OT: Bike Racing: trophy of grand tours



G

gf

Guest
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.
 
P

Philip W. Moore, Jr.

Guest
"gf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> 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

care
> 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.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"Philip W. Moore, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "gf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> 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

> care
>> 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.
 
C

Carl Sundquist

Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> 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?
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> 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,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
P

Philip W. Moore, Jr.

Guest
"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>> 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. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> 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.
 
C

Carl Sundquist

Guest
"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> 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 day

Plus the non Pro-Tour races organized by the ASO:

Criterium International 2 days
Tour de Picardie 3 days
Tour of Qatar 5 days

That'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?
 
C

Carl Sundquist

Guest
"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> 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.