Vaughters' 10-point plan to reinvigorate cycling:

[jens_attacks]

i agree with all of them,vaughters will be an honourable president of the uci someday.
i like especially these:

" More focus on prevention of doping, in the first place, as opposed to catching cheats."-i'm talking about this for years.try to solve this problems internally don't make them public every time.

6. Technical innovation, such as cameras on bikes, inside cars, helmets, inside team buses to make the "craziness and danger of the peloton more real to the viewer".-yes yes yes we live in 2011 not in 1935 anymore.we want the benefits of technology.great idea
8. Open radios to the public and listen to your favourite team and what they are doing.- must

 

[Astana1]

JV should worry more about winning some real races and stfu.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Just to point out the bleeding obvious, in terms of guaranteed "team access" to the TDF for up to 15 years.
While this might encourage some sponsors to stay on for the duration, most never stay on board for longer than half of this time.
So, as with PT licences, this free pass will reside in the hands of "the team", which really means team management, which means JV, Bruyneel etc etc.

Nice. A closed shop within an already closed shop.

Will the ASO really swallow this?
Maybe this is JV's way on bringing the French on board, since presumably the ASO will have to approve who walks through the TDF door?

To me, this 10 point plan has 7 or 8 cosmetic "ideas" and a couple or three
fundamental issues.

 

[Lanark]

To me there are two big problems with cycling right now: doping and races that are far too controlled. Unfortunately, JV's 10 point plan doesn't seem to adres either of those points.

Can't go into too much details about doping on this forum, but just saying more should be done about prevention doesn't mean anything, and doesn't help anybody.

And of course, JV being a DS, he wants more control, not less. There have been some excelent suggestions (drastically smaller teams, more interesting route, not necessarily more difficult, but a route that encourages an attacking strategy in more stages), but most stakeholders in this sport are far too conservative to experiment with innovations. The first week of the Tour with it's endless predictable bunch sprints is so boring, it's almost legendary. Pretending some fancy camera's and GPS-statistics suddenly makes these bunch sprints more interesting is almost insulting to the average viewer. We aren't kids that are wowed by some fancy colours.

 

[Cobblestones]

In an interview from the BBC JV has come up with some interesting ideas to help reinvigorate Pro Cycling - full BBC article here:



I think most members of the cycling community would agree with these initiatives.
There are plenty of opinions on this forum - is there anything else that could be added to this list to make Pro Cycling a better and more marketable sport?

** Obviously we don't need to discuss Point 4. on this thread.

Actually, I would oppose some of this (3, 5); I would need to know more about other points (2??, 7??, 10??), and I think some points are completely irrelevant (6, 8, 9). Since we cannot talk about (4), the last point standing is (1).

In order:

Bad ideas: it should be obvious why (3) is a bad idea. About (5): I just don't like TTTs. I don't even like ITTs all that much.

Need to know more: (2) is it so hard to wrap your head around that in one race the leader wears yellow, in another he wears pink? Or that bonus seconds are given out in different ways? Or sprint points? Or KoM points? (I assume that's what he meant). (7) is he talking about reclining bikes? Aero helmets? Superman position? (10) How on earth would you ever do that? And I'd rather not see riders like Contador or Schlecklet doing PR with the only goal to finish to avoid getting points docked. Anyway, why would they even care? Winning any GT>>winning some kind of dorky point system. Never mind the risk of injury at those races. Rather let others compete who care about the race. This idea is utterly ***.

Irrelevant: (6, 8, 9) helmet cameras will be great when the riders have nature breaks or get chased by the chaperones, or a split second before a faceplant . Not. Helmet & bike cams are going to be so crappy that you really DON'T want to see them. There's a reason motocams are really big, fvcking expensive things. I'd rather have a few more of those. Also, who would want to listen to Manolo shouting 'venga' for five hours? And isn't it a lot of fun to hear commentators misidentify riders? To hell with GPS. How often do you have a situation where you need to keep track of more than 3-4 groups? Is it really that hard to pay attention a bit? Sounds more like a plug for crappy gadgets.

The only (IMHO) relevant point: More races outside Europe (and I hope this isn't just a cheap plug for the ToC). I'm divided on this. It might draw more sponsor money, but it's also an added drain on teams and riders. The best chance would be to establish races in the European off season (which means to have basically a second set of riders on hand to compete those). This could also be interesting for 'early' season races, because you could have riders coming into those already peaking (from their december/january schedule), or for the 'late' season races where you might have riders slowly building up for these new races. Let's face it, the off season is a bit of a drag, and filling it with interesting races would be awesome. I'd think races in South America, Middle East, Africa and Australia would work fine that time of the year.

Now, since we're tossing ideas around, why not publicize women's cycling more? There's plenty of potential for new races to add since the racing calendar wouldn't be locked in a century of tradition.

Here's a radical idea: why not for instance have a mixed TTT as prologue which would force teams to have a top notch women's program while giving female racers the exposure of a men's race? For the mixed TTT the team would be supplemented by three female riders, the time is taken for the fifth rider or first woman crossing the line (whichever happens later).

 

[Lanark]

Oh yeah, Vaughters forgot the most important point. I want my Italian screen texts back. Front of the peloton..what the hell is that? I want my testa della corsa, gruppo compatto and ultimo chilometro back.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

We already have point 7. He's just looking for less restriction on it because teams like Slipstream can afford it. This gives them a further advantage over less well-funded teams like Euskaltel and FDJ; didn't they already have enough of an advantage anyway?

A lot of the globalisation ideas will marginalise these sponsors and teams that have kept the sport going for a long time. What do we do when regional sponsors like Lotto, Euskaltel, FDJ, Cofidis and Saxo walk because they simply can't compete with big money behemoths? Will we see the national calendars collapse?

The sport already offers more to those with more money and resources, without offering up reasons to widen that gap. Though wanting to compare things to EPL football makes sense - EPL football consists of 2-3 teams who can win the championship, another 2-3 who can push them, and 14-15 who are there to make up the numbers. Vaughters obviously thinks this is a great idea, with him and Stapleton at the top, Sky, Leopard and BMC just behind, and everybody else getting in the way with that pesky "tradition" thing.

 

[maltiv]

It has probably been mentioned already but if radios were available to the fans then other teams could just listen to what their rivals are saying. So if Bjarne Riis tells Cancellara to attack then Boonen would be told by his DS and immediately get on Cancellara's wheel instead of eating at the back of the group.

 

[labratty]

7. Equipment innovation to see if the the smartest team wins sometimes, rather than the strongest.

This will kill cycling, it means wins for sale, R&D is not cheap. The biggest budget wins more often, and gets an even bigger budget, ... It turned F1 into a monster, Premier League footy into a cheque book league. Money and sport don't mix well, that is part of why we have 'The Clinic'

 

[Cobblestones]

Vaughters obviously thinks this is a great idea, with him and Stapleton at the top, Sky, Leopard and BMC just behind, and everybody else getting in the way with that pesky "tradition" thing.

No Spanish, French or Italian teams? That would be the death of cycling, indeed.

 

[Anonymous]

1. More races of the highest level outside of Europe.
To go with the snoozefests that are the Tour down Under, Tours of California, Qatar and Oman. Yes, we do need more global appeal for cycling, but creating sanitised over packaged tourism adverts for dull lifeless scenery is not good viewing.
2. Consistent, understandable formats for cycling fans.
Not sure what he means, but if he means world tour/ranking points etc then yes.
3. Long-term guaranteed entry to the Tour de France for professional teams.
No, that just guarantees the top teams more points, more exposure and maintains the status quo. My way, top 15 Pro Tour teams, and top 5 pro-conti teams at the end of march get giro invites, top teams at the end of May get tour invites. No team should have some automatic right to attend races.
4.** More focus on prevention of doping, in the first place, as opposed to catching cheats.

5. More team-time trials more often
No thanks..
6. Technical innovation, such as cameras on bikes, inside cars, helmets, inside team buses to make the "craziness and danger of the peloton more real to the viewer".
This is cycling, not F1
7. Equipment innovation to see if the the smartest team wins sometimes, rather than the strongest.
Not sure what hes talking about
8. Open radios to the public and listen to your favourite team and what they are doing.
More pressing issues to worry about
9. GPS tracking of individual riders to make races fun to watch.
Some teams already have it on their websites. Its not very interesting.
10. Have an understandable and consistent way of determining the best rider in the world and the best team in the world. That might mean riders have to ride Paris-Roubaix, and if they do not finish they would be docked points.
Agree with the first part, disagree with the second part.

 

[luckyboy]

The one thing we're not allowed to talk about in this forum is by far the most important from all those points.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

No Spanish, French or Italian teams? That would be the death of cycling, indeed.

The Spanish, French and Italian teams aren't global enough, too parochial. Keep racing their own national calendar. Bad thing as far as Vaughters is concerned. We must price these parochial dinosaurs out of the market in the name of progress.

 

[movingtarget]

Insightful and well considered response... I couldn't agree more. There is nothing that could change or should change that would ever improve the sport.

Just because the ideas come from Vaughters it does not mean they are practical or valuable. These are cosmetic changes mainly. I would have thought that for someone who is so much against doping, he would have suggested certain changes to doping sanctions and the current laws surrounding them. If I saw merit in his ideas I would have said so.

They could do plenty. Putting a limit on the length of stages. Not having long transfers between stages. Only the race organisers can neutralise a stage. On really hot days, let riders take on drinks at any time. Maybe they do this already ? Changes to doping laws and sanctions. The rider's union probably also has plenty of recommendations or concerns apart from race radios. I would like to see two individual time trials and one prologue in every grand tour and no team time trials. The team time trial kills the chances of GC riders who don't have really strong teams. The individual time trial seems to be marginalised these days and the time trials tend to be shorter. The riders may disagree with that one.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Maybe this should be entitled: JV's ten ideas to help his team do better.

Funny how one of the richest squads wants to 'innovate' cycling in ways that benefit the richest strongest teams.

The proposals are a combination of:


- Worthy lip service - about doping.

- Gimmicks - helmet-cam, GPS - talk about appealing to the lowest common denominator.

- Changing the rules to benefit his team & sponsors - TTT, guaranteed access to the TDF and races where his sponsors target market is.



Drip by drip, Vaughters shows himself to be nothing more than a Hog clone.

Maybe JV, Hog and HGH can all **** off and set up their own tour and 'global' races. If nothing else we might get a few more exciting races without them and their robo-riding.

 

[Fester]

Ah Vaughters... come a long way since TIAF-CREF.

* "World Tour" is exclusive by the cost of adhereance, plus the fact you need to massage the UCI the right way.
* Cycling is a socially inclusive and accessible sport. Letting technology win races, will again shift the advantage to the spoilt brats.
* Globalization of cycling: It already is global, there are many brilliant events the world over! Colombia, Faso, Qinghai lake, etc. What they seek to do here is rip of some emerging nations with a formula one type franchise: Instead of 2.2-2HC they seek to make them "World Tour". In fact, what they will do is price most of the cyclists in those nations out of their premier national events, then have one or two like Beppu and Teklehaimanot to say "hey look how global we are" when it's as closed doors as a mafia.
* Having a closed leaving leaves the whole system open to manipulation. It will be come more of an (unfair) circus than it it already.
* The cameras (rather like stump cam in cricket) are a good idea.
* Radios are a pain, get rid of them, riders shouldn't be automatons.
* GPS location wont harm anything... gimmickry that must be provided by the race organiser.

 

[eljimberino]

Cycling is pretty popular in my opinion.

Saturation is not necessarily a good factor. Switched off from cricket for that reason.

More cameras and mikes would be good, but appears to me Vaughters has more pressing concerns, like winning races.

 

[spalco]

14. Make "most aggressive rider" a jersey, use it to replace the rubbish "best young rider" classification, which is a classification for riders who are just losing with a caveat. Use the old Giro system of scoring it by number of kilometres spent out in front, but award points inversely according to how many riders are in the break/lead group:

1 lone rider = 10 points per kilometre
2 riders = 9 points each per kilometre
3 riders = 8 points each per kilometre
...
10 riders = 1 point each per kilometre

Awarding a jersey prize would add prestige, and the inverse points reward would mean attacking from the front to make big groups smaller would encourage lots more aggression.

The obstacle is it would be hard to calculate, especially on the move obviously. But surely no harder than the Giro system.

I love this idea. This needs to be done ASAP.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Cycling is pretty popular in my opinion.

Saturation is not necessarily a good factor. Switched off from cricket for that reason.

More cameras and mikes would be good, but appears to me Vaughters has more pressing concerns, like winning races.

Which is why he wants guaranteed invites, more TTTs and an even greater ability to control the race from the car.

Re-invigorating cycling means - fixing the sport so Garmin win.

 

[Jamsque]

I am 99% sure that the 'more TTTs' point is a joke.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

My ability to vote on any regulation is essentially nil. The AIGCP is cycling's biggest stakeholder, but has no power to veto new regulations.

Translates as 'give me the power'

"This a team sport that is conducted at 80/kmh," added Vaughters. "If we are going to have a modern sport there has to be communication and just as importantly that rule was introduced without speaking to anyone in the field.

McQuaid has already shown this statement to be untrue.

cf

A working group has studied the earpieces since 2008 and as part of that group riders have been sitting at the same table as the teams and the media :Cedric Vasseur and Dario Cioni were your representatives and Serge Parsani, Joxean Matxin and John Lelangue that of the teams. By reading the recent claims of different players in the world of cycling, we could be led to believe that the banning of earpieces was decided upon in a one-sided fashion and in haste: in reality, this project is the result of deep reflection over a period of two years. Your representatives should have informed you of this.

I would also like to remind you that in 2008 and 2009, the CPA led an enquiry into the subject among its 865 members. The President of your association at the time, Mr Cédric Vasseur, will be able to confirm the very surprising fact that he only received 200 replies (less than one in four) with a very even distribution of opinions for and against.

More from Vaughters...

"The regulations are limiting creativity, intelligence and engineering. There is so much more that could be done to improve cycling, but we're being held back by decision making."

Translates as - the teams with the biggest budgets should be winning and I should have the power to decide the race from my car and the riders are just pieces on a chessboard.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

A lot of people who have posted appear to have missed this part of my OP.

There are plenty of opinions on this forum - is there anything else that could be added to this list to make Pro Cycling a better and more marketable sport?

** Obviously we don't need to discuss Point 4. on this thread.

Its pretty easy to rubbish someones proposals without putting in your own.

And to those who point out that JV is a DS - he is not, he is a team owner and quite rightly is seeking ways to make the sport more attractive for spectators and the sponsors/investors.

There have been cameras on bikes before - I remember there was a crash in Romandie or the TdS that was caught from an on-board camera.
GPS on individual riders would have helped in yesterdays MSR as it took the commentators almost half an hour to work out who was in what group after the crash.

 

[Cobblestones]

A lot of people who have posted appear to have missed this part of my OP.

.
.
.

GPS on individual riders would have helped in yesterdays MSR as it took the commentators almost half an hour to work out who was in what group after the crash.

I didn't.

.
.
.

And, that's part of the fun, isn't it?

 

[jens_attacks]

yes not knowing if your favourite rider is in the front group is "part of the fun".we live in 2011,pro cycling is way back.

 

[luckyboy]

Here are mine, with criticisms added..

Get rid of doping
lol

Get cycling in the media more
Vague, but so were some of JV's suggestions. I have no idea how this would happen, but it would benefit cycling.

All major races televised, TV rights sorted
Don't know what it's like in other countries (well, more traditional cycling countries must have better coverage than us in the UK, but Australia, USA etc. don't), but every WorldTour race should be televised. Looking at the list, most of them already are on Eurosport. Guess the next step would be 1.HC + 2.HC races here, but other countries I'm sure need more coverage.

More races outside of Europe
Looking back, the only really good thing JV said in terms of making cycling more popular/marketable. It's hard to try and balance how much teams can afford to travel though. More races/higher profile races in Africa/Asia/C+S.America.
Seems to be going where the money is though (Middle East, much like F1)