Wonderful UCI strikes again... development teams

salsiccia1

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lefevere-criticises-the-uci-over-rules-on-team-selections

You couldn't make it up. Absolutely pathetic.

RichN95.

They're absolutely spot on with that. It stops the big team using the the development team as eight extra domestiques.

Richmond Racer

Salsiccia1 wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lefevere-criticises-the-uci-over-rules-on-team-selections

You couldn't make it up. Absolutely pathetic.

Not pathetic at all. How fair would it be on the other WT teams without dev teams lined up alongside them in the same race, racing against WT-dev team combos i.e. double the number of riders.

This is one of the more sensible rulings by the UCI.

As per usual Lefevere is being a drama queen.

salsiccia1

How likely is that the teams will actually combine? Wouldn't the development riders want to show what they can do? And what is the real difference from the Tour of Britain, that had the Sky-sponsored Team GB riding alongside Sky?

Look - I'm not naive enought to think that there's no risk of a big combine, but it would be easier to regulate than just a blanket ban. The whole ruling is really unnecessary, and comes accross as 'it might be your money, but WE'RE in charge'. Just another reason for sponsors to not bother.

Richmond Racer

The GB Cycling Team at the Tour were current Academy riders (or ex, in the case of Josh Edmondsen who was riding for an Italian amateur team last year). The funding for the Academy is primarily UK Sport, and is not a Sky-funded dev squad for Team Sky as is the case with the 8 WT teams - which is why they were both in the ToB.

As for the 8 WT teams+their dev squads...of course there's potential for the dev riders to be used as extra domestiques. All the WT teams were notified about this by the UCI last year - I think INRNG might have posted a blog on the subject - but as always Lefevere makes a massive song and dance via the media as if its a hugh shock.

If he wanted his dev guys to get their chance in the smaller, non-WT race, he shouldnt have entered an OPQS team. Simple as.

And, er, yes, like them or not, the UCI is the ruling governing body. They make the rules, not the team owners or general managers.

frenchfighter

Yeah it makes sense to me. Lefevere has a bigger mouth than brain.

thomthom

UCI is spot on for once. Major conflict of interest if two teams with any connection to eachother are in the same race.

Reserve teams in football can't be promoted to same or 1-2 leagues lower than the first team - and I'm sure there are similar rules in every other sports as well.

"Only the #uci is able to destroy the hope of young riders" - no, Lefevre. Doping your riders destroy the hope of young upcoming riders. You'd know a bit about that.

No_Ta_Doctor

ThomThom wrote:

Reserve teams in football can't be promoted to same or 1-2 leagues lower than the first team - and I'm sure there are similar rules in every other sports as well.

In England I don't think you're allowed to field a reserve team in anything other than a reserve league. I certainly don't know of any team that has a reserve team playing in English league football. I know the Spanish league allows, e.g. Barca Reserves as a team in lower leagues. I presume they have rules about transfer of players between the teams (in England the reserve teams are often still part of the first team squad) and what would happen if they met in a cup.

Richmond Racer

ThomThom wrote:

UCI is spot on for once. Major conflict of interest if two teams with any connection to eachother are in the same race.

Reserve teams in football can't be promoted to same or 1-2 leagues lower than the first team - and I'm sure there are similar rules in every other sports as well.

"Only the #uci is able to destroy the hope of young riders" - no, Lefevre. Doping your riders destroy the hope of young upcoming riders. You'd know a bit about that.

Well-deserved beatch slap, ThomThom. Lefevere had better hope people dont start talking about his own history.

Garry H

Salsiccia1 wrote:

How likely is that the teams will actually combine? Wouldn't the development riders want to show what they can do? And what is the real difference from the Tour of Britain, that had the Sky-sponsored Team GB riding alongside Sky?

Look - I'm not naive enought to think that there's no risk of a big combine, but it would be easier to regulate than just a blanket ban. The whole ruling is really unnecessary, and comes accross as 'it might be your money, but WE'RE in charge'. Just another reason for sponsors to not bother.

Very likely if they think it'll get them a place on the senior team. They can still "show what they can do" by riding for them.

RichN95.

For an example of why this a good rule from the UCI, just look at the last 2km of the 'London-Surrey Classic' - the Olympic dress rehearsal race with smaller teams of five or six. Watch as Great Britain and England - in theory two different teams - actually combine to provide a full lead out for Cavendish, to the extent that Cavendish (GB) is lead out by Hunt (England)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDPsQhCc_r4

thomthom

Richmond Racer wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

UCI is spot on for once. Major conflict of interest if two teams with any connection to eachother are in the same race.

Reserve teams in football can't be promoted to same or 1-2 leagues lower than the first team - and I'm sure there are similar rules in every other sports as well.

"Only the #uci is able to destroy the hope of young riders" - no, Lefevre. Doping your riders destroy the hope of young upcoming riders. You'd know a bit about that.

Well-deserved beatch slap, ThomThom. Lefevere had better hope people dont start talking about his own history.

salsiccia1

Looks like I'm in a minority, then!

Tom Butcher

No tA Doctor wrote:

In England I don't think you're allowed to field a reserve team in anything other than a reserve league. I certainly don't know of any team that has a reserve team playing in English league football..

Well I played for The Bridge Inn the Bridge Inn B were in the division below....what do you mean that doesn't count !