UCI *should* cancel Tour of Beijing

[auscyclefan94]

I reckon in twenty-odd years a reaction like this one will look pretty stupid

China isn't some underdeveloped backwater anymore, it will soon be the most powerful nation in the world, with the biggest economic resources. For the survival of the sport of cycling it's simply necessary that the UCI tap into this massive potential.

Whether they're doing it the right way, and actually helping the sport, that's a different story. And whether Chinese politics should sort out its nationalistic bullcr.p is another.

Yes, but that comment is not made for 20 years time, it is for the present time. I ope that isn't too hard for you to comprehend. I never said China was a backwater either. Considering the high importance the economic relationship between China and Australia, I think I understand that they are an important economic country. I do not live under a rock.

I am looking at this from a cycling perspective. There are no fans on the route. The route is terrible. The race is terrible and the UCI have poured money into areas of cycling which there is no current interest in the sport and have completely abandoned other nations who support the sport, like race in Spain. This is why I think China should not get any bike races.

 

[Gloin22]

Yes, but that comment is not made for 20 years time, it is for the present time. I ope that isn't too hard for you to comprehend. I never said China was a backwater either. Considering the high importance the economic relationship between China and Australia, I think I understand that they are an important economic country. I do not live under a rock.

I am looking at this from a cycling perspective. There are no fans on the route. The route is terrible. The race is terrible and the UCI have poured money into areas of cycling which there is no current interest in the sport and have completely abandoned other nations who support the sport, like race in Spain. This is why I think China should not get any bike races.

Actually the route this year is quite decent. Much better than last year. Should be a good race tbh. I agree with all the other points.

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

If any one cyclist cannot compete in the race because of political reasons or safety reasons then the race should not go ahead. Everyone or noone.

 

[Michele]

Yes, but that comment is not made for 20 years time, it is for the present time. I ope that isn't too hard for you to comprehend. I never said China was a backwater either. Considering the high importance the economic relationship between China and Australia, I think I understand that they are an important economic country. I do not live under a rock.

I am looking at this from a cycling perspective. There are no fans on the route. The route is terrible. The race is terrible and the UCI have poured money into areas of cycling which there is no current interest in the sport and have completely abandoned other nations who support the sport, like race in Spain. This is why I think China should not get any bike races.

This is due to the government trying to represent China as a rich country; if you compare the other races have usually many fans along the roads (see the Tour of China I & II in the past weeks).

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

I am looking at this from a cycling perspective. There are no fans on the route. The route is terrible. The race is terrible and the UCI have poured money into areas of cycling which there is no current interest in the sport and have completely abandoned other nations who support the sport, like race in Spain. This is why I think China should not get any bike races.

1) No fans on the route? Hainan, Qinghai (well, when it passes through towns in Qinghai..) have pretty huge crowds. Probably 99% just, oh, something going on, let's have a look. Beijing? Nobody. Organizational problem, all cordoned off. China has to look perfect... no dirty farmers or construction workers to be seen. Will hopefully change, let people watch and you have crowds.. not too interested ones, but they'll be there. Not a problem of races in China, but of the way Beijing was organized.
2) Terrible route, yes. Last year 1/10, this year 2/10. So up to Down Under standard now... basically one day will decide everything. Hopefully they'll improve the route, the mountains would certainly be there
http://beijing.mongoliaprocycling.com/?p=363
3) The race is terrible....Boring last year.
4) The UCI is certainly GETTING loads of money from Beijing and Hangzhou, not pouring in anything. And finally that's the reason it exists.

It will never become a big race (neither will Down Under btw), but it can become an interesting one. Better route, get Beijing to understand that keeping spectators away is not a good idea, and it can become an ok race.

 

[Escarabajo]

I don't want to see a race in China, for now. Do it when the time is appropiate.

 

[Netserk]

I wouldn't mind Beijing if it was 2.HC Why can't it just start out like that, and then in 5 years time have it ProTour. (if it is up to PT standards)

 

[rickshaw]

Obvious

It seems to this casual observer of the cycling "scene" in China that the current regime is using the UCI to buy legitimacy. Internationally accepted races = Internationally accepted country. So if you want to beat up on Japan for a few rocks in the Pacific...... legitimacy makes it easier. The UCI ( Paddy and Heinnie) are perfectly happy to take their money. The screwy "World Tour" construct forces the players to participate no matter what.

Cycling is just put together in a weird way.

 

[CobbleStoner]

The conflict is not the reason why this race should be cancelled.

very true, but this conflict highlights the hypocrisy of the UCI, trying to be all moral high ground when it comes to riders body chemistry and whereabouts, but ignores basic human rights when enabling authoritarian regimes like China. as a fan of cycling (pro sports exist soley for fans) I am outraged and embarrassed by this race

 

[El Pistolero]

It is actually. According to a recent study, it's the most nationalistic country in the world. US comes third, for those interested.

That's not very surprising. They still think Mao Zedong is a hero. Well, most of them anyway, can't speak for everyone.

 

[auscyclefan94]

1) No fans on the route? Hainan, Qinghai (well, when it passes through towns in Qinghai..) have pretty huge crowds. Probably 99% just, oh, something going on, let's have a look. Beijing? Nobody. Organizational problem, all cordoned off. China has to look perfect... no dirty farmers or construction workers to be seen. Will hopefully change, let people watch and you have crowds.. not too interested ones, but they'll be there. Not a problem of races in China, but of the way Beijing was organized.
2) Terrible route, yes. Last year 1/10, this year 2/10. So up to Down Under standard now... basically one day will decide everything. Hopefully they'll improve the route, the mountains would certainly be there
http://beijing.mongoliaprocycling.com/?p=363
3) The race is terrible....Boring last year.
4) The UCI is certainly GETTING loads of money from Beijing and Hangzhou, not pouring in anything. And finally that's the reason it exists.

It will never become a big race (neither will Down Under btw), but it can become an interesting one. Better route, get Beijing to understand that keeping spectators away is not a good idea, and it can become an ok race.

Firstly, the fact that you have to mention Tour Down Under when I never even mentioned that race shows how stupid you are. Clearly you do not know how to debate.
Secondly, the UCI has to put money into a race. This is for the officials but to also get these races started. The fact that they also receive moeny from this race makes it even worse.
Thirdly, the race will be terrible in the near future for a) the route will continue to be terrible and/or b) riders won't give a **** about these races.

Considering China's large population, they should get large crowds to these events. Whether they have a clue about the race, that is another matter.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

China bussed in a bunch of spectators to the Chinese Grand Prix in order to fill stands when they were unable to, you'd think they could do the same for this.

Personally, I'm not that fussed by the race itself, but I do object to the UCI's conflict of interest as race organiser and profitmaker as well as arbiter of the status of races. If the race keeps the UCI coffers full then fine, I might not like the race but it has a purpose, but that they paid lip service to maintaining a race like País Vasco was infuriating. You got the feeling that they genuinely didn't want País Vasco to go non-WT, as a historic and prestigious event, but didn't want to commit too hard because they could always organise themselves a race in its slot where they could have full control over the money earnt instead.

I consider that much as Continental calendar races are divided into three categories (.HC, .1 and .2), they should divide WT races into three categories too, reflected in points and prestige. They'd still be compulsory for WT teams to attend, but wouldn't skew the rankings so much. First category WT races would be the three GTs and the five monuments. Then second category WT races would be the high prestige stage races (Paris-Nice, Tirreno, País Vasco, Dauphiné, Suisse) and the high prestige one-day races (E3, Gent-Wevelgem, AGR, FW, San Sebastián), while the third category WT would be the lesser and/or newer stage races (Eneco, Poland, Beijing, TDU) and one-day races (Plouay, Vattenfall, Montréal, Quebec).

It's not a perfect system, and there are question marks over the position of certain races (Romandie and Catalunya, I'm looking in your direction here), but it might be better than having winning a short stage race in October that nobody cares about and has no fans paying the same number of points as País Vasco or Paris-Nice.

 

[veganrob]

Is there something the idiots at UCI don't understand about "race of the falling leaves". It is the wonderful, poetic ending to the season. Sorry Beijing, left out

 

[SetonHallPirate]

China bussed in a bunch of spectators to the Chinese Grand Prix in order to fill stands when they were unable to, you'd think they could do the same for this.

Personally, I'm not that fussed by the race itself, but I do object to the UCI's conflict of interest as race organiser and profitmaker as well as arbiter of the status of races. If the race keeps the UCI coffers full then fine, I might not like the race but it has a purpose, but that they paid lip service to maintaining a race like País Vasco was infuriating. You got the feeling that they genuinely didn't want País Vasco to go non-WT, as a historic and prestigious event, but didn't want to commit too hard because they could always organise themselves a race in its slot where they could have full control over the money earnt instead.

I consider that much as Continental calendar races are divided into three categories (.HC, .1 and .2), they should divide WT races into three categories too, reflected in points and prestige. They'd still be compulsory for WT teams to attend, but wouldn't skew the rankings so much. First category WT races would be the three GTs and the five monuments. Then second category WT races would be the high prestige stage races (Paris-Nice, Tirreno, País Vasco, Dauphiné, Suisse) and the high prestige one-day races (E3, Gent-Wevelgem, AGR, FW, San Sebastián), while the third category WT would be the lesser and/or newer stage races (Eneco, Poland, Beijing, TDU) and one-day races (Plouay, Vattenfall, Montréal, Quebec).

It's not a perfect system, and there are question marks over the position of certain races (Romandie and Catalunya, I'm looking in your direction here), but it might be better than having winning a short stage race in October that nobody cares about and has no fans paying the same number of points as País Vasco or Paris-Nice.

There actually are already four categories, just not as you described:

A. Tour de France
B. Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a Espana
C. All other stage races, plus the five monuments
D. All other one-day races

Maybe there needs to be a tier in-between B and C for the higher-prestige stage races that you mentioned, but otherwise, I completely understand why a multi-day race would be worth more points than a one-day race (after all, the multi-day race does take up more time, by definition)

 

[the asian]

There actually are already four categories, just not as you described:

A. Tour de France
B. Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a Espana
C. All other stage races, plus the five monuments
D. All other one-day races

Maybe there needs to be a tier in-between B and C for the higher-prestige stage races that you mentioned, but otherwise, I completely understand why a multi-day race would be worth more points than a one-day race (after all, the multi-day race does take up more time, by definition)

The five monuments should be given higher points.

pretty much agree with Libertine.

Catalunya is a old race but is IMO is less prestigious than Paris Vasco.

So third category.

 

[the asian]

It seems to this casual observer of the cycling "scene" in China that the current regime is using the UCI to buy legitimacy. Internationally accepted races = Internationally accepted country. .

LOL. The second most powerful nation and the financier of the World is seeking International legitimacy.
And that too, by hosting a race of a minor sport

Were you living under a rock all these years?

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

Firstly, the fact that you have to mention Tour Down Under when I never even mentioned that race shows how stupid you are. Clearly you do not know how to debate.
Secondly, the UCI has to put money into a race. This is for the officials but to also get these races started. The fact that they also receive moeny from this race makes it even worse.
Thirdly, the race will be terrible in the near future for a) the route will continue to be terrible and/or b) riders won't give a **** about these races.

Considering China's large population, they should get large crowds to these events. Whether they have a clue about the race, that is another matter.

Congrats on your debating skills.
- mentioning another WT race with pretty horrible route as a comparison= bad debating skill
- calling other posters stupid=normal debate.
You clearly seem to know how to debate.

So firstly, mentioining my lack of intelligence has nothing to do with anything whatsoever. The Tour Down Under on the other hand can be compared to Beijing. If you know what a comparison is... it's there to find out what differences and similiarites there are. The course 2012 is similarly bad. On other points DU is clearly better positioned. Disagree with any of this? Spectators, local riders. Beijing is clearly an "unnatural implant" if you want, DU isn't (but as a WT Race too early, make it end of feb and the racing would improve too)

Secondly, do you think the UCI in the end puts more money into Beijing (and Hangzhou) or gets more out of it? I'm convinced they get more out of it... And THIS is the reason the race exists as a WT race, very simple.

Thirdly: Race will continue to be terrible... it's nice to live in a world where you know everything in advance... .Again, route already improved. ITT out, new all deciding (very likely) stage in, uphill finish at the great wall. And, the route 2012 now, sorry for my stupidity again, is VERY similar to Down Under now. Riders don't give a ****, pretty much true. But, that's true for 90% of the guys in Down Under as well... Soooooorry, not allowed to mention Down Under. But in the end: From the cycling point of view (you claim to look at it from there, but really it's the racist point of view, since we're not allowed to even mention holy down under) Beijing can very well become a race on the same level as Down Under. Eneco. Poland. Races where in the end only a few guys really care as well.

Crowds? As another guy mentioned, China GETS huge crowds to races. Just not Beijing because..... making a good impression, so lets keep it clean. They were criticised for that last year, hopefully they got it and we'll see more spectators around. And in the city itself there would definetly be no need to bus anybody anywhere.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

There actually are already four categories, just not as you described:

A. Tour de France
B. Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a Espana
C. All other stage races, plus the five monuments
D. All other one-day races

Maybe there needs to be a tier in-between B and C for the higher-prestige stage races that you mentioned, but otherwise, I completely understand why a multi-day race would be worth more points than a one-day race (after all, the multi-day race does take up more time, by definition)

Much like CQ has a different rating structure for 1.HC and 2.HC races, or 1.1 and 2.1 and so on, I would have two rating structures for single day races and for stage races, but they would then be divided into three based on prestige as per my previous post.

As I said, Catalunya and Romandie are the races I struggle to place, as I'd consider them more important than Eneco, Beijing or the TDU, but they aren't as prestigious as the likes of Suisse, Paris-Nice or País Vasco.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

Much like CQ has a different rating structure for 1.HC and 2.HC races, or 1.1 and 2.1 and so on, I would have two rating structures for single day races and for stage races, but they would then be divided into three based on prestige as per my previous post.

As I said, Catalunya and Romandie are the races I struggle to place, as I'd consider them more important than Eneco, Beijing or the TDU, but they aren't as prestigious as the likes of Suisse, Paris-Nice or País Vasco.

Good and sensible proposal. IMO Catalunya and Romandie clearly in the first bracket. The importance changes slightly all the time anyway, for example 10 years ago Tirreno was basically a pure MSR preparation, with no own character really, managed to give itself one in the last years. Dauphiné in the 90es was rather losing importance, now it's back up. Catalunya and Romandie clearly in that bracket.

Other idea. Split in into A and B races. B races for simplicities sake the stuff outside Europe. Don't force all PT team to participate in all B races. For example, Down Under. 6 teams can opt out. Same for the Canadian ones, and the China stuff. IMO for Down Under, a) put it a few weeks later, closer to the "real" season, might improve the racing there too. b) add 2 one day races as well in the weak before or after, make it "worth" more, plus Australia has the fans that would deserve a bit more. Canada the same, ask Utah/Colorado/Denver to become WT, add it in the week before Québec and Montreal, then let 6 team the possibility to opt out of it. Same for China, since it's probably there to stay... (and I agree that it's a boneheaded idea, but money rules, so... there to stay), but don't add more... or let them pay a lot at least, and let 6 teams the option to opt out. Same deal when they add the next "globalization races".. just hope it's not Qatar/Oman. Let all teams opt out of one of those roadtrips.

 

[movingtarget]

Keep the sport away from a country which really does not give a ****. I don't want any races in China.

More good news. 2016 World Road Champs are going to be held in Qatar !

 

[TheEnoculator]

I'm Chinese. And I'll say that although I'm 100% supportive of China being involved in pro cycling, it was premature to give WT status to a rookie race in a city like Beijing.

The problems were three-fold and quite obvious. First, cycling is a way of life in Beijing, not a sport. The Chinese are not interested in seeing a bunch of "white devil" foreigners riding bikes. Even in the Olympics, they don't give a rat's a$$ about cycling. The national prides are gymnastics and diving, and a bit of weight lifting, table tennis and badminton. You cannot convince the general population to buy a $3,000 carbon frame when bike racing is not even part of their DNA. Why do you think there are more Japanese pro racers than Chinese?

Then there's the route. How many 5-day stage races decide their winners with a short TT in the first day? None. The organizers had no idea how to design a stage race. And didn't know how to sell it to the public. I understand there's a learning curve, but one would expect a lot more from a WT race.

Thirdly, the Chinese government is KNOWN to be one of the most volatile governments in the world. They want to open themselves up to the world because the money is good. In the meantime, they are extremely territorial and get caught up in childish political dramas. In addition, there is no democracy and communism is still at the heart of this "newly socialist" country. It's not surprising this latest China-Japan conflict is negatively affecting the race. It makes the Chinese government look bad, and gives a black-eye to the UCI.

McQuaid completely failed from the marketing, technical and political standpoints with the Tour of Beijing.

I have no problem with keeping the race, but as a low-level stage race, like a 1.2, and if it doesn't improve, then cancel it.

 

[maxmartin]

McQuaid and UCI want a WT race in China to suck Chinese money. I don't think Chinese government or people care about the cycling race at all. It is not the other way around. For god sake, WT even Tour France, is not Olympics or World cup, most chinese won't give a damn S*** about it.

On the other hand, from UCI perspective they are making a very smart move, tapping into a huge potential market for both sports and money reasons. The effects can only be judged many years later.

 

[Michele]

I'm Chinese...

The problems were three-fold and quite obvious. First, cycling is a way of life in Beijing, not a sport. The Chinese are not interested in seeing a bunch of "white devil" foreigners riding bikes. Even in the Olympics, they don't give a rat's a$$ about cycling. The national prides are gymnastics and diving, and a bit of weight lifting, table tennis and badminton. You cannot convince the general population to buy a $3,000 carbon frame when bike racing is not even part of their DNA. Why do you think there are more Japanese pro racers than Chinese?

In Italy 2-3 person out of 10 will know who Di Luca or Basso are, but among the cycling fans they know it very well and the passionate ones spend money on it.
As you probably know, Specialized is opening almost every month new big cycling stores all around China and they wouldnt do it if there wasn't any interest.

 

[gustienordic]

Run the route through the Himalayas and call it the worlds highest stage race. Make it a week of absolutely crazy climbing and super high passes. Watch as the race draws the best climbers in the world to try and destroy each other on the super high climbs. If you make it hard/beautiful, then people will come.

 

[Arnout]

Run the route through the Himalayas and call it the worlds highest stage race. Make it a week of absolutely crazy climbing and super high passes. Watch as the race draws the best climbers in the world to try and destroy each other on the super high climbs. If you make it hard/beautiful, then people will come.

Not in the Himalayas. Too far away from anything, and most of the terrain is controversial with Tibet and all that.

There's plenty of good terrain around Beijing for example, especially for a one-week race. Just use it and allow the fans to go there.