UCI's fumblings leave Euskaltel in the dark
The increasingly bad joke that is the UCI dealt their own professionalism and credibility (if there's anything left, there is) another major blow earlier this week when they announced their new team ranking system. Without exaggeration I find it embarrassing. What kind of major international sport, which cycling still is, changes the criteria for acceptance into next year's competitions retroactively after the season's done? No one but cycling that is. Take football for instance. As we all know, the top four English Premier League sides are guaranteed a place in the ensuing season's Champions League. Imagine this: After a 38-game campaign, or in cycling's case a whole year of racing, the number four team, Tottenham, who've legitimately earned their place in Europe's top club competition, suddenly get's a note from UEFA saying: "Sorry, but we changed the criteria. You're out. Man City, who by the way finished below you in the rankings, have now invested a lot of money into new players. And since we feel their new players are better than yours, they'll take your place in the CL. Life's a bitch. Get on with it". It would be totally unheard of. But in cycling that's how we roll. How, in the name of justice, is it possible that a team without a name and, most importantly, without having competed in a single bike race, tops the standings ahead of teams who've earned their place at the top? How on earth does that make sense? That's the case with the so-called Luxembourg Pro Cycling Project. The rules that were laid out before the season got underway, by the UCI themselves, were that the top 17 ranked teams come the end of the season would be guaranteed a ride in the next year's big races. Euskaltel finished 13th and thus otbained a ticket to ride for 2011, but suddenly that counts for nothing as only the top 15 teams based on the new rules are guaranteed a place. They're now ranked 16th in the 2010 team rankings after the criteria were changed after the rankings were done, and as a consequence without a guaranteed 2011 calendar. This is nothing but illogical, and further ensures that cycling remains the laughingstock of professional sports. Quick.Step and Savio's Androni Giocattoli team also fell foul of the UCI's new rules, as the 16th and 17th ranked teams now find themselves ranked 18th and 28th. The UCI are said to be in negotiations with Euskaltel over a possible inclusion of the team into the 'big league', but even if those negotiations prove fruitful for Euskaltel, the UCI have still made themselves, and the entire sport with it, look stupid. It's high time a proper, fair, predictable and long-lasting ranking system that decides who's invited and who's not into certain races was implemented. It's time cycling grew up.
7 comments:
It's a joke, and has been for years now. Ever since they introduced the Pro Tour (witch in it self is a good idea, but the way it's constructed is ridiculous with no way of earning a promotion to the highest level based solely on sports achievements) it has all been about the money...
completely agree.
To be fair, I think the original idea was also to base the rankings on where the riders are riding next year (which still is ridiculous, since it gives even more bias to money and football transfers than there already is nowadays with all those new Anglosaxon prestige teams which appear and disappear within the blink of an eye).
But then still, even if that was the case (and I don't know it for sure, as UCI's statements and rules are always totally nontransparent), they should comply to the top - 17 rule. It is a joke what they are doing now.
UCI: The sporting value of a team ranked between 16th and 20th places inclusive will be verified by the licence commission via a more detailed assessment. In order to determine whether a team ranked between 16th and 20th satisfies the sporting criterion, the licence commission will inter alia ascertain whether there is a clear gap in the classification or whether particular circumstances have had an effect on the team’s results. Such particular circumstances shall include any injuries to riders, the types of event which the team has ridden and the homogeneity of the team.
While Euskaltel of course has a strong case with Anton, the UCI can basically decide anything, especially considering the last sentence...
@ arnout-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this excerpt for the UCI means that injuries come into affect for the teams ranked 16-20? Is there a way to get Euskaltel's and BMC's placings switched, if they deemed Anton's injury as a significant loss in points for the team?
But of course, BMC's two big stars speak English so there is no way they would be knocked off.
Last point: confirmed. UCI seems to have an inexplainable preference for Anglosaxon teams, even though the chance that they dissapear quickly is way bigger than old teams such as Rabobank, Euskaltel, you name them. The best example this year is Geox. It was Saunier Duval, I think they have had 26 sponsors in the last 2 years but Fernandez and Gianetti kept looking for sponsors and a way out until they found one, because they loved the sport. Whereas Cervelo threw in big money for two years and decided they didn't like their new toy anymore and just quit.
Concerning your question, there are three places for the teams 16th to 20th. They are gonna examine all criteria in detail, including sporting again, and that means they will also look at the unfulfilled potential due to injuries. The teams above or below 16-20 will not be affected (they can only get kicked out if their ethical or financial situation is not sound or if the UCI doesn't like them for no particular reason).
Completely offensive. Euskaltel has not only consistently had some of the best climbers in the entire peloton but has lately introduced a host of worthy new talent and worked hard to improve their areas of weakness, and with fewer resources than most of the ProTour teams. Why shouldn't that be rewarded accordingly?
Post a Comment