Brian Holm rips into Lappartient's reform ideas

No_Ta_Doctor

Not seen this mentioned on any thread so far and thought it deserved a wider audience and some discussion.

Holm pretty much rips Lapartient a new one.

“I wonder, has he ever seen a cycling race before or just doesn’t have a clue?”

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/raci ... ong-389055

I was really pleased with how he basically outs the UCI/Lappartient as being totally reactive to the twitter tin-foil hat brigade with his comments on motors.

blazing_saddles

“I wonder, has he ever seen a cycling race before or just doesn’t have a clue?”

onyourright

I like it. Especially that drafting is a greater problem than motors (and probably doping, I’d add) and that the UCI president should be team-neutral and supportive of the sport.

I wonder what the 37 delegates who voted Lappartient into power are thinking about his performance so far.

No_Ta_Doctor

OnYourRight wrote:

I like it. Especially that drafting is a greater problem than motors (and probably doping, I’d add) and that the UCI president should be team-neutral and supportive of the sport.

I wonder what the 37 delegates who voted Lappartient into power are thinking about his performance so far.

"This Chateauneuf du Pape 2010 is rather marvelous, I must remember to thank David when I see him at the spa break he promised"

No_Ta_Doctor

As for the drafting - it was a real eye-opener that they actually factor it in to their tactics, that it's become one more environmental variable that needs to be accounted for.

RichN95.

Delete - nonsense

Jez mon

Blazing Saddles wrote:

“I wonder, has he ever seen a cycling race before or just doesn’t have a clue?”

This.

I really can't believe the head of the UCI being so open about hating the most successful team. Talk about pitching your sport to big sponsors.

tangled_metal

That was an entertaining read. I like that guy. I'm kind of half tuned into the sport but even I think this uci president is not good for the sport. Glad to read that someone really in the know thinks that too.

Vino'sGhost

Its a bit handbags isnt it. Much as i dislike the way Sky have gone about things there’s no denying theyre the strongest GC team.

Maybe our glorious president thinks the tour would be better served by national teams instead of trade. I think GB would have a reasonable chance of a 123 on the podium, a green jersey (whistful thinking) and the polka dots and i suspect that would be unpalatable.

Perhaps we could have mixed teams lolol

davidof

No tA Doctor wrote:

Not seen this mentioned on any thread so far and thought it deserved a wider audience and some discussion.

Holm pretty much rips Lapartient a new one.

“I wonder, has he ever seen a cycling race before or just doesn’t have a clue?”

Holm has obviously read my comment in the Sky What Next thread

"I wonder if Appartient actually follows bike racing at all, given all the jobs he seems to hold down at the same time."

If the local Councillor wants to make it exciting maybe he should legalize drugs. It was pretty exciting in the Armstrong era with everyone doped up doing impossible rides breaking away 2 or 3 cols out and riding up the final climb like they were on motorbikes.

As someone else on this Forum mentioned, French cycling went back to the dark ages under Lapartient's reign. The two major women's grand tours disappeared as did numerous other races and French cycling is now in the doldrums.

As for the Tour, France TV were boasting about their viewing figures the other day, claiming the tour was getting an over 50% audience share at times. So maybe the housewifes are not switching off?

DeadCalm

While Lapartient is undeniably a dick sometimes and I'm unconvinced by any of his suggestions, believing that cycling is more interesting when the best riders are on different teams and that one team dominating Grand Tours is not great for the sport, is not the same as 'hating the most successful team'.

No tA Doctor wrote:

As for the drafting - it was a real eye-opener that they actually factor it in to their tactics, that it's become one more environmental variable that needs to be accounted for.

By far the most interesting thing Holm had to say.

orraloon

Lappartient is a career politico. Deliver a French winner of the Tour, good luck there pal, get home country kudos, advance political career. Simples.

tangled_metal

Perhaps we could just stop trying to fix it against sky. Let's just be glad there's action worth watching. Was it any better under big Mig's winning years? Do you want the best team / man to win or not? Why not get rid of teams? Why not get rid of communicative? Why not get rid of power meters? Why not? Why not? Why not?

Jeez! Why not just play around with the sport for your own self promotion and the disruption of the the sport? Why not shut the F up and let the sport get on with it run by your juniors who probably know a lot more about it than you (certainly more than me).

It strikes me that every so often there is talk on cycling forums about how the sport is being dominated and needs to change. Radios, power meters, etc are often talked about. Every discussion the ones with the most convincing arguments and opinions are the ones who argue against these changes. I'm certain I've read such discussions on this site probably every year since I joined (can't remember how long ago that was, feels like a couple of years but if I looked it up I'd probably be shocked to find it's 5+ years or something).

At what point do you decide that there has been enough changes to the sport?

ddraver

Just under your user name..

7 years mate, Seven. Years!

DeadCalm

Tangled Metal wrote:

Perhaps we could just stop trying to fix it against sky. Let's just be glad there's action worth watching. Was it any better under big Mig's winning years? Do you want the best team / man to win or not? Why not get rid of teams? Why not get rid of communicative? Why not get rid of power meters? Why not? Why not? Why not?

Jeez! Why not just play around with the sport for your own self promotion and the disruption of the the sport? Why not shut the F up and let the sport get on with it run by your juniors who probably know a lot more about it than you (certainly more than me).

It strikes me that every so often there is talk on cycling forums about how the sport is being dominated and needs to change. Radios, power meters, etc are often talked about. Every discussion the ones with the most convincing arguments and opinions are the ones who argue against these changes. I'm certain I've read such discussions on this site probably every year since I joined (can't remember how long ago that was, feels like a couple of years but if I looked it up I'd probably be shocked to find it's 5+ years or something).

At what point do you decide that there has been enough changes to the sport?

The sport has constantly changed over the years which is, on the whole, probably a good thing. Or should riders still have to repair their bikes themselves, should team support be forbidden, should helmets be optional?

hanshotfirst

Think Holm is fairly bang on here. Maybe he's wanting to throw his hat in the ring for future?

Sky seem to have adapted well to all the changes so far. They won't dominate forever but take away power meters, radios and reduce team sizes.. they'll still find a way to win.

knedlicky

DeadCalm wrote:

While Lapartient is undeniably a dick sometimes and I'm unconvinced by any of his suggestions, believing that cycling is more interesting when the best riders are on different teams and that one team dominating Grand Tours is not great for the sport, is not the same as 'hating the most successful team'.

I agree. In the interview, Lappartient doesn't cut an inspiring figure, but he also didn't actually say cycling sport is boring, or express any hate towards Sky or Froome or Thomas, despite what Holm says - Holm has actually done what he accuses others of (“Just saying something to say something, he doesn’t make himself look any smarter”).

Yes, Lappartient speaks of Sky's efficiency not exciting neutral fans (but some of us would agree), and also mentions some other factors which negatively affects Sky's popularity (but only stuff most everyone already knows - jiffy bags, parliamentary inquiry, etc).
On the other hand, he criticises ASO for trying to prevent Froome's participation, defends the UCI decision, and doesn't agree with the booing. Also, he says he is against a salary cap.

His waffling about possibly even smaller teams is stupid and I imagine will come to nothing, but I was glad to see his dept who will “analyse everything” may still review two-way radios, which some of us here would like to see go. Although clearly not Holm …...

No tA Doctor wrote:

Brian Holm, his DS, ... said on one stage they were on a long flat stretch between two climbs and Alaphilippe came over the radio "I'm gonna attack" and had to be talked out of it

RichN95.

The problem the Tour de France has is is that it is too big. They are restricted to places that can handle all of the media and the publicity caravan. And that stops the race going down the more idiosyncratic roads that make the Giro and Vuelta harder to control.

blazing_saddles

RichN95 wrote:

The problem the Tour de France has is is that it is too big. They are restricted to places that can handle all of the media and the publicity caravan. And that stops the race going down the more idiosyncratic roads that make the Giro and Vuelta harder to control.

Which is pretty much what I said over in the 'rate the tour', thread.

Lapparient is aiming to downsize teams, when he should be begging the ASO to downsize the Tour and spreading some of their investment across other ASO events.
Of course, that would probably mean them downsizing their bank balance, so it's never going to happen.
Still, it doesn't hurt to dream, though.

FocusZing

I think he's right about giving the banning of power meters and radios a go, say for a season. Also on a MTF allow the riders to ditch their bonce receptacles if they want. Lets see the effort.

It needs more safe chaos. The first week everybody following on the stage threads were saying how formulaic it was. A faux break then action around 5K to go.

joey54321

FocusZing wrote:

I think he's right about giving the banning of power meters and radios a go, say for a season. Also on a MTF allow the riders to ditch their bonce receptacles if they want. Lets see the effort.

It needs more safe chaos. The first week everybody following on the stage threads were saying how formulaic it was. A faux break then action around 5K to go.

They did try no race radios in 2009 for two stages of the tour.

bobmcstuff

I would have thought that reducing team sizes even further would just stop young riders getting a ride.

If the limit was 6, Sky could feasibly field a team comprising 1 leader plus 5 support riders who could be considered leaders elsewhere. I would hazard a guess that the average salary on the resulting team would be higher than with 7 or 8 riders (assuming that is a reasonable guide for rider ability). What other team could compete with that? And where's the space for the new riders in that scenario?

bobmcstuff

FocusZing wrote:

I think he's right about giving the banning of power meters and radios a go, say for a season. Also on a MTF allow the riders to ditch their bonce receptacles if they want. Lets see the effort.

It needs more safe chaos. The first week everybody following on the stage threads were saying how formulaic it was. A faux break then action around 5K to go.

I think a lot of that would be solved by getting rid of full stage coverage and limiting everyone to a 45 minute highlights package...

I don't see a lot of evidence that it has got any more formulaic than it has been for the last couple of decades or more, it's just that now you (the royal you) can sit through an interminable 6 hours riding on flat roads then whinge about it online afterwards. Maybe ban twitter and forums as well

RichN95.

bobmcstuff wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

I think he's right about giving the banning of power meters and radios a go, say for a season. Also on a MTF allow the riders to ditch their bonce receptacles if they want. Lets see the effort.

It needs more safe chaos. The first week everybody following on the stage threads were saying how formulaic it was. A faux break then action around 5K to go.

I think a lot of that would be solved by getting rid of full stage coverage and limiting everyone to a 45 minute highlights package...

I don't see a lot of evidence that it has got any more formulaic than it has been for the last couple of decades or more, it's just that now you (the royal you) can sit through an interminable 6 hours riding on flat roads then whinge about it online afterwards. Maybe ban twitter and forums as well

Precisely. There was no golden age of super attacking Tours. It's always been like this. This is what the race is.

FocusZing

bobmcstuff wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

I think he's right about giving the banning of power meters and radios a go, say for a season. Also on a MTF allow the riders to ditch their bonce receptacles if they want. Lets see the effort.

It needs more safe chaos. The first week everybody following on the stage threads were saying how formulaic it was. A faux break then action around 5K to go.

I think a lot of that would be solved by getting rid of full stage coverage and limiting everyone to a 45 minute highlights package...

I don't see a lot of evidence that it has got any more formulaic than it has been for the last couple of decades or more, it's just that now you (the royal you) can sit through an interminable 6 hours riding on flat roads then whinge about it online afterwards. Maybe ban twitter and forums as well

Ha. That's a fair point, oh well see you next year for the highlights:)

onyourright

What the Tour was and what it could be need not be the same. There does need to some change with the times.

When Contador called for a ban of power meters there was perhaps more acceptance of the idea than now. I think all riders rely on them more than just a few years ago.

The problem with these propositions, besides there being some evidence they wouldn’t achieve the desired outcome of more exciting racing (e.g. the radio study by Professor Guegan), is that the UCI (or Lappartient pending his “attractiveness studies”) is just parroting suggestions from the peanut gallery, and mostly from the French peanut gallery at that.

I expect more from the UCI. If it was my job to propose ideas, I’d do better than this. I think any of us would. All the more so for Lappartient to try harder. We should be hearing innovative ideas that we hadn’t thought of, not these stale propositions.

DeVlaeminck

The first week the breaks were going very easily but later in the race some of the most exciting racing was the first hour or so, I suppose we could have 45 minutes of watching the break getting away but I'm guessing that wouldn't be the case so I'd keep the whole race televised if possible.

Personally I'd like to see a further reduction in team size, say to 7. I don't know why some fans have a problem with this. I don't buy the "fewer young riders" line, they'll pick the best 7 or best 8 depending on how many are allowed. In any case it's a race not a charity to help young people get on in life - who cares if a rider is 22 or 44 why does that matter? It should also allow for more teams to enter.

I'd also like to see radios banned. Power meters I'm less bothered about, neither here nor there but it's notable running races don't allow pacing devices so it's not an absurd idea to ban power meters or at least a visible readout. The issue with radios is are they a safety device, some argue having all the DS yelling to get up the front makes racing less safe but clearly being able to communicate could be important say to warn of a dangerous surface, crash etc.

joey54321

DeVlaeminck wrote:

The first week the breaks were going very easily but later in the race some of the most exciting racing was the first hour or so, I suppose we could have 45 minutes of watching the break getting away but I'm guessing that wouldn't be the case so I'd keep the whole race televised if possible.

Personally I'd like to see a further reduction in team size, say to 7. I don't know why some fans have a problem with this. I don't buy the "fewer young riders" line, they'll pick the best 7 or best 8 depending on how many are allowed. In any case it's a race not a charity to help young people get on in life - who cares if a rider is 22 or 44 why does that matter? It should also allow for more teams to enter.

I'd also like to see radios banned. Power meters I'm less bothered about, neither here nor there but it's notable running races don't allow pacing devices so it's not an absurd idea to ban power meters or at least a visible readout. The issue with radios is are they a safety device, some argue having all the DS yelling to get up the front makes racing less safe but clearly being able to communicate could be important say to warn of a dangerous surface, crash etc.

What running races ban pacing devices? I've never heard of that in any race!

rick_chasey

joey54321 wrote:

What running races ban pacing devices? I've never heard of that in any race!

Cycling has a long history of that, after they decided using a spotlight to ghost the previous hour record was considered cheating.

I tend to agree tbh.

john1967

FocusZing wrote:

I think he's right about giving the banning of power meters and radios a go, say for a season. Also on a MTF allow the riders to ditch their bonce receptacles if they want. Lets see the effort.

It needs more safe chaos. The first week everybody following on the stage threads were saying how formulaic it was. A faux break then action around 5K to go.

Nibali crashed on a mountain finish.

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

but it's notable running races don't allow pacing devices so it's not an absurd idea to ban power meters or at least a visible readout.

Running races literally hire people to set a certain pace. The pacing device is the clock in the stadium, or for marathon runners the watch that most of them wear.