General News Thread

[luckyboy]

So the top 15 teams stay on for next year. And the bottom 5 do what?

Also what do the contracts mean anymore if Vacansoleil's 3 year contract apparently doesn't mean anything?

This is needlessly complicated.

 

[janraaskalt]

Also what do the contracts mean anymore if Vacansoleil's 3 year contract apparently doesn't mean anything?

It does mean a thing. As long as they have their finances, ethicial values and sporting value (at least top 20) right, they are part of the Pro Tour.

It is not needlessly complicated. You wouldn't want a Pro Tour team without decent riders having start right for all big races, would you?

 

[luckyboy]

So Vacansoleil need to be top 20 on some ranking..

http://www.uci.ch/templates/BUILTIN-NOFRAMES/Template3/layout.asp?MenuId=MjExMw&LangId=1

The WorldTour ranking only has the 18 WorldTour teams. There isn't a ranking there which includes all the WorldTour teams and ProConti teams.
Only WorldTour teams can get points, so they will always be in the top 20 as there are only 18 teams in the WorldTour.
Or is this some ranking that we don't ever get to see?

I think it is pointless that teams can sign a 3 year contract but can lose their WorldTour place regardless of that if their ranking isn't good enough.

 

[janraaskalt]

So Vacansoleil need to be top 20 on some ranking..

http://www.uci.ch/templates/BUILTIN-NOFRAMES/Template3/layout.asp?MenuId=MjExMw&LangId=1

The WorldTour ranking only has the 18 WT teams. There isn't a ranking there which includes all the WT teams and ProConti teams.

Sporting value ranking. That one is quite complicated: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/exclusive-uci-proteam-ranking-system-revealed
The point scales can be found on the internet, but are supposed to be a secret. It is indeed a shame the UCI does not publish the individual sporting values of all riders.

 

[luckyboy]

Yeah I remembered about the secret special ranking in my edit. This is the one that the teams didn't even understand wasn't it?

Not really fair that teams are rewarded for having more money.



I know this won't happen/isn't how it works, but teams should be ranked on what points they get in comparison to all the points they got last year. That would truly reward overachievement/penalise underachievement.

Basic Example:
Say Garmin get 3000 points in 2011, let some riders go worth 500 points, and bring in some worth 1000 points. Next year they would be judged on what points they get compared to the (300-500+1000=) 3500 they had after the transfers.

So if Garmin ended 2012 with 2500 points, they would be down by 1000. And Vacansoleil could have had 1500 to start with, and they go to 2000 at the end of the season, so they are ahead of Garmin in the ranking because their gain/loss is better (and so they overachieved with what they had).

 

[janraaskalt]

I agree that from a management point of view, the Vacansoleil did a better job than Garmin---in your example. It is somehow more admirable to bring small riders to great achievements. However, that's not the point.

This ranking should define which teams have the best riders for all those WT races. Contador and Gilbert are the stars and should be able to participate in every race they like. Even if Gilbert is "only" winning Fleche Wallone and Liege-Bastogne-Liege next year, that's still great. His team should not have points deducted for having a "bad" season.

 

[janraaskalt]

I think it is pointless that teams can sign a 3 year contract but can lose their WorldTour place regardless of that if their ranking isn't good enough.

They have a contract with certain requirements. Most contracts have clauses for continuation or dissolvement. Bonus for a continuing license is that your team only has to be ranking in the top 20, which means that some non-PT teams are ranked higher. For new PT teams a top 15 is more or less required (to be sure).

 

[luckyboy]

I agree that from a management point of view, the Vacansoleil did a better job than Garmin---in your example. It is somehow more admirable to bring small riders to great achievements. However, that's not the point.

This ranking should define which teams have the best riders for all those WT races. Contador and Gilbert are the stars and should be able to participate in every race they like. Even if Gilbert is "only" winning Fleche Wallone and Liege-Bastogne-Liege next year, that's still great. His team should not have points deducted for having a "bad" season.

It's just going to create larger gaps between the richer teams and teams who can't afford to buy up all the talent. Like in football.

 

[janraaskalt]

It's just going to create larger gaps between the richer teams and teams who can't afford to buy up all the talent. Like in football.

Of course that's true and that's not how I like cycling. But are you really suggesting that a team like Radioshack should be thrown out of the Pro Tour because all 4 captains in the Tour crashed and therefore have much less points than last year?

 

[kurtinsc]

Yeah I remembered about the secret special ranking in my edit. This is the one that the teams didn't even understand wasn't it?

Not really fair that teams are rewarded for having more money.



I know this won't happen/isn't how it works, but teams should be ranked on what points they get in comparison to all the points they got last year. That would truly reward overachievement/penalise underachievement.

Basic Example:
Say Garmin get 3000 points in 2011, let some riders go worth 500 points, and bring in some worth 1000 points. Next year they would be judged on what points they get compared to the (300-500+1000=) 3500 they had after the transfers.

So if Garmin ended 2012 with 2500 points, they would be down by 1000. And Vacansoleil could have had 1500 to start with, and they go to 2000 at the end of the season, so they are ahead of Garmin in the ranking because their gain/loss is better (and so they overachieved with what they had).

If I read it right, each rider has a point total equal to their point total for the year just completed (2011) and the year prior to that (2010). Each team then totals up their top 15 riders, and adds to that a "team score" earned from the current year that gives points for how you finish in the team classification, how many days your team held a jersey, and how many final jerseys your team won.

The top 15 from that point total automatically qualify. The next 3 teams are chosen based on that point total along with "other considerations".

Nothing in that indications "improvement" is a factor. And it shouldn't be... the spots need to go to the teams with the most talent. We all want to see the best riders in the biggest races. Not some team that "overachieves" but even so performs worse on the season.

 

[luckyboy]

Yeah, the system I made up after 5 minutes of thought isn't that great, but the system in place isn't either.

It should be a promotion/relegation thing of 1 or 2 up and down each season. The points from every rider that rode for the team last season should count, and teams should not be able to buy points that riders got for a different team last season.

I mean Saxo Bank inherited all of Contador's points, but the points he gained could've been in a big part down to the team he had around him. Points shouldn't be transferred along with the rider, the team earned them.

The UCI is such a pile of ****.

 

[ingsve]

Vacansoleil is not as bad off as it looks in the rankings right now. The sporting value ranking also takes into account the results in races outside of the WT and since CQranking has them ranked 8th overall in their 2011 ranking they seem to be doing better in those races than in the WT itself.

Also the sporting value ranking takes into account the points scored by the team in 2010 and Vacansoleil was 12th in that ranking so they have the edge over a few other teams already but since we don't have the numbers it's hard to know by how much.

If they don't have the money for a big leader they should be wise in who they recruit from lower rankings. A cheap rider may bring with them a fair share of extra points by virtue of having won a lot of small races as can be seen in the provisional ranking I calculated recently:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=14495

Here we see that there are a lot of extra points to gain by a winning rider over a decent GC rider. Being the type of rider that finishes 2nd to 10th in GCs etc has a disadvantage over riders that win races here and there. Riders like Mahdi Sohrabi, Robert Vrecer, Gregor Gazvoda and Daniel Teklehaimanot etc. are riders that can bring in a decent amount of extra points without costing much at all.

 

[luckyboy]

I hope they get that other sponsor anyway.

 

[ingsve]

Since all the information is available someone should really try and reconstruct the special ranking they are using as well. You would only have to look at all the results in all races and add all the PT riders to the continental rankings and add all the pro continental riders to the WT ranking and that should give the rankings they use. It's a big job though as it requires a decent amount of database work.

 

[kurtinsc]

Yeah, the system I made up after 5 minutes of thought isn't that great, but the system in place isn't either.

It should be a promotion/relegation thing of 1 or 2 up and down each season. The points from every rider that rode for the team last season should count, and teams should not be able to buy points that riders got for a different team last season.

I mean Saxo Bank inherited all of Contador's points, but the points he gained could've been in a big part down to the team he had around him. Points shouldn't be transferred along with the rider, the team earned them.

The UCI is such a pile of ****.

Why shouldn't the points transfer.

Saxo has Contador... and let's say he wins all three GT's this year.

Then he leaves and rides for a new team he created.

Why should Saxo be invited to big races when they don't have a big rider anymore? Does Richie Porte and Chris Anker Sorenson warant invites to the 3 GT's ahead of Contador's new team that actually has the defending champion on it?

The team does get some points from Contador. They get points for days in the various jerseys. They get points for the TEAM having won the races he won (holding the jersey at the end of the race). But the fact is you want the best riders in the biggest races. If Contador, Spartacus, Gilbert and Cavendish go off and form their own team... that team needs to be invited to EVERY big race automatically ahead of anyone else. The rules need to insure that.

Right now... I kind of think they do.

 

[janraaskalt]

Since all the information is available someone should really try and reconstruct the special ranking they are using as well. You would only have to look at all the results in all races and add all the PT riders to the continental rankings and add all the pro continental riders to the WT ranking and that should give the rankings they use. It's a big job though as it requires a decent amount of database work.

CQ Ranking tried that last year. It is hard however to know which riders contracts have been deposited at the UCI. Sometimes rider contracts are not official before the deadline. Do you know how the values over 2010 and 2011 are combined? Are they taken into account in equal weight, or do they use something like 60/40 ratio?

 

[luckyboy]

I don't agree with the concept of the WorldTour, ProContinental etc.. It should just be one big group, and invitations should be given out at the discretion of the race organisers.

Obviously then there is the argument that sponsors will not enter the sport if they can't be guaranteed spots at the big races.
Maybe the big races could be made to include the teams of the top 10 GC riders the previous season, with the rest being given out.

Any way you spin it there will always be a flaw.

 

[ingsve]

CQ Ranking tried that last year. It is hard however to know which riders contracts have been deposited at the UCI. Sometimes rider contracts are not official before the deadline. Do you know how the values over 2010 and 2011 are combined? Are they taken into account in equal weight, or do they use something like 60/40 ratio?

I seem to have misremembered the thing about the team score. It's only the riders score from 2010 that matters and not the teams overall score. That doesn't change that much for Vacansoleil though since a lot of their riders did well in 2010 those points will still count for next year as long as they stay with the team.

 

[ingsve]

CQ Ranking tried that last year. It is hard however to know which riders contracts have been deposited at the UCI. Sometimes rider contracts are not official before the deadline. Do you know how the values over 2010 and 2011 are combined? Are they taken into account in equal weight, or do they use something like 60/40 ratio?

Looking at it it's still a little confusing.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/photos/exclusive-uci-proteam-ranking-system-revealed/170829

I interpreted the "team collective score 2011" to be the score from last years ranking that determined the rider value ranking of going into 2011 and that that would be added to the score of the top 15 riders which is what makes up the 2012 score. It could be however that "team collective score 2011" is simply the points score by the team in team rankings in 2011 which also needs to be added somewhere.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

If they don't have the money for a big leader they should be wise in who they recruit from lower rankings. A cheap rider may bring with them a fair share of extra points by virtue of having won a lot of small races as can be seen in the provisional ranking I calculated recently:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=14495

Here we see that there are a lot of extra points to gain by a winning rider over a decent GC rider. Being the type of rider that finishes 2nd to 10th in GCs etc has a disadvantage over riders that win races here and there. Riders like Mahdi Sohrabi, Robert Vrecer, Gregor Gazvoda and Daniel Teklehaimanot etc. are riders that can bring in a decent amount of extra points without costing much at all.

Sohrabi (21pts)
Vrecer (14 pts)
Arriagada (12 pts)
Gazvoda (11 pts)
Lagab (11 pts)
Bagdonas (10 pts)
Teklehaimanot (10 pts)
Novikov (9 pts)
Ubeto (9 pts)

Assuming that your calculations are correct (and as I don't understand the system, I'm going to do that), these are the guys currently on Conti teams or lower who make the top 75 riders. An existing World Tour team worried about keeping its status or an aspiring World Tour team could do a lot worse than picking up some of these guys.

Some of them probably aren't a serious option. Arriagada is fighting a doping case, for instance. Others, like Sohrabi, might have visa difficulties or might be reluctant to move to Europe. Novikov is on the Katusha development squad so might be destined to move up there. And the top three are the wrong side of 30, while Gazvoda in fourth will be by next season. But even taking that into account, you are right that a clever team could pick up a lot of points (and a lot of talent) on the cheap.

As resident one man forum Gediminas Bagdonas fan club, I feel obliged to point out to the many World Tour DS's who no doubt hang on my every word, that the guy is 25, has been winning a lot, brings a national champions jersey and a whopping 10 pts! Teklehaimanot, who also brings 10 pts and a record of winning hand over fist at a lower level, would also surely bring some extra publicity.

 

[ingsve]

Sohrabi (21pts)
Vrecer (14 pts)
Arriagada (12 pts)
Gazvoda (11 pts)
Lagab (11 pts)
Bagdonas (10 pts)
Teklehaimanot (10 pts)
Novikov (9 pts)
Ubeto (9 pts)

Assuming that your calculations are correct (and as I don't understand the system, I'm going to do that), these are the guys currently on Conti teams or lower who make the top 75 riders. An existing World Tour team worried about keeping its status or an aspiring World Tour team could do a lot worse than picking up some of these guys.

Some of them probably aren't a serious option. Arriagada is fighting a doping case, for instance. Others, like Sohrabi, might have visa difficulties or might be reluctant to move to Europe. Novikov is on the Katusha development squad so might be destined to move up there. And the top three are the wrong side of 30, while Gazvoda in fourth will be by next season. But even taking that into account, you are right that a clever team could pick up a lot of points (and a lot of talent) on the cheap.

As resident one man forum Gediminas Bagdonas fan club, I feel obliged to point out to the many World Tour DS's who no doubt hang on my every word, that the guy is 25, has been winning a lot, brings a national champions jersey and a whopping 10 pts! Teklehaimanot, who also brings 10 pts and a record of winning hand over fist at a lower level, would also surely bring some extra publicity.

Yep, and also these are just the points gained so far this year. A rider at the conti level that had a good last year with lots of extra points from wins would have even more points to offer. It's just a matter of finding them. Some of these riders may also end up finishing high up in the various continental rankings (other than Europe) where there won't be as many WT riders added.

For example Daniel Teklehaimanot is almost guaranteed to finish in the top 5 in the African Continental Tour which would mean another 10 points for him.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

I'd certainly consider giving some of their agents a call, in the unlikely event that someone put me in charge of recruiting for a pro team.

Actually, does anyone know why these guys aren't already riding for bigger teams? A lot of riders with a lot less to show in terms of track record get a shot in the bigger leagues.

I understand why some of them are on smaller teams. Bagdonas is only back on a Conti teams this year after a couple of years on the Belgian domestic scene and he's only made a real step forward in the last couple of months. Novikov is in the Katusha development programme.

But what about Sohrabi? I have a vague recollection that the Iranian teams have visa difficulties when it comes to riding in European races. Is there also a problem with employment visas for Iranian riders? Or is he just happier (or perhaps better paid) smashing everyone on the Asia Tour?

Why are Gazvoda and Krecer pottering about in smaller Eastern European races? Why are Lagab and Ubeto racing in their local scenes? (Ryo? Do you know about Ubeto?) As for Teklehaimanot, why couldn't he get a ride after Cervelo went under?

Assembled world cycling know-it-alls of the Cycling News Forums, I call upon your assistance.

 

[roundabout]

To be honest I mostly remember Gazvoda from the junior/espoir TT Worlds 10 or so years back where he was about top-10.

Apart from winning a slightly easier edition of Qinghai Lake I haven't really noticed him in the pro ranks.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

To be honest I mostly remember Gazvoda from the junior/espoir TT Worlds 10 or so years back where he was about top-10.

Apart from winning a slightly easier edition of Qinghai Lake I haven't really noticed him in the pro ranks.

I've just been looking through his record on CQ. The overall at Qinghai Lake is by far his biggest win (in fairness, it is a pretty big win for any Conti rider).

Looks like he's been a solid 100 CQ points a season Conti rider for years, but his points tally under this unfathomable UCI system total is inflated by one big recent win. Over his years as a pro, he hasn't really produced results that stand out from those of a lot of other good riders on Conti teams, with the exception of winning the Slovenian ITT nationals a couple of times.

His team mate Vrecer seems sort of similar, in that he's been around for years without getting enormously notable results. This year he's been tearing up .1 and .2 races in Eastern Europe, but his results alone wouldn't previously have been the sort of thing that would start a bidding war.

That's two explained. Who knows about the rest of them?

 

[ingsve]

I'd certainly consider giving some of their agents a call, in the unlikely event that someone put me in charge of recruiting for a pro team.

Actually, does anyone know why these guys aren't already riding for bigger teams? A lot of riders with a lot less to show in terms of track record get a shot in the bigger leagues.

I understand why some of them are on smaller teams. Bagdonas is only back on a Conti teams this year after a couple of years on the Belgian domestic scene and he's only made a real step forward in the last couple of months. Novikov is in the Katusha development programme.

But what about Sohrabi? I have a vague recollection that the Iranian teams have visa difficulties when it comes to riding in European races. Is there also a problem with employment visas for Iranian riders? Or is he just happier (or perhaps better paid) smashing everyone on the Asia Tour?

Why are Gazvoda and Krecer pottering about in smaller Eastern European races? Why are Lagab and Ubeto racing in their local scenes? (Ryo? Do you know about Ubeto?) As for Teklehaimanot, why couldn't he get a ride after Cervelo went under?

Assembled world cycling know-it-alls of the Cycling News Forums, I call upon your assistance.

I can imagine that the quality of the 2.2 and 1.2 races around the world varies a lot so just because someone dominates a bit and gets these wins it doesn't mean they are any better than european continental riders and upcoming U-23 riders. A lot of the riders that win a lot on that level are quite old and top teams would probably rather spend their budget on young promising riders that are probably just as good with the potential to be great.

The main advantage that some of these riders have is that they have the points and that they are a lot cheaper than WT riders. A win in a race like Strade Bianche is worth 5 points for the Sporting Value Ranking while winning a random 1.2 race in africa for example is worth 3 points which is almost just as good and you can get those points with paying for Gilbert.