest races? But why nix a seemingly common sense guarantee? I can only guess that ASO sees any change as ceding power to the UCI and a slippery slope to losing their hegemony and cash cows. They would rather be the only fish in the Euro pond than be the big fish in a growing sea. Tinkov's strategy starts making a lot more sense. Ultimately the power lies with the riders. The riders need strong, well funded leadership and be willing to risk some hardship. The 3rd path, or a new alliance between the UCI and the riders is the only path to growth. Does the spectator market care? The ASO is betting they don't. The big losers are the domestiques, development teams, and team support staff. The work-a-day people. The big riders and owners won't be hurt.

Yea, because the domestiques and development teams won't be hurt AT ALL by UCI reform plans like 22 rider teams and locking off the top level to teams that build from the ground up.

The 22 rider teams plans really would hurt both WT domestiques and aspiring young riders, both by reducing the number of jobs available and by creating more intense competition for the remaining jobs. In turn that last part would drive wages down, not up, creating an employer's market. It's a reform the UCI were pushing so as to help out teams at the expense of the one group of "stakeholders" with no organised power, the riders.

I don't agree that the three year rule would significantly effect teams that "build from the ground up" though. The teams it would hurt are those that intend to quickly buy their way in at the top tier. That may or may not be a good thing, but it's not quite the same thing. I'm personally quite sympathetic to changes intended to make teams more stable - that's actually one of the few reforms proposed by anybody that would also be of benefit to riders, reducing the number of times any given rider finds himself suddenly scrambling for a new ride at short notice over the period of his career. Last minute searches for a new team because a new sponsor hasn't been found, don't just sometimes fail, leading to unemployment, they nearly always leave the rider negotiating his next contract from a position of weakness.

Reducing the number of jobs? WTF? This should be the top of the cream elite club. There is toooooo many "pro" cyclist out there anyway. We dont need 2000 or 3000 so called "pro" cyclist.

I would be totally fine watching the best 150-200 riders to battle on a regular basis. Like in football leagues, 16-18 teams of 20 guys is perfectly fine. Or in tennis, the grand slams will have 128 players including qualifiers.

I think even Giro or TDF with the best 128 riders would be more exciting than the current 200 where you have 10 guys chasing the top placings, 5 guys chasing the sprints and the rest is there just to support them. What a boring concept.

I don't really want to watch the current concept where you have 8 SKY domestiques riding like robots looking down on their powermeter towing their leader to the 1km sign.

Give me 2 weeks long TDF, 20 teams of 6, no radios, no powermeters and you will see some exciting battles.

I dont even need the TDF, who cares where they ride. When the best 100 riders shows up for the Tour of Danmark/Poland/Swiss/California etc. it will be a good race to watch. Better than the hyped up boring TDF we have seen the last few years.

Reducing the number of professional cyclists may or may not be a good idea from the perspective of the sport as entertainment. I don't think it is, but either way, trying to do so would certainly be a terrible thing from the perspective of the average domestique.