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

[Mellow Velo]

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.

Exactly the point.
Milano-Torino? Allegedly back next year, but currently down the swany.
Can we really afford to see Hors Cat races getting flushed down the toilet to launder Pat's RMBs?

@wegelius:
''In my humble opinion: Lombardia earlier is a good thing. Such a race deserves quality field and less jaded riders desperate for a holiday.''

Fine. All it does is entice a few of the riders doing the worlds to stay on the bike another week..............................which is a fat lot of good for those picked for riding courses like Copenhagen.
All it does is bring the end of the season forward two weeks and we'll still get the too tired routines.

 

[hrotha]

Any chance this was RCS's idea? At any rate, it would seem they were fine with the change.

 

[The Cobra]

to be honest, if youre more interested on going on holiday then you shouldnt be riding lombardy anyway.

And what does charlie know? Hes retired

My point was that everyone seems to be using this as another reason to bash the UCI when it appears this change has been driven be the teams/riders.

 

[Cult Classics]

RCS won't care about Emilia - not their race. To be honest they even let Milan-Turin and Giro del Lazio go, and those were their races. And the UCI increasingly doesn't seem interested in races outside of the top bracket either - it's getting a bit like the Premier League and the way it squeezes the divisions lower down. Only imagine some pretty decent teams were now in the second tier, and Beijing FC, who have never kicked a ball in their lives but are exceedingly wealthy, have been allowed into the Premier League.

I'm disappointed by these changes because I think it's going to ruin Emilia, Piemonte and might even affect Paris-Tours. I would have preferred they move all the end of season races forward 1 week, i.e. Emilia and P-T a week after the worlds and Lombardia two weeks after with Piemonte inbetween.

I see the point about a decent field in some ways, but does that point hold true when e.g. you've had a worlds course like this years? The position of the worlds has zero impact on Cunego, Sanchez etc when the course is like Copenhagen this time - it's not the same type of rider.

And what about when the worlds is held outside Europe (e.g. Australia last time or America in a few years)? Will top riders fly half way round the world to go race in Italy 6 days' later? There is a reason they leave 2 weeks between the Canadian races and the world championships.

 

[Anonymous]

My point was that everyone seems to be using this as another reason to bash the UCI when it appears this change has been driven be the teams/riders.

I dont think an Ex Pro (who to be honest at times seemed to be a bit of a tit) and Jonathan Vaughters can be considered as "all the teams/riders" whatever they may say or think.

 

[Lanark]

Is there anything to suggest the RCS isn't fine with this, or possibly came up with this plan themselves?

 

[Arnout]

Is there anything to suggest the RCS isn't fine with this, or possibly came up with this plan themselves?

It seems they are for whatever reason, which thoroughly disappoints me. Maybe Zomegnan didn't like this idea?

Anyway.

I love cycling. It's a beautiful sport. The passion of the fans and the courage of the sporter who, for whatever reason, is willing to put himself in agony for our enjoyment.

But I don't like the way cycling is developing. I might drop out if this trend continues. When I ask myself why I watch cycling its because of aforementioned reasons, and history. Its all being wiped out by bland races, money incentives and a cycling union that doesn't give any impression of actually caring about the structure and foundations of the sport.

Why do I watch? To see Euskaltel attacking, time after time. To see the best riders compete in races that Eddy Merckx dominated, where Fausti Coppi won 60 years ago. Definitely and categorically NOT too see cycling adapting to generate fans, money, exposure, whatever it may be. If people like cycling, they will value its history. Not throw it away because they only like cycling in their own region, or whatever other reasons. Cycling grew as a sport over a 100 years. It did well. Let it adapt organically if needed, don't bend it in ways it doesn't want to go. In the long term, it will all be horrible.

I increasingly get the impression that we are watching not only cycling, but also the demise of cycling. Doping is a minor problem compared to this. Pat McQuaid will be the man who willingly and knowingly destroyed cycling's foundations. In the long run, we will only see a shadow of the former sport.



Yes yes I know I'm overreacting, but this news about Lombardia is just another in a long line. Literally every structural change over the last decade seems to be for the worse. It makes me very sad.

 

[The Hitch]

It seems they are for whatever reason, which thoroughly disappoints me. Maybe Zomegnan didn't like this idea?

Anyway.

I love cycling. It's a beautiful sport. The passion of the fans and the courage of the sporter who, for whatever reason, is willing to put himself in agony for our enjoyment.

But I don't like the way cycling is developing. I might drop out if this trend continues. When I ask myself why I watch cycling its because of aforementioned reasons, and history. Its all being wiped out by bland races, money incentives and a cycling union that doesn't give any impression of actually caring about the structure and foundations of the sport.

Why do I watch? To see Euskaltel attacking, time after time. To see the best riders compete in races that Eddy Merckx dominated, where Fausti Coppi won 60 years ago. Definitely and categorically NOT too see cycling adapting to generate fans, money, exposure, whatever it may be. If people like cycling, they will value its history. Not throw it away because they only like cycling in their own region, or whatever other reasons. Cycling grew as a sport over a 100 years. It did well. Let it adapt organically if needed, don't bend it in ways it doesn't want to go. In the long term, it will all be horrible.

I increasingly get the impression that we are watching not only cycling, but also the demise of cycling. Doping is a minor problem compared to this. Pat McQuaid will be the man who willingly and knowingly destroyed cycling's foundations. In the long run, we will only see a shadow of the former sport.



Yes yes I know I'm overreacting, but this news about Lombardia is just another in a long line. Literally every structural change over the last decade seems to be for the worse. It makes me very sad.

Our enemy is ready, his full strength gathers. Not only Pat, but Lance as well, California in May, Colorado in the September, all will answer Mcquaid's call.

This will be the end of Cycling as we know it. Here the hammer stroke will fall the hardest. If the GT s are taken, if the Vuelta and Giro fall, the last defense of our sport will be gone.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

yeah i've heard tour of sochi will be world tour in the same period with basque country?that it will be a major fucc up,i think the prizes for the winner will be something like 100,000 euros everyone will go there.

The St Petersburg and Moscow legs of the race will be flat as a pancake. Unless they climb up to the new Winter Olympic ski station or Mount Akhun once they get to Sochi, it will be another featureless "win the ITT, win the race" event, and none of the people who will go would have done the Euskal Herriko Itzulia anyway.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

If Vaughters is correct that it was the riders rather than the UCI who were the primary motive force in the change, I'm a little less outraged but still annoyed. He also seems to think that the rest of the Italian Classics will move to keep their positions relative to Lombardia, although I'm not sure if that's feasible.

I'm still opposed to the change mind you. It shortens the meaningful season considerably and turns whatever races remain in October into another version of the early season warm up races. Cycling has a long season. So what if the top riders have to prioritise and can't all ride the biggest races? Different riders having a different season and turning up to different races with different levels of form is part of the fun.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Can someone explain why moving Lombardy is a bad idea?

I am not saying I am in favour of it - but besides it being the traditional finale I don't see how it will harm the event. In fact being frank. Lombardy has lost some of its luster over the years (although that is because of the Vuelta, not Lombardia).

I would hate to see Piedmonte, Emilia etc being lost - but I would assume those races will be able to move and keep their run up slots.

 

[Ferminal]

Should have moved it to January, then we could have the race of the falling snow.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Can someone explain why moving Lombardy is a bad idea?

It effectively ends the real season in September, which is inherently a bad thing for cycling fans. Also, it may kill off interest in a bunch of interesting late season races.

I would hate to see Piedmonte, Emilia etc being lost - but I would assume those races will be able to move and keep their run up slots.

That's certainly what Vaughters is assuming and I hope he's right, but I'm not entirely sure that it will be feasible, given the timing of the Worlds relative to the new Lombardia slot.

 

[hrotha]

Can someone explain why moving Lombardy is a bad idea?

I am not saying I am in favour of it - but besides it being the traditional finale I don't see how it will harm the event. In fact being frank. Lombardy has lost some of its luster over the years (although that is because of the Vuelta, not Lombardia).

I would hate to see Piedmonte, Emilia etc being lost - but I would assume those races will be able to move and keep their run up slots.

I think the wider issue here is that many people are concerned because it seems to them that UCI & GCP don't care about the history of the sport, only about business. Of course cycling has to be a viable business, but you have to keep things balanced and many people fear the traditions of the sport aren't given any weight by the powers that be. This would lead, in the opinion of many people, to a completely unromantic sport full of races with no tradition, while older races suffer or disappear.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It effectively ends the real season in September, which is inherently a bad thing for cycling fans. Also, it may kill off interest in a bunch of interesting late season races.

That is about the only negative thing I can see coming out of the move - it will still be viewed as the end of season climax meaning all events after gain little interest.

Where does Paris-Tours end up in this shuffle?
I assume its Vuelta, following weekend Worlds, following weekend Lombardia.

That's certainly what Vaughters is assuming and I hope he's right, but I'm not entirely sure that it will be feasible, given the timing of the Worlds relative to the new Lombardia slot.

Emilia presently is a week before Lombardia - so that might clash with the Worlds, but Piedmont and Milan-Turin should be able to slot in that week.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Emilia presently is a week before Lombardia - so that might clash with the Worlds, but Piedmont and Milan-Turin should be able to slot in that week.

And Emilia is the best of those races and the most important one to preserve. It's one of very few one day races with real climbing. And in any case, given that a huge percentage of the best riders will be at the Worlds, which could be anywhere in the world, we will often find that only riders who weren't selected for the Worlds will be able/willing to go to races just a day or two later.

Even assuming that they find a home for those races which doesn't diminish them massively (and I'm a bit dubious about that), ending the real season early is enough of a reason to oppose it. If some riders want to go on holiday early, that's their right but there's no reason to end the season early just to make it easier for them to sit on a beach for an extra month. Lombardia has always been a reward for riders who keep racing seriously into October.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Our enemy is ready, his full strength gathers. Not only Pat, but Lance as well, California in May, Colorado in the September, all will answer Mcquaid's call.

This will be the end of Cycling as we know it. Here the hammer stroke will fall the hardest. If the GT s are taken, if the Vuelta and Giro fall, the last defense of our sport will be gone.

hopefully fire isn't the key to beating lombardia?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And Emilia is the best of those races and the most important one to preserve. It's one of very few one day races with real climbing. And in any case, given that a huge percentage of the best riders will be at the Worlds, which could be anywhere in the world, we will often find that only riders who weren't selected for the Worlds will be able/willing to go to races just a day or two later.

Even assuming that they find a home for those races which doesn't diminish them massively (and I'm a bit dubious about that), ending the real season early is enough of a reason to oppose it. If some riders want to go on holiday early, that's their right but there's no reason to end the season early just to make it easier for them to sit on a beach for an extra month. Lombardia has always been a reward for riders who keep racing seriously into October.

Actually thats a good point re the Worlds being anywhere in the World (jeez, did I really write that).
Part of the reason to move GdL was to allow riders participate in Lombardia and Beijing.

I have always wondered why the UCI does not put on all races in a particular continent at the same time. As in Montreal, Quebec, California, Colorado - all within a 3 or 4 week slot so one team of riders can stay and compete.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Part of the reason to move GdL was to allow riders participate in Lombardia and Beijing.

Which is ridiculous as the only people who care about Beijing are the couple of teams in real danger of losing their World Tour status. Well them and certain people we could think of with a financial interest in the race. Chinese people sure as hell don't care about it, judging by the complete absence of spectators.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think the wider issue here is that many people are concerned because it seems to them that UCI & GCP don't care about the history of the sport, only about business. Of course cycling has to be a viable business, but you have to keep things balanced and many people fear the traditions of the sport aren't given any weight by the powers that be. This would lead, in the opinion of many people, to a completely unromantic sport full of races with no tradition, while older races suffer or disappear.

I know what you are saying, but it is just being moved in the calender. It is not being chopped or replaced.

Tradition is fine (and Lombardia will always be Lombardia) but how do you become a traditional event if you are not allowed on the calender.
Look at Tour Down Under - ok, not the most exciting of races but it has now established itself as one of the season openers.

Which is ridiculous as the only people who care about Beijing are the couple of teams in real danger of losing their World Tour status. Well them and certain people we could think of with a financial interest in the race. Chinese people sure as hell don't care about it, judging by the complete absence of spectators.

I only saw 15 minutes of the stage that Roche won - but I was quite impressed with the amount of spectators there.

Well World points mean $$ for riders. So, it means more to them than some other events.

 

[AussieGoddess]

Fine. All it does is entice a few of the riders doing the worlds to stay on the bike another week..............................which is a fat lot of good for those picked for riding courses like Copenhagen.

But for next year (when they are trying it), the hilly worlds course in Valkenberg will be a perfect fit.

I think the wider issue here is that many people are concerned because it seems to them that UCI & GCP don't care about the history of the sport, only about business. Of course cycling has to be a viable business, but you have to keep things balanced and many people fear the traditions of the sport aren't given any weight by the powers that be. This would lead, in the opinion of many people, to a completely unromantic sport full of races with no tradition, while older races suffer or disappear.

I am not saying this is the right decision .... but realistically, they have to do something. Need to raise revenue, open new markets, find sponsors and ideas as there are some massive issues facing cycling.

If they can fit Emilia, Piedmont and Paris-Tours in well, I actually think its a great idea.

I would hate to see those lead up races suffer though, so perhaps some tinkering needs to be done

 

[joy118118]

i think RCS is ok with that.

In fact, on beijing's podium, not only Pat was there, but ASO and RCS all sent their representatives.

that makes the date change quite funny now.

 

[Hmmmmm]

The artist formerly known as Prince. The race formerly known as The Race of the Falling Leaves.

Honestly don't know what to make of this. Stuck between preserving history and improving the sport.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The artist formerly known as Prince. The race formerly known as The Race of the Falling Leaves.

Honestly don't know what to make of this. Stuck between preserving history and improving the sport.

"The Race of the Falling Leaves" has been re-branded "The Race of the Rising Yuan".

 

[Arnout]

I know what you are saying, but it is just being moved in the calender. It is not being chopped or replaced.

Tradition is fine (and Lombardia will always be Lombardia) but how do you become a traditional event if you are not allowed on the calender.
Look at Tour Down Under - ok, not the most exciting of races but it has now established itself as one of the season openers.

Of course, new races are welcome. Difference is that TDU didn't deem it necessary to kill another race for its success. Canadian races didnt either. The Bejing TT didn't this year and I couldn't care less about it. Now it shows its real face. There is no opposition to new races, only to races that in their core value try to take over another to be successful. That's just wrong.