UCI rule change (thinking wishfully)

[benpounder]

When I read the following in the Three Biggest Losers thread, a thought struck me: would the UCI be wise to change their rules.

I don't see it as a fault of [Euskaltel-Euskadi] that they are obligated to compete in races that they have no interest in. Obviously being in the Pro Tour is in EE's best interest or they wouldn't be applying to be a part each year. They could quite easily settle for Pro Continental status but with the Tour as one of their primary objectives, an invitation would no longer be guaranteed. My point was I can't see how they can be considered "losers" in the first three monuments when their ambitions were so low. Being a loser would be aiming for a high placement in each event and not meeting that goal or even coming close. I'd imagine their goal in these races is for their riders to gain experience in these events with the exception of MSR where if Koldo Fernandez is competing, a top 10 or 15 would be good.
[emphasis added]

The rule change I'm thinking of is allowing a team licensed as UCI Professional voluntary exclusions to races that are not in their best interest. Using Euskaltel-Euskadi as example, what if the rules did not force them to participate in Paris-Roubaix? Or the Giro?

What if the rules were changed so that they could sit out two Grand Tour or five ProTour races every three years? Let teams like AG2R and Vacansoleil and Movistar and Lampre avoid a race or so that does not suit their overall purpose. If Vacansoleil does not see the Vuelta fitting its aims, fine, they don't have to participate; if Euskaltel thinks neither the Milan-San Remo nor Paris-Roubaix suit its purpose in a three year stint, let their place be taken by a yearning ProContinental team.

Thoughts?

 

[Parrulo]

it makes perfect sense and i have seen similar ideas before. the problem is that when was the last time the UCI actually did something right?

 

[Christian]

That's why I've always said it doesn't matter if Europcar and Cofidis are only ProConti, at least that way they don't have to ride Tour de Beijing and those kinds of races.

I miss FDJ in the WorldTour though

 

[Mambo95]

The way I would do it is:

1. The top 15 teams on the end of year rankings get automatic invites to all ProTour races

2. Any 'top 15' team can drop out of any race they please, except - races outside Europe and races that have been on the ProTour for 5 years or less (to promote growth of the sport).

3. No more than half the wild cards (or, eg 4 from 7, for odd numbers) can go to local teams (eg French for the Tour). (Teams like Colnago will be treated as Italian, not Irish).

 

[theswordsman]

Last year you had Astana asking their way out of one of the classics because they didn't have a suitable team, and Radio Shack skipping the Giro, either because they needed everything they had to help LL finish third at ATOC.

It's a tough call as to what should be required, to protect the sport and the races. Vacansoleil was desperate to get into big races last year, and would have given a strong effort, but they got shut out. I like the idea of top events like the grand tours having more flexibility.

Maybe say there are eighteen (a made up number) major events each year, and each World Tour team has to request invitations at the start of the year for at least fourteen of them. They could decide how best to budget their riders and other resources, and there would always be hungry teams willing to fill in the gaps.

 

[greenedge]

it's because euskatel have only two riders who can win, other than Izagarie, Verduga,Martinez and now Miguel Minguez who's a young talent who might end up with the role of superdomestique along with the 2 leaders.

I like how HTC have riders for every race and they go in it to win it but on reflection it's sad because they just have more money. They should introduce a law that you have to at least spend above 15 million on a team's budget. That way the competition will be even and more competitive. Also riders shall be valued for their actual prices.

That will all contribute to riding being better and you would have to race those races.

PS ( Euskatel should have signed Armstrong and Bruyneel )

 

[mad black]

When I read the following in the
The rule change I'm thinking of is allowing a team licensed as UCI Professional voluntary exclusions to races that are not in their best interest. Using Euskaltel-Euskadi as example, what if the rules did not force them to participate in Paris-Roubaix? Or the Giro?

What if the rules were changed so that they could sit out two Grand Tour or five ProTour races every three years? Let teams like AG2R and Vacansoleil and Movistar and Lampre avoid a race or so that does not suit their overall purpose. If Vacansoleil does not see the Vuelta fitting its aims, fine, they don't have to participate; if Euskaltel thinks neither the Milan-San Remo nor Paris-Roubaix suit its purpose in a three year stint, let their place be taken by a yearning ProContinental team.

Thoughts?

A very good idea in principal but especially with Euskatel I have my concerns. These guys don't know how to handle a bike in the first place as can be witnesses every year in the big pelotons of the Tour and the Vuelta. All they are good at is riding up the steepest inclines by themselves. Heck, they even struggle making it downhill!! When it comes to riding on the flats in a bunch they're useless and a menace to everyone around them. What you're proposing would be taking away from valuable (and essential) race practice in technically challanging races like Paris-Roubaix and Flanders. Trust me you don't wanna see them ride in July if they'd miss out on that practice.

it makes perfect sense and i have seen similar ideas before. the problem is that when was the last time the UCI actually did something right?

I would like to second that!

 

[Mambo95]

PS ( Euskatel should have signed Armstrong and Bruyneel )

You do realise that Euskaltel have a Basques only recruitment policy, don't you? (Admittedly, they bent the rules slightly for Sanchez)

 

[hrotha]

You do realise that Euskaltel have a Basques only recruitment policy, don't you? (Admittedly, they bent the rules slightly for Sanchez)

They didn't bend the rules. Their policy is to sign Basques or riders that were formed in the Basque amateur calendar. Samu qualifies.

 

[benpounder]

It's a tough call as to what should be required, to protect the sport and the races. Vacansoleil was desperate to get into big races last year, and would have given a strong effort, but they got shut out. I like the idea of top events like the grand tours having more flexibility.

It is a tough call, competing interests and all. Yes the governing body has an obligation to promote the sport sufficiently, and world-wide. But is it wise for the UCI to force Euskeltel to participate in the Tour down Under, or Paris-Roubaix? And as Parrulo says, when did the UCI ever make a good call. UCI seems more interested in securing revenues than anything else (and no, that is not bad in and of itself; our sport is minor on the global stage, and funding is so so important). Much like the debate in the US Congress these days, I think the teams (and of course their sponsors) ought to have a larger say in which races they participate. Instead of top down issued mandates (ignoring exclusions for 'friends' and donors of course); I say let the teams chose which race does not suit their riders aims, nor the team's purposes; let them set their own schedules.