Pro Cycling needs to break free from its Eurocentrism and go International

[Eratosthenes]

I started this post in another thread (Will, How and when will an aussie team have a pro team? ), and which Libertine Seguro has made some considered comments on, but I would love to hear more people's thoughts about it so I have moved my initial post here. Please read a few posts on page 3 and 4 of the previous thread to read the discussion so far).




Having a national team could help to raise the profile of Australia as a worthy racing country, even beyond the feats of individual racers already succeeding. This could help raise the profile of races in Australia such as the TDU, even when Lance is not racing it. This is extremely important for the national growth of the sport.

To be truly international bike racing might need to break the shackles of Euro-centrism. Maybe an alternative racing program with major races in half a dozen countries around the world could be created. Naturally the historic and worthy races should also be retained. These would probably have to be run parallel, and maybe riders might need to make a choice between them.

As it stands all the people of Australia pretty much only see their countrymen ride in the wee hours of the morning, and with them the USA and English people see them through the screen in their living room. Many are happy to make the sacrifice and enjoy it immensely anyway, but surely as the global social uptake of cycling is occuring so should the entire racing program also shift to reflect this.

Hmm, this post evolved as it was written and so veered off topic. It really deserves a topic on its own. But just think, to all of you that live outside Europe. How cool would it be to see the top teams and riders of the day compete in your locale, such as through the highlands of Scotland, striving over the Rockies, and of course zooming over the curves and hills of good old Tassie, pelting through Queenstown, Targa, Tamar Valley and how awesome would a finish be on top of Mt Wellington. How flaming cool would that be.

And in each country people would be cheering their national team, national riders on other teams and their favourite international riders. All the thousands of immigrants (Italians, Dutch, .....) in those countries could pull out their old national colours and have even more to cheer along.

Controversial, and sure to upset some die-hard Classics fans. And those European races might lose out a bit (though not from their local fan base), but top-level cycling needs to go International. It must:
- to reflect the International representation on the teams
- to increase interest and profile in the countries around the world
- to increase financial investment in the sport
- essentiality to make it egalitarian
- to let people outside of Europe enjoy top-level cycling in front of them, to allow them to taste the sweat of the breakaweay riders striving in anguish for that fleeting moment of glory, to feel the thrum of the peleton passing by, to see the whites of the eyes of the sprinters as the give their all to get over that line, to ride the adrenaline waves of riders playing cat and mouse up a steep climb, and yell and scream as with thousands of others simply enjoying the moment.

I'd like that in my country, in my home state. Wouldn't you?

 

[karlboss]

What is the time frame? IMO procycling is moving this way slowly.

 

[Ashtabula]

I was under the impression there had been eras of national teams in pro cycling, at least one since WWII. Anybody prepared to flesh that out?

 

[Jancouver]

I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of this never-ending crying and whining of our friends from down under

 

[dsut4392]

I started this post in another thread (Will, How and when will an aussie team have a pro team? ), and which Libertine Seguro has made some considered comments on, but I would love to hear more people's thoughts about it so I have moved my initial post here. Please read a few posts on page 3 and 4 of the previous thread to read the discussion so far).




Having a national team could help to raise the profile of Australia as a worthy racing country, even beyond the feats of individual racers already succeeding. This could help raise the profile of races in Australia such as the TDU, even when Lance is not racing it. This is extremely important for the national growth of the sport.

To be truly international bike racing might need to break the shackles of Euro-centrism. Maybe an alternative racing program with major races in half a dozen countries around the world could be created. Naturally the historic and worthy races should also be retained. These would probably have to be run parallel, and maybe riders might need to make a choice between them.

As it stands all the people of Australia pretty much only see their countrymen ride in the wee hours of the morning, and with them the USA and English people see them through the screen in their living room. Many are happy to make the sacrifice and enjoy it immensely anyway, but surely as the global social uptake of cycling is occuring so should the entire racing program also shift to reflect this.

Hmm, this post evolved as it was written and so veered off topic. It really deserves a topic on its own. But just think, to all of you that live outside Europe. How cool would it be to see the top teams and riders of the day compete in your locale, such as through the highlands of Scotland, striving over the Rockies, and of course zooming over the curves and hills of good old Tassie, pelting through Queenstown, Targa, Tamar Valley and how awesome would a finish be on top of Mt Wellington. How flaming cool would that be.

And in each country people would be cheering their national team, national riders on other teams and their favourite international riders. All the thousands of immigrants (Italians, Dutch, .....) in those countries could pull out their old national colours and have even more to cheer along.

Controversial, and sure to upset some die-hard Classics fans. And those European races might lose out a bit (though not from their local fan base), but top-level cycling needs to go International. It must:
- to reflect the International representation on the teams
- to increase interest and profile in the countries around the world
- to increase financial investment in the sport
- essentiality to make it egalitarian
- to let people outside of Europe enjoy top-level cycling in front of them, to allow them to taste the sweat of the breakaweay riders striving in anguish for that fleeting moment of glory, to feel the thrum of the peleton passing by, to see the whites of the eyes of the sprinters as the give their all to get over that line, to ride the adrenaline waves of riders playing cat and mouse up a steep climb, and yell and scream as with thousands of others simply enjoying the moment.

I'd like that in my country, in my home state. Wouldn't you?

Pro-tour level race finishing on top of Mt Wellington? Cool, but never going to happen. Aside from the main issue (what would sponsors like Liquigas, Qhuickstep, Caisse, Euskatel etc possibly have to gain?), there are also small matters of
*access: only one road up (barring access via big-bend fire trail, which is MTB, trailbike or serious 4WD only)
*parochiality: imagine the bogans who drive up once a year to pile their car with snow complaining about "bloody cyclists closing OUR road"
*If every single cycling fan in Tasmania came out to cheer, we would line the road two deep for about 100m. Wouldn't be surprised if some Giro/TDF stages have more spectators than the entire population of Tasmania!
*If Australia (let alone Tasmania) can't even build it's own top-flight professional competition, what the he1l gives us the right to steal somebody else's?

No doubt somewhere in the suburbs of Milan there is a die-hard group of AFL fans that think "The Footy Show" should be broadcast live on RAI, and the grand final should be relocated from Telstra Dome to San Siro because it would be more "egalitarian".

Please, I love cycling, but trying to globalise it the way you suggest would only kill it.

 

[khardung la]

No one is letting down proffesional cycling in your countries,....other than yourselves. You may not understand how big is cycling in many parts of Europe. We love it, and it is part of our culture for many. It is not a flashy fashion because we have a couple of good riders at the moment (like you Australians). People cheer in the TdF and french cyclist have had 2-3 awful decades for example. I am Spanish, but enjoy almost whatever race no matter if a Spaniard is involved...

I am a bit fed up with all these "new cycling" claims, not because they are irrational, but because I see them mostly coming from fanboys (US specially), or pure nationalism (Aussies and to a certain extent UK...).

You are in your right to expect a change, but IMHO your dream would lead to a soccer-ization of cycling, and would loose some of the mystic it has.

Aside from that there is a free market. If there is not good races in Tasmania is because it does interest to very few (sponsors + audience + cyclists). To force people to attend new races in other places sound quite authocratic for me.

Furthermore, I am sorry but I have been around to many countries with my bike and I feel there is pretty much no other place as suited for proffessional cycling than Europe.

Anyway, just try to organize things down under, this is a free world (more or less ).

 

[Moondance]

Okay... Perfectly fine point, that we need more international races. But here then lies the bigger question. Which European races would you choose to scrap, or 'lose prestige' to make room for these new international races?

Would you scrap a GT? A monument? Switerland and the Dauphine? Because as long as these races exist there will be countless European teams who want to race them.

 

[Christian]

I think cycling is getting more and more global every year.

However I think there are some problems with getting more global:

- in some countries it's difficult for organizers to find sponsors (Tour of Missouri for example)

- the logistics are difficult (now I'm not exactly sure if this is true - but I've heard that European teams bring their own cars, buses and trucks to California, so that means they have to ship them over to the US, then drive all the way across the country. I don't know - maybe they have stuff like that stationed in the US, but would that make sense for just 1 race per year? I noticed that Saxo Bank had their European team car yesterday in California, whereas Liquigas seemed to have an American car)

- it puts the riders under a lot of stress (In football, for example, the national teams travel to the place where the world cup is held weeks before it starts, just to get accustomed to the time zone, the climate, etc. Some cycling teams had training camps in CA/AZ prior to the ToC, but a lot of riders just arrived a few days before the start, so I think it's normal if they can't put in a top performance the first day)

- for the two last reasons I think you shouldn't do for example a PT in California, then right after that in Japan, then in Europe ... that would never work. What I really liked this year though was the fact that Tour of Oman came right after Tour of Qatar. The peloton was almost the same, but that way the riders could stay long in the area and a new country was explored.

So I think as long as the Tour de France will be the biggest race in the world, you can't blame the riders if they prefer doing Tour de Suisse or Dauphiné Libéré to a race in Australia for example.

I also think events such as the Giro starting in D.C. are nice, but extremely stressfull and logistically challenging. It's nice to do something like that every ten years but it shouldn't become a regular thing because it takes away from the actual racing in my opinion, it's more of a show.

 

[theyoungest]

No doubt somewhere in the suburbs of Milan there is a die-hard group of AFL fans that think "The Footy Show" should be broadcast live on RAI, and the grand final should be relocated from Telstra Dome to San Siro because it would be more "egalitarian".

Please, I love cycling, but trying to globalise it the way you suggest would only kill it.

+1. Take soccer: the US and Australia have soccer leagues too, but no one cares about them, and the best players come to Europe. Running American or Aussie "classics" alongside the European ones will only attract American or Aussie riders, and not even the best ones.

 

[LugHugger]

'Pro Cycling' certainly does not need to break free from it's Eurocentrism. There is a general sphere of influence to which riders gravitate globally.

Do you think that the long-term commercial interests exist in Australia - or say, South Africa, or Japan - to support the pro teams for a period long enough to justify their expense in travelling?

If you want to see Pro Cycling, save your money and make the pilgrimage to Belgium in April or Italy in May or France in July. Or just wait until September for the World Champs

 

[Arnout]

You simply can't persuade cycling to go global. Cycling is a very traditional sport, in which history plays a big role.

There is no way that you can replace LBL for a nice race in the USA for example of 260 km. It simply won't be accepted and European interest will be limited. Moreover, cycling is a sport in which the riders make lots of race days, meaning they have little time to travel and more importantly, sit through a jet lag many times a year.

What's happening now in California and Down Under is good, and it should stay that way. If there is a strong basis for cycling in those countries maybe they will become more important over the years, also in Europe. But there is no artificial way of making cycling more global.

By the way I think cycling is already one of the most global sports there is. Look for example in South America, cycling is huge there.

 

[icefire]

There are several ways of making pro cycling go international:
1) Make the top pros ride everywhere all year around as tennis players do
2) Make pro cycling a closed traveling circus like F1
3) Promote and raise the significance of races everywhere with local or regional riders

Make your choice. As I just enjoy the sport but don't care about individual riders, teams or countries, I'm fine with the way it is. In games such as tennis or basketball, top players have technical skills you can't see in other players. In cycling, top riders just have the ability to go faster. But top riders at 40km/h do not necessarily make a more entertaining race than less-known riders at 35km/h. As long as the field is leveled and riders attack to make the race entertaining, I don't care about their names, sponsors, home countries or where they race. I can enjoy 2nd or 3rd rate races more than a Protour race if those less-known riders race with attitude.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Some quotes from the other thread that I'd like to answer:

So what possible relevence is there for teams to jet off and race the Tour of Qatar or the Tour de Langkawi?

Those are warmup races for many of the teams. At that time of year, the weather in Europe is poor and the teams want to get in warm weather training miles. Qatar is run by the ASO (=get yourself out there for wildcard TDF slots for some of the teams), and Langkawi has a bit of the legacy of imperialism to generate interest. But what is also worth noting is that this year it moved from early February to early March, and as a result the field this year was significantly weaker than in other editions. Its value to major teams is solely as a warm-up race.

I agree, I wasn't saying that all of the current best Australian riders would have to join up together. Sure they should choose a basket to put their eggs in. A GC team would I think be more popular.

Naturally. This happens in countries whose interest in cycling is fleeting or only just budding. The same reason as Sky's mantra was all about winning the Tour de France, before signing a roster that makes it look like Classics should be the focus. A lot of casual fans may not have any real understanding of how the sport works, and so unless you have a GC man who they can cheer on for the overall win they may be confused by the whole thing.

Lotto probably wouldn't. There would be more "pro Tour" like teams, and those teams would specialise in the set of International races I assume and they would correspondingly be sponsored by companies with International exposure. (But I can see that this is very problematic with regards to who will be chosen to race the TDF and others, possibly it canly occur if the current and International races are entirely separate). Yep short term, no chance, and medium term is probably 10 to 20 years? I would think it would be an entirely different league, however the best riders would not want to miss out on TdF and major classics since there is so much money tied in. It may not work, but it should be done.

It has been done. The World Cup went on for a while, remember that? When the World Cup ended, and even when it was still running, many of the events outside of the traditional heartlands of cycling went under because it was only the WC status that kept them afloat. They were trying to do this again with the ProTour, but that's failed as well. You don't see a ProTour leader's jersey around anymore because few care about leading the ProTour, the points system is arbitrary and ridiculous, and because the Grand Tours and major Classics resented being told who they were allowed to invite. It was fine with 15 PT teams, and plenty of scope for wildcards, but when it gets up to 18-20? Then you have something totally inflexible, and a self-fulfilling prophecy - those teams are the only ones who can get into the major races, so they're the only ones who score the major points. And if the Grand Tours aren't on board with the idea? None of the teams care about it, because the Grand Tours are and forever will be more important than some arbitrary ranking system designed to artificially boost the importance of races arbitrarily chosen (eg the Tour de Pologne, Tour of California, the new Canadian one-day races) by some vested interest. The only reason teams like RadioShack and Sky wanted a ProTour licence was to make sure they could enter races like Paris-Nice and have the best chance to give a good impression so as to get a Tour de France invite.

Also, bear in mind that even some of the ProTour teams at present are rather parochial or sponsored by institutions that don't have a great deal of international presence - Euskaltel, Lotto, Fran&#231]Cycling is an International sport, English speaking riders are coming tot eh fore. It HAS to go International. Think of F1, motoGP, cricket, etc. Of course the International events won't all be GTs, but rather of varying sizes such as TDU sized. The person with the most points will be the world Champion (like F1). As the status and more importantly money increases it will attract more top riders, some who might not care that they miss out on the TDF, Giro, and major classics (though they are much more easily accomodated). Yep if riders were still doing the TDF then any races prior to the TDF would be poorly attended (unless that is when the British race is held so jetlag is no problem).[/QUOTE]
Why does it have to go international? Is it not international already? Europe is a continent, not a country, remember! If more Anglophone riders come to the fore and develop the sport in the Anglophone countries, the Anglophone races like Britain, Australia and California will increase in power and prestige ORGANICALLY, rather than the highly artificial way that you are suggesting (and that foisting ProTour status on them is), because there will be ever more riders who want to win it, and more teams will have Anglophone riders who want to compete in it.

As for F1, you do know that a lot of F1 fans really hate the current calendar? F1 is an international sport and has been for a long time, but the fact that new, characterless, identikit tracks in the Gulf and Far East have displaced a lot of traditional venues (there is no French GP anymore, which is a JOKE) rankles with a lot of fans. The new tracks may not be any worse than the old tracks, but they don't have the history. No matter how international F1 gets, Monza, Spa and Monte Carlo remain the races people love best. They're the races the drivers want to win. It will be the same with cycling. It doesn't matter how international the sport gets, the teams want to win the traditional races - the Spring Classics, the Giro, the Tour, the Vuelta. And unlike F1, where you can roll out on Friday and practice for the race and that's fine, cycling involving multi-day events means that in order to properly prepare for the races you want means being around for the warmup events too - people wanting to ride the Tour will always want the likes of the Dauphiné and the Tour de Suisse to warm up. Arbitrarily placing a British World Cup race in that position simply will not do - Britain cannot provide the same kind of challenge. You can't warm up for climbing Alpe d'Huez by climbing up the short Ardennes-like climbs in Britain, just as you can't prepare for riding Roubaix by riding through a gravel driveway.

Again, the world ranking system is ridiculous, arbitrary and riders and teams don't really care about it. The World Cup events of your calendar that conflicted or even came near the Giro, Classics and Tour would be poorly attended or ONLY attract riders/teams who are local (see this year's Tour of California, where the ProTour teams are all American or with major American interests, and some of the major riders - Cavendish for instance - have even said outright they don't want to be there and would rather be at the Giro).

Final note - Although F1 may be globalised, there are 12 teams on the grid. 12 of those teams are based in Europe, of which 11 are based in the traditional heartlands of Britain, France, Germany and Italy. Not as global as it seems, huh? All those top teams being based in the traditional heartlands despite drivers being more international? The traditional races being the most prestigious despite the increase in globalisation on the calendar? In fact, quite a lot like cycling, huh?

 

[ak-zaaf]

I can only say that, as a Euro, I don't really care about most races outside of the old continent.

Giro or Cali? Not even a choice.
Youu say races need to be downgraded so that races abroad can grow. Why? These races have been around for decades and built up a history.
We had world cups in Leeds I think, nobody cared. We had Worlds in Canada, it was horrible.

A race like the Tour Down Under is pretty cool. The reasons for that is that it doesn't collide with other (Euro) races, the course is easy so riders are actually willing to participate and it draws in a lot of spectators, but only because it's a once a year thing.
So leave it once a year.

This sport doesn't really need to grow anymore, it's fine the way it is.
If you want to race a bike, come to Europe.

By the way I think cycling is already one of the most global sports there is. Look for example in South America, cycling is huge there.

And where do the best South American riders end up racing?

 

[Christian]

There is no way that you can replace LBL for a nice race in the USA for example of 260 km. It simply won't be accepted and European interest will be limited.

No race, especially no spring classic, can be replaced. Every race gets its flair from the country, the landscape, the roads ... You're not gonna find bergs in the US, no cobblestones in Japan, no strade bianche in Canada. If those countries come up with a really exceptional and unique race, that's great, but you can never copy a race that already exists.

Moreover, cycling is a sport in which the riders make lots of race days, meaning they have little time to travel and more importantly, sit through a jet lag many times a year.

Yup that's exactly what I also think. If you take a 12 hour flight to LA which is delayed a whole day because of the ash cloud (granted, that happens rather rarely), you need at least two days to adjust to the time zone, the same when you get back ...

 

[rhubroma]

I started this post in another thread (Will, How and when will an aussie team have a pro team? ), and which Libertine Seguro has made some considered comments on, but I would love to hear more people's thoughts about it so I have moved my initial post here. Please read a few posts on page 3 and 4 of the previous thread to read the discussion so far).




Having a national team could help to raise the profile of Australia as a worthy racing country, even beyond the feats of individual racers already succeeding. This could help raise the profile of races in Australia such as the TDU, even when Lance is not racing it. This is extremely important for the national growth of the sport.

To be truly international bike racing might need to break the shackles of Euro-centrism. Maybe an alternative racing program with major races in half a dozen countries around the world could be created. Naturally the historic and worthy races should also be retained. These would probably have to be run parallel, and maybe riders might need to make a choice between them.

As it stands all the people of Australia pretty much only see their countrymen ride in the wee hours of the morning, and with them the USA and English people see them through the screen in their living room. Many are happy to make the sacrifice and enjoy it immensely anyway, but surely as the global social uptake of cycling is occuring so should the entire racing program also shift to reflect this.

Hmm, this post evolved as it was written and so veered off topic. It really deserves a topic on its own. But just think, to all of you that live outside Europe. How cool would it be to see the top teams and riders of the day compete in your locale, such as through the highlands of Scotland, striving over the Rockies, and of course zooming over the curves and hills of good old Tassie, pelting through Queenstown, Targa, Tamar Valley and how awesome would a finish be on top of Mt Wellington. How flaming cool would that be.

And in each country people would be cheering their national team, national riders on other teams and their favourite international riders. All the thousands of immigrants (Italians, Dutch, .....) in those countries could pull out their old national colours and have even more to cheer along.

Controversial, and sure to upset some die-hard Classics fans. And those European races might lose out a bit (though not from their local fan base), but top-level cycling needs to go International. It must:
- to reflect the International representation on the teams
- to increase interest and profile in the countries around the world
- to increase financial investment in the sport
- essentiality to make it egalitarian
- to let people outside of Europe enjoy top-level cycling in front of them, to allow them to taste the sweat of the breakaweay riders striving in anguish for that fleeting moment of glory, to feel the thrum of the peleton passing by, to see the whites of the eyes of the sprinters as the give their all to get over that line, to ride the adrenaline waves of riders playing cat and mouse up a steep climb, and yell and scream as with thousands of others simply enjoying the moment.

I'd like that in my country, in my home state. Wouldn't you?

So typical of a US-Anglo perspective that regards everything from the business perspective, and capital gains, and in regards to the future of things and so forth, without ever looking at the past and thinking with an aesthetical world view.

Good luck, mate.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

No race, especially no spring classic, can be replaced. Every race gets its flair from the country, the landscape, the roads ... You're not gonna find bergs in the US, no cobblestones in Japan, no strade bianche in Canada. If those countries come up with a really exceptional and unique race, that's great, but you can never copy a race that already exists

Though it's straying off topic, this also plays against the OP's F1 comparison - there are several tracks on the calendar hoping to ape the glamour and glory of Monaco with harbourside views, glamorous locations, and part-street circuits.

There have been at least two circuits added to the calendar recently planning to have 'a Monaco-like harbourfront section' and 'an Eau Rouge-style high speed section'. They're trying to artificially make themselves a beloved part of the F1 calendar by taking all of the things people liked about other races. And trying to do this had been done before anyway, with the Circuit de Nevers Magny-Cours. And everybody HATED that track. Also, while the LOCATIONS may be globalised, F1 isn't. F1 is big in Europe and in South America, and in Japan and Australia. That's it. Other places come and go when they have a major driver there. They sold 7,500 tickets for the Turkish Grand Prix last year. What's the point having a state of the art facility if you can only fill it 2% full? The audience just isn't there. The Chinese had to bus in spectators, and the Bahrainis brought people in from overseas to artificially boost the crowds. The fans hate the tracks because they provide sterile, dull racing, have no tradition or history, and because they mean that they don't have as much access to the big stars of the sport in its homelands anymore.

This is a lot like cycling. No matter what US, Japanese, Canadian, Australian, South African, whatever races do... they will not be beloved like the traditional races. They can become beloved - but they have to forge their own identities (which is something the Tour Down Under has been doing), not pretend to be something they're not (which is something California has been doing). They have to be beloved for what they offer to the sport, not the sponsors. They'll never have the romance and appeal of the Tour, the Giro, Roubaix or Liège. But they'll at least justify their place on the calendar.

 

[online-rider]

the thing is europe is where the cycling fans/sponsors live

 

[khardung la]

I was going to ask the International Surfing association for a competition in the international calendar in the lake in front of my house. Then I realised that no one cares about surfing in my region, and also that probably it is too cold, there are no real waves, there is nothing remotely looking like a nice beach...

In fact now I prefer if they compete in gorgeous Australia, California, Hawaii, Chile, Ecuador...It is unfair for us in North Europe, but that is life . I can always watch how they do on TV or in the internet...One can't have it all.

 

[Vanspringel]

Leave it alone

As an Aussie I love my cycling but I want it to stay as it is. Sure have a few races outside Europe beginning and ending the season but dont mess with Paris-Roubaix, LBL, Giro, Tour etc.

40 years ago when I started my love affair with cycling there was nothing on the TV or in the press in Oz about cycling. Now we get the chance to watch and read so much, sometimes I even have to make a choice about which event.

Also I'm not that fussed about having an "Aussie" team in the Pro Tour. Its the eclectic nature of most teams I like and watching the Aussie boys go to Europe and do well is so great.

Like football the best from Oz, USA NZ etc the best will always go to where the action is-Europe. Long may it stay so.

 

[myrideissteelerthanyours]

As a fan of pro cycling from USA I like the eurocentric cycling culture of elite cycling. I likes me some old races that take place in these regions where this road cycling culture comes from.

Now if you want to talk about USA cycling and "usa based" pro teams I think we need to look for the next Marshall Taylor, but I digress.

 

[Eratosthenes]

Fantastic. Just what I wanted, some great ideas and thoughts. Of course a number of ill-considered opinions as well.

Maybe just a couple of points:
- yeah history, it does add something, e.g. Cricket Ashes games at Lords. But that means nothing to Sri Lankans. I, like many new to the sport of cycling, enjoy it for the spectacle that it is, the European history does little for me (and usually it is only the hype that draws me in, actually I wonder if we give history too much credit, and it is maybe more about hyping it up so we become more interested (and the race organisers get more viewers, money, etc.). But having written that, I urge for those who hold the history dear, to cherish it since it adds to your enjoyment.

This is important: ultimately it is all about money. For those who have commented on this, wake up: we don't live in an era of amateur sports any more, it is gone, it is about the money at an organisational level. We can bemoan this, but there is no changing the facts. But, this doesn't delete (though it might diminish, e.g. F1) from individual achievements or cultural/historical connections. In some cases money has actually diversified and improved sports (e.g. limited over cricket).

If I were a pro rider I would assume I would love to ride events which are more meaningful because of their history in a sport I would have grown up with and which is a big part of my life, but pro-atheletes are employees of their clubs, they are paid ultimately by us, the TV viewers and buyers of the sponsors products, they should be given 'job' satisfaction like any of us but this needs to be balanced against others things and if that means not riding a certain Classic, and going overseas well so be it. Ultiumately any athelete wants to beat or be part of team that beats the best in the world. So if this happens to be in China, Canada or NZ, it wouldn;t make a big difference.

Those historical races will always exist, but if they return to a situation where they were more dominated by local riders to free up others to go more global, then so what? It is fine. They all will remain, but maybe the prominence of some of them will return to a more local focus and a bit less International.

Sport is primarily about entertainment. Sure the Tour of California is no TdF, it should never claim to be, but it provided 10s (100s?) of thousands of spectators a wonderful experience. You think TdF was born in a day? Give it a few years with top riders always going there and you should expect increased sponsorship and popularity (so that even Hockey won't interrupt coverage ).

Maybe to combat the problem of having too many International races, have regions where the race moves between states within, and between countries.
Obviously these races will need to be TDU or smaller in size.

OK maybe Tassie is too small to have its own race, but it could host a couple of stages with a rest day in between somewhere else in Aus. The money is in the TV and media not necessarily the crowds anyway.

I won't respond to lots of other great points raised (since this post is already getting much too long), I'll leave them as comments to be digested.

 

[Eratosthenes]

Matt Lloyd quote:

"About the only one missing is the teams (jersey), but we can't contest that because we're not racing as a team. We've got a strong smattering of riders on ProTour teams right through the peloton."

Seems as if Pro Aussie riders (well some at least) are not opposed to a 'national' team. If that is an opinoin shared by others (and I have read numerous quotes about camoraderie between Aussie riders on different teams), then that supports the validity of this move, despite the comments of couch potatoes.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Fantastic. Just what I wanted, some great ideas and thoughts. Of course a number of ill-considered opinions as well.

Maybe just a couple of points:
- yeah history, it does add something, e.g. Cricket Ashes games at Lords. But that means nothing to Sri Lankans.

But it's not just the Ashes. Of course the Ashes games are huge because of the spectacle, but are limited to England and Australia. But Lord's is the place every cricketer dreams of playing at, regardless of where they're from. It is the home of cricket.

I, like many new to the sport of cycling, enjoy it for the spectacle that it is, the European history does little for me (and usually it is only the hype that draws me in, actually I wonder if we give history too much credit, and it is maybe more about hyping it up so we become more interested (and the race organisers get more viewers, money, etc.).

I doubt it. Just as cricketers want to play at Lord's, and racing drivers want to compete at Monaco, Le Mans or Indianapolis, many cyclists became fans of the sport because of the previous generation of cyclists, and they dream of achieving what their heroes achieved. And their heroes achieved the Monuments, the Giro, the Tour, the Vuelta, the Worlds. The big European races.

But having written that, I urge for those who hold the history dear, to cherish it since it adds to your enjoyment.

This is important: ultimately it is all about money. For those who have commented on this, wake up: we don't live in an era of amateur sports any more, it is gone, it is about the money at an organisational level. We can bemoan this, but there is no changing the facts. But, this doesn't delete (though it might diminish, e.g. F1) from individual achievements or cultural/historical connections. In some cases money has actually diversified and improved sports (e.g. limited over cricket).

Depends on your opinion of limited-overs cricket. To many cricket fans it is a travesty. But the thing is, like rugby union and rugby league, Twenty20 cricket is a different sport to Test Cricket now. How would the internationalised cycling calendar you envision offer anything different to the cycling calendar?

If I were a pro rider I would assume I would love to ride events which are more meaningful because of their history in a sport I would have grown up with and which is a big part of my life, but pro-atheletes are employees of their clubs, they are paid ultimately by us, the TV viewers and buyers of the sponsors products, they should be given 'job' satisfaction like any of us but this needs to be balanced against others things and if that means not riding a certain Classic, and going overseas well so be it.

But it's not US who pay for them. It's the sponsors. And if the sponsors don't have anything to gain by sending riders to New Zealand instead of a race 25 miles from the sponsor's HQ in Belgium, why would they? What you're suggesting and hoping for has been tried AT LEAST twice before, and in a better economic climate. It failed both times. Right now, the economic climate is NOT conducive to massively globalising cycling. Major multinational companies - who are the only ones who would stand to benefit from sponsoring cycling teams in the calendar you envision, since the regionalised companies would rather continue to race the calendar most suited to their sponsor's interests - are hard to come by. They don't want to throw a massive amount of money around right now, and cycling isn't going to be top of their list if they do - less exposure than soccer, cricket, basketball or motorsport, and more chance of being associated with a scandal. You're therefore left with an unsustainable calendar, because very few teams will want to go to ALL of those events. The TDU works as a warm-up event, everybody's happy to go there. But you make that, and another Aussie race, and a South African race, and at least one American race, and the Canadian races, and a Japanese race, compulsory, and you'll either face a backlash from the teams, who will be being prevented from putting teams forward for races they WANT to race, or the sponsors, who would desert in droves when the teams were not being allowed any flexibility in setting their own calendars.

Ultiumately any athelete wants to beat or be part of team that beats the best in the world. So if this happens to be in China, Canada or NZ, it wouldn;t make a big difference.

But 'the best in the world' only compete against each other at full speed in cycling in the élite competitions - the Monuments, the Grand Tours, the Classics. The Tour of California just went by, and had several of the best riders in the world at it. The majority of them were just relaxing, riding around putting in no effort. Therefore there is no prestige in beating them there, and it isn't the same achievement as beating them when they're TRYING. And when are they trying? In the historical events, the major events. The ones they saw their heroes winning. And those events aren't in Canada, China or NZ.

Those historical races will always exist, but if they return to a situation where they were more dominated by local riders to free up others to go more global, then so what? It is fine. They all will remain, but maybe the prominence of some of them will return to a more local focus and a bit less International.

But the point is, that WON'T happen. Not at the Monuments or the Tour de France at least. This generation believe in the tradition and history of the sport, and the next generation may have the option of more races like California but they'll be being coached and mentored by people of the previous generations. They'll have watched those riders on the TV and been instilled with the belief that the traditional races are the most important, and they will train accordingly. The other races may grow or decline in stature, but the biggest events will always be the same ones.

Oh and, while we're on about it globalising, yes the Tour of California has become bigger, but the Tour of Missouri may have gone under. The US has had several Tours and Classics in the last few years, and they've been rather evanescent. California may flourish, or it may die when Armstrong's generation retire.

Sport is primarily about entertainment. Sure the Tour of California is no TdF, it should never claim to be, but it provided 10s (100s?) of thousands of spectators a wonderful experience. You think TdF was born in a day? Give it a few years with top riders always going there and you should expect increased sponsorship and popularity (so that even Hockey won't interrupt coverage ).

Maybe to combat the problem of having too many International races, have regions where the race moves between states within, and between countries.
Obviously these races will need to be TDU or smaller in size.

Huh? So you say have a tour of Australia AND New Zealand in one race? Or a tour of Canada AND New York? Or is this a way of diluting the Euro races so there are fewer, so the Tour of Switzerland AND Austria? If so we already have at least one race like that - the Eneco Tour.

OK maybe Tassie is too small to have its own race, but it could host a couple of stages with a rest day in between somewhere else in Aus. The money is in the TV and media not necessarily the crowds anyway.

I won't respond to lots of other great points raised (since this post is already getting much too long), I'll leave them as comments to be digested.

So again, this is about your desire as a Tasmanian not to have to travel to Adelaide to see the riders? The TDU is flourishing in its position in the calendar. It isn't trying to pretend to be something it's not (like California is) and the racing is slowly getting better. I don't much care for sprint stages, but they know they can't make it super challenging at that time of year. With the Jayco Herald Sun Tour moving to that time of year to try and get more Pros as well, you'd have two races there. The flyaway races should probably be crammed together on the calendar, the same way as they are in F1, to save logistics. This would make it cheaper for the sponsors. It wasn't too much hassle to do the TDU in late January and the Tour de Langkawi in early February. A Tour of New Zealand would probably only be successful if it were around that time of year too.



Edit - I don't see how that Matt Lloyd quote can be dressed up as a desire for a national team. He was asked about the Aussies having all the jerseys, and said, logically, that they had them all but not the Teams classification because they aren't racing as a team. Nor should they be. Besides, aren't there more than 9 Aussies in the Giro anyway? Evans, Porte, Lloyd, Meyer, Bobridge, Goss, McEwen, Brown, Sutton, Hayman, Hansen, Cooke and Roberts. That's 13. More than could be in an all-Aussie team. Plus, even if you took a team of 9 of those 13, you'd have a real mixture of goals there, which would probably prevent any of those goals being achieved. You couldn't dedicate a whole leadout to McEwen, Goss or Brown if you took Evans, Lloyd and Porte would never have been allowed to get in those breaks if they were meant to be looking after Evans... you'd have had much less success.

Except at the Worlds, the teams are not national in cycling. Therefore it is not often that patriotism is the key. Most fans follow riders first and teams second, and this means that personality is often more key in whether or not you like somebody than nationality. Please do not imagine that the rest of the world is as patriotic as yourself, or that globalisation is a uniformly good thing for the sport. It has some major drawbacks, especially at present.

 

[khardung la]

the European history does little for me

yeah, the problem is that we are 500 million here in Europe, and probably the percentage of people loving cycling is 6-7 times bigger than in Australia, which is an unpopulated island far away from the rest of the world

This is important: ultimately it is all about money.

Maybe for you. For me cycling is not about money but a big amount of other things. Your opinion seems to be more prevailing among "anglo culture fans" than among others, which I find kind of funny. Is it so difficult to admit that cycling is different to soccer or the NFL?? Isn´t it obvious when you see thousands of people up in the Zoncolan waiting for several hours just to have a glimpse of their idols? Or when a guy spends 3 weeks with a broken collarbone just aiming to help the leader of his team??

For those who have commented on this, wake up: we don't live in an era of amateur sports any more, it is gone, it is about the money at an organisational level. We can bemoan this, but there is no changing the facts.

No need to wake up. Incidentally if it is all about making money then your proposal has no chance of going forward. Money and fans are in Europe. It would be anti-economical and arbitrary to create a multinational artificial circuit. If you don´t believe me just check the recent or past history. Races out of Europe survive if they somehow fit. Put the TDU in June and it will not be raced by most of the guys.

Ultiumately any athelete wants to beat or be part of team that beats the best in the world. So if this happens to be in China, Canada or NZ, it wouldn;t make a big difference.

A race don´t give you glory just because it gives you bucks. You can offer big amounts of money and the riders will go there, but still they will aim for glory in the best traditional races. I like triathlon, and this year they hold a very appealing ($$$$$) one in the Emirates. A bunch of top guys went there but not 4-5 of the main contenders for IM Hawaii in Kona, including the last winner Craig Alexander. People soon forgot who won there (Llanos) and are looking for the big monuments in IM, specially Kona. That said it would even be more difficult to create artificial races in cycling since i) it has lot more tradition and history ii) you have to move 20 guys to a race per team, including buses, cars, etc...

Those historical races will always exist, but if they return to a situation where they were more dominated by local riders to free up others to go more global, then so what? It is fine. They all will remain, but maybe the prominence of some of them will return to a more local focus and a bit less International.

So the depth of the field would decrease in a given race...what is that good for???