Giro di Lombardia changes date in 2012 - RCS, please stand up with me (us?)

[Anonymous]

interesting read, and some very not vieled snipes at the UCI.

"When mcquaids son promotes a race in china, and the best riders go there, how can we survive."

""the conflict of interest is substantial. The UCI is a company that goes only in search of money"

that article is thoroughly depressing.

 

[AussieGoddess]

yeah - I didnt really think about the lead up races.

I was all for it when I first heard - and was prepared to give the UCI the benefit of the doubt (naive I know ) ... but when it means that the traditional semiclassics are wiped out, that isnt good for the sport.

In order to get top races and develop first class riders, you need a solid 2nd tier. You need races where the guys coming through can compete against the top. You need history and tradition and prestige .... all of which these races have.

 

[craig1985]

China = Ca$h so south east asia no go.

I don´t mind China having the close of the WT - teams that needs points will stack it and everyone else will send young riders. I will stop watching much after Lombardia - but I still think that bringing the race early is wrong.

My big worry with the new races ie Russia, China the US and Canada around when the on Vuelta is that 30 riders will not be enough, how EE are going to go with 23 next year Ive no idea.

So bigger teams need more money, teams still get money only from Sponsors, Sponsors don´t want in because of Clinic issues, The UCI controls more and more does less and less to grow the sport but uses expansion as a way to line their pockets and of their family members - here is looking at you Fat Pat.

The UCI needs to have less of a roll in cycling not more

I could go on and on.

The only way for this to change in for the Country federations to do something about it - but if the country UCI members and controlling the expansion races why would they.

As I said in the clinic Pat is an evil Genius - he may destroy the sport by the time he has finished but I guess that cyclings lot in life.

destroyed from the core

Pat wants a WT race on every continent. So one for South America and Africa, I have no idea how this will be viable for teams to do these races, and other important 2.1 and 1.HC races in their own country.

I would say that the Vuelta a Andalucía, the Vuelta a Mallorca, and San Luis to be more important to Movistar than the TDU.

 

[User Guide]

You could of had a couple of asian and or southern hemisphere WT races in the slots given too Qatar/Oman.Those cash cows aint going away anytime soon,so the only way is too displace existing races in europe.No doubt the new races will be organised by GCP/SportAccord with McQuaids and Verbruggens grubby little mits all over them.

*I also love the idea of having WT races in S America / asia / Africa as it fits nicely with expanding the sport into large populations etc.But as we have seen with Qatar/Oman its about the $$$$$$$

 

[RownhamHill]

Ermmm, aren't Qatar and Oman in Asia already?

 

[User Guide]

Yes, well the middle east but thats besides the point.They have tiny populations whereas Indonesia,Brazil do not.The only reason for these races is $$$$$

 

[Parera]

Reading Vaughters and other tweets really makes me think many pros feel like cycling is done for the pleasure of the athletes and not the fans. Kind of facepalm inducing, if you ask me.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

The 2012 date change is a shame. One more reason not to care, read, click on anything related to the race in China.

 

[Peccio89]

What funs can do to fight against this decision is boycott the chinese race; it won't be though, the race sucks anyway.


The biggest problem is that ASO, and RCS that are the only one that can stop Uci if compact don't have any interest in doing that.
My hope is that ASO will try to do something against this movement, and against the entire UCI world tour idea, because of the problem that will cause to Paris-Tours.

 

[AussieGoddess]

The ASO are on board with the Tour of Beijing. They are doing technical support/management or various other stuff (cant remember the details, but they are DEFINITELY involved) ....

Paris-Tours makes a loss for them, so I dont think they will be super upset if it takes a back seat for something that will make a profit.

 

[craig1985]

And they are involved in the Tour of California as well. IIRC they have even sent guys out to to the TDU to film the race on the motorbikes.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You know, right now I a,m glad no-one at UCI HQ has considered moving the actual race from Lombardia to China. Although at this rate, any of the 24 places called Paris could become the starting point to Roubaix, as long as they bring the right amount of dosh, it seems. Those cobbles will be deemed too unsafe soon anyway.

I am all about promoting the sport across the globe, but only when it means that we get far more people enjoying far more riders competing for far more races at that same high level, and with substantially more people benefiting financially as a result.

I am no fan of seeing the same pool of riders being spread increasingly thin across far too many faceless races with the proven durability of a fruitfly. And seeing teams obliged to participate in parts of the planet that mean nada to the only people that really bankroll our sport, the team sponsors (and media, to some extent).

And of course, the increased cost of jetsetting will price a lot of teams out of business. Can teams like Lotto and Euskaltel really afford on their budgets to jetset all over the world for historyless, meaningless races (most of which won't suit them, since they keep putting them in areas with really dull terrain), and still maintain their presence in the local races that are so important to them and their sponsors? How many sponsors are willing to up their financial commitment in economic times like these? Why would you?

If you up the financial commitment required to participate, you find the balance of power shifts into the hands of a few. Like football. Who can realistically win La Liga? 2 teams. Who can realistically win the Premier League? 2, maybe 3 teams. Everybody else is there to make numbers up.

Pat McQuaid seems to believe cycling is like Formula 1. He can afford to kill off storied, historic and traditional races and venues, because those fans will travel. Bernie Ecclestone can kill off the French GP because the French fans will still go to Belgium or Spain for their racing fix, runs the theory. And then he can move an ever-increasing part of the calendar to money-rich countries with government-sponsored white elephants that sit unused for 362 days of the year, because they pay well and it's evidence of globalisation. But those races have little tradition, little reason for fans to attend (Turkey sold just 7,000 tickets to the 2009 race, China has bussed people in to fill stands and Bahrain actually resorted to importing spectators for free to give the illusion of a fanbase at one point), and the sport's heart (including all its feeder series) is in Europe. But what Bernie says goes, because he has control. And as long as a flat, sterile autodrome in the middle of the desert will give him better hospitality than a privateer-owned circuit in a motorsport hotbed, he'll continue to go there.

F1, in reality, is like sportscars. The FIA has its series, but there are a number of fixed national calendars (in Japan, the US, and Europe in particular), which sometimes the big guns show up in, sometimes they don't. Entries are by invite, though many agreements are in place vis-à-vis automatic invites. The FIA periodically try to hamstring sportscars in case they start to challenge F1. But ultimately, they posture and they promote new markets and take their series abroad... but everybody REALLY wants to win one legendary long event in France. The ACO administer that, not the FIA. And as long as that race remains the most important, the FIA have to take care to see how their rules stand within ACO rules, because many teams do not want to pass up the opportunity to race at Le Mans. And ACO regulations have been used as the basis for a number of other events and series. And Le Mans is the ONLY time where the world's eyes are on sportscars and not other motorsport.

The ASO and RCS (and to a lesser extent Unipublic given ASO's controlling stake of course) are the ones that hold the power here, as long as they're united. In the eyes of the sponsors, the Tour de France is more important than all of McQuaid's poxy little expansion races put together, and so threatening to overrule McQuaid on whatever team, rider or race they want is a message the teams and riders will understand. When they stood up to McQuaid in 2008, it seemed they understood, but recently they've been getting rather cosy together (seemingly speaking on RCS' behalf with the World Tour agreement, recalling Zomegnan's complaints at the time - and this disunity among the GT organisers probably sealed the power struggle in McQuaid's favour); but by owning the most important races, the power system is such that it shouldn't be the UCI holding the sport to ransom, it should be the ASO and RCS holding the UCI to ransom. The sooner they remember this the better.

 

[ultimobici]

And of course, the increased cost of jetsetting will price a lot of teams out of business. Can teams like Lotto and Euskaltel really afford on their budgets to jetset all over the world for historyless, meaningless races (most of which won't suit them, since they keep putting them in areas with really dull terrain), and still maintain their presence in the local races that are so important to them and their sponsors? How many sponsors are willing to up their financial commitment in economic times like these? Why would you?

If you up the financial commitment required to participate, you find the balance of power shifts into the hands of a few. Like football. Who can realistically win La Liga? 2 teams. Who can realistically win the Premier League? 2, maybe 3 teams. Everybody else is there to make numbers up.

Pat McQuaid seems to believe cycling is like Formula 1. He can afford to kill off storied, historic and traditional races and venues, because those fans will travel. Bernie Ecclestone can kill off the French GP because the French fans will still go to Belgium or Spain for their racing fix, runs the theory. And then he can move an ever-increasing part of the calendar to money-rich countries with government-sponsored white elephants that sit unused for 362 days of the year, because they pay well and it's evidence of globalisation. But those races have little tradition, little reason for fans to attend (Turkey sold just 7,000 tickets to the 2009 race, China has bussed people in to fill stands and Bahrain actually resorted to importing spectators for free to give the illusion of a fanbase at one point), and the sport's heart (including all its feeder series) is in Europe. But what Bernie says goes, because he has control. And as long as a flat, sterile autodrome in the middle of the desert will give him better hospitality than a privateer-owned circuit in a motorsport hotbed, he'll continue to go there.

F1, in reality, is like sportscars. The FIA has its series, but there are a number of fixed national calendars (in Japan, the US, and Europe in particular), which sometimes the big guns show up in, sometimes they don't. Entries are by invite, though many agreements are in place vis-à-vis automatic invites. The FIA periodically try to hamstring sportscars in case they start to challenge F1. But ultimately, they posture and they promote new markets and take their series abroad... but everybody REALLY wants to win one legendary long event in France. The ACO administer that, not the FIA. And as long as that race remains the most important, the FIA have to take care to see how their rules stand within ACO rules, because many teams do not want to pass up the opportunity to race at Le Mans. And ACO regulations have been used as the basis for a number of other events and series. And Le Mans is the ONLY time where the world's eyes are on sportscars and not other motorsport.

The ASO and RCS (and to a lesser extent Unipublic given ASO's controlling stake of course) are the ones that hold the power here, as long as they're united. In the eyes of the sponsors, the Tour de France is more important than all of McQuaid's poxy little expansion races put together, and so threatening to overrule McQuaid on whatever team, rider or race they want is a message the teams and riders will understand. When they stood up to McQuaid in 2008, it seemed they understood, but recently they've been getting rather cosy together (seemingly speaking on RCS' behalf with the World Tour agreement, recalling Zomegnan's complaints at the time - and this disunity among the GT organisers probably sealed the power struggle in McQuaid's favour); but by owning the most important races, the power system is such that it shouldn't be the UCI holding the sport to ransom, it should be the ASO and RCS holding the UCI to ransom. The sooner they remember this the better.

Great post.

I hope either the race organisers ASO & RCS realise the folly of blindly following Fat Pat's lead or the riders lack of interest in Beijing puts the mockers on the whole farce.

Perhaps in a couple of years we'll have Lombardia back where it belongs, in October.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Problem is also Giro d'Emilia, Piemonte etc etc. what's gonna happen with them when now part of their purpose is stay in shape for Lombardia, and some of those races provide great entertainment in the process.

Also, some things can't be changed. They just can't. Lombardia belongs in October. Simple as that.

they are all before the wc anyway except piemonte, which is a boring race. many italian classics have died in recent years and that is mostly because the races were so ungodly boring.