No UCI points for riders coming off suspension.
"The UCI took the decision to disqualify riders who are returning from bans from scoring points toward the team rankings for two years following their return from a anti-doping rule violation. The rule was ratified by the Pro Cycling Council in Copenhagen last autumn."
Am I alone in having missed this?
This will make it a harder decision on the part of teams to give riders who have "done their time" another chance. I suppose some will see that as unfair, others as just part of the price an offender has to pay.
4 months ago
paisley
40 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
JV tweeted about it last week
Don’t have the time to cut and paste quotes, but go his twitter and just scroll down. It was on the 21st.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
The controversial element would be the date of applicability.
The big story is that Valverde’s points will not count for Movistar, right?
From the team perspective, for fairness it would only matter that the rule was clearly in place before major contracts were signed in late 2011 for 2012, I think?
From the rider’s perspective, who knows – I mean, you could argue that to be scrupulously fair the rule should only apply to violations that occur after the rule is in place. But I’m not going to lose too much sleep over retrospective extension of doping punishments.
Seems to put the penalty on the wrong team
shouldn’t the team the rider was with when committing the offense take the hit?
Granted, in Valverde’s case it is one and the same.
I can’t be arsed getting into an argument over a bit of fun. -- omnevelnihil
I can't even remember how the points work any more (without doping)...
wasn’t there talk at some point of half a riders points staying with the team he leaves, and half going with him, or something?
Or was that just something somebody on here suggested?
If a team loses points when one of their riders is suspended
this makes sense to me. The teams therefore have a strong incentive to discourage doping and keep things on the up and up.
The intent of this no-points-for-two-years after a suspension seems to be less a deterrent to additional doping than a further punishment of the doper. And maybe everyone is okay with that.
I can’t be arsed getting into an argument over a bit of fun. -- omnevelnihil
definitely missed that one but..............
as it was in place seems fair enough. yet another deterrent for dopers so got to be good no?
Rafa's on peds
I guess it is a deterrent
if a potential doper is foresighted enough to say, “If I dope and I get caught and I get suspended and I want to come back from that suspension then I am going to have a hard time finding a team and will probably have to take a pay cut.”
It just seems more effective deterrents come where the pain of any infringement is shared by a team who is in a position to influence / enforce good behavior.
I can’t be arsed getting into an argument over a bit of fun. -- omnevelnihil
The most important thing about this rule has not been brought up yet!
And, color me shocked!
Since the world revolves around VDS and Valverde’s points don’t help Movistar then you wil think that the team will make sure that the races that don’t involve the Green Bullet will get that little bit extra consideration that may make a difference between points and no points. So non-Valverde Movistar riders just got a little more love.
VDS: EVERYTHING relates to it.
12 that would be highway robbery the guy is obviously rubbish and hasn't got any form at all...
since Movistar will now be disincentivised to race him in World Tour races, therefore 6 would be about right :-p
'When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning' - Dr. Reiner Knizia
by bought with blood on Jan 28, 2012 4:35 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry, I may have been confusing you with Willj,
I think he was the one advocating the traditional Swiss approach in the Spaniard thread
hmm.... wouldn't extending this to VDS mean
that Valverde can earn no VDS points for 2 seasons? : )
I can’t be arsed getting into an argument over a bit of fun. -- omnevelnihil
retroactive and double punishment?
sounds illegal under the European Human Rights convention?
Separately, the bigger problem for me is the whole Team points system. I think points should belong to the team that the rider was on when he earned them. Not to the team that he subsequently signs with.
In other words, team points should belong to teams and not “travel” with a rider.
moo
This would make so much more sense than what happens now.
And it’s fine so long as team structures are stable year to year.
But the problem is what happens when teams change, new teams start up etc., it’s very hard to see what should happen.
That’s why I think they should scrap the whole points thing altogether, at least as a measure of whether a team should be in the Pro Tour or not.
It could make teams more stable
If you want to start a new team then start small, don’t expect to just wave your chequebook. And if you really want to flash the cash then you have to deal with someone who’s got a team already.
some sort of compromise would make too much sense to ever be adopted. I hate the current system where new money can simply buy points
moo
yeah, but were logic and compromise to prevail we'd have so much less to talk about
I can’t be arsed getting into an argument over a bit of fun. -- omnevelnihil
If the UCI holds teams responsible for the actions of their riders, . . . .
. . . . then I feel they would then be justified in some ownership of their points.
But that’s not how the system is, at any level.
As of now, the rider carries all the responsibility and risk in doping as well as everything else.
Therefore they should rightfully own all their points; which is directly related to their value.
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
my complaint
is the off season transfer market that this creates where new Teams (or old teams) can buy points.
It makes no sense to me.
moo
Agreed, double jeopardy is not acceptable
The punishment is atonement enough for the rules violations, the teams should not be penalized for being humane and giving a rider a second chance. A rule like this can change season plans for a team, hurt their chances at inclusion in races, and can be crippling in terms of it being a impediment to the continuation in the top level of the sport, which can also effect sponsorship too.
Maybe the points system should be revisited, I find it odd that teams like AG2R are forced to bean count points to get back to the top of the world rankings order. Something seems wrong about hiring riders from continental circuits just to accumulate points, there has to be a better way to pick the best teams than having smart practices in signing riders.
I'm sorry, I had to laugh a little at the "humane" teams.
I don’t know why everything has to be framed in terms of “penalizing”? You have a set of rules designed to encourage some behavior and discourage other behavior. This would “encourage” riders to return on a lower level and work to earn their way back to the position they attained by cheating. It discourages teams to cynically buy results from riders proven to be questionable.
Likewise, the points system that while it has some effects that we deem silly," hiring Iranian guys"? Well it is silly in some sense because there are probably 25 belgians who could fill the spot just as well as that guy but otoh it creates an inroad into the sport to riders from new regions and it helps expand the sport. An iranian rider, no matter how talented does not have the same network and connections as an italian, french or belgian rider so maybe there is some merit to create an alternative, performance based, entry-way to the big leagues?
I'm not claiming some teams are humane or not
But I don’t think inroads MUST be worked into the system. It’s nice to see guys from other circuits move their way up, but I just don’t think teams should be forced to bean count for survival.
To be fair, it's not just a punishment for the rider
(and therefore a deterrant of a sort).
I think the bigger purpose is probably to protect the image of the sport. Everybody groans when a known doper comes back from their holiday and instantly signs a big-money contract (on the back of their doping-fuelled reputation) with a team that doesn’t seem to have any sense of decency or caution. It make cycling look – both to outsiders and to riders considering cheating – like a sport that doesn’t care about doping: a sport in which doping is just part of the game, with its own sporting penalties, which nobody actually gets upset over.
This change won’t make people moral, of course, but it’ll help to make the amorality less immediately obvious by giving teams a reason to be more restrained in employing cheats – and since perceptions shape behaviour, that seems like a good idea.
One important distinction (pointed out by Vaughters)
It’s not UCI points that are not counted, it’s only the “sporting value” points that are used for determining the sporting value part in the teams UCI license applications.
Huh? I am sorry, but I don't follow this. My ignorance for sure. Can you explain it to me?
I can’t be arsed getting into an argument over a bit of fun. -- omnevelnihil
UCI points are one thing
deciding world rankings, order of cars in the caravan etc. Those are not affected. When it comes to time for the UCI to make a teamranking, the “sporting value”, to determine what teams what teams deserve a “Pro Team” license they use the UCI points but with some adjustments. The 2 year rule is one such adjustment.
So the returning rider’s points are only without value in the teams’ pursuit of pro team licenses.
Thanks for responding.
That is what I thought, but was afraid based on your last comment that I had reached the wrong conclusion.
Sadly the sport seems to stray ever farther from a clear, transparent system.
I can’t be arsed getting into an argument over a bit of fun. -- omnevelnihil
How so?
The sporting value system is intended to reduce the arbitrariness* of the license system. The rules are clear (albeit insanely complicated) . The two year rule is clear as well if we ignore for a moment the retroactivity, which only affects a very small number of riders but is unfortunate of course.
*(For the record I think the sporting value system is hugely negative but admittedly it reduces the randomness.)
The very things you mention, retroactive enforcement and insane complication, make things less than transparent.
How can any constituency – rider, team, sponsor, or fan – keep up? I know I can’t.
I knew my PdC friends would help me figure it out.
I can’t be arsed getting into an argument over a bit of fun. -- omnevelnihil
The part of the UCI that approves the sporting value rules
appears to be the PCC (although ratified higher up also) – which has reps on it from races, riders and teams (who if they vote together form a majority) as well as UCI appointees.
The UCI publishes a handbook on the rules and this is distributed to the teams (and was summarily leaked last year to Benson and Farrand at cycling news and part published on their site as photographs) well before the supposed start of the transfer window
It may not be published online so all fans can read it, but then not really important in the scheme of things the fans know as it is not aimed at us. Not officially advising the riders is another thing (but nothing to stop their reps telling them), but charge of lack of transparency doesn’t really apply any more (though was a popular complaint just after its introduction with some justification). It is transparent enough to those that need to know, the ones whose licence it will directly affect. The rest of us may want to know…
Also, from JV's tweets
I got the impression that this idea first came from the Pro Cycling Council
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Jan 29, 2012 3:34 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks for that background.
Maybe with a little more digging I can learn what motivated the rule and what its proponents hope it will accomplish. There have been a number of suggestions in these comments: further punishment of dopers, deterrent, improve the image of the sport, etc.
You make a good point about the relative importance to fans. Just the same, when a decision is handed down in the Contador case, for example, I bet fans will be among those trying to determine all the implications.
I can’t be arsed getting into an argument over a bit of fun. -- omnevelnihil
In Cantador’s case, rules will have time to change at least 3 more times!
In loving memory of the HTC- Highroad
.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Celebrate the Giro d'Italia at Podium Cafe!
Check our Giro Section for race updates, on-the-scene reports, and other hijinx.
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
