Van Hoorebeeck Bart said:cycling4all.comcycling4all.comOpen ↗ has a preliminary look at the
calendar and point scales
- Based on a calculations with 2003 results they conclude
that year-round races are disfavoured, as opposed to the
intentions. I don' t think this is true, Zabel and
Petacchi fall away from the top of the ranking because
stage results become marginal in the new calculation. The
new calculation is not sprinter-friendly. This really is
a drastic change.
-But we see those who scored in (a few) main events
(GTs/HC+ World Cup) come to the foreground (Vino, Hamilton,
Ullrich), as opposed to those who score in whatever they
race . This in istelf is rather good. But the change is
really big, with the rudimentary points system limited to
just these PT events.
- Apparently teams will gain points on the team ranking in
each event. This is remarkable, and reflects who was the
teams' negotiator (Manolo Saiz). Well his colleagues who
appointed him shouldn't be surprised or complain now.
Also the lesser importance of single day racing in
general is probably influenced by his strong position.
- The regional aspect probably triggers most discussion. If
they want promote cycling elsewhere, why keep 2 similar
long races in Switzerland, instead of promiting one in
Americas or Asia , as is the case in Poland ? Here in
Belgium the 1.1 races are seen as evident victims of the
new system (especially as we lack important stage races).
The Flemish style racer has 3 events left in the new
system. It makes more sense to build a team with men for
the stage races and 'climbing' classics, and ride through
the few other races (... as Saiz has always done)
- I dont wanna blame Saiz for everything, as it are the UCI
who are the motor in this.
When first Hein V. started talking about this "pro tour"
possibility last year, I understood it was a way to get rid
of the miserable wild card invitation system, that managed
to have poor teams like jean delatour (now rags semences)
invited at the TdF instead of the Road Race World Champion's
team. Also, it seemed a good way to revive historically
important events like the Giro, that in the last few years
had been skipped by too many teams.
But what I see now does not correspond at all to what seemed
Hein's early intention.
To me, it seems there are 3 main flaws in the whole Pro-
Tour concept:
1) It still keeps too much space open for local wild cards.
18 teams systematically registered to all the main events
are too few. This leaves space for other 4 non performing
frog teams at the TdF. Since french cyclists and teams
are becoming less and less competetive, what's the point
about having almost 30 useless riders at the most famous
race in the world? They reserved only 4 places for
Italian pro teams, but the sponsor money here is such
that there could be space for at least 5, maybe 6 top
teams. Also just 2 for Belgium is really too few. Are
they going to leave Chocolade Jacque, Landbouwkrediet,
Caldirola and Domina out of this thing?
2) As noted by cycling4all, you and others, the Pro Tour is
too much based on stage racing. This goes against the
cycling tradition, that is made essentially of 1 day
races. Only the 10 present WC races, plus Worlds, G-W and
FW are definitely too few. You talk about classic Flemish
1.1 events like Het Wolk, E3 and Grote Sheldeprijs being
dropped, which surely is a sad thing, but even worst is
the fact that the other 2 present 1.HC races had been
dropped as well. I can't talk much about the GP Ouest
France, a race I have watched just once, but the Giro del
Lazio is really a great traditional race, which had been
existing for about 80 years, with great winners in the
past and still more recently and a really wonderful
parcours, which includes a few steep climbs, like the
cobbled Campi d'Annibale ("Hannibal's Fields) which
really reminds the Muur or the Oude Kwaremont and, just a
few kms from the race finish, the worst cobbled road out
of Northern France, the Old Appia Road. There should have
been at least other 10 one day races (what about
Henninger Turm? and the Classique des Alpes? K-B-K?
Brabantse Pijl?) in a well balanced "Pro Tour".
3) There was really no need to change the official rankings.
The present UCI classment and the World Cup had been an
important term of comparison for all the cycling fans. It
would have been much better to just create a large number
of top teams obliged to run all the races while keeping
the old ranking formulas.
All in all this seems to me a "coup" by the part of the
spanish teams and the others who like the (supposedly)
modern way of racing, against the Italian and Belgian races
and teams. I think that the 2 most important and traditional
cycling federations should boycott this whole [censored]. It's
really a nonsense that the one ds who is most hated in the
peloton (scumbag saiz) is the one who negotiated the whole
thing. They presented the Pro-Tour in a way that looked like
its goal was to preserve racing in those countries where it
was disregarded by new cycling countries, but in fact it
does just the opposite, it draws away from there. But, given
that Belgium and Italy is where the most money around
cycling and the main sponsors are, I think that there is
still space for major changes in the Pro Tour, in case the
right people complain with the appropriate strenght.
