Disappointed about this. Irritatingly the report doesn't mention anything about the reasons why they have been cut other than their low standing, which was not a decisive part of the criteria to my knowledge - does anyone know what actually are the criteria, aside the bond, the number of riders employed, and the race obligation?
I know Cofidis were in two minds last season about resigning for the Protour. Bouygues Telecom were looking like being sponsorless right up to the double stage win in the TDF. I am biased in being a fan of Bouygues Telecom, but I would have thought that their display of good attacking teams, their exemplary anti-doping record and their policy of developing youth would have been big pluses over many others. Perhaps they simply don't have enough money for them to be big enough for the UCI's glamour tour.
This all leads to the question of why have this huge decision, which would be a deciding factor for cyclists planning their careers, coming AFTER most transfers are decided / announced?
I know Cofidis were in two minds last season about resigning for the Protour. Bouygues Telecom were looking like being sponsorless right up to the double stage win in the TDF. I am biased in being a fan of Bouygues Telecom, but I would have thought that their display of good attacking teams, their exemplary anti-doping record and their policy of developing youth would have been big pluses over many others. Perhaps they simply don't have enough money for them to be big enough for the UCI's glamour tour.
This all leads to the question of why have this huge decision, which would be a deciding factor for cyclists planning their careers, coming AFTER most transfers are decided / announced?