Pro Tour discussion

Van Hoorebeeck Bart

http://www.cycling4all.com
has a preliminary look at the calendar and point scales

- Based on a calculations with 2003 results they conclude that
year-round races are disfavoured, as opposed to the intentions. I don' t
think this is true, Zabel and Petacchi fall away from the top of the
ranking because stage results become marginal in the new calculation.
The new calculation is not sprinter-friendly. This really is a drastic
change.

-But we see those who scored in (a few) main events (GTs/HC+ World Cup)
come to the foreground (Vino, Hamilton, Ullrich), as opposed to those
who score in whatever they race . This in istelf is rather good. But
the change is really big, with the rudimentary points system limited to
just these PT events.

- Apparently teams will gain points on the team ranking in each event.
This is remarkable, and reflects who was the teams' negotiator (Manolo
Saiz). Well his colleagues who appointed him shouldn't be surprised or
complain now.
Also the lesser importance of single day racing in general is probably
influenced by his strong position.

- The regional aspect probably triggers most discussion. If they want
promote cycling elsewhere, why keep 2 similar long races in Switzerland,
instead of promiting one in Americas or Asia , as is the case in Poland
?
Here in Belgium the 1.1 races are seen as evident victims of the new
system (especially as we lack important stage races). The Flemish style
racer has 3 events left in the new system. It makes more sense to build
a team with men for the stage races and 'climbing' classics, and ride
through the few other races (... as Saiz has always done)

- I dont wanna blame Saiz for everything, as it are the UCI who are the
motor in this.

Robert Chung

Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:
> http://www.cycling4all.com
> has a preliminary look at the calendar and point scales

This is not a well thought out plan.

Van Hoorebeeck Bart

Robert Chung schreef:

> Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:
> > http://www.cycling4all.com
> > has a preliminary look at the calendar and point scales
>
> This is not a well thought out plan.

Dear Robert

Your out-of-office automatic reply funcion is still active.

Regards,
BVH

Mike Owens

"Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <bart.vanhoorebeeck@wvc.vlaanderen.be> wrote in
message news:408E54DB.D1D9462@wvc.vlaanderen.be...
>
> http://www.cycling4all.com
> has a preliminary look at the calendar and point scales
>
> - Based on a calculations with 2003 results they conclude that
> year-round races are disfavoured, as opposed to the intentions. I don' t
> think this is true, Zabel and Petacchi fall away from the top of the
> ranking because stage results become marginal in the new calculation.
> The new calculation is not sprinter-friendly. This really is a drastic
> change.
>
> -But we see those who scored in (a few) main events (GTs/HC+ World Cup)
> come to the foreground (Vino, Hamilton, Ullrich), as opposed to those
> who score in whatever they race . This in istelf is rather good. But
> the change is really big, with the rudimentary points system limited to
> just these PT events.
>
> - Apparently teams will gain points on the team ranking in each event.
> This is remarkable, and reflects who was the teams' negotiator (Manolo
> Saiz). Well his colleagues who appointed him shouldn't be surprised or
> complain now.
> Also the lesser importance of single day racing in general is probably
> influenced by his strong position.
>
> - The regional aspect probably triggers most discussion. If they want
> promote cycling elsewhere, why keep 2 similar long races in Switzerland,
> instead of promiting one in Americas or Asia , as is the case in Poland
> ?
> Here in Belgium the 1.1 races are seen as evident victims of the new
> system (especially as we lack important stage races). The Flemish style
> racer has 3 events left in the new system. It makes more sense to build
> a team with men for the stage races and 'climbing' classics, and ride
> through the few other races (... as Saiz has always done)
>
> - I dont wanna blame Saiz for everything, as it are the UCI who are the
> motor in this.
>
The most telling aspect is that for a reorganization to reward the "season
long" riders, there are 11 single day races, not counting the world
championships, out of ~150-200 racing days. Ridiculously too much emphasis
on stage racing. I like it the way it is now.
-MIke

Davide Tosi

Van Hoorebeeck Bart <bart.vanhoorebeeck@wvc.vlaanderen.be> wrote:

>http://www.cycling4all.com
>has a preliminary look at the calendar and point scales
>
>- Based on a calculations with 2003 results they conclude that
>year-round races are disfavoured, as opposed to the intentions. I don' t
>think this is true, Zabel and Petacchi fall away from the top of the
>ranking because stage results become marginal in the new calculation.
>The new calculation is not sprinter-friendly. This really is a drastic
>change.
>
>-But we see those who scored in (a few) main events (GTs/HC+ World Cup)
>come to the foreground (Vino, Hamilton, Ullrich), as opposed to those
>who score in whatever they race . This in istelf is rather good. But
>the change is really big, with the rudimentary points system limited to
>just these PT events.
>
>- Apparently teams will gain points on the team ranking in each event.
>This is remarkable, and reflects who was the teams' negotiator (Manolo
>Saiz). Well his colleagues who appointed him shouldn't be surprised or
>complain now.
>Also the lesser importance of single day racing in general is probably
>influenced by his strong position.
>
>- The regional aspect probably triggers most discussion. If they want
>promote cycling elsewhere, why keep 2 similar long races in Switzerland,
>instead of promiting one in Americas or Asia , as is the case in Poland
>?
>Here in Belgium the 1.1 races are seen as evident victims of the new
>system (especially as we lack important stage races). The Flemish style
>racer has 3 events left in the new system. It makes more sense to build
>a team with men for the stage races and 'climbing' classics, and ride
>through the few other races (... as Saiz has always done)
>
>- I dont wanna blame Saiz for everything, as it are the UCI who are the
>motor in this.

When first Hein V. started talking about this "pro tour" possibility last
year, I understood it was a way to get rid of the miserable wild card
invitation system, that managed to have poor teams like jean delatour (now
rags semences) invited at the TdF instead of the Road Race World Champion's
team.
Also, it seemed a good way to revive historically important events like the
Giro, that in the last few years had been skipped by too many teams.

But what I see now does not correspond at all to what seemed Hein's early
intention.

To me, it seems there are 3 main flaws in the whole Pro-Tour concept:
1) It still keeps too much space open for local wild cards. 18 teams
systematically registered to all the main events are too few. This leaves
space for other 4 non performing frog teams at the TdF. Since french
cyclists and teams are becoming less and less competetive, what's the point
about having almost 30 useless riders at the most famous race in the world?
They reserved only 4 places for Italian pro teams, but the sponsor money
here is such that there could be space for at least 5, maybe 6 top teams.
Also just 2 for Belgium is really too few. Are they going to leave
Chocolade Jacque, Landbouwkrediet, Caldirola and Domina out of this thing?

2) As noted by cycling4all, you and others, the Pro Tour is too much based
on stage racing. This goes against the cycling tradition, that is made
essentially of 1 day races. Only the 10 present WC races, plus Worlds, G-W
and FW are definitely too few. You talk about classic Flemish 1.1 events
like Het Wolk, E3 and Grote Sheldeprijs being dropped, which surely is a
sad thing, but even worst is the fact that the other 2 present 1.HC races
had been dropped as well. I can't talk much about the GP Ouest France, a
race I have watched just once, but the Giro del Lazio is really a great
traditional race, which had been existing for about 80 years, with great
winners in the past and still more recently and a really wonderful
parcours, which includes a few steep climbs, like the cobbled Campi
d'Annibale ("Hannibal's Fields) which really reminds the Muur or the Oude
Kwaremont and, just a few kms from the race finish, the worst cobbled road
out of Northern France, the Old Appia Road.
There should have been at least other 10 one day races (what about
Henninger Turm? and the Classique des Alpes? K-B-K? Brabantse Pijl?) in a
well balanced "Pro Tour".

3) There was really no need to change the official rankings. The present
UCI classment and the World Cup had been an important term of comparison
for all the cycling fans. It would have been much better to just create a
large number of top teams obliged to run all the races while keeping the
old ranking formulas.

All in all this seems to me a "coup" by the part of the spanish teams and
the others who like the (supposedly) modern way of racing, against the
Italian and Belgian races and teams. I think that the 2 most important and
traditional cycling federations should boycott this whole crap.
It's really a nonsense that the one ds who is most hated in the peloton
(scumbag saiz) is the one who negotiated the whole thing.
They presented the Pro-Tour in a way that looked like its goal was to
preserve racing in those countries where it was disregarded by new cycling
countries, but in fact it does just the opposite, it draws away from there.
But, given that Belgium and Italy is where the most money around cycling
and the main sponsors are, I think that there is still space for major
changes in the Pro Tour, in case the right people complain with the
appropriate strenght.