The UCI encourages teams to dope - again.

FJS

BikingBernie wrote:

After all, it wasn't that long ago that the Tour de France was dominated by French teams, the Giro by Italian teams and so forth, and they seemed to be none the worse for it.

When exactly not so long ago was the Tour de France dominated by French teams and French riders that weren't also globally dominating teams and riders at the time anyway? Peugeot, La Vie Claire, Renault or Super U didn't exactly need a home team wildcard

Jez mon

AndyRAC wrote:

I always thought FIFA or ICC were the worst governing body in sport, maybe it’s the UCI. Successful teams losing sponsors – forcing ‘mergers’ isn’t the sign of a healthy sport, and needs to be addressed. What are they doing about these issues?
They should govern the sport, and look for a global promoter for the top races..as happens in Motorsport.

I sort of think they are with the whole pro tour/world tour concept. The UCI can say, pay x, get into the big races guaranteed (so long as the team performs as expected). Whilst the Tour is the blue riband event, but to be taken in anyway seriously, the sport needs a season, and it needs famous faces/teams to be competing season long. Whilst it's extremely harsh, a team which only turns up in July is really not doing the sport a whole lot of good, and by encouraging the teams to be competitive season round, you're helping the sport to be relevant, which helps it to be in the media, which in turn attracts sponsors.

deejay

Jez mon wrote:

the sport needs a season, and it needs famous faces/teams to be competing season long. Whilst it's extremely harsh, a team which only turns up in July is really not doing the sport a whole lot of good,

Now that's how the 21st Century began and how that most posters on here know a season.

In the 20th Century the season started in Belgium in February and finished in October in Italy.

Some greedy fat basket from Ireland wants to make more rules where his pocket comes before a sensible season or tradition.
He started the Global Cycling Promotions Company to be able to Rule the sport like a Dictator.
The Federations of each country allowing him to get away with it.

iainf72

Ahhh, it's all Pat's fault. Of course.

Luckily, people like Felix Levitan never tried to globalize the sport. Luckily the ASO aren't investing in races in Australia or the US, it's all just Pat's fault.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Ahhh, it's all Pat's fault. Of course.

Luckily, people like Felix Levitan never tried to globalize the sport. Luckily the ASO aren't investing in races in Australia or the US, it's all just Pat's fault.

Those global TV rights are the bane of the ASO's life. They would prefer to rely on sales of L'Equipe to fund the Tour, but the UCI had to get involved.

ddraver

@Bernie

Hairy muff, but you and I differ in our opinions of what fair is then.....

blazing_saddles

Well, I'd like to know with whom the buck stops, in regard of this system, cos it sure ain't perfect.
WT teams get automatic entry to all the highest points scoring races. They have greater opportunity to accumulate necessary to get to the top of the pile.
If the UCI came up with an arbitrary number of riders to contribute their points to arrive at a sum total, why not change that to races?
Why not have the teams 10 (12, 15, whatever) best scoring races to reach a total?
After all, this should be about teams vying for the top slots, rather than individual riders being judged upon their worth.

Surely better than having teams do stuff like this:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sohrabi ... our-status

deejay

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Surely better than having teams do stuff like this:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sohrabi ... our-status

All going Pat's way then.

Another one of his "OLD" riders getting second place and lots of world points.
Lotto getting riders in place that won't feature in "Our Classics"

Anybody know who got the most points this year

---

or hasn't the world season finished yet. ????

BikingBernie

deejay wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Surely better than having teams do stuff like this:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sohrabi ... our-status

All going Pat's way then.

Another one of his "OLD" riders getting second place and lots of world points.
Lotto getting riders in place that won't feature in "Our Classics"

Anybody know who got the most points this year

---

or hasn't the world season finished yet. ????

It certainly seems that McQuaid's declared aim of undermining the power of the 'Mafia European nations', and especially 'The French', is going to plan. That signing also shows that to the UCI, points are points no matter where in the world they are gained. Thus, points in a 1.2 Europe Tour event ( which currently has approaching 1300 qualifying riders) would seem to be worth as much to the UCI as those gained in a 1.2 Africa Tour event (which currently has 10 qualifying riders). It must surely follow that if a team were to be put together with a number of riders from, say Asia Tour events, and the total points tally for that team were higher than for a team composed of riders that compete in Europe, by the UCI's reasoning the Asian team would deserve to be sold a 'WorldTour' licence in preference to the European team.

In the meantime, McQuaid would surely be delighted to see a few more 'underperforming' French riders being given the boot and replaced by points carriers from places like Iran. Of course, those facing the sack still have the option of boosting thier points value by charging up in a few 'GP de Chaudieres'.

RichN95.

Quite frankly, the French need to belt up. Once upon a time their 'boo hoo, everyone else is doping except us' routine might have had some merit. But not any more. Garmin, who have a pitiful budget and no doping scandals, are number 4 on the points list, and that's after losing Hushovd. The French are talking themselves into inferiority.

The French's problem is a mixture of complacency, over-indulgence and arrogance. This year they had five teams at the Tour de France. These teams have over 100 French riders. French cycling isn't strong enough to sustain that. They're spread too thin. And the reason their spread so thin is that those teams have a nice cosy little relationship with the ASO, which means that they always get a place at the Tour, they always have a sponsor and no-one has to try. Look at Cofidis at the 2010 Tour - highest place on GC 27th, not one single rider in the top ten on any stage. There's no way they should have been invited back. But there they were again 2011. No-one needs to try. Especially any youngster who manages to get a top 10 in Paris-Nice, gets hailed as the new Hinault and gets a big fat contract for the next 5 years.

They're also arrogant, just as the English are about international footballl. Just because they were the main players in the birth of the sport, they think they have some divine right to be the best. They think that there should be 100 top level French pros, they think that some no mark Frenchman who would never get picked by a foreign team is more worthy of being in the World Tour than the no.1 Asian rider. They've stood still for a decade, stuck in their ways, blaming anyone but themselves.

McQuaid isn't anti-French. He just doesn't have nearly as high an opinion of them as they do themselves.

BikingBernie

Well done Rich, spoken like a true Brit'... :roll:

RichN95.

BikingBernie wrote:

Well done Rich, spoken like a true Brit'... :roll:

So you can't actually point to anything wrong in what I've said so you've relied on the lazy France=right, Britain=wrong attitude, thereby neatly illustrating a lot of what I was saying.

BikingBernie

I see that another rider has recently echoed some of Kimmage's criticisms of the UCI points system:

UCI WorldTour points have proved a valuable commodity for riders searching for teams in the final weeks of the season, but Geoffroy Lequatre believes that the fabric of the sport risks being irrevocably damaged unless changes are made to the current system.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lequatr ... nts-system

Then again, the rider making these comments is French, so doubtless the Francophobes will see them as being nothing more than 'a mixture of complacency, over-indulgence and arrogance'.

iainf72

Lequatre is French? But he's ridden for a Bruyneel squad, so doesn't that make him a citizen of hell instead? I don't remember him speaking out about Bruyneel etc, so I'm afraid I can't take anything he says seriously.

dennisn

LeicesterLad wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Europcar also don't have much "depth"

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/team_p ... c&podium=1

I guess if you only watch cycling in July, you must think they're some kind of super team.

Do you mean to say there is cycling outside of July? :shock:

good one

dennisn

Cogidubnus wrote:

UCI is encouraging teams to dope..

Really?? are you serious

They are driving competition and encouraging teams to do better. The fact that there is relegation in football, rugby, cricket, tennis davis cup doesn't mean all the players are doped to the eyeballs it means they are striving to improve.

If cycling teams decide to dope then that's their prerogative BUT they certainly aren't being encouraged to do so by the UCI.

I'm with you on that. Whomever decides to try cheating(in any sport) is not who you want out there, but it's going to be tried in any case and all the testing in the world won't stop it. Too much money and or fame at stake.

deejay

LeicesterLad wrote:

Do you mean to say there is cycling outside of July? :shock:

What's your name. ???
LANCE ARMSTRONG

RichN95.

BikingBernie wrote:

I see that another rider has recently echoed some of Kimmage's criticisms of the UCI points system:

UCI WorldTour points have proved a valuable commodity for riders searching for teams in the final weeks of the season, but Geoffroy Lequatre believes that the fabric of the sport risks being irrevocably damaged unless changes are made to the current system.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lequatr ... nts-system

Then again, the rider making these comments is French, so doubtless the Francophobes will see them as being nothing more than 'a mixture of complacency, over-indulgence and arrogance'.

No. G4 was saying that the ranking system was wrong and didn't value the contributions of domestiques. And he's right.

It was nothing to do with him being French. He rode for an American team which merged with a Luxembourg team. He was not discarded because he was French.

What he didn't say is that the UCI are anti-French and that the French should have lots of WT places just because they are French and it's unfair that the French should are expected try in races because they can't compete with all these foreign dopers, who have had doping scandals like the Festina and Cofidis scandals, but less French, so therefore worse, which means that France can't compete despite French riders coming fourth in the Giro and Tour, which may be good results but surely French riders must be winning because they are best and if they don't it's because of doping.

Look Bernie. There will probably be two French teams on the WT. The same number as for the others in the big 5 - Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, Spain. Those countries have realised that in the globalisation of cycling, that their talent can only sustain two top teams. The French seem to think that they can spread their talent across four or five teams. They're wrong. Until the likes of Cofidis and Saur (and probably another) are pushed to the sidelines then French cycling will stagnate.

(I would like to apologise for calling French teams arrogant. It was actually Bernie being arrogant on their behalf)

Here's a question Bernie - of the top 18 teams, how many do you (or Kimmage) think should be French? ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND JUSTIFY IT.

BikingBernie

BikingBernie wrote:

I see that another rider has recently echoed some of Kimmage's criticisms of the UCI points system

RichN95 wrote:

No. G4 was saying that the ranking system was wrong and didn't value the contributions of domestiques. And he's right.

Kimmage wrote:

...suddenly a lot of professionals were without a job. The domestiques were in big trouble. There were no world-ranking points to be gained for helping someone else, and directeurs sportift were obliged to hire riders with points in order to survive. Riders became more selfish and it didn't take them long to cash in on the new system.

From that article quoting Lequatre:

After two years of resolute service as a domestique with RadioShack, he had precious few WorldTour points clocked up, and found it difficult to stoke the interest of teams finalising their applications for entry into cycling’s top flight

“At the end of the season, all of the teams were hunting for riders, and the riders were hunting for teams, but when you have zero points or very few points, it’s really difficult,”... Lequatre is concerned that riders have increasingly less incentive to work as domestiques for their leaders, and will have to ride more selfishly in order to continue at WorldTour level.

Personally, I think that my statement that 'another rider has recently echoed some of Kimmage's criticisms of the UCI points system' was quite correct.

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

Here's a question Bernie - of the top 18 teams, how many do you (or Kimmage) think should be French? ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND JUSTIFY IT.

In the context of what I have been saying that is a pretty meaningless question.

If you were to have asked 'Of the teams given a place in the Tour de France, how many do you think should be French?' I would say around four, perhaps even five. Why? Because that would be good for French cycling and serve the commercial interests of the organisers of what, after all is a French race. Much the same could be said of any other national tour, be it in Italy or the USA, and until the UCI tried to dictate to organisers who should ride their events that was the norm, as with the inclusion of regional teams.

Personally, I always used to enjoy seeing what the 'underdog' teams could do in the big races: they often animated the 'transition' stages, having nothing to lose, and in a sport that was traditionally all about 'suffering and survival' they epitomised what the ideals of cycling were all about, ideals that transcended the current 'All that matters is victory' attitude. As de Coubertin put it "The important thing... is not winning but taking part. The essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well".

Then again, de Courbertin was French.

dennisn

BikingBernie wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Here's a question Bernie - of the top 18 teams, how many do you (or Kimmage) think should be French? ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND JUSTIFY IT.

As de Coubertin put it "The important thing... is not winning but taking part. The essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well".

Then again, as Vince Lombardi put it "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
Sorry couldn't resist.

squired

On the one hand I can understand the argument that the system encourages teams to hunt for riders with points (or riders to dope to perform, or even for people to ignore team orders).

However, my understanding is that the applications for World Tour status require you to submit the details of 15 riders. So, in terms of getting a World Tour place you only need 15 riders with points. In my view, the UCI probably structured it this way for a specific reason. In a World Tour squad of up to 30 riders you effectively only need 15 riders with points to maintain your World Tour status. This means that there is plenty of room in the squad for domestiques and neo pros. If you are a hard working and well liked domestique I don't see why you shouldn't be able to find a team.

If we look at the struggling teams, their problem is that their main riders didn't perform. Look at Ag2r. Nicolas Roche got so few World Tour points that he didn't even rank in the top 5 in his team. As a result, the points he earned in the Tour of Beijing didn't even count towards Ag2r's team ranking. At the same time, Steve Cummings had a good season. However, due to Sky having such a good season his World Tour points also didn't count towards Sky's World Tour team ranking, because again he was't in the top 5 in the team.

RichN95.

BikingBernie wrote:

As de Coubertin put it "The important thing... is not winning but taking part. The essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well".

Then again, de Courbertin was French.

If winning wasn't important why did he give out medals to the winners?

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

As de Coubertin put it "The important thing... is not winning but taking part. The essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well".

Then again, de Courbertin was French.

If winning wasn't important why did he give out medals to the winners?

Ha ha! Good response!