Vaughters and ASO examine Tour de France selection policy

[pedaldancer]

Great news.

This is certainly early days, but sounds like progression.

What are your thoughts on a selection criteria?

Global reach. Should ASO be sacrificing better teams for those that will encourage a broader audience?

How late should the decisions be made?

Do we like the idea of fewer set-in-stone places and an increase in numbers of places for teams in on merit?

Vaughters was obviously hinting that there needs to be input from the teams themselves, possibly hinting at a voting process?

Aaaaaand can of worms...

 

[Jamsque]

I'd maybe go for something along the lines of the top 10 or 15 teams from the world rankings at the end of last year get offered a place (and can refuse it if they are maniacs) and the rest of the 22 gets made up with wildcards, perhaps with one or two of the wild-cards being chosen by a rider's vote or a manager's vote or something?

 

[theswordsman]

It's good that they're considering a method that's a bit more transparent, with teams having a better idea of what they might do to qualify.

What's tough is that the race is in the middle of the season. For instance, the UCI World rankings are final after Lombardia, so the seventeen automatic invitations will be settled. But the competitive levels of those teams could change a lot for the following year. Say Astana earns a spot, but Contador leaves and they can't get a top GC guy to replace him. And other teams might have gotten their points in one day races, or even week long stage races, but don't have riders suited to grand tours. So maybe end of season rankings aren't the best way to go.

At least they're talking, and the communication extends to all the teams.

 

[ak-zaaf]

Great news.

This is certainly early days, but sounds like progression.

What are your thoughts on a selection criteria?

Global reach. Should ASO be sacrificing better teams for those that will encourage a broader audience?

How late should the decisions be made?

Do we like the idea of fewer set-in-stone places and an increase in numbers of places for teams in on merit?

Vaughters was obviously hinting that there needs to be input from the teams themselves, possibly hinting at a voting process?

Aaaaaand can of worms...

If they want to be the biggest race, they have to invite the best teams. I can't imagine they will ever sign anything again that gives teams a spot for several years.
Input from teams? No way, why on earth would the ASO allow that? Why would anybody want that? Why would you want Patrick Lefevere or Gianni Savio to have a vote on the team selection?

ASO will invite the best teams and from the rest the teams that will make them the most money, now or in the future.

9 man teams will stay, they are not going to change that.

 

[pmcg76]

I'd maybe go for something along the lines of the top 10 or 15 teams from the world rankings at the end of last year get offered a place (and can refuse it if they are maniacs) and the rest of the 22 gets made up with wildcards, perhaps with one or two of the wild-cards being chosen by a rider's vote or a manager's vote or something?

Italian team Del Tongo refused an invite to the 91 Tour, they had just won the Giro with Franco Chioccioli and also had Cipollini, Ballerini and Jaskula on their roster. They didnt have any interest in racing outside of Italy even though they were a top team.

US team Subaru/Montgomery also refused an entry in 93 because it was only as a joint team with Kelme I think. Telekom accepted a joint entry with ZG Mobili in 95.

The old system(90s) was that teams ranked in the Top 16 of the then UCI ranking at the end of April I think were automatically invited to the Tour. Then it was a battle (usually until after the Daupine Libere) between the other teams for a wildcard place. If a team had gone very well in the spring but were still outside the Top 16, they were also almost guranteed a place. Basically the teams currenlty in the Top 16 of the CQ ranking, not the current UCI ranking system would be invited automatically so not BMC.

The wildcards have always been about politics as well as racing results although the politics usually involved French teams. ASO left Aqua A Sapone out of the Tour when Cipollini was the reigning World Champion so there is a precedent for leaving out the World Champion. The mess that is the ProTour has screwed things up royally.

 

[Polish]

A ranking system seems all well and good.

But how do you do the rankings?

Tour of California included?
Tour of Poland included?

 

[dolophonic]

Seems like J.V. has a serious conflict of interest.
He wants to build a major league of teams, the fact that he owns one of them..
He also said that the teams would be pretty much the same if his new system was in place.
Cycling is not baseball.. there really are no Yankee's etc. it has a more fluid make up. Its a team sport but the individual has value too.
Interesting.

 

[Boeing]

Good news they are talking about it but that is all that was said beyond morality and integrity accountability and other ism's..blah blah

always the ideologist Vaughters

my read into the article is that he wants to address the team ownership and sponsorship to perhaps add continuity to the process.

Could he possibly be leaning toward Franchising teams at the pro level with private ownership like in the NFL , NBA and MLB?

Is that his big idea?

 

[cyclopeon]

I noted in his interview that he wanted to create a more business-like climate in the sport. Oh, Oh, Oh -- one of the things I like about this sport at the top levels is that it is not as business-driven as others like football or football (world or US, that is). The last thing I want to see is cycling as a sport that exists for the bemusement/ enrichment of a few team-controlling interests (obviously I realize that there is money made etc but it is a matter of balance). There's a lot to be said in favour of a race organizer inviting the teams they want, from the perspective of the fan.

Boeing, I got that same impression too.

 

[El Oso]

always the ideologist Vaughters

+1
The idea is great, but, just like the Pro Tour, it will be near impossible to execute.

I think the volatility of cycling teams makes thing rather complicated. Going off the top of my head, the oldest teams in the peloton would be Caisse (Reynolds --> Banesto --> Illes Balears--> Caisse) and Lotto, both of which date all the way back to the 80s.

Not to mention that teams merge a la Saeco/Lampre and Mapei/Quick Step.

I was thinking about this with the issue of Sky and Shack getting Pro Tour licenses. While a promotion/relegation system like in football would make sense, how could it be enforced?

I don't know anything about car racing, but is there a system in Nascar or Formula 1 that would work. That's the closest I could think of as far as team organization structure to cycling.

And yes, Vaughters should probable avoid this because of the potential conflict of interest and inevitable allegations of double standards if Garmin makes it.

 

[luckyboy]

The ASO should be allowed to pick who they want to the race that they own.

Having a team managers/riders vote is a terrible idea and encourages corruption.

 

[jaylew]

The ASO should be allowed to pick who they want to the race that they own.

Having a team managers/riders vote is a terrible idea and encourages corruption.

Agree with the latter but strongly disagree with the former. A few teams, sure, but all of them? No way.

 

[luckyboy]

From the agreement they have we can see that they pick the top teams anyway. It also shows that are obliged to pick some teams that are not going to bring much to the table.

If they had the choice to pick as they pleased, I can't see them doing something really controversial like leaving out some big team/s - they have commercial obligations too.

 

[Boeing]

+1
The idea is great, but, just like the Pro Tour, it will be near impossible to execute.

I think the volatility of cycling teams makes thing rather complicated. Going off the top of my head, the oldest teams in the peloton would be Caisse (Reynolds --> Banesto --> Illes Balears--> Caisse) and Lotto, both of which date all the way back to the 80s.

Not to mention that teams merge a la Saeco/Lampre and Mapei/Quick Step.

I was thinking about this with the issue of Sky and Shack getting Pro Tour licenses. While a promotion/relegation system like in football would make sense, how could it be enforced?

I don't know anything about car racing, but is there a system in Nascar or Formula 1 that would work. That's the closest I could think of as far as team organization structure to cycling.

And yes, Vaughters should probable avoid this because of the potential conflict of interest and inevitable allegations of double standards if Garmin makes it.

Don't get me wrong I am down with JV. I have been down with JV since he complained that the Tour drug policy was too strict after a bee sting turned his face into a watermelon as a rider then as an owner he argues that is is not strict enough....both claims backed with his vague moral code...

I should have said always the White Knight JV is....


There has to be more to this than the Tour De France itself if JV thinks he is going to be the American white knight in a euro-centered cycling bureaucracy. . Where I am confused with JV's non specific take here is he seems to promote a big picture ideological approach to help world wide professional cycling yet has the singular focus of the Tour selection itself at the core. as an owner

I think he wants to move to a private entity based model where teams are licensed as a franchise of whichever organization everyone agrees upon to front. Free agency? Draft?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I went with a simple three-tiered system as a plan.

Your top 15 teams will have 'premier' status, and can be invited to any race they ask to - and as long as they request it (they can opt out), guaranteed at the top events. Teams ranked 16-35 have 'secondary' status, and can be wildcarded to any top events. They have access to all top events but do not have guaranteed entry. Teams ranked 36 and below have 'tertiary' status, akin to present Continental status.

With this, teams are not forced to race races they don't necessarily want to (such as the Spanish teams being asked to race in Poland, or several teams being forced to travel across the planet for races like California and the new Canadian one-day races that clash with the Vuelta) but will need to preserve their status by being competitive in races and racking up wins, otherwise they'll drop lower down the pecking order.

I would also introduce points penalties for doping offences, and also I would start giving points out for the secondary jerseys, the points, KOM, intermediate sprints and so on, because it's ludicrous that Fuji got points for Juanjó Cobo coming 10th in the Vuelta yet Cofidis got none for David Moncoutié winning the KOM. Better, mention Paolo Tiralongo, who came 7th yet was hardly mentioned or on screen in the whole race, while Moncoutié was one of the key figures. I would seek to address this imbalance by placing higher emphasis on wins and jerseys (oh yea, holding a jersey should result in minor points, because it's silly that somebody could, in theory, do what Isidro Nozal did in the 2003 Vuelta and then not score anything despite having held that jersey for 17 days) in comparison to the placing in the top 10 on stages, so as to encourage more attacking riding rather than riding to place in the minor placings in a bunch sprint.

 

[David Suro]

The current system seems to work pretty well.

I cannot remember a year when a true contender was denied entry to the Tour unless him or his team was being penalized for doping.

A few years back there was a situation where the World Champion's team was denied (I think it was Cippollini) and he felt he should be allowed the right to contend. It might be a good idea to offer an automatic bid to the World Champion's team for the sake of posterity.

Others that should get a guarantee are the Sprint, Mountain, GC Champion, and Young rider winners from the previous Tour.

 

[tgsgirl]

The current system seems to work pretty well.

Yep, works perfectly. You don't need to be able to ride a bike very well, you just need a DS who's Prudhomme's poker buddy.

 

[phillop]

I would make a ranking system, top 12 teams get automatically selected, and the further 10 at the ASOs discretion. The top 12 teams and the 1st 6 wild cards get anounced in January, and then each of the 4 remaining wild cards anounced after the paris - nice,classics, giro, and the final one after the tour de suisse.
I would make every team apply to enter the race, this would involve a list of 12 riders they intend to send (to show who they intend to race, to assist with wild cards), and for the ranking, i would make each team send in a record of the prize money they won the season before, (i cant think of a way to deem the importance of each race more than this, and think its a much better way to gage it, rather than giving each race some kind of ranking, and takes into account points and mountains jerseys etc).
This system would be very basic, and the 10 wild cards would give them the chance to invite enough teams with good riders that maybe didnt get the results last season, new teams, or teams that may not compete well in other events but have a good team for, and strong focus on the tour, and teams that have aquired strong riders in the off season.

i think that covers most bases on making sure they get the best teams invited, the aso still have the say the rightfully should get as to who races, and teams have a chance to force their way into the race with good results at the start of the season.