Re: Re:
Zinoviev Letter said:
The issue is that performance has no relationship to invites in the current set up. There’s no objective qualification system for PCT teams and there probably won’t ever be, but there’s no evidence whatsoever that performances in big races - including in the race that any given invite is for - play any role in the subjective decision making of race organizers. Two things matter this year - whether a team is from the organiser’s country and whether a team pays the organisers a load of money. The only wild card across the three GTs that doesn’t obviously tick one or both of those boxes is Wanty (and I wouldn’t be entirely sure about them not ticking the latter box).
It’s not only the GTs either. The same home teams or pay to play teams get almost all of the invites to the WT week long races too. That’s the real calendar killer for any team not from Spain/France etc. Any team should be able to survive missing out on a GT - there can only be 11 invited after all. But when missing out on a GT means missing out on almost any prominent stage race that’s another problem entirely.
The point about “established journeymen” is total nonsense, by the way. It reflects only this forum’s prejudices that Mediterranean journeymen are more interesting than Northern European ones. Every PCT team is mostly made up of journeymen and aquablue’s assortment of them is higher quality than most other PCT teams. The main difference between them and the likes of Burgos is that their riders all are pro quality while many of those on Burgos and some other teams with wildcards are basically Conti riders who were never good enough for a contract and aren’t particularly young. For that matter Aquablue signed two of the most highly touted espoirs this year. Only Androni has higher profile first year neopros in the whole division. The four invitees to the Vuelta don’t have a single first year pro between them with the espoir record of either Dunbar or Pedersen.
There’s an argument to be made that Unipublic has a responsibility to Spanish cycling and that means that they have to invite all three Spanish teams. That’s reasonable enough. But confusing that argument with one about quality is horse excrement. None of those three teams (including this year’s incarnation of Caja Rural) would have a hope in hell of an invite were they not Spanish and everyone knows it.
Of course performance has no relationship to the invites setup. The wildcards are the only area of freedom that the race organizers have to affect who rides their race, and they have more factors in play than quality of the team. Last year Aqua Blue got an invite because there were not many home teams, this year they don't as the number of home teams has increased. It is to be expected. Would I have been disappointed if they got in instead of Burgos? No, not really. The race doesn't go through Burgos province, the team has less quality on the roster and Aqua Blue won a stage last year. But I would have been shocked had they had an invite and any of the other three not been invited. Cofidis because of the sponsorship deal, Caja Rural because they've proven an established and long-running part of the national péloton through the times of hardship, and Euskadi-Murias because they've got an interesting team with some good young prospects, passionate fans and the race passes through their home area.
And as for missing out on every established stage race, come on, even fricking Funvic, Verva-ActiveJet and pre-Evans BMC got to do some WT stage races. That incarnation of BMC was absolute dreck, even in most sympathetic renderings not better than Burgos-BH, and they did the Dauphiné so there isn't even the excuse of the shockingly poor state of the Spanish ProConti scene that accounted for the first two.
And here's the thing though - you argue that the 'journeyman' argument is prejudice and bias, and in many ways that's right, but there's a crucial difference between the Grand Tours. The Tour de France does not have to do any job in marketing itself to attract the audience, its value is inherent in its international profile. We all know that. The Giro and the Vuelta do not have the automatic global currency that the Tour has, and therefore the home audience is more crucial to them. Not only that, but the distinctively Spanish or distinctively Italian flavour of those races become key differentiating factors for those races, that give them their identity and make them stand out as different to the Tour. And that can be for better or worse for the top-down quality of the race, sure, but it's an almost inescapable conclusion that Unipublic's key consideration is simply that more people who are going to be lining the roadside in Spain and in Italy care about Caja Rural or Androni Giocattoli than about Aqua Blue Sport, and that's been the decisive factor. The only real 'hook' that the Vuelta's audience has with Aqua Blue is Denifl's win last year, in that respect there are a lot of ProConti teams that they lag behind, so while performance-wise they may be much of a muchness (it's hard to take the CQ ranking at this point as obviously few stage races and many classics having been the order of the day thus far, the Belgian Classics squads dominate the ProConti rankings), they do not have the same attraction to the local, small-scale fans and sponsors, and not offer sufficient international intrigue to compensate that in the eyes of Unipublic. The other thing is, with them being Spanish, Unipublic can absolutely guarantee in giving three of the four wildcard teams their invite, that the Vuelta instantly becomes the absolute central focus of their season.
And Vacansoleil got snubbed big time in 2010 after a much more successful Grand Tour debut than Aqua Blue's. Sure, it sucks when it happens to you, but there has also been much criticism of race organizers (especially RCS) in recent years for races feeling like they lose some of their identity to the local crowds in snubbing the local teams. That hasn't been an option for Unipublic of late with a paucity of Spanish teams, but really there are too many fixed invites from the WT that leads to race organisers being pretty highly restricted in who they are able to choose for themselves. Sure Delaney's put a lot of work in, but he surely can't be arguing that the Euskadi guys didn't, building the team from the ground up over a period of years, or the Caja Rural guys didn't, developing young riders, keeping the team afloat and at least moderately competitive year after year despite annually being absolutely gutted of their best talents.
Now, the closing of shops at the PC level is a different discussion and one that we had last year when disputing the ABS wildcard - the way the UCI trying to alter the system so it couldn't be gamed by teams like Cervélo and BMC, signing stars that guaranteed they'd get any invite they want whilst simultaneously not being subject to the restrictions of the WT has gutted the ProConti level, plus the pricing-up at the WT level thanks to big money teams like Sky and latter day BMC has meant that you've got riders like Leopold König stepping from being team leaders at the PC level to fifth in line at the WT level but that still being able to be justified based on calendar and salary. History has shown that to progress at that level your best options are to either splash the cash on a big star to guarantee those invites, or work your tail off filling your boots at lower exposure .HC and .1 races. The former is off limits to most, the latter is perhaps unattractive and also harder for a team that doesn't come from a country which has its own highly developed national calendar like France, Belgium, or Italy. And it perhaps seems doubly unattractive to Aqua Blue because they emerged and got a wildcard GT invite in year 1. But if you look across the ProConti fields, major stage race invites in year 1 are the exception, not the norm (Classics are a bit different as more teams can compete and there are almost twice as many wildcards as a result, whereas stage races are more restrictive), was Delaney talking about his good fortune then?