BC Points Allocation
Pross
Posts: 40,551
Can anyone explain the rationale behind the BC points allocation? It seems strange to me that you get as many points, and often more, for winning a 1 hour maximum crit as you do for winning a stage in a race like the Ras. Also, the points gained in national races don't count towards the regional club rankings even if the event is held within that region (e.g. points won in the Welsh Champs don't count to the club rankings). Would it help get more races on the road if the points allocated to them were higher then the burgeoning number of tedious airfield 'crits' which now dominate the racing scene? In my region the top ranked club this season hasn't had a single winner in a race on the road which I find quite disheartening!
0
Comments
-
I doubt it.Pross wrote:Would it help get more races on the road if the points allocated to them were higher then the burgeoning number of tedious airfield 'crits' which now dominate the racing scene?
The reason there are more crits promoted is that they are far easier and cheaper to put on, you need a handful of marshalls at the most and no race cars.
Compare that to a road race where you'll probably need a minimum of 10 marshals, 2 lead cars, 2 cars for comms etc etc. It requires a fair bit of organisation. Plus you need to try and keep the police and members of the public happy.
Figures for Central Region for 2010 events were for 38 road races vs 211 circuit races (incl Hillingdon). So even though there were far less in number, there is still a road race most weekends from March-September within a 90 minute drive for me.0 -
There are a myriad of possibilities of how it could be made better. But as one former GB international said to me last night – ‘points are pointless and I want to race, not chase points’ The current points systems evils are based in the mid 80’s pro scene and ranking points which gave teams entry to major races. Since none of us are racing for pro tour teams, the idea of points to me seems to be bordering on useless.
We’ve just completed our 16 week crit series which I’ve been involved in organizing and have officiated at most weeks, so I’ve got a different perspective on things, that I’d like to share with a view to getting some feedback. I like some used to race 3 times a week and got to the point where points obsession ground me down. So this year I put my efforts into giving a little back into the sport
Initially the series was going to offer points on a regional C basis – as in zero points other than for the top X number in the series standings. The reason being that we wanted to get back to the ethos of grass roots training races. However with 3 other midweek crit series’ within a 60 mile drive we made the decision to up the points to regional C+ ( 10 points for a win ) for both the 3 /4 and E /1 /2, in a bid to attract the numbers we needed to cover the costs like commissaries and medical cover at the circuit. There was a financial obligation that the series should cover itself financially and therefore we had to act in that interest.
The series went well and certainly attracted the numbers, and developed a number of riders no end but has IMHO had the unfortunate ability of creating some 2nd Cats who are nowhere near the standard of a required of a true 2nd Cat roadman. I say this on the basis that these riders have not attacked with enough ferocity or regularity show that they are up to the demands that E/1/2 Road racing (not crits) brings. These riders have assimilated ( purely in crits with no road points of merit ) points by attrition and surviving in the bunch until the gallop. Make no mistake they have improved no end from wet behind the ears 4th cats , but have they really made it to a 2nd cat standard? My guess is that they will get found out next year
Like the original poster I’m concerned primarily with making racing better harder and more fulfilling for all, but at the same time want to make it accessible to as many as possible. The current point system is a free market one and to some it’s divisive. The only incentive is to gain points to prove your worth, and we’ve created a means of assumed status by flooding the market with points from crits.
A good example of this occurred a few weeks ago a .A youth rider (with dispensation) rode off the front and nearly lapped the entire field in our 3rd and 4ths race. What does this say ? One rider was hungry and brave and the other riders were acceptant that they can sit in and gain points. Some riders the questioned the officials at the end asking where they came so that they knew where their points were up to ! I find this a bit odd that someone might seek reward for sitting in and doing nothing of note all race. As for the victor – he’s got it right and will go a long way in the sport. Points were originally intended to make the sport more competitive but have honestly made things the opposite.
One way forward may be to award the points on the basis of the length and difficulty of the course, that way those who truly excel at tough events get the lions share of the points, which would then carry true weight and meaning I don’t think it would help upping the points on the road, it’s about reducing them at the bottom level, and then increasing the number of the events on the road.
The latter is a huge issue primarily because whilst there is a healthy racing population, the number of folk prepared to donate their time and effort to promoting, or assisting with promoting an event. It’s difficult enough to get folk to contribute their time to marshalling let alone dealing with the paperwork / emails/ phone calls that go with being part of the backroom machine. I But it’s been fun You might be surprised at how much fun you can have on the sidelines!
I’ve read Bronzies comments and whilst I agree to an extent about resources, I see running crits only as a stepping stone to setting up a series of Road events
For those of you who want to race more often on challenging courses, get out there and get them organized – don’t leave it to the goodwill of others ! Get in touch with BC specifically the Regional events officers or , LVRC or TLI and find out how to go about promoting a race event.
Some questions from this for all :
1) Would you enter a circuit race series that carried no ranking points ?
2) Would you be willing to accept that there is no prize money for weekly circuit races?
3) Would you be happy that any monies from a circuit race series is used to fund a new series of road races, in which you are obliged to assist in the organization /course selection / officiating and marshalling of at least one of the races?
4) How would you feel about team rankings being the only ones that matter – ie you race for the good of your team which will in may create a different type of positive aggressive racing at grass roots level ?0 -
Excellent response mate and in response to those questions:-
1. Yes, the only reason I will ride them is to step up my fitness in order to ride road races again so I'm not bothered about points - I find those races soul destroying (I've nothing against traditional town centre crits though which produce excellent racing although I've never been any good at them).
2. Prize money has never been an issue for me as I've never been near any
3. Sounds like a very good idea.
4. Sounds good in principle but I do think there is still a need for categorising riders to stop newcomers being put off by regular hammerings from what would have been 1st cats.
The club I belong to has organised 5 races on the road this season and assisted another club (which is growing but has limited experience in organising road races) in promoting theirs. I have organised races myself before I gaave up cycling and know how much is involved even though that predated all the current Risk Assessment stuff. I have a couple of ideas for new, challenging road race routes which I might talk to the club about taking forward but I will have to complete a whole set of new risk assessment forms for them as the routes haven't been used before as far as I know.
Personally, I would have all the closed circuit races other than National Champs restricted to 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 points as a maximum and possibly only points for the top 3 in some. On the other hand I would give stage placings in a stage race the same points that a single day race of the same ranking would have got whilst increasing the points awarded for a GC to one level above that ranking.
In Wales there were only 19 road races this season. 3 of those were juniors only (including a stage race and the nationals plus a round of the junior series) and one was the vets and women's Welsh champs. There were also 2 senior stage races so only 13 one day road races! There were 34 closed circuit races including some which are held on the outdoor velodrome!!0 -
I suppose the rationale is that it's just as hard to beat 80 riders in a circuit race as it is to beat 80 riders on a tough road circuit - a different challenge but there is still only going to be one winner.
Personally I'd rather race on the road though - partly just because it suits me a lot more - and points are not a major consideration - especially as I do more LVRC which don't have points anyway. I do think you need something to split people by ability though - I've no interest in entering races and taking a kicking from elites and first cats every time - now and again fair enough but it's nice to have the chance to be at the sharp end of a race now and again.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:I suppose the rationale is that it's just as hard to beat 80 riders in a circuit race as it is to beat 80 riders on a tough road circuit - a different challenge but there is still only going to be one winner.
.
Agreed - but in some midweek races depending on the weather you may have less than 20 competitors0 -
True - though in others round here you can have 100 - tends to be the higher cat events that struggle to fill up in this area.
As for encouraging more road events - I've long thought that for regional events at least the field should be selected with an eye to whether an entrant is in a club that promotes on the road. The entry form should reflect with a box to tick to say whether their club is on a list that has promoted an event in the last 1-2 (or however many) years rather than having space for most recent results. If you did this clubs would have to put on road events (you could do it jointly with another club if you really don't have enough members) or risk losing active racing members who would find it difficult to get into popular races. I accept that higher up with Elites and suchlike then you may want to be choosing the field on ability.
I'd also like the regional event coordinators to think about publishing lists of active road circuits in the region with any limitations such as size of field, frequency of use etc listed so organisers can see what the options are. They might also try and look into whether there are any potential new road circuits and maybe negotiate with any possible circuit race circuits (motor racing, airfields etc) which might help break up the monotony of so many races being in the same place. I think this may already be happening in some places.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
I agree that this is a major failing of the current system - points awarded should take into account the difficulty of the circuit, race distance and quality of the competition (which it already is to a large extent) but also the number of competitors starting the race.Thick Tester wrote:Agreed - but in some midweek races depending on the weather you may have less than 20 competitors0 -
Thick Tester wrote:
Some questions from this for all :
1) Would you enter a circuit race series that carried no ranking points ?
2) Would you be willing to accept that there is no prize money for weekly circuit races?
3) Would you be happy that any monies from a circuit race series is used to fund a new series of road races, in which you are obliged to assist in the organization /course selection / officiating and marshalling of at least one of the races?
4) How would you feel about team rankings being the only ones that matter – ie you race for the good of your team which will in may create a different type of positive aggressive racing at grass roots level ?
some very good points there TT. My answers....
1) Yes, but as a 3V with no realistic aspirations of gaining a second cat licence, I'm probably not the best person to ask. I enjoy racing, so I would enter it anyway...
2) Yes - see above reasons
3) Yes, but I'm now of the age where organising is becoming more interesting..
4) Not sure about this. Our club has a very small racing contingent and there's no guarantee that there may be any more than one or two of us entering a specific race at any given time. I doubt if private members would be happy with that either. But as for the points themselves, see the answer to Q1...0 -
BC mandates that stages in a stage race can only be given the same points as Regional C+ (10 points for the winner). I'm sure the organisers would love to be able to give more!
A 2nd cat in my club -- quite a good sprinter to be fair -- is exactly in this boat of being a 2nd cat crit racer who gets killed in E/1/2/3 road races. And he knows it. I would suspect most people who get into that position learn very quickly that crit points and road points are not necessarily equal. He's resolved to work harder so as not to be embarrassed at being such a lowly 2nd cat, so that's a start.
If you think the points in the men's cats are bad, you should check out the women's... at no time from looking at any given woman's category can you determine how good she really is, unless you pair it with her results and who she raced against to get them. Awful system.0 -
80 riders on a flat circuit for an hour plus 4 laps. The same 80 riders on a hilly road circuit for 3 hours. Which is harder to win ?
Surely the answer is neither is intrinsically harder or more valuable - it just depends on what kind of rider you are.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
You dont have to become a 2nd cat if you dont want to. It is easy enough to sit up in a race and not win.
The other option is to work your nuts off trying breaks and for sure you wont win sprint but eventually will get fit enough to ride with e,1,2.
No one is forced to hide in bunch all race and sprint for the finish. I do not see the point of showing how good a sprinter you are after sitting in bunch all race, then get dropped right at start of races when your 2nd cat.0 -
By the way Pross I thought I would have seen you in the welsh vets last week?
You can just pick me out in the white finishing just behind Gerry and the Abergavenny rider, I am in white :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm7-F7AjHYs0 -
oldwelshman wrote:By the way Pross I thought I would have seen you in the welsh vets last week?
You can just pick me out in the white finishing just behind Gerry and the Abergavenny rider, I am in white :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm7-F7AjHYs
I was there watching (still 2 years before I get to join the geriatrics ). I'm just out of shot on that video on the right hand side and watched up Gwehelog the first two laps. I would have had a chat if I'd known you were there - I did mean to PM to ask if you were doing it. Thought my clubmates did a pretty good job at controlling the race and John Wylie was gutted that the line just came 10m too late for him to hold on for the win. Fair play to Gerry though, he was the strongest rider in the race having got in the main break and still being left with enough to take the sprint. It was also nice to see Dylan Williams back racing even if he does need a good slap for joining a different club but I did give him a bit of stick for that 0 -
I thought you were talking about me for a minute, but then realised you couldn't be as I haven't resolved to work harder, and I have only done one road race this year and none of them have been E/1/2/3maryka wrote:A 2nd cat in my club -- quite a good sprinter to be fair -- is exactly in this boat of being a 2nd cat crit racer who gets killed in E/1/2/3 road races. And he knows it. I would suspect most people who get into that position learn very quickly that crit points and road points are not necessarily equal. He's resolved to work harder so as not to be embarrassed at being such a lowly 2nd cat, so that's a start.
Particularly with my location in South West London and Surrey borders I and many others are spoilt for midweek crit races. If I wanted I coudl have done Hillingdon Tuesdays, and Eelmore Wednesdays - 40 points up for grabs without even turning a pedal at the weekend. A second cat round these parts doesnt mean half as much as a second cat down in the South West or Wales.
I have to agree, crit races arent selective enough - most can hang on for long enough to contest a sprint which then has the potential hazard of creating a bin-fest on the run in to the finish as people fight for that one extra point which they are desperate for. Besides, whats the point of going round in a procession for 55 minutes to then sprint for a few seconds?0 -
Thick Tester wrote:The current points systems evils are based in the mid 80’s pro scene and ranking points which gave teams entry to major races.
I don't actually think the CAT system works too badly, the need for it is to create fair races, not to get teams entry to major races. And for that it works well. When you watch someone with a foreign licence racing the 4th cats at hillingdon every week and placing in the first 3 every week you realise that there are people who aren't interested in racing against their peers in fair races but do just want to beat up on weaker and less experienced riders.
So I've no problem with people moving up to 2nd cat in crit races not being able to handle a 2nd cat race on the road, if they're winning 3rd cat crits week in week out then they shouldn't still be racing those. It distorts the 3rd cat crit as much as it distorts the 2nd cat road race.
You could argue for seperate crit/road race cats, but that's not going to lead to distortion too as the riders who don't race one sort but do occasionally are in a completely inappropriate cat. The Elite road man doing a single 3rd cat crit would be ludicrous.
I see points as a way of creating fair racing, so I'm utterly content as a 3rd cat, I can get into 2/3 and 3 races, the only ones where I can be a functioning part of the race rather than just hanging on, being a 2 would make no difference and being a 1 likely impossible. So I've gone through the season collecting 1 point in a team trial. But I think I could survive as a 2nd cat if I fell into it, I can still get in breaks in 2/3 races.
Other people do see points as a way of keeping score though, and yes this encourages them to sit in for a race or not chase a few man break so they can sprint for 6th and get a precious few points to be closer to the next cat.Thick Tester wrote:Points were originally intended to make the sport more competitive but have honestly made things the opposite.
I don't see that, they have made some lower cat races more negative I suspect, but that's not the same as less competitive and tougher circuits / prizes for aggressiveness, primes etc. can help change that, changing the points won't that I can see.Thick Tester wrote:That way those who truly excel at tough events get the lions share of the points, which would then carry true weight and meaning
But it also denies those riders the chance to learn how to win races, by getting them very rapidly into the ranks of the E/1/2 making the racing less competitive. Imagine the strong climber who succeeds in a couple of your "tough" races by winning on the hill top finish simply through their fitness. Yes these riders will have the fitness to race E/1/2 but they won't have learnt any tactics and will be just as out of depth as those who got there via the crits.Thick Tester wrote:1) Would you enter a circuit race series that carried no ranking points ?
No, but then it's rare for me to enter a circuit race series anyway, and those I do are for training, whilst points are irrelevant for me and that aim, I don't think there'd be a competitive field as so many people I race against are points motivated.Thick Tester wrote:2) Would you be willing to accept that there is no prize money for weekly circuit races?
Prize money pretty irrelevant, but if there were no points and no prize money, I don't think there'd be the competition for the glory.Thick Tester wrote:3) Would you be happy that any monies from a circuit race series is used to fund a new series of road races, in which you are obliged to assist in the organization /course selection / officiating and marshalling of at least one of the races?
Sure, but I'm not sure how much subsidy is required for a road race series, or were you imagining that you'd increase the prize money / points available for it by having the lower level racing subsidise it?Thick Tester wrote:4) How would you feel about team rankings being the only ones that matter – ie you race for the good of your team which will in may create a different type of positive aggressive racing at grass roots level ?
I don't think you could construct a scoring system that would work, the large clubs, or even just the motivated clubs would win it without having to actually be very good simply because they can put out more riders, or more good riders. Look at the London Womens Cycle Racing League, the team competition was won by Rapha Condor because they managed to get more women out to more races, that wasn't a bad thing of course, the aims of the league are to increase participation and getting non local riders to london races, but it shows how team competitions don't really work where there are different sized teams and unlimited entry.Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
Oops, I forgot you were on this forum! :oops:felgen wrote:I thought you were talking about me for a minute, but then realised you couldn't be as I haven't resolved to work harder, and I have only done one road race this year and none of them have been E/1/2/3 0 -
would putting more intermediate sprints with points attached while leaving finish line points the same.
Should make for more attacking riding and mean there are more points for road races but its not all abut the sprint?0 -
Bronzie wrote:
I agree that this is a major failing of the current system - points awarded should take into account the difficulty of the circuit, race distance and quality of the competition (which it already is to a large extent) but also the number of competitors starting the race.Thick Tester wrote:Agreed - but in some midweek races depending on the weather you may have less than 20 competitors
If the points are used to create a ranking that purports to measure relative ability, then the quality of the competition should be the main differentiating factor. Currently, you can ride most of the national B road races, which are lucky to attract a handful of top riders and pick up 60 points for a win. You also only get 60 points for a win in the Tour Series event that attracts 50 top riders. You would also need to get 4th in a Nat A Premier Calendar race with up to 100 top riders to get the same points as a Nat B win. There are far too few points available for Nat A and far too many for Nat B. Consequently, we have the ridiculous situation of a shed load of Wilier riders, who have avoided racing in top (Nat A) races all season, ranked above lots of international class household names who win or are on podiums at the top level.
The system does'nt measure relative ability which explains why top riders do not care where they are ranked. There are also serious flaws in the calculation of team rankings.0 -
lyn1 wrote:The system does'nt measure relative ability which explains why top riders do not care where they are ranked. There are also serious flaws in the calculation of team rankings.
It depends if you believe it is a measure of relative ability, or if it's a mechanism for creating fair races. The two things are being lumped together and they're really seperate aims, I see nothing wrong with a ranking system which rewards participation, after all that's what's most important to all but the top riders - that they get to race in competitive races at the right level for them!Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
jibberjim wrote:lyn1 wrote:The system does'nt measure relative ability which explains why top riders do not care where they are ranked. There are also serious flaws in the calculation of team rankings.
It depends if you believe it is a measure of relative ability, or if it's a mechanism for creating fair races. The two things are being lumped together and they're really seperate aims, I see nothing wrong with a ranking system which rewards participation, after all that's what's most important to all but the top riders - that they get to race in competitive races at the right level for them!
Fair point Jim, but it is clearly viewed as a ranking. If it was just for cats and balancing races, it would not need the list in order of points published on the website. It could just show those (alphabetically) in a category, if at all. Members can find out their own points/cat easily enough.
Nor does it work particularly well at the sharp end in terms of balance. Its the same people who get shelled in the Prems and Elite Circuit races each week. Probably the ones who got their poinnts in Nat B rather than Nat A0 -
lyn1 wrote:Nor does it work particularly well at the sharp end in terms of balance. Its the same people who get shelled in the Prems and Elite Circuit races each week. Probably the ones who got their poinnts in Nat B rather than Nat A
But so what? Who cares if people are getting shelled out of fields - you could maybe say they shouldn't be racing in that field - but then the fact they can score points consistently in the smaller races say they should be racing in those either, you cannot have it both ways. If the people get the points in the races, then they're better than the standard of races they got the points in.
As to a ranking - no points based system is going to be fair, and any that approximates to fair is going to have to be much more linked to the other riders in a race rather than simply the category of a race - ie more of a chess ranking system than a points system simply for the race.Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
Part of why they get shelled is because the E/1s go from the gun and shell everyone who they don't think should be there. Much safer for them to shed the the deadwood early on to keep the race safer for anyone who's left. Same in women's races.lyn1 wrote:Nor does it work particularly well at the sharp end in terms of balance. Its the same people who get shelled in the Prems and Elite Circuit races each week. Probably the ones who got their points in Nat B rather than Nat A
At the same time, though, you need the numbers to put on a road race in the first place, so it's open to the weaker 2s -- if none of the 2s showed up the field would be too small. Not talking about Premier Calendar races of course, but local Nat B where there just aren't enough E/1s (or women's races where there just aren't enough women, period). So essentially the shelled riders are subsidising the rest.
I actually thought that Nat A's had enough entries that they could afford to set a minimum standard for riders, but apparently not. A teammate of mine, a new cat 2, was keen to do a Premier Calendar this season. He was pleasantly surprised to be allowed entry, I guess they weren't that discerning. But he got shelled of course! 0 -
jibberjim wrote:lyn1 wrote:Nor does it work particularly well at the sharp end in terms of balance. Its the same people who get shelled in the Prems and Elite Circuit races each week. Probably the ones who got their poinnts in Nat B rather than Nat A
As to a ranking - no points based system is going to be fair, and any that approximates to fair is going to have to be much more linked to the other riders in a race rather than simply the category of a race - ie more of a chess ranking system than a points system simply for the race.
True, but in the ranking context, if its got a value, a more realistic balance of points between the various levels, nat A, nat B, etc., thereby reflecting different quality of riders, would help to make the ranking more meaningful. Nat B are inevitably, significantly weaker fields than nat A but currently they are not sufficiently differentiated.0 -
Bustedmaryka wrote:
Oops, I forgot you were on this forum! :oops:felgen wrote:I thought you were talking about me for a minute, but then realised you couldn't be as I haven't resolved to work harder, and I have only done one road race this year and none of them have been E/1/2/3 But quite correct, I would be torn apart in an E/1/2/3 road race. I was also just not quite fit enought to compete at the Eelmore E/1/2 race, nearly but not quite and a miss is as good as a mile. I dont have the time to train and am too ill-disciplined to keep the weight off, not with 2 little'uns now, which is why I would never aim to go any higher. I am not going to chase points, as I feel they do discourage experimentation and trying things out (in my case anyway), so next year I am going to mix it up a bit and do a few things to see what happens. I do thave int he back of my mind that I only have to score 25 points to stay second cat next year and that should be a piece of cake and ironically keeps the pressure off. Dont get me wrong I am only wanting to stay second cat as it gives me access to a wide variety of races - 2/3 road and E/1/2 track, which is where I hope to compete - something like a very mediocre version of Tony Gibb.
I have to agree with some of the other posters about who turns up to which races - you see an awful lot of Felt Colbornes and Wilier Big Maggys riders at National B's - but if points and rankings are the only way to get noticed and move up in the sport then why not? I agree if you get up to the heady hights of elite, you may quickly find yourself out of your depth, but I think everyone eventually will find their natural level.0 -
I think Ian was in break with Gerry and also a Jiff rider so that meant about 14 riders not goiong to chase a good break!! I spoke to couple of strong guys I knew and said if we did not organise chase we would never catch them so we worked hard to pull them back and Ian got dropped which meant your guys had to chase then so I sat in then as I was nearly blownPross wrote:oldwelshman wrote:By the way Pross I thought I would have seen you in the welsh vets last week?
You can just pick me out in the white finishing just behind Gerry and the Abergavenny rider, I am in white :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm7-F7AjHYs
I was there watching (still 2 years before I get to join the geriatrics ). I'm just out of shot on that video on the right hand side and watched up Gwehelog the first two laps. I would have had a chat if I'd known you were there - I did mean to PM to ask if you were doing it. Thought my clubmates did a pretty good job at controlling the race and John Wylie was gutted that the line just came 10m too late for him to hold on for the win. Fair play to Gerry though, he was the strongest rider in the race having got in the main break and still being left with enough to take the sprint. It was also nice to see Dylan Williams back racing even if he does need a good slap for joining a different club but I did give him a bit of stick for that
I got in early little break with John and a very stong guy who came 2nd in main welsh champs but for some reason John would not come through so we sat up!! He went in a few breaks but always sat in, not sure why. I knew Gerry would win as he is very strong at the moment.
I did the race as training for the track so not going bad really I am racing at Llandow on weekend so may get points and become a 2nd Maybe that means I have to ride moreroadevents next year ? 0 -
Good luck down Llandow, it's the only race I've done since starting back and showed me how bad I was. I really hate riding down there, you could easily die of boredom! One of the main reasons I started this thread was because I'm worried that Llandow will start dominating racing in this area in a similar way to Hillingdon has in the south east.
It was Guy from our club in the break, Ian had a few digs I think but didn't get away and got pipped to third by you and Steve Edwards in the sprint. Not sure who was in the break with you, second in the senior champs I thought was Brendan Sullivan who would have been favourite for the vets (reigning US masters champ at road race and time trial i believe) but he didn't start. I can't think who else was in the break in the senior champs other than Ian, Dale and Malarcyzk but there was another vet I think.
EDIT It was Gareth McGuiness who came second in the senior champs with Brendan third. Ian was 4th so it shows how strong the vets are in Wales at the moment with 3 vets in the top 4 and only beaten by a pro rider!0
