the (apparently unrecognized) irony in your Schadenfreude is that had
LA been on the roster they likely would have been in.
You're right; the Vuelta was concerned about their race becoming too popular
and getting too much media attention, which would take away from its
home-town appeal.
My gosh yes, the Vuelta would have been even-more opposed to bringing in a
big draw like Lance to their race. A country with a declining tourism
industry, declining GDP the last few years, I mean why would you want to to
something that might make people want to travel to the place?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
On Jun 15, 1:02 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> "Keith" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:npde1650rvqoe261i...@4ax.com...
>
The ASO owns the Vuelta now so they may want it to remain a more
regional race. Something needs to be done. This decision is arbitrary
with no real reasons. Doping is not a legitimate claim since the
accusations against Lance are pure supposition.
No they don't.
I doubt it since the Giro is run by a different organization.
That's how I read the organizer's response, too. They'd have been
insane not to have invited RatShack if LA was riding. Like any
business, the Vuelta organizers want to maximize their profits, having
LA there would have been a huge boost.
Brad Anders
Does the team current UCI ranking allow for such treatment ??
1. Difficult IMHO to turn away a top 10 team from a grand tour unless there
is an 'Astana 2007' situation involved etc.
2. Turning away the #20 team, with no big name rider etc, in favour of
others (local interests etc) , is hardly an issue.
If #2 applies, more fool Bruyneel for not building/running a team that
gets the ranking points in a season or rides sufficiently well in certain
races to be noted/worthy for invitation to a grand tour.
Regards,
Steven Perryman
Part of the problem is that Radioshack is a new team with a lot of top
riders with few stars that are winning big races with the exception of
the Dauphine-Libre.
And the Vuelta Ciclista al Pais Vasco (Horner).
There have been eight Pro Tour races completed so far this year.
Radio Shack won two of them. That's not so bad, though if you add in
the historical calendar races, it looks less good.
Why won't Armstrong ride the Vuelta?
Does he have something else planned?
--
Old Fritz
> On Jun 16, 1:34 pm, S Perryman <a...@a.net> wrote:
>>Does the team current UCI ranking allow for such treatment ??
>>1. Difficult IMHO to turn away a top 10 team from a grand tour unless there
>>is an 'Astana 2007' situation involved etc.
>>2. Turning away the #20 team, with no big name rider etc, in favour of
>>others (local interests etc) , is hardly an issue.
>>If #2 applies, more fool Bruyneel for not building/running a team that
>>gets the ranking points in a season or rides sufficiently well in certain
>>races to be noted/worthy for invitation to a grand tour.
> Part of the problem is that Radioshack is a new team with a lot of top
> riders with few stars that are winning big races with the exception of
> the Dauphine-Libre.
The issue AFAIK is that at best the rider rankings are on a 12 month
rolling calculation. So if all these "top riders" are doing nothing since
say the 2009 TdF, their points totals are dwindling away.
I tried a quick search on the UCI rankings, and one source stated that
of April 2010, Radioshack were #15. As of last week, are they better/
same/worse ??
Regards,
Steven Perryman
Brings back bad memories of promising to go there to help Heras win
it...
>Does the team current UCI ranking allow for such treatment ??
>
>1. Difficult IMHO to turn away a top 10 team from a grand tour unless there
>is an 'Astana 2007' situation involved etc.
>
>2. Turning away the #20 team, with no big name rider etc, in favour of
>others (local interests etc) , is hardly an issue.
Yes and now we're finding that neither Leppy or Kloden were going to
race after all, another lie by Bruynel when he was being a cry baby
earlier this week.