Vaughters' 10-point plan to reinvigorate cycling:

[bhilden]

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


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.

I have been trying to advocate that attempting to secure global TV coverage would help the marketability of the sport. However, since I used Formula 1 as an example, everyone seems to jump to the conclusion that I want the sport to be run like Formula 1. This is not what I am proposing.

As to your point about cameras on bikes, if there was some sort of global TV coverage there would be much more incentive to come up with innovative ways to bring the sport to the viewing public. The camera gear could be shared by the different broadcasters from race-to-race so the cost and the development effort would also be shared.

Whoops! That's what they do in Formula 1 and we all know what great camera shots we get in F1. And no, just to say it one more time, I am not proposing that pro cycling be run like F1.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

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.

Or rather to protect his own financial interests and to ensure that he gets the biggest and best slice of the cake.

His proposals are nothing more than an attempt to ensure some kind of cycling hegemony for the richest teams.

He certainly isn't doing this to improve the sport for the spectators.

You only have to see how tedious and overblown the Premier League is (and how it is dominated by the wealthiest) to see what becomes of these kind of proposals.

Vaughters is proposing nothing more than financial Darwinism. The survival of the richest. Those teams who can pay for the technology and the squads - you're made - if not, you'll just have to hope a sugar daddy comes along.

If there is anything to be done about improving cycling it is that the emphasis on the road should be about the rider, not about who have the best technology, or the best DS in the car, or the best squad, or the best domestiques to pull back every single break away.

The sport does need to be reformed - but first it needs to be saved from the likes of Vaughters.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have been trying to advocate that attempting to secure global TV coverage would help the marketability of the sport. However, since I used Formula 1 as an example, everyone seems to jump to the conclusion that I want the sport to be run like Formula 1. This is not what I am proposing.

As to your point about cameras on bikes, if there was some sort of global TV coverage there would be much more incentive to come up with innovative ways to bring the sport to the viewing public. The camera gear could be shared by the different broadcasters from race-to-race so the cost and the development effort would also be shared.

Whoops! That's what they do in Formula 1 and we all know what great camera shots we get in F1. And no, just to say it one more time, I am not proposing that pro cycling be run like F1.

Much like JVs proposals (IMO) there is not anything wrong in what you suggest - but it does not entice new fans to the sport nor address how to get the "more global TV coverage".
As an example - ITV in the UK own the rights to broadcast many races, they have already paid for yet they do not show many of these races.

Also perhaps some of the criticism on the F1 model is because that sport is (IMO) much less popular than before.
Speaking personally, I was a 'fan' of F1 back in the early '00's, watched all the races on TV and even went to some races, yet I haven't watched an F1 race in years.

 

[nvpacchi]

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

Could have been worded a lot better. If equipment innovations are not equally available to all teams, it will simply allow the richer, "stronger" teams to ignore tactics because of their technological advantages.

Does he mean if all teams had the same equipment, with no one having an advantage over anyone else, technology would become a moot point, bringing tactics and racing smarts to the forefront? Surely he doesn't want to give up his aerodynamic camelbak bidons

Or does he mean that smarter teams are willing to invest more in the latest technologies?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Or rather to protect his own financial interests and to ensure that he gets the biggest and best slice of the cake.

His proposals are nothing more than an attempt to ensure some kind of cycling hegemony for the richest teams.

He certainly isn't doing this to improve the sport for the spectators.

You only have to see how tedious and overblown the Premier League is (and how it is dominated by the wealthiest) to see what becomes of these kind of proposals.

Vaughters is proposing nothing more than financial Darwinism. The survival of the richest. Those teams who can pay for the technology and the squads - you're made - if not, you'll just have to hope a sugar daddy comes along.

If there is anything to be done about improving cycling it is that the emphasis on the road should be about the rider, not about who have the best technology, or the best DS in the car, or the best squad, or the best domestiques to pull back every single break away.

The sport does need to be reformed - but first it needs to be saved from the likes of Vaughters.

Seriously? I know you do not like JV but this is the steamiest of turds I have read on this forum in a while (yes, thats saying a lot).

What bigger slice of pie can JV get?? JVs team is already in this 'Premier League', by being outspoken actually is more counter productive.

Sponsors pay management teams - like what JV has - for exposure, of course he wants a better product and some guarantees to get in to certain races.
Remember what happened to UniBet?

The Premier League argument is hollow as those teams have many revenue streams - gate receipts, merchandising, selling players, sponsorship etc but in particular the cut from TV rights.

Cycling teams are only funded by sponsors - having a better product entices more people to watch which in turn makes cycling more attractive to an investor.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Or rather to protect his own financial interests and to ensure that he gets the biggest and best slice of the cake.

His proposals are nothing more than an attempt to ensure some kind of cycling hegemony for the richest teams.

He certainly isn't doing this to improve the sport for the spectators.

You only have to see how tedious and overblown the Premier League is (and how it is dominated by the wealthiest) to see what becomes of these kind of proposals.

Vaughters is proposing nothing more than financial Darwinism. The survival of the richest. Those teams who can pay for the technology and the squads - you're made - if not, you'll just have to hope a sugar daddy comes along.

Is that a bad thing? If the clear direction to success is financial, teams, organizers, and sponsors will need to to act in a way that attracts investment: teams need success to be a viable investment from sponsors; sponsors need to participate in the promotion of the sport if they want their jerseys/ads to reach anyone; race organizers and governing bodies need to pursue coverage and engage fans if they want teams and sponsors to care about their event.

Yes that is simplistic. My point is that idealism without a sense of a tangible application is worthless. Without identifying a specific business/organizational plan that holistically unites the different parties in the sport, a system of individualism and mistrust will (already has?) emerge, which is unsustainable.

I've already said this, but that action is certainly beyond my capacity. Moves will need to be made to employ those who can.

 

[Cobblestones]

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.

To slag off commentators for misidentifying riders is part of the fun. Great fodder for race threads.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Seriously? I know you do not like JV but this is the steamiest of turds I have read on this forum in a while (yes, thats saying a lot).

What bigger slice of pie can JV get?? JVs team is already in this 'Premier League', by being outspoken actually is more counter productive.

Sponsors pay management teams - like what JV has - for exposure, of course he wants a better product and some guarantees to get in to certain races.
Remember what happened to UniBet?

The Premier League argument is hollow as those teams have many revenue streams - gate receipts, merchandising, selling players, sponsorship etc but in particular the cut from TV rights.

Cycling teams are only funded by sponsors - having a better product entices more people to watch which in turn makes cycling more attractive to an investor.

You've missed the point. Vaughters arguments are not about improving the sport as a visual spectacle (ie the very thing that brings in the viewers).

Nor are they are not about dealing with doping. They are about fixing the playing conditions to benefit him and his team. Vaughters and his apologists are being disingenuous in claiming that this is anything other than that. At least be honest about the motives for these 'proposals'.

The main thrust of his proposals are: guaranteed invites for the rich teams, technology - which favours the rich teams, and TTTs which favour those with the strongest squads and the money for technology.

The Premier League argument is entirely valid because it is exactly the same kind of arguments that were being put forward by the richest clubs in order to get the Premier League set up. And I am sorry but the Premier League is boring and predictable. And you know what teams like Disco, HGH and Garmin make cycling boring as well. Last years TDF and Vuelta were mindnumbingly boring and predictable as Robo teams controlled by their DS's made sure that every stage and break was killed off. And we all know how tedious mountain stages have become since 1999 - oh look - its the Disco train ripping the legs off everyone till the last 2km of the final climb when the chosen leader goes off for a little dance.

I see these proposals as nothing more than trying to make the hegemony of these teams and this style racing permanent. Sorry if you disagree with me.

Where do Vaughters proposals leave the smaller teams - you know the teams that always make sure they have guys in the break? You know the teams who maybe only ride one GT but are always active? I see nothing in Vaughters proposals about doing anything to improve cycling below the GTs, other than to argue that there should be more meaningless but 'global' races.

If they want improve cycling then they should keep Vaughters well away from the decision making process. I used to think Vaughters was one of the good guys - now I realise that his only interests are his own financial interests. Which is fair enough but don't lie and pretend that you are really interested in the good of the sport when all you really care about is making money for yourself.

I'll ignore the personal stuff because that really is beneath you.

 

[hfer07]

You don't think global TV coverage is a major reason why F1 is so popular? We can all get the same F1 experience by reading about it in magazines or on the Internet? The written description of the standing start, passes for position and crashes are just as good as watching it on TV?

F1 is indeed popular in USA and some European countries-the rest of the world care less about-and that is a FACT-only few followers get to watch the racers by PPV, cable or Internet-not as the broader coverage you're putting in it.

You don't think global TV coverage would greatly help the popularity of pro cycling? It certainly made a big difference in the US when OLN/Versus started showing each Tour de France stage live.

I do- the problem here is that clearly you're looking the problem from the USA POV, whereas the rest of the world already has already a strong following audience.

I am not advocating organizing pro cycling along the lines of F1. What I am saying is that if there is some way to get global TV coverage that would be a big help in increasing the popularity of the sport.

as I said, you're talking about USA-you need to catch up to the rest of the world. I would add to your point that UCI must get some arraignments with the hosting countries where H.2. & other minor but exiting races take place, to provide the proper broadcasting. --that we both agree.

 

[Skip Madness]

16. In order to broaden cycling's appeal to new markets, the sport should be promoted to new demographics. To this end, all white, European, heterosexual or christian riders should be banned for the next five years. A black African gay muslim Tour de France winner will make cycling a truly global sport.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You've missed the point. Vaughters arguments are not about improving the sport as a visual spectacle. It is nothing to do with the sport as a visual spectacle - the very thing that brings in the viewers.

What do you mean by 'visual spectacle'?
JVs point 1 "More races of the highest level outside of Europe" addresses that. ie bringing races to the audience.
Or his points 6, 8 & 9 address the 'visual spectacle' for the TV or internet viewer.

A good example of this is how RCS run their races through Gazzetta Tv.

Nor are they are not about dealing with doping. They are about fixing the playing conditions to benefit him and his team. Vaughters and his apologists are being disingenuous in claiming that this is anything other than that.

Obviously this is the issue that has harmed the sport - but we cannot discuss it on this side of the forum.
But again, I have no idea what the highlighted means - JVs proposals are for all teams, not just his.

The main thrust of his proposals are: guaranteed invites for the rich teams, technology - which favours the rich teams, and TTTs which favour those with the strongest squads and the money for technology.

Not quite - he is (rightly) looking for assurances of entry to certain races -this then draws in good sponsors.

Doesn't the current system actually reward the rich teams already? BBox and Cofidis (2 good teams with proper ethics) got shafted and RadioShack and Sky got 4 year licences.

The Premier League argument is entirely valid because it is exactly the same kind of arguments that were being put forward by the richest clubs in order to get the Premier League set up.

Again no - there are a limited number of teams within cycling and there are more spaces available to ride races than what is proposed.

Where do Vaughters proposals leave the smaller teams - you know the teams that always make sure they have guys in the break? You know the teams who maybe only ride one GT but are always active? I see nothing in Vaughters proposals about doing anything to improve cycling below the GTs, other than to argue that there should be more meaningless but 'global' races.

They smaller teams are still there and will always be there.
Pro cycling is hard to hold up to other sports as it always has had big teams and smaller teams side by side competing at the same level.
The difficulty with the old system was that no-one knows what will guarantee teams participation in certain events meaning sponsors were reluctant to invest heavily.

I'll ignore the personal stuff because that really is beneath you.

There was nothing personal in it - I pointed out your view was a personal attack on JV and nothing to do with the proposals.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Sorry but you attacked the poster rather than the ideas - and I am not attacking your posts or describing your posts as **** because I disagree with them. If I am attacking Vaughters it is because his ideas are terrible, nothing to do with him as a person. Although I am very skeptical of his motives for these proposals.

His proposals maybe for 'all teams' but the teams that would benefit the most from them are the richest teams ie his. As I say - I see nothing in his proposals regarding the smaller teams and everything about ensuring more victories for the rich teams.

His suggestions for the visual side of racing seem to all hinge on technology and favouring those at the technological leading edge. In other words - the teams - like his that have the money have the advantage. IMO the sport should always be about the rider not about the technology or the best drugs. I don't want to swap a pharmaceutical arms race for a technological arms race. The sport needs to be taken out of the hands of the DS's, the doctors and the Ferrari's of the world and should be about the rider.

I don't like the situation where a rider gets on the radio to his DS and says what should I do about X, and then the DS phones his friend in Italy who runs some calculations through a computer and comes back and says 'he can't sustain it, don't bother chasing'. That to me is what the sport should be getting away from but it seems that Vaughters wants to see all racing managed that way.

Suggesting that guaranteed entry will bring in more sponsors seems to be something of a mental leap. All it means is more sponsors for the teams that already have guaranteed entry - meaning that just like the Premier League - the rich get richer. Why bother to try to set up a new team when you can sign on with 'Team Vaughters and their 10 year TDF entry deal'. Guaranteed entry will kill the ability of new teams to set up. However, it will protect teams like Garmin, HGH, Shack, BMC etc.

Yes, Cofidis etc got shafted - but if JV's proposals were taken on board then Cofidis would be totally out.

The Premier league went hand in hand with a deliberate reduction of the league - there were too many teams as well. It was a concerted attempt (as this is) to funnel the money and the power into the hands of a small group of teams.

While I am no fan of McQuaid I certainly don't want to see the sport run by the likes of Hog, Stapleton, JimO, etc

The fact of the matter is Vaughters has said nothing in his proposals that would protect the smaller teams, and without even the prospect of invitation to the biggest races those teams will be the first to lose their sponsors and the first to go out of business. So far from developing and expanding the sport, all these proposals will see is a contraction in teams and concentration of power, money and results in the hands of a few.

Anyway, we shall see. I suspect nothing will come of this other than a lot of UCI-team infighting.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

A whole bunch of sponsors like Euskaltel, Cofidis, FDJ, Lotto and co wouldn't be able to afford to compete with the big money teams in this situation. I think that they deserve more for their long term commitment to the sport than to be shafted completely on the basis that they can't afford the technical advances that a team which swans in with a big money sponsor can.

Look at F1. How many teams can legitimately win races? It shifts around a lot, but for much of the time it's only 2-3, maybe 4 if we're lucky. Teams that have been around for 30+ years have either had to shack up with a big money manufacturer (McLaren) or fall to midfield ignominy and irrelevance (Williams) to compete. Long-lasting stalwarts like Tyrrell, Brabham and Jordan disappear, to be replaced by short-term big money ventures like Toyota and Honda that disappear with barely a second thought when it's no longer as much fun for them.

Yes, cycling needs the big money teams bringing us innovation and promoting the sport to new audiences. But it really needs the plucky underdog teams and the established sponsors who've already given to the sport for more than a decade, and it needs them to feel like it's still worth it being part of the sport. Some of JV's plans will likely alienate them; they can't all afford to jet around the planet, have their biggest riders enter every event for some farcical points system or put together strong TTT lineups.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I think most of us would like to have a "point" that addresses promotion/demotion to this elite status.
While details remain sketchy, it does appear that one purchases one's way into
the upper echelons for a decade or so.

Given the costs of running an elite team, the bank guarantees for such an enterprise appear to be.......................substantial. Way beyond the capabilites of most potential sponsors to, what is essentially a fringe sport.

The trouble in trying to debate this and adding further suggestions, at this time, is that the whole scheme is vague in the extreme.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sorry but you attacked the poster rather than the ideas - and I am not attacking your posts or describing your posts as **** because I disagree with them. If I am attacking Vaughters it is because his ideas are terrible, nothing to do with him as a person. Although I am very skeptical of his motives for these proposals.

I 'attacked' your post - not you, and you haven't come up with any ideas to 'attack'.

His proposals maybe for 'all teams' but the teams that would benefit the most from them are the richest teams ie his. As I say - I see nothing in his proposals regarding the smaller teams and everything about ensuring more victories for the rich teams.

No, the other way around.
If teams have guarantees then they can approach sponsors and secure proper funding.
At present many teams do not have that security and are under funded.

A high tide raises all boats.

Suggesting that guaranteed entry will bring in more sponsors seems to be something of a mental leap. All it means is more sponsors for the teams that already have guaranteed entry - meaning that just like the Premier League - the rich get richer. Why bother to try to set up a new team when you can sign on with 'Team Vaughters and their 10 year TDF entry deal'. Guaranteed entry will kill the ability of new teams to set up. However, it will protect teams like Garmin, HGH, Shack, BMC etc.

I didn't suggest that.
Not more sponsors - better sponsors who fund a proper team

Yes, Cofidis etc got shafted - but if JV's proposals were taken on board then Cofidis would be totally out.

How? You appear to have read in to something JV did not say.

The Premier league went hand in hand with a deliberate reduction of the league - there were too many teams as well. It was a concerted attempt (as this is) to funnel the money and the power into the hands of a small group of teams.

Your bias against JV is clouding your view - JV has not proposed anything to limit numbers nor is there a way to funnel money when your only revenue source is to approach companies for sponsorship.

Again the Premier League is a UK based system (of a global sport) which has no correlation with cycling.

While I am no fan of McQuaid I certainly don't want to see the sport run by the likes of Hog, Stapleton, JimO, etc

How would individual team owners within any structure be 'running' the sport?

The fact of the matter is Vaughters has said nothing in his proposals that would protect the smaller teams, and without even the prospect of invitation to the biggest races those teams will be the first to lose their sponsors and the first to go out of business. So far from developing and expanding the sport, all these proposals will see is a contraction in teams and concentration of power, money and results in the hands of a few.

I don't get this "protect smaller teams"? It is the market that dictates who they sponsor. There will always be a place for "smaller" teams.
But there should also be a standard for bigger teams to have and not just the current system of whoever has the biggest budget gets a licence.

Anyway, we shall see. I suspect nothing will come of this other than a lot of UCI-team infighting.

What I was hoping for was some other ideas to help promote Pro Cycling in general to make it more attractive to investors, which is t6he life blood of the sport.

 

[Contre la montre]

I'm not going to get into all the points JV made but some of them are particularly stupid.

On innovation: innovation comes from manufacturers wanting to sell more of their stuff, not from cyclingteams.

On guaranteed entry: if you are a long standing team you are generally assured of invites to the most important races.

On TTT's: Rubbish. He's just thinking in directions that suit him. With more TTT's big money would be at an even greater advantage. I did like however the yearly protour TTT in Eindhoven. The problem was nobody ever took it serious

I do agree somewhat as to his thoughts on making the race more exciting to follow. Gps, camera's. That stuff is easy to implement and might make things more attractive to layman. I've heard rumours of the NOS starting experiments with digital broadcasting that allows you to pick the camera you wish to follow. You could then 'choose' to take a look at the back of the pack or stay with the front group.

 

[djlovesyou]

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

I'm sure it is too, Mr Vaughters is quite a clever troll. He knew it would get people howling.

Slipping it in right in the middle is a classic ploy.

 

[Skip Madness]

17. A surefire way to get more people roadside: have one of the first floats in the publicity caravan hand out rotten tomatoes to fans at the side of the road, and a few minutes later have another float come along with convicted murderers, rapists, paedophiles and estate agents exposed to the wrath of the masses. While the crowds are there, they may as well stick around for the racing.

Captive audience. Plus any leftover tomatoes could be saved for disliked riders.

 

[skippy]

Most FIS races start with a camera going down the track so as to give the viewer an idea of the racers perspective .
Cameras mounted on the handlebars will work better than the helmet although winding up a hill may not be so much fun for the viewer .
Certainly the view amongst the peloton would also be a little confusing at times but the editing would be able to show the perspective of an attack from ground level rather than from the air .
FIS races show how one racer compares to another on the track so this could be done on the ITT's & TTT but with the GPS the various time points could be plotted on the map , but more importantly if a racer goes over the side of the road in the hills and comes to a stop for more than , say 20secs , an alarm would go off warning in a "NON Race Radio " situation that a safety issue needs investigation !

At present there is a compulsion for the ProTour Teams to be selected to ALL protour events , how would the TOP 5 being definite starters with 6 racers and the others having to fight for their start with another 2 of the top Pro Conti teams being invited and then "wild Card entries from the country of the Grand Tour . Certainly teams need to know which events they are going to race BUT they will then have to make sure they are good enough to qualify as Auto selection . No point as is at present all Pro Tour teams being there whether they deserve it or not.

With smaller teams would it not be possible to have less vehicles in the Caravan and thus more teams ?

Columbian Tour , Tour Down Under and Tour of California all upgraded in status to compete with the 3 Grand Tours there should be interest from a TV Network to cover these events worldwide and especially if they could broadcast the Monuments as part of a package .

ASO has so many of the Tours tied up it is surprising that they have not tried to capture the Worldwide Broadcasting Rights !

Lots more ideas but difficult to keep abreast of what has already been tossed into the ring !

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I 'attacked' your post - not you, and you haven't come up with any ideas to 'attack'.

You were the one who resorted to childish name calling. The kind of thing I'd expect of some rabid Armstrong fan. If you want a serious debate then behave in a serious manner. If you want knock about fun and name calling then fine.

No, the other way around.
If teams have guarantees then they can approach sponsors and secure proper funding.
At present many teams do not have that security and are under funded.

A high tide raises all boats.

No and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Experience points to sponsors being put off rather than encouraged as the Unibet, Geox, fiascos show.

I didn't suggest that.
Not more sponsors - better sponsors who fund a proper team

Where are these sponsors going to come from? People are deluding themselves. All it means is the richest teams getting the richest sponsors for themselves.

How? You appear to have read in to something JV did not say.

And Cofidis would be protected and supported in what way by what Vaughters has said?

Your bias against JV is clouding your view - JV has not proposed anything to limit numbers nor is there a way to funnel money when your only revenue source is to approach companies for sponsorship.

Again with the personal attacks. Guaranteed entries naturally means a limit - so why bother - as Geox shows - when you have guaranteed entry plus wildcards for the home teams it means that there is no place for a talented but 'new' team.

Again the Premier League is a UK based system (of a global sport) which has no correlation with cycling.

It is a perfect correlation - a small coterie of teams with their own financial interests at heart drove through proposals which claimed to be about improving the sport but were nothing more than a trojan horse for their own self interests.

How would individual team owners within any structure be 'running' the sport?

Vaughters clearly wants more power and his lack of power is something he has complained about. If the alternative to the UCI is a sport run by JV et al I'd take McQuaid any day.

I don't get this "protect smaller teams"? It is the market that dictates who they sponsor. There will always be a place for "smaller" teams.

Ah the market - the panacea to all our problems.

Small teams matter because they are often the ones who contribute most to races, have the least political and financial power.

Unlike you I am not in favour of some free market Thatcherite wet dream of the sport.

But there should also be a standard for bigger teams to have and not just the current system of whoever has the biggest budget gets a licence.

Shame JV never discusses that point.

What I was hoping for was some other ideas to help promote Pro Cycling in general to make it more attractive to investors, which is t6he life blood of the sport.

Well maybe if you were so aggressive then you might get some ideas. You've hardly been the most open minded of people so far.

You want ideas - I'd want to see proposals that did more to promote cycling at the grassroots level, that helped the pro-conti teams, that helped the various North American teams, the minor East European and Latin American teams. I'd want to see proposals that put the emphasis back on the riders. Unlike Vaughter's top down approach I'd approach it from the bottom up.

I'd like to see a reformed and transparent UCI. Then you can discuss entry into races in a transparent manner.

Structural institutional reforms first then get in the sponsors and worry about the gimmicks.

And the elephant in the room - 4 year bans, bans for DS's, lifetime bans for doctors and discipline out of the hands of the national feds and handed over to a global discipline body that sanctions all dopers irrespective of their nationality.

 

[BroDeal]

It seems to me that most ideas to turn the sport into F1 are doomed to fail as long as the races are so varied. How does a win at Paris-Roubaix compare to three sprint wins in the Tour or to overall victory at the Dauphine Libere? The types of wins are so different that it is impossible to compare them. No point system can work well.

A proper series would need something like sixteen week long stage races raced every other week in a different country, perhaps with the addition of a couple of GTs as super events. The races and the points would then be directly comparable, and it would be easy to track which rider and which team is leading the contest for the season. Essentially, the sport would need to be rebuilt to make it more media friendly and more accessible to a casual audience. I wonder if this is JV and The Hog's ultimate goal.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Most FIS races start with a camera going down the track so as to give the viewer an idea of the racers perspective .
Cameras mounted on the handlebars will work better than the helmet although winding up a hill may not be so much fun for the viewer .
Certainly the view amongst the peloton would also be a little confusing at times but the editing would be able to show the perspective of an attack from ground level rather than from the air .
FIS races show how one racer compares to another on the track so this could be done on the ITT's & TTT but with the GPS the various time points could be plotted on the map , but more importantly if a racer goes over the side of the road in the hills and comes to a stop for more than , say 20secs , an alarm would go off warning in a "NON Race Radio " situation that a safety issue needs investigation !

I assume you're talking about Alpine skiing. Because I watch FIS Nordic Combined and FIS Cross-Country and don't see any of this; it's not really necessary when people are going head to head, you can see where everybody is visually.

It's only really in ITTs and TTTs that the GPS would have any great impact that enhances the viewing (we already have the "who is in group 1, who is in group 2, who is in péloton, who is 'delayed'" graphics on the Gazzetta and Tour/Vuelta websites' live trackers), and they've already used it at a number of events.

In some smaller races with very small time gaps I'd like to see them do a pursuit like in Nordic Combined and biathlon; perhaps for a mountain like the amazing spectacle of Alpe Cermis in the Tour de Ski. Certainly the Tour Down Under would be enlivened by a short TT and then after the Willunga stage doing a pursuit race around one lap of the Willunga circuit, having the sprinters either working together for the time boni at the end or having to hold off and limit losses to the GC men starting behind them, knowing that they'd have to wait around and lose time if they wanted domestiques to help them out.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You were the one who resorted to childish name calling. The kind of thing I'd expect of some rabid Armstrong fan. If you want a serious debate then behave in a serious manner. If you want knock about fun and name calling then fine.

Show me where I called YOU a childish name?

How can I (or anyone) debate something when you merely rubbish JVs proposal without offering an alternative or showing why his proposals won't work.

No and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Experience points to sponsors being put off rather than encouraged as the Unibet, Geox, fiascos show.

Exactly - now why are they put off?
Because they invest in something and then do not get to ride in the big events- thats why there is instability in the sport.

Where are these sponsors going to come from? People are deluding themselves. All it means is the richest teams getting the richest sponsors for themselves.

A global outlook will get global sponsors - the reason a team like Euskadel is a small team is because there are few business in the Basque area to match other teams.

And Cofidis would be protected and supported in what way by what Vaughters has said?

Because they would already been guaranteed a long term licence and not have been trumped by bigger budget teams.

Again with the personal attacks. Guaranteed entries naturally means a limit - so why bother - as Geox shows - when you have guaranteed entry plus wildcards for the home teams it means that there is no place for a talented but 'new' team.

Its not a personal attack to point out that your view is clouded by your dislike for JV - which you have acknowledged.

It is a perfect correlation - a small coterie of teams with their own financial interests at heart drove through proposals which claimed to be about improving the sport but were nothing more than a trojan horse for their own self interests.

Its not - half the people on this site are wondering what the Premier League is. The Premier League was about dividing TV rights, nothing more - (although I agree it was sold as being good for the sport) - this is not even being proposed by JV.

Vaughters clearly wants more power and his lack of power is something he has complained about. If the alternative to the UCI is a sport run by JV et al I'd take McQuaid any day.

Nowhere has JV complained about his lack of power - he has complained about the lack of representation of the teams that he represents.
Again your view on JV is clouding your objectivity.

Ah the market - the panacea to all our problems.

Small teams matter because they are often the ones who contribute most to races, have the least political and financial power.

Unlike you I am not in favour of some free market Thatcherite wet dream of the sport.

Sorry to break it to you but sponsors do not invest in cycling as some sort of charity - they expect a return on their investment.

Again -there will always be small teams, so I have no idea where you're going with that point.

Shame JV never discusses that point.

He has expanded somewhat on that on his twitter account.

Well maybe if you were so aggressive then you might get some ideas. You've hardly been the most open minded of people so far.

You want ideas - I'd want to see proposals that did more to promote cycling at the grassroots level, that helped the pro-conti teams, that helped the various North American teams, the minor East European and Latin American teams. I'd want to see proposals that put the emphasis back on the riders. Unlike Vaughter's top down approach I'd approach it from the bottom up.

I'd like to see a reformed and transparent UCI. Then you can discuss entry into races in a transparent manner.

Structural institutional reforms first then get in the sponsors and worry about the gimmicks.

And the elephant in the room - 4 year bans, bans for DS's, lifetime bans for doctors and discipline out of the hands of the national feds and handed over to a global discipline body that sanctions all dopers irrespective of their nationality.

I would agree with all those proposals (and have suggested many on different threads here) but this thread is about innovative proposals on the Pro Cycling scene at top level.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Something I'd do is tied in to the current system, but reduce the points totals simply for placing and increase the points totals for secondary jerseys. Eric Boyer pointed out in 2009 that Cofidis got absolutely zero points for David Moncoutié's KOM in the 2009 Vuelta because he was outside the GC top 20, while riders finishing 9th and 10th in bunch sprints in the Tour de Pologne and Eneco Tour were scoring points.

The amount of points available for placements is simply too high and encourages defensive riding like when we saw Radioshack and Sky not thinking they could exploit Tony Martin's depleted domestique resources in Paris-Nice, but instead thinking they could defend podium and top 10 placements. The points differences for one place higher needs to be increased exponentially making higher GC places more desirable, and fewer points need to be awarded for placement in stage finishes; if the secondary jerseys become more important points-wise, then these placements will be rewarded by a good position in the points competitions anyway. KOM and Metas Volantes classifications may be reinvigorated as they, especially the latter, are quite often something that is won in small Tours by somebody on the first day and then nobody really tries to take them away. If there are points on the line then getting into those meaningless breaks becomes more desirable and we see more attacks or larger attack groups, which therefore increases their likelihood of being able to stay away.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It seems to me that most ideas to turn the sport into F1 are doomed to fail as long as the races are so varied. How does a win at Paris-Roubaix compare to three sprint wins in the Tour or to overall victory at the Dauphine Libere? The types of wins are so different that it is impossible to compare them. No point system can work well.

A proper series would need something like sixteen week long stage races raced every other week in a different country, perhaps with the addition of a couple of GTs as super events. The races and the points would then be directly comparable, and it would be easy to track which rider and which team is leading the contest for the season. Essentially, the sport would need to be rebuilt to make it more media friendly and more accessible to a casual audience. I wonder if this is JV and The Hog's ultimate goal.

I agree with much of this - cycling is kinda unique in that it cannot really have relegation/promotion point system.
As you point out it is nearly impossible to fairly structure different points for different races (or worse for GTs).
Also how would a team get promoted when it cannot get in to the bigger races to get bigger points in the first instance.

I think a seperate competition for individuals i(like the old Super Presige system) is attainable.

But for teams the points should be not just on results but 'ethics' (ie penalties for contract or payment disputes and doping offences) - this could clear out the less 'professional' or ethical teams.