You seem to make snap judgements. Has it not occurred to you that someone can put up posts that simply state a few ideas for discussion. They can even post stuff they don't necessarily agree with. The ideas are straw men. BTW I love the notion of competition. I love the notion of seeing the best men win. I hate the idea of seeing the team with the most money win. That team might contain the best man. It might not. It might contain the best men but only because it bought them.Tech72 said:Are you thinking straight?
Yes indeed I am. Do you always take everything at face value. Do you always feel the need to imply criticism of posters when you don't agree with their posts. Far from being a government employee I come from the hairier chested end of the capitalist world so you couldn't be more off base. I put this post up to stimulate discussion. I made no claims that the statements were correct or even the right direction to go. I think some have merit but some are probably too way out. The basic premise is correct however. If you have a range of team budgets from $3 million to $18 million in a race how can there possibly be fair or equal competition?
'm not against devleomentof equipment/training but htere must be some way to even the playing field. I made some suggestions as to how this might be done. Perhaps you have some better ideas.
I hadn't even got as far as suggesting that such restrictions could be policed. How would you begin to see if for example riders hadn't got additional free help worth millions from their governments at top secret facilities.
Go back to the good old days when the riders had no radios.
A: It's the only one of your points that makes any sense.
The teams were based around countries.
A: This is your idea to equalize and level the field? Are you on medication? It will be a complete tilting of the scale. Do you really think the teams will be on a more equal level when we have teams like Italy, Spain, France (ok, maybe not the French), Belgium, Netherlands, etc. racing against the likes of Poland, Norway, Uzbeckastan, Portugal, etc, etc??
Yeah actually this might if coupled with stringent budget restrictions. Thouhg it might be of course that the country thing is a red herring. It might of course give lots of opportunity to embarrass the French(just joking)
Everyone should ride a Tour bike with the same technology.
A: Same with clothing, shoes, helmets, gloves, etc. I suppose? What a stupid idea. Do you really think the TdF is being won simply by the guy with the best bike?? Bikes don't win Tours, the riders do....Part of the excitement of the Tour is all the new equipment we get to see. It's also an important venue for testing and marketing for the equipment manufacturers. You're basically suggesting that making everyone ride the same logoless, black carbon frames with all black accessories and the same Dura-Ace groupset will improve the excitement factor? Besides, are the teams really using that much "different" technology? They're all human powered bicycles, their differences are a non-factor in the race.
Some aspects of the bikes could be a major facto; aerodynamics for example. Smeone with a $3 million dollar budget for aerodynamics testing (more than a budget for a wildcard team) can buy an advantage.
The teams should be allowed a certain mix of rider (sprinters, puncheurs et al).
A: Aren't they allowed that right now? Teams are assembled with certain objectives. As such, they include a mix of riders with certain strengths to accomplish those objectives, be it the GC, the green jersey, polka dot, stages or to just be seen in breakaways.
Yes of course but I'm talking about going further. You can have x sprinters. x climbers. X domestiques.y super domstiques. z classics specialists.
Further why not make the teams smaller?
Salaries should be standardised and fixed depending on age experience palmares and suchlike (they could still be big depending on ones record) and teams should be allowed to spend only so much).
A: Aren't salaries right now based on those very things you mentioned? The rider who wins alot or wins big races or has a valuable role in the team gets to be retained by the team at high salaries?
Yes but top out the salaries at a value of x which even the lowest level team can pay. Quite how you might police this (stopping ex gratia payments for example) would be a huge subject in its own right.
I know it would be easier said than done but at least it would mean that the playing field might be levelled a weeny bit.
A: Artificially equalizing the teams goes against the very nature of sports. Everyone on a team does their best to achieve a certain goal, which in sports means to win. You also suggested to not invite a team (ie. Astana) because they are perceived as "too strong"? Your logic suggests that all superior riders and teams should be penalized in some way in order for the weaker riders and teams to have equal footing. Why even race then?
That is the same argument that CEO's use for their ridiculous pay packages. No interviewwer has ever had the bottle to ask them if they would resign if all companies refused to pay out more than say $100K per year to do the same job. Of course people would race. I see no shortage of people racing often at a pretty impressive level for no money at all.
On that note, at the next World Championships ITT, I propose that the UCI do not invite Cancellara because he is too damn good at the event and crushes the competition....
Actually thats not a bad idea. Someone else might win a ITT for a change.
It goes against the nature of sport does it. Try motor sport? What about sport and game rules? Why limit the use of drugs? Come on are you a government employee? Why is juice out of bounds? Come on lets get Glaxo Smithkline Beecham or some other large pharmaceutical company onto the case for Trek and Garmin and Hi Road and the other big budget teams.
That stament is off base. We choose rules which are politically acceptable to the quangoes which produce them.
You must either be a government employee, a union worker or a Commie who hates the notion of achievements through competition.
I want to see the best men win because of the skills of their coaches. Becuase of their athletic prowess. Because of their superior tactics. Not because they were able to
1) Purchase the top riders on the face of the planet.
2) Buy the best kit.
3) Buy the best Managers.
4) Do more scouting and pre race testing over the courses than anyone else because they could afford to.
4) Spend more time and money on wind tunnel testing than eanyone else.
5) Spend more money than anyone else on drugs programs and further spend more time and money hiding it from the world. I ought to say that I have no idea whether this has happened but I wouldn't be surprised.
All I'm trying to do is cause discussion. I didn't say I had all the answers. I didn't expect to be castigated for putting some points up.
