New UCI rule limiting points for dopers

[kurtinsc]

I've read the CN story on the potential new UCI rule that would limit returning dopers by not allowing those riders to accumulate points toward a team's sporting value for two years after their return to competition.

The article goes on to say thatthis "will likely translate into a much-reduced contract size".


My question isn't related to the doping part (which is why I'm not puting it in the clinic). Rather it's about the business side of hiring riders. Will this really impact contracts at all?

How much would the points ban really impact a team's hiring decisions? I see two sides to that question.

1 - Sponsors really don't care about points. They care about getting their company's name out there. Movistar (the company) really isn't going to care about points... having Valverde in their jersey on the top step of a Vuelta or Liege-Bastogne-Liege isn't going to be worth any less because Movistar (the team) didn't get any points from those wins. Based on that... a rider like Valverde would have the same value to the SPONSOR even with no points.

2 - Teams do need to score enough to remain in the pro tour and get the invites to the races they need. Having your team sacrifice in a race for a leader who doesn't count toward your points might not make as much sense... and if a rider isn't going to be your leader because of that it might drive his contract value down.


My gut says that top riders (Valverde, Di Luca, Contador if he got banned) wouldn't be impacted much in terms of salary when they came back. They'd get as much as they would as an ex-doper without the point ban... because them being on the podium at top races counts more for a sponsor then the points would take away.

Similarly... a pure domestique isn't going to be hurt much either. If a guy is there simply to work for others and wasn't going to be in your top 15 point scorers... then who cares?

The only impact I can imagine are guys who are NOT big names, but good enough to earn lesser placings in some races and perhaps lead for a team in smaller races and be in the 7-15 range of point scorers for a team. You'd imagine their value would go down to near that of a pure domestique for the years with point bans.

What do you think?

 

[luckyboy]

Yeah on the face of it, it doesn't look like it will change much. Apart from some lost points here and there.

Though it'll affect teams who are nearing the end of their ProTour license - will be somewhat limited in terms of hiring.

 

[just some guy]

Had not thought of it that way.

But say we take Saxo this year - if Alberto has a enforced holiday

2nd SAXO BANK SUNGARD (SBS) DEN 513

and then remove Contador - CONTADOR VELASCO Alberto ESP19821206 SAXO BANK SUNGARD (SBS) 349

513 minus 349 = 164 that drops them from 2nd to 17th on the world tour standing from the UCI.

Top 15 get into the WT automatically then next 3 are decided by the UCI no licence for the WT no sponsors no team

 

[ansimi]

Had not thought of it that way.

But say we take Saxo this year - if Alberto has a enforced holiday

2nd SAXO BANK SUNGARD (SBS) DEN 513

and then remove Contador - CONTADOR VELASCO Alberto ESP19821206 SAXO BANK SUNGARD (SBS) 349

513 minus 349 = 164 that drops them from 2nd to 17th on the world tour standing from the UCI.

Top 15 get into the WT automatically then next 3 are decided by the UCI no licence for the WT no sponsors no team

I think that's a different situation. That's points earned before a suspension is implemented and based on results that might be erased. It's very messy because the entire team worked for Contador's points.

I think this new proposal is for results earned after a rider returns from suspension though

I think the UCI points matter only when a team is on the bubble for a license but then they matter a lot.

How somebody returning from a suspension is valued by the team and the sponsors would depend a lot on the situation.

At least this is something empirical that the teams can understand and factor into their decisions.

Sporting-wise, we might potentially see a situation where a team leader who can't earn points is more likely to ride in support of a team mate?

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

I think that's a different situation. That's points earned before a suspension is implemented and based on results that might be erased. It's very messy because the entire team worked for Contador's points.

I think this new proposal is for results earned after a rider returns from suspension though

I think the UCI points matter only when a team is on the bubble for a license but then they matter a lot.

If that's the case it will only affect the smaller teams. The teams with less $$$.

This rule will help to maintain the status quo, while it does NOTHING to prevent returning dopers from signing with the biggest teams...

 

[just some guy]

I think that's a different situation. That's points earned before a suspension is implemented and based on results that might be erased. It's very messy because the entire team worked for Contador's points.

I think this new proposal is for results earned after a rider returns from suspension though

I think the UCI points matter only when a team is on the bubble for a license but then they matter a lot.

How somebody returning from a suspension is valued by the team and the sponsors would depend a lot on the situation.

At least this is something empirical that the teams can understand and factor into their decisions.

Sporting-wise, we might potentially see a situation where a team leader who can't earn points is more likely to ride in support of a team mate?

I understand that but was using it as an example ( I wasn´t that clear my bad).

Big name riders coming back yes the sponsors get great photos from their wins but if the rest of the riders don´t pull any points there maybe no more team.

 

[kurtinsc]

Had not thought of it that way.

But say we take Saxo this year - if Alberto has a enforced holiday

2nd SAXO BANK SUNGARD (SBS) DEN 513

and then remove Contador - CONTADOR VELASCO Alberto ESP19821206 SAXO BANK SUNGARD (SBS) 349

513 minus 349 = 164 that drops them from 2nd to 17th on the world tour standing from the UCI.

Top 15 get into the WT automatically then next 3 are decided by the UCI no licence for the WT no sponsors no team

I think the ranking they are talking about is different. The world tour standings don't include "lesser" races, but if I'm not mistaken the one used for determining pro-tour teams does. The world tour ranking uses 5 riders, the other one uses 15.

 

[hfer07]

Ironically- the CN article do not hesitate to point out that Valpiti will be affected by this new ruling-it is me, or a lot of people in cycling-including the very UCI- aren't looking forward to Don Alejandro Valverde's awaited return?

back to the topic- I think it has double edge this rule-a positive one since it would undermine the market of dopers trying to get back, but at the same time it would take away and downgrade those earned point from the team-specially if the Pro-Tour Licence renewal is upcoming- or a Pro-Continental might want to upgrade.

 

[ansimi]

Ironically- the CN article do not hesitate to point out that Valpiti will be affected by this new ruling-it is me, or a lot of people in cycling-including the very UCI- aren't looking forward to Don Alejandro Valverde's awaited return?

I'm sure a lot of people aren't looking forward to Valverde's return but I sure am!

I seem to remember that he was number 1 or 2 in the UCI rankings when he was suspended and them they just had a blank spot when they erased him. I can imagine the UCI might not want him to skyrocket to the top of their rankings right away. Frankly, they have much bigger credibility problems than Valverde though and he's an exciting rider.

 

[Anonymous]

Ive been thinking about this one, and I dont think I like the idea.

A rider does his time, serves his ban, and this basically either a) blocks his return to the sport or b) we end up with pro continental teams with not much money taking on all the riders returning from bans and we end up with Rock Racing part 2.

If a rider returns, races, is tested regularly and is therefore assumed clean, then his points should count for the team. To take away the future points of a rider who has served his ban, yet to give points to riders who are doping but havent been caught, just makes a mockery of the whole thing.

 

[ElChingon]

It will never happen and if it does it will be yet another point for the new league to form. I'm sure a the powers that be (sponsors, team owners) will prevent it as well because any win is an earned win and should be scored/valued into the ranking system to not only be ranked but to guarantee the team gets the top honors/benefits of its wins (gets to race le Tour basically ok and the other top races). No sponsor will want to back a team with the top race winner not being registered in the win column (including points) which guarantee it admittance in the highest level races and continued at the top of the sport. The rider/team could sue for preventing them from earing a living, might as well ban them for four years otherwise.

I'm also in the a-waiting Piti's return

 

[Parrulo]

Ive been thinking about this one, and I dont think I like the idea.

A rider does his time, serves his ban, and this basically either a) blocks his return to the sport or b) we end up with pro continental teams with not much money taking on all the riders returning from bans and we end up with Rock Racing part 2.

If a rider returns, races, is tested regularly and is therefore assumed clean, then his points should count for the team. To take away the future points of a rider who has served his ban, yet to give points to riders who are doping but havent been caught, just makes a mockery of the whole thing.

great post dim ^_^

 

[jens_attacks]

what a joke by uci pigs again...unbelievable how riders and staff accept this,____ cowards.then they whine when leaks are all over the place and sponsors stay out.cowards.

 

[BYOP88]

Ive been thinking about this one, and I dont think I like the idea.

A rider does his time, serves his ban, and this basically either a) blocks his return to the sport or b) we end up with pro continental teams with not much money taking on all the riders returning from bans and we end up with Rock Racing part 2.

If a rider returns, races, is tested regularly and is therefore assumed clean, then his points should count for the team. To take away the future points of a rider who has served his ban, yet to give points to riders who are doping but havent been caught, just makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Completely agree. Another stupid UCI thing, regarding the points situation is how the rider if he leaves the team he takes the points and the team is left with nothing. But I guess it's all tied in to the UCI money making scheme that is the ProTour or whatever crap it's called at the moment.

 

[PCutter]

The initiative I think is to try and address the situation they had with Vacansoleil at the start of the year where they qualified - in part - on the back of Ricco's points when it was clear the UCI (and probably a lot of the cycling world) would prefer he just disappear and sort himself out. By limiting the riders earning capacity further, should they be caught, may cause them to think twice (not that Im accusing Ricco of thinking) before doping. No it won't stop doping, but perhaps another spoke in the wheel of trying to fight the dopers. Italy's banning of riders from the championships is a similar initiative which again may cause a financial loss for riders in the future if they're caught.

I would however like to see more focus on banning (or similar) of those around the cyclist who facilitate the doping, be they doctors, trainers etc. At the moment most of the focus seems to be on punishing the riders with few initiatives focused on the facilitators. DSs shown to be involved should be banned from WT teams for a start.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

I would rather have a rule that chops points earned in a grand tour in half if the rider does not finish the race.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Ive been thinking about this one, and I dont think I like the idea.

A rider does his time, serves his ban, and this basically either a) blocks his return to the sport or b) we end up with pro continental teams with not much money taking on all the riders returning from bans and we end up with Rock Racing part 2.

If a rider returns, races, is tested regularly and is therefore assumed clean, then his points should count for the team. To take away the future points of a rider who has served his ban, yet to give points to riders who are doping but havent been caught, just makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Tho I agree, there is some sense behind it also.
Riders don't seem too worried with the prospect of a 2 year ban. They dope, get caught, serve the ban, and come back to the top. All the big riders whom have been caught have more or less followed this trend.
This is just another ploy by the UCI to make doping less desirable, without changing ban period. Because it does weaken the bargaining point of post dopers.

Teams will have mixed receptions I'm sure. The teams who are reluctant / against hiring fresh of the dope boat riders will probably support such a change.

At least were getting some clarifaction and clear understanding of how teams are being ranked and given PT licenses.

Maybe the UCI are trying to wise up to the teams.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

The initiative I think is to try and address the situation they had with Vacansoleil at the start of the year where they qualified - in part - on the back of Ricco's points when it was clear the UCI (and probably a lot of the cycling world) would prefer he just disappear and sort himself out. By limiting the riders earning capacity further, should they be caught, may cause them to think twice (not that Im accusing Ricco of thinking) before doping. No it won't stop doping, but perhaps another spoke in the wheel of trying to fight the dopers. Italy's banning of riders from the championships is a similar initiative which again may cause a financial loss for riders in the future if they're caught.

That's a good example. Don't see how anyone can think a rider's market value wouldn't reduce if they can't earn points. The team would be silly to ride for them too, so the reduced value would carry on longer than the no points rule.

I would however like to see more focus on banning (or similar) of those around the cyclist who facilitate the doping, be they doctors, trainers etc. At the moment most of the focus seems to be on punishing the riders with few initiatives focused on the facilitators. DSs shown to be involved should be banned from WT teams for a start.

Yep. All this does is increase the penalty on the rider and save the teams some money. That'l teach those dodgy DSs. IMO teams should suffer a meaningful points penalty if one of their riders get busted. Substitute part of the UCI ethical requirements with something measurable and take some of the guesswork out. Oh wait, that's not going to happen, it might work. UCI ****es me off.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Completely agree. Another stupid UCI thing, regarding the points situation is how the rider if he leaves the team he takes the points and the team is left with nothing. But I guess it's all tied in to the UCI money making scheme that is the ProTour or whatever crap it's called at the moment.

Agree.

I am actually against having a personal points score and especially one that carrys over in to another year. That makes the individuals competitive (and under pressure to bring in points) and we all know what happens then.

Sure, have a separate ranking for a WorldTour (or whatever it is this week) to reward a consistent rider.

But have a different criteria for teams. An accumulation points system but where results are only part of it.
Teams lose points for any doping infraction (even personnel of the team) - and any other ethical conduct, like disputes with contracts, not participating in races etc.
This way the teams that are trying to run a professional and ethical way are brought to the top tier and it gets rid of the unethical teams.

 

[ElChingon]

I think teams should keep their points earned by riders who transfer, have points removed of the rider caught doping as applicable per the offense, maybe for whole points total earned that year as a deterrent for teams. Have teams step down from the ProTour till they can manage their riders better, that will at least make teams put more effort into helping out in the doping issues if they are not. Riders can take their points with them for personal rankings but the team can't use them to qualify for the ProTour team rankings as they are a fresh new rider on that team, starts with a clean slate, doper or not. If a rider is that good he'll earn those points back with the new team, and the new team should expect a rider to perform as the previous year or better, whether it happens or not is another matter.

I still see the no points when a doper returns the same as black listing them, I guess this way the UCI can do it outright? I don't like it.

 

[python]

if the rule can't be dissuasive to the potential cheater, and i don't see how it is,
it's just another worthless, ineffective measure to boost the uci's false claims of zero tolerance.

bugles my mind WHY, when there is an excellent list of other options.

 

[step23]

I can describe the initiative in one word - discrimination. if a rider is free to ride, it means he/she served some sentence and was punished. why someone needs to stigmatize riders notwithstanding the fact that they served their vacations? another good example of the fight with results not with reasons that cause them.

 

[brianf7]

I can describe the initiative in one word - discrimination. if a rider is free to ride, it means he/she served some sentence and was punished. why someone needs to stigmatize riders notwithstanding the fact that they served their vacations? another good example of the fight with results not with reasons that cause them.

The other point is how are they going to apply new law/ rules in retrospect.
to aply law in retrospect would contravene any countries human rights convention.
Probably even China.
so you break a law before it becomes law you cant be charged with it and justice must be fair the basic fundamentals of natural justice.

How can they apply a penalty if it was not there at the time of the sentence.

 

[Archibald]

Agree.

I am actually against having a personal points score and especially one that carrys over in to another year. That makes the individuals competitive (and under pressure to bring in points) and we all know what happens then.

Sure, have a separate ranking for a WorldTour (or whatever it is this week) to reward a consistent rider.

But have a different criteria for teams. An accumulation points system but where results are only part of it.
Teams lose points for any doping infraction (even personnel of the team) - and any other ethical conduct, like disputes with contracts, not participating in races etc.
This way the teams that are trying to run a professional and ethical way are brought to the top tier and it gets rid of the unethical teams.

that's pretty much hitting the nail on the head