this post is about the ill advised proposed "trophy of the grand
tours" I mean ,if you ignore the fact that the whole spat between the
major tours and UCI is incredibly counter productive, the proposed
contest is ridiculous. Riders are lucky to do one tour, let alone 3
in one year, so how many riders would compete for this trophy? none.
it is even pointless if it is a team contest..who would really care
which team won ? Silliness to the extreme, but at least they went in
the right direction and offered prize money.
Road Cycling · Public discussion
OT: Bike Racing: trophy of grand tours
This thread is locked and is currently read-only.
Thread navigation
Jump through the discussion
Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.
Thread details
What we know about this thread
- Original section
- Road Cycling
- Published
- 8 January 2006
- Last activity
- 10 January 2006
- Original author
- gf
- Posts
- 9
- Discussion status
- Public discussion
- Total views
- 524
- Views / 30 days
- 0
The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.
-
-
"gf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
this post is about the ill advised proposed "trophy of the grand
tours" it is even pointless if it is a team contest..who would really
careQuoted message said:
which team won ?
Well, it's an added benefit for the sponsors. Sponsorship is what the
ProTour is all about. The Grand Tour organizers don't want to give up
control to the UCI, so they are trying their own ideas to promote
sponsorship. -
"Philip W. Moore, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
"gf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
this post is about the ill advised proposed "trophy of the grand
tours" it is even pointless if it is a team contest..who would really
careQuoted message said:
which team won ?
Well, it's an added benefit for the sponsors. Sponsorship is what the
ProTour is all about. The Grand Tour organizers don't want to give up
control to the UCI, so they are trying their own ideas to promote
sponsorship.What's more, if they stand together they'll whip the UCI outright. Let's
assume that the Pro Tour teams would be stupid enough to not go to any of
the grand tours because of the UCI. Were that the case the next level teams
would fall all over themselves to get Tour invitations. And whoever won the
Tour would reap the same or even better advertising for his sponsors.No, the UCI and the Riders Union simply are stupid if they think that they
can control the Grand Tour group without their permission. -
"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Well, it's an added benefit for the sponsors. Sponsorship is what the
ProTour is all about. The Grand Tour organizers don't want to give up
control to the UCI, so they are trying their own ideas to promote
sponsorship.What's more, if they stand together they'll whip the UCI outright. Let's
assume that the Pro Tour teams would be stupid enough to not go to any of
the grand tours because of the UCI. Were that the case the next level
teams would fall all over themselves to get Tour invitations. And whoever
won the Tour would reap the same or even better advertising for his
sponsors.No, the UCI and the Riders Union simply are stupid if they think that they
can control the Grand Tour group without their permission.If the GT organizers are about control, then why is the ASO (organizer of
Paris-Nice, Paris-Roubaix, Fleche Wallonne, Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and
Paris-Tours, as well as the TdF) allowing their other races to be part of
the Pro Tour? -
In article <bOiwf.112187$oG.40587@dukeread02>,
Carl Sundquist said:
"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Well, it's an added benefit for the sponsors. Sponsorship is what the
ProTour is all about. The Grand Tour organizers don't want to give up
control to the UCI, so they are trying their own ideas to promote
sponsorship.What's more, if they stand together they'll whip the UCI outright. Let's
assume that the Pro Tour teams would be stupid enough to not go to any of
the grand tours because of the UCI. Were that the case the next level
teams would fall all over themselves to get Tour invitations. And whoever
won the Tour would reap the same or even better advertising for his
sponsors.No, the UCI and the Riders Union simply are stupid if they think that they
can control the Grand Tour group without their permission.If the GT organizers are about control, then why is the ASO (organizer of
Paris-Nice, Paris-Roubaix, Fleche Wallonne, Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and
Paris-Tours, as well as the TdF) allowing their other races to be part of
the Pro Tour?I was under the impression that the organizers of the GTs are withdrawing the
other races they put on:--------------
The UCIs ProTour project looks to be under big pressure following the news
that the organisers of the Tour de France, Giro dItalia and Vuelta a Espaa have
pulled out of the series with immediate effect. Speaking at a press conference
today, the organisers announced that they are also withdrawing the eight other
races organised by them, namely Paris Nice, Tirreno-Adriatico, Milan-San Remo,
Paris-Roubaix, Flèche Wallonne, Liège-Bastogne-Liège, Paris-Tours and the Tour
of Lombardy.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/dec05/dec09news3
--
tanx,
HowardThe poodle bites, the poodle chews it.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
-
"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:bOiwf.112187$oG.40587@dukeread02...Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
If the GT organizers are about control, then why is the ASO (organizer of
Paris-Nice, Paris-Roubaix, Fleche Wallonne, Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and
Paris-Tours, as well as the TdF) allowing their other races to be part of
the Pro Tour?Because NONE of these other races are on the commercial scale of the Tour de
France. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ -
"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:bOiwf.112187$oG.40587@dukeread02...Quoted message said:
"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in messageQuoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Well, it's an added benefit for the sponsors. Sponsorship is what the
ProTour is all about. The Grand Tour organizers don't want to give up
control to the UCI, so they are trying their own ideas to promote
sponsorship.What's more, if they stand together they'll whip the UCI outright. Let's
assume that the Pro Tour teams would be stupid enough to not go to any of
the grand tours because of the UCI. Were that the case the next level
teams would fall all over themselves to get Tour invitations. And whoever
won the Tour would reap the same or even better advertising for his
sponsors.No, the UCI and the Riders Union simply are stupid if they think that
they can control the Grand Tour group without their permission.If the GT organizers are about control, then why is the ASO (organizer of
Paris-Nice, Paris-Roubaix, Fleche Wallonne, Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and
Paris-Tours, as well as the TdF) allowing their other races to be part of
the Pro Tour?Because the problem is that the UCI is attempting to grow the bicycle racing
business (yes, it sure ain't a sport anymore) into a much bigger money
making proposition. Doing this would reduce the prestige of the grand tours.
While the UCI doesn't see anything particularly bad about this the grand
tour organizers obviously do.Everyone is trying for that capitalism and everyone wants to make money.
Fair enough - but sports are being subverted into little more than war
without guns. -
"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
If the GT organizers are about control, then why is the ASO (organizer of
Paris-Nice, Paris-Roubaix, Fleche Wallonne, Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and
Paris-Tours, as well as the TdF) allowing their other races to be part of
the Pro Tour?I was under the impression that the organizers of the GTs are
withdrawing the
other races they put on:--------------
The UCIs ProTour project looks to be under big pressure following the
news
that the organisers of the Tour de France, Giro dItalia and Vuelta a Espaa
have
pulled out of the series with immediate effect. Speaking at a press
conference
today, the organisers announced that they are also withdrawing the eight
other
races organised by them, namely Paris Nice, Tirreno-Adriatico, Milan-San
Remo,
Paris-Roubaix, Flèche Wallonne, Liège-Bastogne-Liège, Paris-Tours and the
Tour
of Lombardy.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/dec05/dec09news3
Thanks. I missed that.
Those events make up a lot of calendar days of racing:
Paris-Nice 8 days
Paris Roubaix 1 day
Fleche-Wallonne 1 day
L-B-L 1 day
Paris Tours 1 day
Tour de France 21 days
Giro di Italia 21 days
Vuelta a Espana 21 days
Tirreno-Adriatico 7 days
Milan-San Remo 1 day
Tour of Lombardy 1 dayPlus the non Pro-Tour races organized by the ASO:
Criterium International 2 days
Tour de Picardie 3 days
Tour of Qatar 5 daysThat's almost 100 days of racing right there, plus whatever other races not
listed here that the Giro and Vuelta organizers put on. Plus dozens of other
non PT races.How many days of racing would be left on the Pro Tour schedule?
-
"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ZrVwf.112994$oG.46984@dukeread02...Quoted message said:
How many days of racing would be left on the Pro Tour schedule?Ok, I figured it out myself: 70, including fan faves: Tour of Poland, ENECO
Tour, and the Eindhoven Time Trial. Those races account for 17 of the 70
calendar days remaining on the PT schedule.
Active in the last 60 minutes
Active in this thread
0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total
No signed-in users are active right now.
No known search crawlers active right now.