UCI deadline(s), due October 1, What to expect ?

[ingsve]

The UCI today (2nd October) confirmed that Pro Tour licences will still be allocated for up to four years to a maximum of 18 teams. However, should some teams fail to make the top 20 of a complicated but fair evaluation system they could be relegated to the Pro Continental ranks. No warning of licence cancelation on sporting grounds for failure to reach top 15. But the UCI are masters of moving the goalposts...

If teams in places 16-20 are treated equally regardless of whether they have an existing licence, then one can only hope that the UCI have the integrity to never again talk of issuing multi-year licences. But with only 12 months security of highest profile publicity, what will happen to sponsor confidence, especially those much sought after sponsors from beyond traditional cycling nations?

It sounds to me by the wordings that in the recent decisions they decided to change the top 20 to instead top 15. Or it could be that top 20 still applies but the CN article confused it with something else and misstated it as top 15.

 

[Arnout]

I think it's good to include some subjectivity in their assessment of the teams' performance. That makes more sense IMO. That will account for factors such as riders' injuries...

Indeed, but they should do it for the numbers 10 to 25 actually.

Imagine by the way Euskaltel and Geox. 16th and 17th ranked. But in their inimitable wisdom the UCI changed their rules again, so the top 17 teams don't get automatic invitations to the big races as was said throughout this year. Good way to annoy the sponsors and the teams.

I think it's time that the race organizations or whatever body stands up against the UCI again. I'm counting on Zomegnan for the moment.

It sounds to me by the wordings that in the recent decisions they decided to change the top 20 to instead top 15. Or it could be that top 20 still applies but the CN article confused it with something else and misstated it as top 15.

That's because the UCI is such a total mess. Literally every new press statement clashes with the previous one issued.

 

[janraaskalt]

You are making a mess of it. The top 17 rule was not using the recently published list of sporting values, but the World Ranking. Geox, formerly known as Footon, did not make the top 17 in that list. The top 17 rule did not apply to Pro Tour licenses, but to Grand Tour starting rights. Those rights were granted primarily by the Grand Tour organisers, not the UCI.

 

[Arnout]

You are making a mess of it. The top 17 rule was not using the recently published list of sporting values, but the World Ranking. Geox, formerly known as Footon, did not make the top 17 in that list. The top 17 rule did not apply to Pro Tour licenses, but to Grand Tour starting rights. Those rights were granted primarily by the Grand Tour organisers, not the UCI.

Point is that the UCI has overruled this, at least according to Preud'homme, who didn't know exactly what was going on but expected he had to invite the 18 PT teams instead of the 17 best teams. Same with Zomegnan, although he reacted in another way.

 

[janraaskalt]

Point is that the UCI has overruled this, at least according to Preud'homme, who didn't know exactly what was going on but expected he had to invite the 18 PT teams instead of the 17 best teams. Same with Zomegnan, although he reacted in another way.

I know. The problem is that the power is in the hands of the race organisers. Even from the beginning of the ProTour, the UCI always stated that ProTour teams were allowed and obligated to start in all ProTour races, including the Grand Tours. In any other sport that would be the way it is. In cycling however, some races are bigger than the sport. You can't blame the UCI for that.

If French cycling was much stronger then there wouldn't be any problem. The teams would automatically qualify for the Tour de France. Now they need wildcards.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

So the UCI are being, as usual, as transparent as wood. Two teams (FdJ and Pegasus) now seem to be querying the accuracy of the calculation. It is poor that they do not actually put those numbers in the public forum, but what possible reason do they have for not at least furnishing the teams affected with the data to verify their rankings?

 

[DAOTEC]

Tuesday, November 09 | 3:06 PM EST

So the UCI are being, as usual, as transparent as wood.

2011 UCI World Tour calendar released.


18-23 January: Tour Down Under

06-13 March: Paris-Nice **

09-15 March: Tirreno-Adriatico **

19 March: Milano-Sanremo **

21-27 March: Volta Ciclista a Catalunya

27 March: Gent-Wevelgem

03 April: Ronde van Vlaanderen

04-09 April: Vuelta Ciclista al Pais Vasco

10 April: Paris-Roubaix **

17 April: Amstel Gold Race

20 April: La Fleche Wallonne **

24 April: Liege-Bastogne-Liege **

26-01 May: Tour de Romandie

07-29 May: Giro d'Italia **

05-12 June: Criterium du Dauphine Libere

11-19 June: Tour de Suisse

02-24 July: Tour de France **

30 July: Clasica San Sebastian

31-06 August: Tour de Pologne

08-14 August: Eneco Tour

20-11 September: Vuelta a Espana **

21 August: Vattenfall Cyclassics

28 August: GP Ouest France-Plouay

09 September: GP Cycliste de Quebec

11 September: GP Cycliste de Montreal

15 October: Giro di Lombardia **

** Historical calendar events that have been integrated

More: [velonation]