How will SAXO Bank stay in tour?

liquor box

There have been many reports about SAXO being kicked out due to a lack of points earned due to COntadors points being removed.

This article is from an Aussie paper-
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/cycling/pressure-on-riders-to-recoup-contadors-lost-points-20120606-1zwf6.html

The pressure on the Danish Saxo Bank team to accrue the world ranking points it will need to remain on the World Tour after losing all of Alberto Contador's points has fallen on the riders, according to Australian teammate Luke Roberts.

"At the end of the day the pressure is on us - we need to make the points or we will be out and there will be new riders in with points," Roberts told The Herald after finishing the recent Giro d'Italia. "Bjarne Rijs [team owner] can just go out and buy riders and pick up the points he needs. So the pressure is on us to save our own butts I guess. But at the of the day, we are professionals and go out and try and do our job the best we can."

According to the South Australian, there is no shortage of riders on the team who really wants to race in the Vuelta a Espana (August 18-September 9) with Contador should he return to Saxo Bank - as is expected - from his two year retroactive ban for testing positive for the banned drug clenbuterol on the 2010 Tour. Roberts counted himself as among those who want to race with Contador in the Vuelta.



"That's something I'd love to do ... ride a grand tour for a winning team. I will be putting my hand up for the Vuelta," said Roberts.


Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/c ... z1xMrLKpGS

Can you really just buy points? This seems like a rediculous way to run a sport, basically you just need to buy a couple of great cyclists and you can stay in the tour.

Imagine how much money someone like Cav could make only signing one year deals and being availiable to switch teams every year. He is good enough not to need an awesome train and earns a lot of points. Boonen would be another one who could be worth a lot of money

Should this be allowed?

Yellow Peril

Assuming that the best riders win races to earn the points in the first place it ensures that those best riders are in the race. I don't see what is wrong with that. In fact cycling is probably one of the few sports that empowers its athletes in this way. The players are bigger than the club so to speak.

iainf72

liquor box wrote:

Can you really just buy points? This seems like a rediculous way to run a sport, basically you just need to buy a couple of great cyclists and you can stay in the tour.

How do you propose it should work?

The current system isn't perfect but it's a lot better than just selecting teams because you like them.

Crankbrother

Half (or equal) points to the team and to the rider? That way both have a reason to do well come August (Hushovd/Garmin being an example of where this system would have benefitted everyone) ...

liquor box

iainf72 wrote:

liquor box wrote:

Can you really just buy points? This seems like a rediculous way to run a sport, basically you just need to buy a couple of great cyclists and you can stay in the tour.

How do you propose it should work?

The current system isn't perfect but it's a lot better than just selecting teams because you like them.

A team gets points for a season and this is what is used to qualify them for the next season as opposed to a team that potentially loses every race of the season, and buys a good cyclist to qualify.

A teams points should only come from cyclists that ride for that team.

theoretically a great team, say SKY for example could have all of its cyclists leave on the second last day of the year and they would not get a lisence because they would have no points left as they have all gone to other teams

iainf72

Ok. That's one way.

Here's a scenario - I'm a big corporate and think I want to get into cycling. I have a €20m per year budget and plan to start a new team.

How do I get into the World Tour? After all, all I really want is the exposure from the TdF. There is no way short of buying talent with their points.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Ok. That's one way.

Here's a scenario - I'm a big corporate and think I want to get into cycling. I have a €20m per year budget and plan to start a new team.

How do I get into the World Tour? After all, all I really want is the exposure from the TdF. There is no way short of buying talent with their points.

My method would be that the top 15 teams* on the World Tour would get a licence and the three remaining would be allocated on the current system.

*The points of all riders would count, not just the top 5, and Pro Conti teams would be eligible to score points. The number 15 is negotiable.

DeadCalm

iainf72 wrote:

Ok. That's one way.

Here's a scenario - I'm a big corporate and think I want to get into cycling. I have a €20m per year budget and plan to start a new team.

How do I get into the World Tour? After all, all I really want is the exposure from the TdF. There is no way short of buying talent with their points.

The 50/50 suggestion of Crankbrother wouldn't prevent that and would give existing sponsors more comfort and stability. Whilst appealing to potential new sponsors is all well and good, priority be given to those sponsors who have shown a proven commitment to cycling? In fact, I wonder how many potential sponsors are put off by the fac that they could so easily lose world tour status?

dougzz

DeadCalm wrote:

The 50/50 suggestion of Crankbrother wouldn't prevent that and would give existing sponsors more comfort and stability. Whilst appealing to potential new sponsors is all well and good, priority be given to those sponsors who have shown a proven commitment to cycling? In fact, I wonder how many potential sponsors are put off by the fac that they could so easily lose world tour status?

But this sort of argues against itself here. You say priority should go to proven commitment sponsors, but then say sponsors could be put off by the loss of WT status. Most sponsors won't want to do anything for more than 2 or 3 years initially, they have to see how it's working for them. If you rig a system to protect longer term sponsors you could allow them to reduce their commitment by having some sort of locked in status, whilst new and potentially more money has no access. I have no constructive suggestion, it's far easier to spot problems than it is to be inventive with solutions.

Crankbrother

The trouble is that if you give too much power to the teams then they can employ 'closed shop' tactics and force down salaries etc. ... But currently the riders have the power to do the opposite ...

The equally shared points suggestion I made allows a middle ground to be reached for teams/riders and where a new Sponsor/Team can still 'buy' his way in just as they can now, but it protects teams like Euskatel from getting bumped quite so easily if they lose a star rider and therefore is attractive to a sponsor staying on or a new one coming in to save the team (which is what Vaughters was saying years ago) ...

I also think that for returning riders half points should be counted towards pro tour status ... For example, the Contador saga has tainted the sport, but he also brings a lot to the table in tv spectacle and sponsorship money which brings security to whole team and it's employees ...