Hey, I among others had hoped for some more mountainous races to be added to the WWT, and although at a very disappointing length (66km!!! Ashleigh Moolman-Pasio has already given a cautiously-worded complaint about the lack of distance and the single-day nature) nobody can deny that finishing atop the Col d'Izoard makes this a mountainous race and one that really favours the climbers. And I among others had hoped for some more high profile men's races to pick up the baton and let the women race.
I just think the way they've gone about it is absolutely terrible. After all, I assume this has been planned for some time, would it have killed the UCI to serve notice to the organizers of the Thüringen Rundfahrt more than two days before the 2017 calendar was announced? Same with Amstel Gold. Gent-Wevelgem was started as a 1.2 race and built up until the women's race had built up enough interest; if the UCI were intending to make Amstel Gold a WT race from the get-go, could they not have reasonably given the Emakumeen Bira some advance warning, rather than telling them "there's some free space in the calendar in February, you should go there"? And if it hasn't been planned for some time and the UCI really were given next to no notice by ASO, then it's a contemptible and worrying decision by ASO because they could destroy a 30-year-old stage race for a last minute whim. There are many issues I have with ASO, but in this instance I don't think that's the case.
The issue is not the new races or even the new character (although given that the women's race is still a one-day race, it's a bit more of an irritation for us what is happening with Thüringen because we're not actually gaining anything, whereas when they were told to move because of an 'expanded' La Course, everybody thought (myself included) this meant a stage race) of the existing race, but the way the races that did stand on their own when the big events weren't interested in the women are being mistreated. You would have thought that it would make more sense for the UCI, if commitment to developing women's cycling really is their goal, to want to work with these race organizers to find a slot in the calendar that will work for both, to enable the races that bring riders through to continue to work and bring riders through to then thrive in the Women's World Tour. And let's face it, there are not that many decent length stage races out there, and Thüringen with 8 stages in 7 days is one of the longest. And there are not that many mountainous stage races out there, and the Emakumeen Bira with 5 days in the Basque Country is one of the most mountainous. The Giro remains the stage race par excellence, and guess what: it's long, and it's mountainous. Wouldn't it be good to help develop depth in the péloton if riders could tailor their calendars based around their skillsets?
I would like the Izoard La Course to be longer, sure, but it's not the Izoard La Course in and of itself that bothers me. It's that it's still a one-day race, but that the UCI didn't care if it destroyed a 30-year-old traditional and popular race which is one of the longest and hardest stage races on the calendar to do so; they've already spent a lot of money on organizing the stage towns, courses, road closures etc. on dates that they suddenly have to change with no help from the sport's governing body.
Women's cycling is not yet ready for a situation whereby two top level races can go on simultaneously and all the top teams are there. It forces some difficult decisions, such as Orica-AIS and Cervélo-Bigla skipping the Giro last year (even after AMP was 4th in 2015). Once the teams have developed to the size where this can be done, then fine, fill your boots, but at the moment we should be cautious about running before we can walk.
I just think the way they've gone about it is absolutely terrible. After all, I assume this has been planned for some time, would it have killed the UCI to serve notice to the organizers of the Thüringen Rundfahrt more than two days before the 2017 calendar was announced? Same with Amstel Gold. Gent-Wevelgem was started as a 1.2 race and built up until the women's race had built up enough interest; if the UCI were intending to make Amstel Gold a WT race from the get-go, could they not have reasonably given the Emakumeen Bira some advance warning, rather than telling them "there's some free space in the calendar in February, you should go there"? And if it hasn't been planned for some time and the UCI really were given next to no notice by ASO, then it's a contemptible and worrying decision by ASO because they could destroy a 30-year-old stage race for a last minute whim. There are many issues I have with ASO, but in this instance I don't think that's the case.
The issue is not the new races or even the new character (although given that the women's race is still a one-day race, it's a bit more of an irritation for us what is happening with Thüringen because we're not actually gaining anything, whereas when they were told to move because of an 'expanded' La Course, everybody thought (myself included) this meant a stage race) of the existing race, but the way the races that did stand on their own when the big events weren't interested in the women are being mistreated. You would have thought that it would make more sense for the UCI, if commitment to developing women's cycling really is their goal, to want to work with these race organizers to find a slot in the calendar that will work for both, to enable the races that bring riders through to continue to work and bring riders through to then thrive in the Women's World Tour. And let's face it, there are not that many decent length stage races out there, and Thüringen with 8 stages in 7 days is one of the longest. And there are not that many mountainous stage races out there, and the Emakumeen Bira with 5 days in the Basque Country is one of the most mountainous. The Giro remains the stage race par excellence, and guess what: it's long, and it's mountainous. Wouldn't it be good to help develop depth in the péloton if riders could tailor their calendars based around their skillsets?
I would like the Izoard La Course to be longer, sure, but it's not the Izoard La Course in and of itself that bothers me. It's that it's still a one-day race, but that the UCI didn't care if it destroyed a 30-year-old traditional and popular race which is one of the longest and hardest stage races on the calendar to do so; they've already spent a lot of money on organizing the stage towns, courses, road closures etc. on dates that they suddenly have to change with no help from the sport's governing body.
Women's cycling is not yet ready for a situation whereby two top level races can go on simultaneously and all the top teams are there. It forces some difficult decisions, such as Orica-AIS and Cervélo-Bigla skipping the Giro last year (even after AMP was 4th in 2015). Once the teams have developed to the size where this can be done, then fine, fill your boots, but at the moment we should be cautious about running before we can walk.