ToCalifornia Stage 8: TO/Westlake/Agoura Hills 134.4km

[Anonymous]

The race was a complete failure in terms of marketing.
1. Only the spectators on the course got to see an entire stage because of rain. Thats right, rain. Not a tornado. Not a hurricane. Not an earthquake. Rain.
2. The next day, US viewers got to see almost all of the race...except for that part where the guy who won came across the line and the K and a half preceding it.
3. Landis dropped a bomb regarding 2 of the top 3, and the single biggest draw of the race.
4. The biggest draw of the race dropped out because his face got scratched.
5. California's poster boy got 3rd.
6. A guy who wouldn't be in the top 20 if he were currently riding in the Giro won. Think I am wrong, consider this, he only beat Dave Z by 9 seconds. 9.
7. 37 riders actually finished the race. 37. 127 started. Um, call me crazy, but finishing the ToC doesn't hold 100th of the prestige of finishing the Giro or TdF.

Its a sit com race featuring C-List stars that got put into prime time against a drama filled with A-List stars. Its Nielsen ratings cast doubt on whether the show will be picked up for a second season.

Oh, come on.

Show me another race in the world where you will see Levi and Zabriskie attack on the same day.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, come on.

Show me another race in the world where you will see Levi and Zabriskie attack on the same day.

Good point. I think the problem is that they should not have changed the date, or at least not to competing with the Giro. Maybe a month later as competition to the Tour de Suisse considering the fact that the Swiss have flattened the route so that Spartacus can win. Maybe make it a climbers tour. California could certainly do that.

 

[theyoungest]

6. A guy who wouldn't be in the top 20 if he were currently riding in the Giro won. Think I am wrong, consider this, he only beat Dave Z by 9 seconds. 9.

He was 7th in last year's Giro, so I think you're wrong. I think he's a better climber than his teammate Pinotti, who is doing pretty well in the current Giro.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Last February's race was better.
Bottom line? 35 riders finished.
Just 3 teams riding for the GC.
That's a bad joke.
Too hard for most of the US home pros and of little interest to most of the European riders.
Stage 2 was a disaster, the ITT was a disaster, Big Bear was a disaster. Like watching wood warp.
Then, along came FLandis.........

 

[issoisso]

Oh, come on.

Show me another race in the world where you will see Levi and Zabriskie attack on the same day.

Vuelta a Castilla y Léon.

Zabriskie attacking on a mountain and Contador working at the front of the pack to bring him back.

How's that for weirdness factor?

 

[kurtinsc]

By a long shot. Going up against the Giro could (and should) be a death sentence.

I agree with could... but "should"?

I think pro-cycling needs at least one stage race of some kind on US soil. Right now the TOC is it... all the other ones have folded.

To stay a worldwide sport and not become regionalized, some sort of top level presence is necessary in the US I think. It probably needs to go back to February or March, but I think wishing it gone is not good for cycling overall.

 

[Ashtabula]

And DVR recording from Versus yesterday failed to show the finish of the race. Ran over into other programming, not hockey, but according to the guide Lance-related. I think the recording showed the attacks on the last lap in the GC quartet, but I can't go back and check because I've erased it in disgust.

I took in what has been said about this being purchased time and a low priority for Vs, but there was a failure to record on at least 3 and maybe more stages of an 8 stage race, which is all the more aggravating when the amount of filler and puff-piece profiling are taken into account.

 

[Anonymous]

He was 7th in last year's Giro, so I think you're wrong. I think he's a better climber than his teammate Pinotti, who is doing pretty well in the current Giro.

He beat Dave Z by 9 seconds. 9.

 

[Ashtabula]

Scheduling is obviously an issue with no obvious answer. What time was the old Trump/Dupont? April?

The Wikopedia page doesn't say, but does say the ambition was to rival TdF. I know the celebrated national virtues associated with thinking big, but I do cringe at the presumption of ToC and Dupont in these promotions.

I'd like to see a serious top-level stage race in New England, but don't know if the weather issues mentioned on this year's ToC broadcast wouldn't be worse in New Hampshire at any available time-slot. Would like to hear foreign broadcasters saying Monadnock and Kearsarge, though.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

I agree with could... but "should"?

I think pro-cycling needs at least one stage race of some kind on US soil. Right now the TOC is it... all the other ones have folded.

To stay a worldwide sport and not become regionalized, some sort of top level presence is necessary in the US I think. It probably needs to go back to February or March, but I think wishing it gone is not good for cycling overall.

I really don't get the obsession with being world-wide.

The NFL is a one country sport, doing perfectly well for itself. Baseball is basically 2 countries, and presumably survives (sadly).

I know American involvement seems vital to Americans, but it really isn't going to make or break cycling, which is, by the virtue of being on open roads, never going to be a big money event.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I agree with could... but "should"?

I think pro-cycling needs at least one stage race of some kind on US soil. Right now the TOC is it... all the other ones have folded.

To stay a worldwide sport and not become regionalized, some sort of top level presence is necessary in the US I think. It probably needs to go back to February or March, but I think wishing it gone is not good for cycling overall.

Tour of Utah has not folded.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I really don't get the obsession with being world-wide.

The NFL is a one country sport, doing perfectly well for itself. Baseball is basically 2 countries, and presumably survives (sadly).

I know American involvement seems vital to Americans, but it really isn't going to make or break cycling, which is, by the virtue of being on open roads, never going to be a big money event.

Yes, but in both cases, those sports involve the US. I can't think of another sport the size of American football and baseball that involve effectively one single country. The American market is enormous. A bike race here isn't just about attendance. It's about bike sales, components, clothing, shoes, etc. It's about promoting the entire market, and if you look at how much Americans spend on sporting goods, it's a big market. Cycling needs to get a bigger piece.

 

[flicker]

I would rather watch the ToC on TV than any US crit. Race does not compare to any big Euro races but so what.

They need some of us locals to pick better courses. People will show more interest then.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Yes, but in both cases, those sports involve the US. I can't think of another sport the size of American football and baseball that involve effectively one single country. The American market is enormous. A bike race here isn't just about attendance. It's about bike sales, components, clothing, shoes, etc. It's about promoting the entire market, and if you look at how much Americans spend on sporting goods, it's a big market. Cycling needs to get a bigger piece.

Why?

Do you ever stop to ask that? What benefit does growth offer to cycling as a sport, rather than as a business for the benefit of Paddy?

It already has iconic events, including one which is known world-wide even amongst non-fans. Competitors are drawn from more or less every nation, including plenty of Americans. I fail to see any sporting criteria which is improved by holding no-name events in the US for the benefit of US sponsors. By all means do it, if those sponsors are willing to pay, but to try and claim this is necessary for the good of the sport involves an elliptical argument, where the hidden proposition is false once you bother to think about it in isolation.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yes, but in both cases, those sports involve the US. I can't think of another sport the size of American football and baseball that involve effectively one single country. The American market is enormous. A bike race here isn't just about attendance. It's about bike sales, components, clothing, shoes, etc. It's about promoting the entire market, and if you look at how much Americans spend on sporting goods, it's a big market. Cycling needs to get a bigger piece.

OK, take regional sports then.

Rugby Union has grown enormously in the last 15 years. It's one of the biggest participation sports there is. At the top level, there's only really ten teams, and two of those have only really stepped up in the last 15 years or so. There are some decent teams outside of those (Fiji, Samoa) but they don't ever really threaten the hegemony of the Tri-Nations, Six Nations and Argentina.

Cricket is the second-largest participation sport in the world. It only has ten test-playing nations, of which two are rabbits in the headlights (Zimbabwe and Bangladesh). It is enormous in the Indian subcontinent and the Caribbean islands (all of whom bandy together to provide one super-team), but outside of that it's only really South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and England that give a damn. But the sport is flourishing.

Formula 1 is global, but 12 of the 12 teams are still based in its homelands of Western Europe, 11 of those in the four countries that have forever dominated it - Germany, Italy, France and Britain. No matter how global it gets, the key part of the calendar is the middle section in Europe.

Soccer is not really all that big in North America. It's the biggest sport in the world, but all the top players are concentrated around the big Western European leagues. There are plenty of good teams in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Russia too, but the biggest players and teams are found in England, Spain and Italy, followed by Germany and France. Soccer is traditionally a sport followed almost entirely in Europe and South America. Cycling's not too dissimilar to that.

 

[Jamsque]

As the saying goes, it is not great riders that make great races, but great races that make great riders. In the grand scheme of cycling events outside of Europe, Cali has had a star-studded field for several years running, but it hasn't made it a great race. If the USA really wants to attract the big pros, and more importantly the fans, they need to put on a better race. It's a simple as that. The US is a country with a huge variety of terrain, I could see a week-long 'Tour of the USA' that takes in a different handful of states every year being very successful, as long as it is put in the right spot in the calendar and as long as the route is one that will produce exciting racing.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Why?

Do you ever stop to ask that? What benefit does growth offer to cycling as a sport, rather than as a business for the benefit of Paddy?

It already has iconic events, including one which is known world-wide even amongst non-fans. Competitors are drawn from more or less every nation, including plenty of Americans. I fail to see any sporting criteria which is improved by holding no-name events in the US for the benefit of US sponsors. By all means do it, if those sponsors are willing to pay, but to try and claim this is necessary for the good of the sport involves an elliptical argument, where the hidden proposition is false once you bother to think about it in isolation.

First, every event was once a no-name event. The ToC is a very young race, with growing pains, and it isn't being taken seriously by many pros. Perhaps as time goes by, it will be. Then, we'll have another major race on the calendar for the fans. It will attract more people to the sport and raise its visibility. I do think that benefits the sport itself.

Second, attracting sponsors is also good for the sport. More sponsors means more money for teams and more money for riders. It attracts more professionals, who see that money is out there. Without exposure, sponsors are going to walk away, and that certainly does not benefit the sport. Incidentally, many of these iconic events you mention got that way precisely because of sponsor support.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

First, every event was once a no-name event. The ToC is a very young race, with growing pains, and it isn't being taken seriously by many pros. Perhaps as time goes by, it will be. Then, we'll have another major race on the calendar for the fans. It will attract more people to the sport and raise its visibility. I do think that benefits the sport itself.

Second, attracting sponsors is also good for the sport. More sponsors means more money for teams and more money for riders. It attracts more professionals, who see that money is out there. Without exposure, sponsors are going to walk away, and that certainly does not benefit the sport. Incidentally, many of these iconic events you mention got that way precisely because of sponsor support.

I still can't understand the mechanism by which cycling benefits.

There are only 365 days in the year, and cycling already has plenty of high prestige events, and plenty of warm up events - even if California were to become a prestige event, it could only do so at the cost of others (on a zero sum basis, I'm not suggesting it would directly bump off another event).

As for the more money argument, there is already an extremely healthy supply of people who would love to be professional cyclists and are plenty good enough to put on a show. There will only ever be 100 people who are in the top 100 cyclists list at any one time, and paying them more will not change that.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

OK, take regional sports then.

Rugby Union has grown enormously in the last 15 years. It's one of the biggest participation sports there is. At the top level, there's only really ten teams, and two of those have only really stepped up in the last 15 years or so. There are some decent teams outside of those (Fiji, Samoa) but they don't ever really threaten the hegemony of the Tri-Nations, Six Nations and Argentina.

Cricket is the second-largest participation sport in the world. It only has ten test-playing nations, of which two are rabbits in the headlights (Zimbabwe and Bangladesh). It is enormous in the Indian subcontinent and the Caribbean islands (all of whom bandy together to provide one super-team), but outside of that it's only really South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and England that give a damn. But the sport is flourishing.

Formula 1 is global, but 12 of the 12 teams are still based in its homelands of Western Europe, 11 of those in the four countries that have forever dominated it - Germany, Italy, France and Britain. No matter how global it gets, the key part of the calendar is the middle section in Europe.

Soccer is not really all that big in North America. It's the biggest sport in the world, but all the top players are concentrated around the big Western European leagues. There are plenty of good teams in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Russia too, but the biggest players and teams are found in England, Spain and Italy, followed by Germany and France. Soccer is traditionally a sport followed almost entirely in Europe and South America. Cycling's not too dissimilar to that.

It's true that soccer at the pro level is not that big in NA, but at the grassroots level, soccer in the US is far more advanced than in any other country, I'd bet. The term "soccer mom" wasn't invented without good reason. Moreover, soccer has certainly attempted to make inroads here, and now we have a national league. Sure, it's peanuts compared to what's in Europe or SA, but that doesn't mean no effort should be made to develop it.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I still can't understand the mechanism by which cycling benefits.

There are only 365 days in the year, and cycling already has plenty of high prestige events, and plenty of warm up events - even if California were to become a prestige event, it could only do so at the cost of others (on a zero sum basis, I'm not suggesting it would directly bump off another event).

As for the more money argument, there is already an extremely healthy supply of people who would love to be professional cyclists and are plenty good enough to put on a show. There will only ever be 100 people who are in the top 100 cyclists list at any one time, and paying them more will not change that.

I'm sorry, but I find all the arguments you just made extremely weak. Moreover, I think I've explained quite clearly to you how the mechanism works, or at least my view of it.

Personally, I'd rather have 500 people competing for the top spots and seeing sponsors compensate them and provide them financial incentives to succeed, rather than having 100 cyclists. And I think cycling races at this point are far from a zero-sum game.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

It's true that soccer at the pro level is not that big in NA, but at the grassroots level, soccer in the US is far more advanced than in any other country, I'd bet. The term "soccer mom" wasn't invented without good reason. Moreover, soccer has certainly attempted to make inroads here, and now we have a national league. Sure, it's peanuts compared to what's in Europe or SA, but that doesn't mean no effort should be made to develop it.

Oh. My. God.

I love America - I hope to move there and escape the tax ridden hell hole which is the UK. What I am about to say is not anti-americanism?

But seriously, try having a teeny tiny bit of self awareness, and realise how laughable that statement is. Try going on holiday in another country, as a start. I know you'll now claim you lived in Europe for 10 years, but after a statement like that, no one will believe you.

 

[slowoldman]

First, every event was once a no-name event. The ToC is a very young race, with growing pains, and it isn't being taken seriously by many pros. Perhaps as time goes by, it will be. Then, we'll have another major race on the calendar for the fans. It will attract more people to the sport and raise its visibility. I do think that benefits the sport itself.

Second, attracting sponsors is also good for the sport. More sponsors means more money for teams and more money for riders. It attracts more professionals, who see that money is out there. Without exposure, sponsors are going to walk away, and that certainly does not benefit the sport. Incidentally, many of these iconic events you mention got that way precisely because of sponsor support.

I agree with your point of view Moose, well stated. Some of you running down the course should really make your way over and ride the roads they raced on and then try actually riding those roads at race speed. Trust me, it wouldn't be as easy as some of your suppose. I was one of those who said the ToC would regret making the move to May. I was pleasantly surprised by the level of competition this year (remember this race is only 4 years old, and compares favorably to the TDU at that age) and I thought the stages were fine, including Big Bear. Hopefully it will continue to grow in stature and competition, it can only benefit cycling.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

I'm sorry, but I find all the arguments you just made extremely weak. Moreover, I think I've explained quite clearly to you how the mechanism works, or at least my view of it.

Personally, I'd rather have 500 people competing for the top spots and seeing sponsors compensate them and provide them financial incentives to succeed, rather than having 100 cyclists. And I think cycling races at this point are far from a zero-sum game.

Please let me know which bits you consider weak, and I'll try to make them clearer for you.

I fear you rather misunderstand the point re 100 cyclists, and your desire for 5x as many pro cyclists. Presumably you'd like 5 races every single day for the entire 9 month season?

Strangely enough, we already have this situation, if you encompass all pro/semi-pro racing world wide. However, it doesn't matter how many races you create, there will still be a 10 people who are the best 10, 50 who are the best 50, 200 who are the best 200, and each of those will only race 75-100 days a year. Given spectators are only interested in watching big names in any sport, a multiplication of the lower end, which is already perfectly healthy, would not have any impact on the 'output' of the top of the sport, which is inherently limited by the pool of top cyclists available. You can create as many races as you like, and fund them as well as you like, very few people will ever care about a race where the best guy is the 250th best in the world.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Personally, I thought there were two good stages in the race. The final stage, and the one to Big Bear. Big Bear is getting a ragging because it marketed itself as a mountaintop finish, but had all that flat territory, plus it was such a long and gradual climb that it didn't allow for much separation. On the other hand, it did lead to some interesting racing in a similar vein to Visconti fighting for the leader's jersey at the Tour of Turkey, and that was a race that was praised on here.

I think the problem is, the way the race was hyped has turned many people off the race. Messick never stood a chance of delivering the race he was trying to promise and I'm sure he knew that. But if you bought into the hype, of course you'd be disappointed by it. And the obnoxious lies and mistruths spouted off in the media to hype the event gave a lot of cycling fans - especially those outside of the US who could sneer at the 'America! Hell yeah! We're the best!' presentation - plenty of comedy material. It also irked a lot of fans who took to wanting the race to fail in the same way as everybody likes to see an arrogant bully get cut down to size.

If there hadn't been the ridiculous hype campaign, we'd probably have been considering the California stages a pleasant nightcap after a good day's racing at the Giro; nice scenery, some big names, some smaller teams getting a showcase, and the occasional bit of good racing too. Sure, the TT would still have been badly organised, the route still patchy and the racing sometimes dull, but we wouldn't have gone in there picking apart every detail, and would have considered it perhaps a step in the right direction. However, by promising a lot of things he couldn't have delivered in a thousand years, and with sycophantic commentators trying to pretend every rider is really going for it, Messick has caused a lot of cycling fans to turn on his race, ridiculing it at every turn.

It also wasn't helped that the race he chose to compete with has been the most exciting Grand Tour in years.

 

[slowoldman]

It also wasn't helped that the race he chose to compete with has been the most exciting Grand Tour in years.

This statement I agree with completely. The Giro has been fantastic this year. Probably one of the best races I have had the chance to watch.

I can understand the hype argument also. Those of us who are local have debated this point. We knew the courses they picked were fine, but they made them sound world class. (I don't like the fact they call it the second largest race in the world, but they are playing to the local casual viewer). If it was logistically possible I think you all would really enjoy seeing a finishing climb up Mt. Baldy, it is not as long as the Big Bear climb but it is steep. I think they overdid it, let the racers speak, I have really heard nothing but good reviews. Their best option is to continue to grow it slowly, find better courses and show cities it is a viable, money making venture to host a start or finish and it may become something that can live up to that hype.