Also, if Astana don't get their act together, they will absolutely relegate.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Armchair cyclist
Moderator
So if a team that is WT at the end of this process (and we know now which they are) were to fold within the next two years, is the highest non-WT team automatically promoted to maintain numbers immediately? Or at the end of the season (which is when they are most likely to cease anyway)? Or do they just continue with 17 (or fewer) World Teams and have extra wild cards?
Or do we expect the points system to be quietly dropped before its next cycle?
Or do we expect the points system to be quietly dropped before its next cycle?
Last edited:
Obviously they will make sure there are 18 teams again at the start of each season, as long as there are teams wanting it and fulfil the criteria.
Armchair cyclist
Moderator
'Obviously' because the UCI has said so, or because you predict it?
And if so, will it necessarily be the highest placed, or will teams be able to present arguments for preferment?
Obviously it matches everything the UCI ever did regarding the World Tour and they need/want the license money.
At the end of 2020 CCC sold their WT license to Intermarché. At the end of 2021 Qhubeka folded but noone took its place. So I really don't see what's so "obvious" about what you're saying. If the UCI only cared about license money they would give out more licenses.
The UCI rulebook includes a possibility of 17 WT teams. That would mean an extra automatic WCs spot for PCT teams. It does not state that a best placed PCT teams would be guaranteed to take an open spot.
- The WorldTour 2021 was comprised of 19 teams.
- The UCI cannot guarantee that there are at least 18 WT teams, because they cannot know if the best PCT teams match the criteria.
Still two Italian teams left for the two available wildcards + the semi-Italian Q35. But Total (and maybe also Lotto) is likely to skip it, I guess?
Last edited:
I really hope Total and Lotto skip the Giro. or at least one of them
which team is Q35?
Doug Ryder's new team, if all works out as planed. With Brambilla, Moschetti, Puppio and Conca all rumoured to sign (+ probably some Qhubeka CT guys), the Italian races will be their main interest, I guess.
edit: would Israel really be too interested/interesting, by the way? Most of their good riders will peak for the Ardennes, so it would probably be Nizzolo, a mediocre climber + a load of domestiques again at the Giro.
Last edited:
Maybe Froome wants to become the only third rider in history to win all GTs at least twice
I already mentioned him up thereMaybe Froome wants to become the only third rider in history to win all GTs at least twice
But yeah, same as Sagan for Total, he could of course be key to participation or not. But unless that stupid interview has caused bad blood between them and ASO, I basically see Israel 90% sure to get a wildcard for the Tour, and for their core team it also makes more sense to focus on that.
Israel would be interested cause talking to Vegni could be easier than Prudhomme. the Tour will have 18WT, Total, Lotto, B&B and either Euskaltel or Uno-X.
in any case I really really hope both Total and Lotto skip the Giro
I seriously doubt they'll chose either of them over IPT. Maybe if they'd sign Quintana, but not with the teams they have.
I don't want to imagine some people of twitter/forums if Israel gets the wild-card over Euskaltel. turmoil
also, check Vaughters' tweet
View: https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/1581661242107707392
Euskaltel didn't manage a single stage top 10 at the Vuelta, surely ASO won't be stupid enough to invite what would be the weakest team in the (modern) history of the race? Would be very annoyed if they make it over Israel and Uno-X even with the Basque start as it's a wasted invite.
Also Vaughters' reasoning is his usual BS, most of the disparity is a matter of choice anyhow and more importantly, CAS using that argument would amount to banning promotion/relegation systems in cycling, and you could extend the ruling to a number of other sports to boot. For example tennis players don't and can't compete at the same events either, yet still need to be high enough on the ranking to qualify for the biggest ones, unless they get a wildcard - quite similar to the current system used by the UCI. Can't see CAS issuing a ruling based on an argument that would have ramifications for so many other, much more established systems, which isn't to say that Israel don't stand a chance in court.
Also Vaughters' reasoning is his usual BS, most of the disparity is a matter of choice anyhow and more importantly, CAS using that argument would amount to banning promotion/relegation systems in cycling, and you could extend the ruling to a number of other sports to boot. For example tennis players don't and can't compete at the same events either, yet still need to be high enough on the ranking to qualify for the biggest ones, unless they get a wildcard - quite similar to the current system used by the UCI. Can't see CAS issuing a ruling based on an argument that would have ramifications for so many other, much more established systems, which isn't to say that Israel don't stand a chance in court.
It's still not "obvious" at all like you said. In the past the normal scenario was someone to just buy a WT license from someone else like Wanty from CCC and Israel from Katusha. Not some PCT team that just gets the WT license from another team because they high on some ranking. There are no rules that state something like that while the other scenarios are in the rulebook. Owners of WT teams literally own those WT 3 year WT licenses, they can choose who to sell/give them to.
Armchair cyclist
Moderator
No, they didn't compete in the same events, But IPT gained, rather than lost, through the inequality of opportunity: they had access to far higher point scoring opportunities than Euskaltel or Uno-X.
At the end of the day you will invite IPN for the simple reason that they won two stages at the 2022 TDF.
It's seems pretty obvious ISN will win at CAS if they want to take UCI there. UCIs team 'ranking' is nothing of the sort. It's simply an aggregation of results from a collection of random races, raced by random teams with random number of athletes and even within that ranking the ability for lower ranked teams to refuse to race higher ranked races to earn more points in lower difficulty races which isn't a possibility for World Tour level teams as UCI enforce World Tour Teams have to race World Tour races. Arkea, Uno & Euskatel are even permitted to not race World Tour races. Even if anything technically helps ISN, at CAS that wouldn't help UCI, only prove the ranking system of promotion and relegation is not decided by racing alone,
With the rules and everything being clear before the period started - what is there to complain about?
"We didn't race the same races!" - no, but that's within the rules?
"The point system is flawed!" - it follows the rules.
What is it that makes it obivous that UCI will lose? If they had changes the rules I could understand it - but now I have no idea why it's obvious UCI would lose a case like this?
Lotto were entering minimal number riders at WT races they didn't want to be at in order to target smaller races for months. IPT just basically thought it couldn't happen to them until it was too late and it already had done. If you look at how the teams who were under pressure acted, IPT essentially stuck their fingers in their ears expecting their riders to come good until it was already a crisis, and then threw money at the problem because they had too much of a deficit, and because most of the other teams who were worried about it had already taken action (EF, BikeExchange, Lotto) they were left behind (Movistar did also take action very late in the day, but in the end a strong finish to the season meant they probably needn't have done so). It's not like they didn't have the same opportunity to select their rosters and target those other races. The UCI set out a points system and while that points system is pretty stupid, other teams figured out how to game it and IPT were too slow and had too much of their budget wrapped up in riders who were signed more for their name value and what they had achieved than what they would achieve. That's not necessarily even a criticism, they may well have known that when they signed them - but they needed to understand the vagaries of the points system, and they just gave the impression that, like Movistar, they just kind of figured they'd be OK and have nothing to worry about until right near the end of the three year period when they suddenly needed to take urgent action - and they were in a much worse position than Movistar in terms of both their potential points scorers and the points they had banked when they finally lurched into action.
I think the fact that the ranking is over a 3-year period where riders' ability to prepare is going to be so badly affected by coronavirus cancellations and lockdown restrictions is a better case to make, as if IPT had a disproportionate number of riders based out of countries or regions that were under tighter lockdown restrictions for longer, or could point to races on their calendar which were cancelled or downgraded on short notice, or were forced to withdraw either riders or the whole team from races they had planned for Covid reasons, or could contend that points were lost by race shortenings or cancellations (e.g. the BinckBank Tour having all its Dutch stages cancelled), that would definitely be a legit grievance and is the angle I thought would be the basis of a legal objection for whoever got relegated in all honesty.
I think the fact that the ranking is over a 3-year period where riders' ability to prepare is going to be so badly affected by coronavirus cancellations and lockdown restrictions is a better case to make, as if IPT had a disproportionate number of riders based out of countries or regions that were under tighter lockdown restrictions for longer, or could point to races on their calendar which were cancelled or downgraded on short notice, or were forced to withdraw either riders or the whole team from races they had planned for Covid reasons, or could contend that points were lost by race shortenings or cancellations (e.g. the BinckBank Tour having all its Dutch stages cancelled), that would definitely be a legit grievance and is the angle I thought would be the basis of a legal objection for whoever got relegated in all honesty.
Why do you even think that? They literally started with a complete roster in basically every WT race this year. Apart from a few in the beginning of the year were riders got sick last minute (when basically every team was having throuble turning up to races with a full roster because the whole peloton was getting sick).
This is also a stretch. Israel was hit by Covid and other diseases ridiculously hard the first few months of the season. They couldn't even start certain classics because they didn't have the minimum amount of fit riders that are needed to be able to start a race (UCI rules). After the classics they started spamming races just like Lotto did (and teams like Cofidis, Arkea and Intermarché had been doing for years), but they simply failed getting enough results in those. Nothing to do with ignoring the situation they were in for too long. Their riders simply weren't good enough to reverse the damage that was done in the first half of the season. Israel was like a 1000 points ahaed of teams like Arkea and Cofidis at the beginning of the season but then lost a lot of ground the first months cause they just couldn't race enough because of sickness.
Also why I don't get why people think Israel is done for. If their riders stay (and honestly they will, they'll still get a lot of WCs, probably even for the Tour and they won't get the money they're getting now elsewhere) they will have a way better season than last year (def with Teuns added), I'm convinced they'll be in the top 2 PCT Teams next year pretty easily. People are completely forgetting they probably had the most amount of bad luck out of everyone the first half of this season, no way that happens again.
How can UCI lose even if someone takes them to court?
Teams have 3 year licenses. They all end now so in the end of 2022 no one has a valid license anymore. UCI has 18 licenses to attribute. There are 22 teams in search of the 18 licenses. The teams need to meet a financial criterion. The 22 teams meet that criterion. So now UCI needs to sort them by a sporting criterion. What's the sporting criterion? Well, there you have it, the world ranking. And are they going to choose a World Ranking that comprises all the UCI sanctioned races or only World Tour ones? If they go to the latter, there are 18 privileged teams that are sure to be in that races while the others don't. So the remaining 4 take UCI to court because they didn't have the same playing field as the other 18 teams. And repeat.
What's next? A ProConti team will bring ASO to court because they choose a random french team because the other team doesn't have the luck of coming from the host country?
Teams have 3 year licenses. They all end now so in the end of 2022 no one has a valid license anymore. UCI has 18 licenses to attribute. There are 22 teams in search of the 18 licenses. The teams need to meet a financial criterion. The 22 teams meet that criterion. So now UCI needs to sort them by a sporting criterion. What's the sporting criterion? Well, there you have it, the world ranking. And are they going to choose a World Ranking that comprises all the UCI sanctioned races or only World Tour ones? If they go to the latter, there are 18 privileged teams that are sure to be in that races while the others don't. So the remaining 4 take UCI to court because they didn't have the same playing field as the other 18 teams. And repeat.
What's next? A ProConti team will bring ASO to court because they choose a random french team because the other team doesn't have the luck of coming from the host country?
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram