The slow decay of pro cycling?

[Cimber]

Smaller teams make races harder to control. Cheap and easy.

Only we need more teams then or we get alot of unemployed riders

 

[Netserk]

Only we need more teams then or we get alot of unemployed riders

And more races.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Only we need more teams then or we get alot of unemployed riders

That is a negative, definitely. However, if teams need fewer riders, then it would become cheaper to sponsor. Hopefully if it were cheaper to sponsor, more teams could survive and/or start up.

 

[Netserk]

Or more of the teams we already have will get invited to the races.

BTW is it right that we'll have 6-man teams in Pologne?

 

[Bye Bye Bicycle]

The thing is, they dope in cycling, have done so, and will do so. It´s exactly the same for soccer, athletics and so on.

Speaking about it won´t change this fact. And cycling is the only sport where they speak of it.

Soccer: one of 1000 news headlines related to doping,
cycling: 100 of 1000 headlines. Methods, substances and persons involved: the same in both sports, or almost the same.

Blah blah, the doping in cycling doesn't get any better just because other sports are doping too. Btw, I don't care at all about soccer. I only care for cycling. And seeing ****heads like di Luca return again and again (and getting cheered for by some idiots in this forum) makes mad. And turns sponsors away.

 

[del1962]

If you had fewer riders per team, then you could have more teams per race, with the same number of cyclists.

 

[PremiereEtape]

Regarding the smaller team ideas, hard to see how they can get whittled down? So far a team needs for a gc as a minimum to be competitive :

1 sprinter
1 leadout
1 gc
1 backup
1 domestique for each
1 tt specialist

Now, thats seven and admittedly some roles have crossover, but i think it would be tough and racing would suffer if you cut them.

The key is working out how to make the races exciting start to finish...time bonuses on the intermediates? Maybe ability to transfer time bonuses to other team members?

 

[SetonHallPirate]

Yes...that's accurate.

http://tourdepologne.pl/en/?showNewsLite=199

 

[Netserk]

There was also talk about this year's Tour having 8-man teams, but apparently it'll end up with the usual 9.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Regarding the smaller team ideas, hard to see how they can get whittled down? So far a team needs for a gc as a minimum to be competitive :

1 sprinter
1 leadout
1 gc
1 backup
1 domestique for each
1 tt specialist

Now, thats seven and admittedly some roles have crossover, but i think it would be tough and racing would suffer if you cut them.

The key is working out how to make the races exciting start to finish...time bonuses on the intermediates? Maybe ability to transfer time bonuses to other team members?

Some teams have no sprinter. Some teams have no GC candidate. With 6 man teams, races are more exciting start to finish because riders have fewer domestiques so have to do more work themselves; it also incentivises attacking because there aren't as many people dedicated to controlling it. With HTC-High Road, for example, they had 8 men at every GT and 7 men at every World Tour race who were there to control and pull back the breakaway for Cavendish. So a group of 3 or 4 that gets up the road is fighting against a - usually stronger - field of twice their size, even before you factor other teams who want the sprint into it.

I don't think there's a need for gimmickry like transferring time bonuses to teammates, however time bonuses at intermediates already exist. Maybe look at shaking up the format of the races if you need to work on things, but really I just think designing courses better so that the races are harder to control would suffice in a lot of cases.

 

[hrotha]

If you had fewer riders per team, then you could have more teams per race, with the same number of cyclists.

It's not that simple. More teams means more hotel reservations, more cars, etc.

 

[icefire]

Some teams have no sprinter. Some teams have no GC candidate. With 6 man teams, races are more exciting start to finish because riders have fewer domestiques so have to do more work themselves; it also incentivises attacking because there aren't as many people dedicated to controlling it. With HTC-High Road, for example, they had 8 men at every GT and 7 men at every World Tour race who were there to control and pull back the breakaway for Cavendish. So a group of 3 or 4 that gets up the road is fighting against a - usually stronger - field of twice their size, even before you factor other teams who want the sprint into it.

I don't think there's a need for gimmickry like transferring time bonuses to teammates, however time bonuses at intermediates already exist. Maybe look at shaking up the format of the races if you need to work on things, but really I just think designing courses better so that the races are harder to control would suffice in a lot of cases.

I'd leave it at 5 men in WT races chasing for the likes of Cavendish. It worked fine last year in the Olympics

 

[The Hitch]

Strange, isn't it?
You seem to have misunderstood the thread. To further ignore doping is going to kill cycling, not save it.

Btw, only solution to save cycling: bring WT status for the Scheldeprijs.

Doping should be fought for moral reasons, but ignoring it is certainly not gonna kill it

Just look at the success of sports which ignore doping and take away access passes of anyone who dares mention it. Football, tennis, the 100m, NFL, Basketball.

The most succesful sports in the world.

So your theory has no basis in reality.

 

[Granville57]

They are looking for new markets like China, which seems logical...

What the...

Those "new markets" that the UCI are pursuing are nothing more than a figment of their corrupt imagination. Oman, Qatar, China...

What astounds me is that given all the noise there has been about the growth of cycling in the U.S., it's ridiculously difficult to get any respectable coverage of the sport. Here's a market that is just primed for additional exposure, and yet if you don't have a particular cable TV provider, you're not likely to see any of the races. And if you do, you likely have to endure the idiocy of Liggett and Sherwen.

They don't need "new" markets. They need to greatly, and substantially increase the exposure of the sport in markets where the audience is ready and waiting, and easily expanded upon. That is not likely to happen in China in my lifetime.

 

[avanti]

.......................Just look at the success of sports which ignore doping and take away access passes of anyone who dares mention it. Football, tennis, the 100m, NFL, Basketball.
...................

My wife and I work at one of the top tennis tournaments in the USA and in the world. Two friends work doping control there and I can assure you dope testing is not ignored at this tournament.
I can't speak for others except that one top player was detected using cocaine at another tournament.

 

[The Hitch]

China is a good market though. Its a market willing to accept western sport. Look at how anyone who even looked like Michael Phelps was mobbed in Beijing during the 08 olympics.

They arent particularly good at many of the sports that europe cares about which is the ones they want to excel in.

A chinese rider just became the firt to finish a gt last vuelta. There are races there and there are fnas there.

The UCI is doing it wrong of course but someone intelligent (ie not Pat or the current lot) could make some real ground there.

 

[Granville57]

Two friends work doping control there and I can assure you dope testing is not ignored at this tournament.

Are these your two friends?

Wrong sub-forum, so I can't fully respond, but FFS, are you kidding me with the implications of your premise?

 

[benpounder]

If only the pseudo cycling fans that are frequenting this forum could show more interest in these real races instead of strictly caring for Bore de France...

"Pseudo fans"? I'm guessing that includes anyone who doesn't share your enthusiasm for your favored riders and favored races. Belittling them is a sure way to increase their general cycling enthusiasm.

Predictability is the issue. Conservative team tactics and riding, combined with SRM meters, radios, etc. are the big problem.

Predictability yes; but your recommendations are cosmetic. Several years ago the Vuelta put in much shorter stages with much more punch. There is a trend towards that which I think is beneficial.

Consider - MSR is just under 300km the first four hours incredibly boring, reading about in the next day makes it a monument. RVV is 250km+/-, the first two hours incredibly boring. The last four usually filled with excitement.

Going through towns and providences just because they are paying you tribute does not make a race more exciting. The obstacles - hills, pavement, wind, etc - do.

This is what race organizers need to recognize.

And as a footnote - or to perhaps highlight, even though the Giro had to abandon several stages, I fully applaud RCS for scheduling difficult stages.

 

[PCutter]

China is a good market though. Its a market willing to accept western sport. Look at how anyone who even looked like Michael Phelps was mobbed in Beijing during the 08 olympics.

They arent particularly good at many of the sports that europe cares about which is the ones they want to excel in.

A chinese rider just became the firt to finish a gt last vuelta. There are races there and there are fnas there.

The UCI is doing it wrong of course but someone intelligent (ie not Pat or the current lot) could make some real ground there.

+1. And China is increasingly seeing cycling as a sport it does want to excel in. Chinese sport is driven by mainly Olympic glory, but also in raising the country's profile internationally, and cycling is seen as one vehicle to do this. Article below covers in part this...

http://cyclingiq.com/2013/02/24/chinas-cycling-association-invests-towards-rio/

there is also an increasing interest in the upper middle class in cycling for sport (where it was previously only viewed as peasant transport) in part as it is seen as very western/European to have an expensive bicycle. There is also a strong regional based competitive scene (Chinese sports are generally regionally backed/based driving towards national championships and then Olympics) with ever increasing growth/interest and with some regions with a geographic predisposition for some cycling attributes (I look forward to Ryo banging on about how all the guys from Qinghai are going to rip a race to shreds because they are born and live above 3000m). If the Tour of Beijing were replaced with the Tour of Qinghai Lake (which is a good race) CN forum members would have nothing to complain about vis-a-vis parcours with passes above 3800m

And it doesn't hurt to have the second largest economy in the world in your sport. Though I think Japan should also be given a WT race given a) HUGE fan base/cycling history b) third largest global economy c) Shimano

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Regarding the smaller team ideas, hard to see how they can get whittled down? So far a team needs for a gc as a minimum to be competitive :

1 sprinter
1 leadout
1 gc
1 backup
1 domestique for each
1 tt specialist

That's the point, to remove the ability to control a race. We want to add unpredictability and encourage riders challenging the status quo

Who cares what teams need to be 'competitive', as long as teams are on even ground. Let them solve how they will build the team.

 

[karlboss]

No team should be able to control a race. Personally I'd prefer to see 5 riders than 7. You can control a break with 5, but would struggle to bring it back, and no chance of controlling the break, bringing it back and then using a train afterwards, sprint or uphill.
World tour should be the best of the best, ie no world tour event should be raced as a warm up. Yes i understand that this means the World tour loses nearly every stage race that isn't a grand tour. World Tour races should never overlap, it takes away from any prestige there was from being world tour.
Agree with radios and SRMs not making too much difference. SRMs allowed a tactic to be formulated, not riding with them doesn't mean teams won't do the same thing.
Globalisation: teams and riders not races. Place as many races around the world as you like if they aren't exciting, you won't achieve anything. If they aren't worth anything they won't be exciting. Better to foster successful riders and teams from these regions. See how the popularity of basketball exploded in China when Yao Ming hit the NBA. David Stern when talking about the popularity of basketball in China said leBron James was the next Yao Ming.
Cycling in China needs a Yao Ming.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Agree with radios and SRMs not making too much difference. SRMs allowed a tactic to be formulated, not riding with them doesn't mean teams won't do the same thing.

Agree about the team size etc.

But Radios have a negative impact on races. It adds to the controlling element, plus it appears to make riders clueless about what goes on around them. They are so used to be told what to do all the time, that their brain seems to be switched off. We need race instinct and risk taking to define the races, not guys sitting in a car issuing orders when to attack or ride hard etc.

As for SRMs, well I don't know why a grown man would ride with such a toy.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

I don't think reducing the number of riders per team really changes anything. Sprint stages have ended in sprints for the past 50 years and will continue doing so the next 50. Every now and then someone gets away, but that will always be rare whatever you do. With smaller teams you will just get more teams working together instead of the main burden being done by one team. The only reason it worked in the Olympics was because the English were a bit arrogant and either didn't ask people to join them or nobody wanted to. That whole race was basically everyone against the English. In a normal GT stage that will never happen.

I also don't think radios are the problem. Things are more controlled now because teams are more professional than they used to be. Riders know their limits better, simply because the training information has increased a lot. They also know better how fast they can catch a break if needed.

 

[Captain Sensible]

How about more 1day races ?
You could have smaller teams so more teams can enter the races so hopefully it will encourage new sponsors into the sport .Bring back Bordeaux-Paris with the Dernys.

 

[karlboss]

I don't think reducing the number of riders per team really changes anything. Sprint stages have ended in sprints for the past 50 years and will continue doing so the next 50. Every now and then someone gets away, but that will always be rare whatever you do. With smaller teams you will just get more teams working together instead of the main burden being done by one team. The only reason it worked in the Olympics was because the English were a bit arrogant and either didn't ask people to join them or nobody wanted to. That whole race was basically everyone against the English. In a normal GT stage that will never happen.

I also don't think radios are the problem. Things are more controlled now because teams are more professional than they used to be. Riders know their limits better, simply because the training information has increased a lot. They also know better how fast they can catch a break if needed.

Just quietly at the tour 50 years ago teams were larger. So...not sure what your point is. At the olympics where the limit is 5, can anyone remember a sprint finish, there could have been one in London, Sydney, Athens, barcelona, Seoul so again I'm not sure of your point.