Team Rankings - GT qualificiation

[tgsgirl]

Well cycling teams want to get results in the big classics. I was just highlighting that in the classics BMC were better. We could compare RVV with noekere koerse and compare the tour de france with the ****ing tour of poland! That's your logic!

So? The season is longer than 4 weeks (even if those four weeks are glorious). As TeamSkyFans has pointed out, all the teams that are above BMC do have big wins.
Going by prestige (which is subjective, I know):

BMC has two PT wins (Burghardt x2, TdS), one GT stage (Evans) and one classic (Evans).

Bbox has one PT win (Vogondy, Dauphiné), three GT stages (Tschopp, Giro; Voeckler, Tour and Fedrigo, Tour) and one .HIS win (Bonnet, PN).

FDJ has one fake-PT win (Pologne, Hutarovich), two GT stages (Hutarovich, Vuelta; Casar, Tour).

Cofidis has one GT stage win (Monier, Giro), one .HIS win (Moinard, PN) and one PT win (Catalunya*, Dumoulin).

Quickstep, finally, has four GT stage wins (Chav x2, Tour; Pineau, Giro; Weylandt, Giro), one PT win (Catalunya*, Malacarne) and one .HIS win (Tombo, Tirreno).

So how exactly are BMC's wins that much better than those of the teams directly above them in CQranking? Reality is that they're on par with high level ranking wins, and all the other teams are much better at winning the **** small races, so to speak.

And I'm not comparing RVV with Nokere Koerse, that's what you're faultily deriving from what I actually said.

*I like Catalunya so I'd hate to have to call it a fake-PT race, but it's probably on the edge of being so.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Why would i go anywhere. I think your arguments today are hilarious. Youve hit a whole new level of humour this evening Im off anyway. .gonna run a bath and then take the bike out.

Why would you go anywhere? You did last time when you were "sick of this forum"?

How many wins does 5th in the giro d italia equate to?
How many wins does a day in the yellow jersey after a mtf equate to?
I could go on and on as their results in particular races are much more significant than wins that cof, bbox, etc have had.

 

[Anonymous]

the long and short of it is BMC should NOT be 7th by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[hrotha]

Maybe, but they need several more riders of better quality than they have at the moment to be a reasonable team for next year I reckon.

Oh, definitely. They barely have enough for a decent A team.

Ballan, Burghardt, Evans, Hincapie, Morabito, Santambrogio and Bookwalter. I would spare their lives. Maybe Kroon, Kristoff and Wyss, too, but I wouldn't get too carried away with them.

 

[auscyclefan94]

the long and short of it is BMC should NOT be 7th by any stretch of the imagination.

Agreed, but I think they aren't the 20th best team either. They should be higher than that.

 

[tgsgirl]

Ballan, Burghardt, Evans, Hincapie, Morabito, Santambrogio and Bookwalter. I would spare their lives. Maybe Kroon, Kristoff and Wyss, too, but I wouldn't get too carried away with them.

I'd allow Kristoff to live too. He's no Cavendish, but he could be useful as a second-tier .1 sprinter given enough time. Like the Hutaroviches and Weylandts of the world, he won't win much and he'll usually finish around fifth to tenth in the big races, but if absolutely everything comes together they could get you a GT stage. Apart from that, **** small wins. That's how I see him anyway.

 

[Mambo95]

The difference between the UCI ranking and the CQ ranking is that the former is a reflection of how good a team's very top riders have performed, while the latter is a reflection of the strength of the team as a whole.

BMC have one very good rider and three or four pretty decent riders. The rest of the team are barely Pro Conti standard. The difference between the two rankings demonstrates this team make-up very well.

BMC understood the UCI system and have played it well. But whether or not that makes them a better team than those that didn't comes down to personal opinion really. Generally people will argue which ever way suits their preconceived ideas.

 

[Sophistic]

I think the points-distribution is pretty fair, who do you wanna see at the Tour...one of the strongest gt racers(Evans) or some 2nd tier guys who have won unimportant stages and one day races?
Excluding the transfers is obviously a problem (Scarponi) but the UCI is obviously afraid that the other way (including transfers) would mean that every year some new team buys itself into all big races and kills established ones in the process.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

the long and short of it is BMC should NOT be 7th by any stretch of the imagination.

agreed. CQ says it all really (the only fair cycling rankings).
Other than cuddles, BMC have been craptacular.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

BMC have cut their coat according to their cloth: like other teams they have specific objectives for the season, and have targetted them.

Presumably with the aim of getting a ProTour place, they targetted point-yielding races. Whatever one thinks of the races that part of the race, it was known long before the season started what they would be, and none of the biggest races are missing, even if many mediocre events are included.

If Evans' scores were deleted, BMC would currently be in 16th place on the UCI list, below Quickstep, but above BBox, Cofidis and FdJ, and still on course for a top 17 finish. (By the same token, without Boonen, Quickstep would place just below Milram)

BMC have earned 7th place in the UCI table by playing the UCI's game; is that BMC's fault or the UCI's? Cofidis, BBox and FdJ knew the rules of the game if they had wanted to prioritise UCI position.

Opinion will be split as to whether cycling benefits from that being a priority, but a team that has meet its goals as well as BMC have done (especially given Evans' lack of success in the TdF) cannot be said to have had a bad season.

 

[Anonymous]

BMC have earned 7th place in the UCI table by playing the UCI's game; is that BMC's fault or the UCI's? Cofidis, BBox and FdJ knew the rules of the game if they had wanted to prioritise UCI position.

In a system where certain teams get invites to certain races. If teams arent invited they cant score points. Its all a mess

 

[theswordsman]

In a system where certain teams get invites to certain races. If teams arent invited they cant score points. Its all a mess

Exactly. It killed Vacansoleil this year.

 

[tgsgirl]

I think the points-distribution is pretty fair, who do you wanna see at the Tour...one of the strongest gt racers(Evans) or some 2nd tier guys who have won unimportant stages and one day races?

What Tour were you watching that Evans entertained you so? Apparently not the one where Bbox and QST won two stages and FDJ one.

 

[blaxland]

BMC have cut their coat according to their cloth: like other teams they have specific objectives for the season, and have targetted them.

Presumably with the aim of getting a ProTour place, they targetted point-yielding races. Whatever one thinks of the races that part of the race, it was known long before the season started what they would be, and none of the biggest races are missing, even if many mediocre events are included.

If Evans' scores were deleted, BMC would currently be in 16th place on the UCI list, below Quickstep, but above BBox, Cofidis and FdJ, and still on course for a top 17 finish. (By the same token, without Boonen, Quickstep would place just below Milram)

BMC have earned 7th place in the UCI table by playing the UCI's game; is that BMC's fault or the UCI's? Cofidis, BBox and FdJ knew the rules of the game if they had wanted to prioritise UCI position.

Opinion will be split as to whether cycling benefits from that being a priority, but a team that has meet its goals as well as BMC have done (especially given Evans' lack of success in the TdF) cannot be said to have had a bad season.

Spot on Armchair cyclist and Maybe Bmc where being realistic as to what goals they will be able to acheive..

 

[auscyclefan94]

What Tour were you watching that Evans entertained you so? Apparently not the one where Bbox and QST won two stages and FDJ one.

Did you watch stage 3 or see the stage where evans rode into yellow. having a leaders jersey just for one day is a pretty big deal.

So? The season is longer than 4 weeks (even if those four weeks are glorious). As TeamSkyFans has pointed out, all the teams that are above BMC do have big wins.
Going by prestige (which is subjective, I know):

BMC has two fake-PT wins (Burghardt x2, TdS), one GT stage (Evans) and one classic (Evans).

Bbox has one PT win (Vogondy, Dauphiné), three GT stages (Tschopp, Giro; Voeckler, Tour and Fedrigo, Tour) and one .HIS win (Bonnet, PN).

FDJ has one fake-PT win (Pologne, Hutarovich), two GT stages (Hutarovich, Vuelta; Casar, Tour).

Cofidis has one GT stage win (Monier, Giro), one .HIS win (Moinard, PN) and one PT win (Catalunya*, Dumoulin).

Quickstep, finally, has four GT stage wins (Chav x2, Tour; Pineau, Giro; Weylandt, Giro), one PT win (Catalunya*, Malacarne) and one .HIS win (Tombo, Tirreno).

So how exactly are BMC's wins that much better than those of the teams directly above them in CQranking? Reality is that they're on par with high level ranking wins, and all the other teams are much better at winning the **** small races, so to speak.

And I'm not comparing RVV with Nokere Koerse, that's what you're faultily deriving from what I actually said.

*I like Catalunya so I'd hate to have to call it a fake-PT race, but it's probably on the edge of being so.

what do you mean by fake pt win?

I'd allow Kristoff to live too. He's no Cavendish, but he could be useful as a second-tier .1 sprinter given enough time. Like the Hutaroviches and Weylandts of the world, he won't win much and he'll usually finish around fifth to tenth in the big races, but if absolutely everything comes together they could get you a GT stage. Apart from that, **** small wins. That's how I see him anyway.

he's only just 23 for heavens sake. He never really has much team support and starts from about 10 lengths back in a sprint. Cav has always had a leadout train and when he was 23 he did not win overly much.

The difference between the UCI ranking and the CQ ranking is that the former is a reflection of how good a team's very top riders have performed, while the latter is a reflection of the strength of the team as a whole.

BMC have one very good rider and three or four pretty decent riders. The rest of the team are barely Pro Conti standard. The difference between the two rankings demonstrates this team make-up very well.

BMC understood the UCI system and have played it well. But whether or not that makes them a better team than those that didn't comes down to personal opinion really. Generally people will argue which ever way suits their preconceived ideas.

I mostly agree but saying that they have riders that are barely pro conti standard is a bit harsh. it is clear that in the big classics and big stage races that BMC have performed better. Look at my classics results list and it proves it. yes they are only 5 races but they are 5 very big and important races to win. Alberto Contador does not go race all the small races just so he can get lots of wins. he goes to the best and biggest races to beat the best. With the signings for next year bmc should be much higher on the cq ranking and possibly in the protour. You can whinge about the protour ranking system all you like but it doesn't change the fact that it is the ranking that counts.

tgsgirl is never going to like cadel or anyone associated with him as she as a personal vendetta against him. it is pretty obvious as she has never said a nice word about him.

 

[stefrees]

he's only just 23 for heavens sake. He never really has much team support and starts from about 10 lengths back in a sprint. Cav has always had a leadout train and when he was 23 he did not win overly him.

Cav didn't win much at 23 then?

 

[auscyclefan94]

Cav didn't win much at 23 then?

Cavendish is a bad example as he is a winning machine but my point is that he is very young and never has or had a leadout train or a leadout rider that often or even at all. He always comes from a fair way back to get his placing.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The 2009 BMC team comprises much of the backbone of the 2010 team, over which a thimbleful of top names have been transposed. with the exception of Bookwalter's showing in the Giro prologue, these guys have moved on a little, but not much. Cuddles is the team's only major star, and he has single-handedly rescued their season. A lot of the results have been accumulated in exactly the way that made the Cofidis boss so angry last year - that David Moncoutié's KOM jersey in the Vuelta meant nothing but coming 9th in a bunch sprint in the Tour Down Under did. When have we actually seen BMC jerseys in races? I remember Burghardt's wins in the Tour de Suisse, sure, but apart from that, hardly ever. I think Ballan had a little dig on the Tour stage Vino won, and we saw Hincapie win a combativity award in the Tour of California, which would have been given to Matty Wilson if the jury weren't biased in favour of well-known US names. The rest of the time, we've seen the rainbow jersey as the only BMC jersey we've seen at any point.

To the person saying "would you rather have one of the top GC contenders or a team of GC-irrelevant attackers", well there's more to a race than the GC battle. We said before the season that Evans would do nothing at the Tour if he targeted the Giro, and that if he had one eye on the Tour he'd fail at the Giro; his team were reliant solely on him for those results. Thankfully he didn't have an eye on the Tour at the Giro, and repaid the team with a spell in pink, a points jersey and a stage win. But the rest of the team went AWOL after stage 1 because, frankly, BMC's top tier talent is very thin on the ground, and they sent too many useful names to a spring jolly in California so that they could roll around waving to the cameras like a post-Tour crit; those riders would have been better served helping Evans and letting the lesser names learn in California from facing the more prestigious field, even if all they could learn from them in that particular race is how not to give a **** about a race.

And then, of course, they could send the A-squad over to France for the Tour, but Evans was kaput after the Ardennes and the Giro, and was on his way to being GC irrelevant even before his injury. The only people on this earth who think that Evans could have won or podiumed the Tour against Contador, Schleck, Menchov and Sánchez in that form, after the long season he'd had, are Evans, Evans' mom and ACF.

BMC have been exposed throughout the season for what they are: a bunch of second-tier riders, some with potential, a few aging stars who can get a win here or there if the stars align correctly, and Cadel Evans.

 

[auscyclefan94]

The 2009 BMC team comprises much of the backbone of the 2010 team, over which a thimbleful of top names have been transposed. with the exception of Bookwalter's showing in the Giro prologue, these guys have moved on a little, but not much. Cuddles is the team's only major star, and he has single-handedly rescued their season.

Well these guys are now riding much bigger level races now so they are being "chucked in the deep end" in a lot of these big races. we will see the improvement next year after a full season racing against the top level professionals in the world. I agree that cadel has salvaged their season and BMC would of been hoping for a few more wins and I think Cadel would be liking to have a few more wins to his name this season also as he has been close quite a few times. But that's life. He is a real professional when it comes to his training. he is a hard worker and will be up there next year.

A lot of the results have been accumulated in exactly the way that made the Cofidis boss so angry last year - that David Moncoutié's KOM jersey in the Vuelta meant nothing but coming 9th in a bunch sprint in the Tour Down Under did. When have we actually seen BMC jerseys in races? I remember Burghardt's wins in the Tour de Suisse, sure, but apart from that, hardly ever. I think Ballan had a little dig on the Tour stage Vino won, and we saw Hincapie win a combativity award in the Tour of California, which would have been given to Matty Wilson if the jury weren't biased in favour of well-known US names. The rest of the time, we've seen the rainbow jersey as the only BMC jersey we've seen at any point.

This I agree with 100%. They are not in the breaks enough in particular races where they don't have a big rider to lead them for victory. Even in the tour down under and in smaller stage races around Europe, they have some fast men such as Kristoff and Wyss but they could of utilised them better they both would of had many more wins or placings to their names. They are always coming from way to far back with no leadout train/man at all and have all the work to do in the final 200m. You gradually see them pick up some places in the last 50m where they come flying past but it is too little to late. I thought the ToC was a bit of a joke. Yes it is good for sponsors but don't totally disregard il giro. Cadel said that it was big for sponsors to have the bigger bmc riders at le tour as it is "the event".

To the person saying "would you rather have one of the top GC contenders or a team of GC-irrelevant attackers", well there's more to a race than the GC battle. We said before the season that Evans would do nothing at the Tour if he targeted the Giro, and that if he had one eye on the Tour he'd fail at the Giro; his team were reliant solely on him for those results. Thankfully he didn't have an eye on the Tour at the Giro, and repaid the team with a spell in pink, a points jersey and a stage win. But the rest of the team went AWOL after stage 1 because, frankly, BMC's top tier talent is very thin on the ground, and they sent too many useful names to a spring jolly in California so that they could roll around waving to the cameras like a post-Tour crit; those riders would have been better served helping Evans and letting the lesser names learn in California from facing the more prestigious field, even if all they could learn from them in that particular race is how not to give a **** about a race.

I understand their is more to racing than overall honours. But they have Cadel and up to morzine he was up there the whole time and rode into yellow. You do have to understand that Santambrogio was the only other rider on that team that had ever ridden a GT on that team. It was crazy to expect much if anything of them. Bookwalter was excellent and if you read my quote he commmented about the giro and how cadel did not expect much of them.

And then, of course, they could send the A-squad over to France for the Tour, but Evans was kaput after the Ardennes and the Giro, and was on his way to being GC irrelevant even before his injury. The only people on this earth who think that Evans could have won or podiumed the Tour against Contador, Schleck, Menchov and Sánchez in that form, after the long season he'd had, are Evans, Evans' mom and ACF.

BMC have been exposed throughout the season for what they are: a bunch of second-tier riders, some with potential, a few aging stars who can get a win here or there if the stars align correctly, and Cadel Evans.

- Deep down I knew it was always going to be hard for cadel to do a get a good gc results. After the cobbled stage I had hope after that great performance on the pave but to get into yellow after morzine, I was satisfied. The team could go away with something very special, the mailliot jaune. But I also learnt from 2008 of how much crashes catch up with you. I was hoping he would be fine because he seemed to not talk about the crash but once I woke up and saw the time gaps at 1am in the morning on the madeleine stage, I was devastated. Though his ride was pretty darn gutsy.

Your appraisal of BMC's riders is very harsh. A lot of first year riders or first year pros on that team who have been chucked in the deep end. Morabito has shown a lot of promise, so has Santambrogio, Frank has a lot of potential and bookwalter is a strong rider also. There are few others who have ridden well and i think next year, the experience along with the new riders will show a much better BMC Racing Team with a lot more wins under their belts and why not overall honours in a Grand Tour?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I don't think I'm harsh. At the moment they are second-tier riders. And they may have been chucked in the deep end, but there are other teams with riders who wouldn't have been being chucked in the deep end, who aren't being given invites because BMC are getting them all. We all criticised Footon for sending 9 guys who'd never raced the Tour before to it, but BMC sent 7 people who'd never raced a GT before to the Tour, and we let them off. Frankly they were invited because of Evans, and after the amount of effort expended in the Giro it became pretty clear from the outset that inviting them ahead of Skil or Vacansoleil was a bad decision, because BMC haven't been primary race animators (Matthias Fränk excepted), and with Evans not in GT contending form they did not have any plan B. Caisse's plan B after Valverde's ban was to go stagehunting. They weren't successful but they sure tried, and the race was much better for them being there. Cadel got into yellow by being there or thereabouts in each stage, and a good ride in stage 3 - but it was just like when he got into gold at the Vuelta - after one mountain stage where nobody really did anything, and then he lost it the next day. If it hadn't been for that stage 3 ride that made it possible, we'd have been talking about BMC's Tour in the same way as we talk about Milram's - completely and utterly nondescript.

I know it's a multiple-year project, and a lot of the youngsters will be better next year and the year after, but I can't help resenting that they've been given a lot of invites this year that it's quite clear that, Evans excepted, they simply did not deserve. But because they've got those invites and other teams haven't, they've got themselves into that cosy club of Patty's favourites who will get Patty's protected status, so we can look forward to more exciting, interesting teams with riders who are actually at the required level being excluded from all the top races to make room for them as they make Lotto's support for Evans look like the US Postal train.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I don't think I'm harsh. At the moment they are second-tier riders. And they may have been chucked in the deep end, but there are other teams with riders who wouldn't have been being chucked in the deep end, who aren't being given invites because BMC are getting them all. We all criticised Footon for sending 9 guys who'd never raced the Tour before to it, but BMC sent 7 people who'd never raced a GT before to the Tour, and we let them off. Frankly they were invited because of Evans, and after the amount of effort expended in the Giro it became pretty clear from the outset that inviting them ahead of Skil or Vacansoleil was a bad decision, because BMC haven't been primary race animators (Matthias Fränk excepted), and with Evans not in GT contending form they did not have any plan B. Caisse's plan B after Valverde's ban was to go stagehunting. They weren't successful but they sure tried, and the race was much better for them being there. Cadel got into yellow by being there or thereabouts in each stage, and a good ride in stage 3 - but it was just like when he got into gold at the Vuelta - after one mountain stage where nobody really did anything, and then he lost it the next day. If it hadn't been for that stage 3 ride that made it possible, we'd have been talking about BMC's Tour in the same way as we talk about Milram's - completely and utterly nondescript.

I know it's a multiple-year project, and a lot of the youngsters will be better next year and the year after, but I can't help resenting that they've been given a lot of invites this year that it's quite clear that, Evans excepted, they simply did not deserve. But because they've got those invites and other teams haven't, they've got themselves into that cosy club of Patty's favourites who will get Patty's protected status, so we can look forward to more exciting, interesting teams with riders who are actually at the required level being excluded from all the top races to make room for them as they make Lotto's support for Evans look like the US Postal train.

I think the statement in bold you may want to review. They got invites to the cobble classics because of Ballan, hincapie, etc. I think you are being much to harsh on their young or inexperienced riders. 2nd rate is very much over the top. I don't think many people criticised Footon at all for going in with 9 "no - namers".

Out of the more well known riders at BMC...

Guys who I am happy with at BMC for 2010; Evans, Bookwalter, Burghardt (even though classics season was poor) Kristoff, Morabito, Santambrogio and Wyss.

Guys who have had mediocre/average seasons; Ballan, Hincapie and Kroon.

The rest personally who aren't really well known big riders did well enough but are still inexperienced. Moos will be moving on and I am not sure if anyone else is retiring, getting the sack of moving to another team. They need to get a sprint train happening. That is very important for BMC to have in 2011 which they will get some strong results and more wins. Then their is less pressure on relying on evans.

 

[Anonymous]

They need to get a sprint train happening. That is very important for BMC to have in 2011 which they will get some strong results and more wins. Then their is less pressure on relying on evans.

there is now cereal and milk all over my worktop

 

[hrotha]

I don't think many people criticised Footon at all for going in with 9 "no - namers".

Hahahaha, what?

 

[tgsgirl]

Did you watch stage 3 or see the stage where evans rode into yellow. having a leaders jersey just for one day is a pretty big deal.

Yes, I did. It was a very good ride by Cuddles, but I wasn't entertained by what he did. I was entertained by Cancellara going crazy, I was entertained by Thor's sprint. Evans being up there was good on him, but, like Geraint Thomas for example, he didn't actively entertain me.

what do you mean by fake pt win?

A race that is only ProTour because McQuaid threw a dart at a cycling calendar, or because they paid up, or because... let's face it, who knows what the hell goes on in Pat's mind? Tour Down Under, Eneco Tour, Tour de Pologne*... those races. A win there is good on them, but no way should it be more prestigious than a win in Tirreno.

he's only just 23 for heavens sake. He never really has much team support and starts from about 10 lengths back in a sprint. Cav has always had a leadout train and when he was 23 he did not win overly much.

Top 15 sprinters born in 1987 or later (CQ). Kristoff is a good rider, and I'd keep him on the squad, but he's no better than Modolo, Boeckmans or Guarnieri; yet Kristoff gets all the hype (admittedly, 80% of that hype comes from you only).

1. [NOR] BOASSON HAGEN Edvald SKY 17/05/1987 429
2. [SVK] SAGAN Peter LIQ 26/01/1990 147
3. [ITA] MODOLO Sacha COG 19/06/1987 104
4. [BEL] BOECKMANS Kris TSV 13/02/1987 102
5. [ITA] GUARNIERI Jacopo LIQ 14/08/1987 95
6. [AUS] MATTHEWS Michael JAS 26/09/1990 89
7. [BEL] VAN STAEYEN Michael TSV 13/08/1988 85
8. [GBR] SWIFT Ben SKY 05/11/1987 82
9. [BEL] ROBERT Frederique QST 25/01/1989 70
10. [GER] REIMER Martin CTT 14/06/1987 63
11. [BEL] KEUKELEIRE Jens COF 23/11/1988 61
12. [NED] VAN POPPEL Boy RB3 18/01/1988 57
13. [ITA] RATTO Daniele CMO 05/10/1989 55
14. [NOR] KRISTOFF Alexander BMC 05/07/1987 52
15. [BEL] VANSPEYBROECK Pieter TSV 10/02/1987 49

tgsgirl is never going to like cadel or anyone associated with him as she as a personal vendetta against him. it is pretty obvious as she has never said a nice word about him.

Nope, I don't like Cadel. But I do acknowledge when he puts in a good performance, and you claiming otherwise is just bull. That Eroica stage in the Giro (stage 7, iirc) was one of the finest days of racing this year (it'd make the top 10), no matter how much I whined about it beforehand or how much I hated that Cuddles won. That was good racing by him.

BMC have been exposed throughout the season for what they are: a bunch of second-tier riders, some with potential, a few aging stars who can get a win here or there if the stars align correctly, and Cadel Evans.

Amen.

*other fake ProTour races up for debate

 

[theyoungest]

A race that is only ProTour because McQuaid threw a dart at a cycling calendar, or because they paid up, or because... let's face it, who knows what the hell goes on in Pat's mind? Tour Down Under, Eneco Tour, Tour de Pologne, Tour de Suisse... those races. A win there is good on them, but no way should it be more prestigious than a win in Tirreno.

Hold on there, Tour de Suisse doesn't belong in that list. That is a prestigious race. So is Tirreno, but I don't really get why you use that example, as it is also a Protour race.