You are reading a single comment by @andyp and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@andyp
Loads of wishful thinking on this thread today, I'm glad I missed it so I didn't have to argue with all of you at once.
Anyone who thinks a salary cap is possible in pro cycling should be laughed out the door. They can't agree on a unified race calendar, so how on earth could they ever agree on major financial changes?
Sharing tv revenue? Have none of you read this - http://inrng.com/2014/01/problem-revenue-sharing/ ? There is no revenue to share is the bottom line, the best case is approx €2 million a year per team, but even that figure is a best guess and likely inaccurate.
The banning race radio fallacy? First off, rider safety is paramount, so unless you're prepared to accept more injuries and even deaths, the team directors should be able to warn riders of approaching hazards and race radio is the only viable way of doing that. The race organisation also need a communication channel to team directors and riders. On the tactical front, all the team director can see of most of the race is, if they are lucky, the arse end of the peloton and a tiny tv feed, with a delay of around 30 seconds, on the dashboard. So if someone attacks, the riders have to make a judgement call there and then, not wait for the director to realise what's going on half a minute later.
Banning powermeters isn't going to change anything - do you seriously think Froome checked his powermeter when he went after Bodnar and Sagan on the crosswind stage to Montpelier? He saw a move and made a split second judgement to react to it (and well before his DS even knew what was going on), he didn't look at his computer and think, "I'm doing 450 watts now, will probably have to do 600-700 for 30 seconds to get across, hmmm, what shall I do?" He just went. On the stage that Bardet won, Poels PM wasn't displaying his watts, but he still rode a tempo that was right for Froome and hard enough to discourage anyone else from attacking. Riders at this level know what their threshold feels like and can hold it for minutes without recourse to a PM.
Reducing the teams might weaken the stronger teams a bit, but if Sky went to the Tour with a team of Froome, Thomas, Rowe, Stannard, Peols, Landa, Nieve and Henao, they'd still be formidable (and most of you are trying to guess who I've left out).
The fundamental problem with the GC battle at the Tour is one of risk, do you risk losing the race in the hope of improving your GC position, or do you sit tight and react to opportunities should they arise? The teams who are looking to win the Tour, and realistically, only three teams started the Tour with a genuine ambition to win, might be prepared to risk all to win, but the teams filling the other top ten positions are, generally, happy to hold on to what they have. To make the sport 'more exciting' then that is what you have to change.