PCutter said:
The US stage races could just do the same thing the Tour Down Under does - as Australia also likes the crit format - and run crits the day leading into the start of the tour. Sky's Henderson won the crit, which didn't count towards the TdU, and the crit attracted all the ProTour teams, so the crowd got what they wanted.
agreed, i watched the TdU crit (on TV) here, it seemed to go really well, lots of people, exciting racing....i think in some ways we got a better look at the riders thanks to the cameras not skipping around the race so much (as they do for a grand tour).
That said, maybe i don't understand enough about this situation, so i'm just gonna think out loud here.....the problems are...
A) Pro-Tour riders competing at races where there's little competition for them
B) US based Pro's need races to build form for Pro Tour events
C) US Pro Tour teams like to show their faces at US races when possible (for their sponsors)
D) US stage races often have a crit stage somewhere in the middle of a race, and crits aren't allowed in UCI races
E) Continental teams aren't required to join the Bio Passport, potentially helping to build a culture of doping at lower levels that could infect the upper levels of the sport as riders graduate to Pro-C and Pro-T teams
So McQuaid says if US Pros and their teams want to race locally, more races need to be UCI sanctioned.....OK, so say those existing local races remove their crit stages (or have them the day before/after the stage race) and get UCI sanctioning ....now RS/Garmin/BMC can attend.....and who are they racing against hmm?? Even if more of the Continental teams step up to Pro-Cont, it's still going to be Levi etc kicking lower level riders' asses. Nothing changed except the "crit" is not 'critical' anymore (ie. it's less important cos it doesn't affect the outcome), since it's like a display race on day zero before the stage race starts.
There's a lot more i could "think out loud" here, but maybe i should cut to the chase. How about the UCI makes Bio Passport compulsory for Continental teams, AND allows handicapped participation for Pro-Tour riders at non-Pro Tour events. The biggest reason the US Pro-Tour riders joined Gila etc in the past was to build form - so let them do that, just make it hard (very hard!) for them to win. You still get:
- lots of media coverage for a big name rider joining a small race (which the race organisers will love)
- US Pros can work on their form without walking all over the riders whose race it really is
- crits (which are popular in the US) stay in the stage race, and this increases the public's appreciation of cycling (something you'd think the UCI would want)
Of course someone's gonna say "how do you handicap them, it's too hard to find a fair system, bla bla bla" - but honestly it doesn't have to be "fair"....it really just has to make it next to impossible for the Pro-Tour rider to win. They're there for form, anything else is a bonus.
It's also worth noting the UCI ocassionally allows the reverse of what's been going on at Gila, Utah etc. Some Pro-Tour races allow a national team of basically Continental level riders to participate - the TdU is an example. If they're lucky this team might get a stage, one stage win, at most. So they mostly try to show well in breaks, which can be great exposure for those riders hoping to move up into a new team and level, plus this animates the race.
It's their choice to play with the big boys, so no i'm not suggesting they should be given a positive time bonus to have a chance of winning - it's a Pro Tour race, it's not for them to win. But the UCI still lets them enter right? In a way, a negative handicap for a Pro-Tour rider at a local US race would be the same thing, allowing borders between levels to be flexible, for the greater good of all.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram