All Hail, the Dark Lords!

Yes, cower brief mortals:  the Dark Lords of Katusha have exerted their will, and are back in the UCI Pro-Team ranks again.

CAS, Court of Arbitration for Sport, have over-ruled the UCI decision that the Dark Lords of Katusha just weren't up to scratch for Pro-Team status.

We still don't know exactly why the UCI threw them out, bearing in mind that they were second in the team UCI rankings last year, and their man Rodriguez was the top UCI individual rider, beating even Bradley Wiggins.

Rumour has it that it was on ethical grounds, ie a reaction to the several small doping scandals that Katusha have suffered recently.

But whatever it was, the UCI ruled them out, they appealed, and now they are back in.

Oh dear.

The UCI restrict the number of teams to 18 for a reason: 22 teams is about the most you can sensibly have without racing degenerating into a blood-bath, with dozens of riders and hundreds of vehicles push and shove their way around the course. We have already seen what a circus the Tour is turning into, what with the French TV car running Johnny Hoogerland and Juan Antonio Fletcher off the road, not to mention various other disgraceful drag-your-bike-under-my-wheels incidents.

If the UCI increase the number of Pro Teams to 19, that means fewer ProContinental teams can compete.  And they are the ones who are working their way up, who need the wildcard invites and the chance to ride with "the big boys" in order to test themselves, and in order to get those UCI points in order to make the jump to Pro Team.

Not to mention the small political fact that the organising country can dish out those wildcards as they please, which means they can favour their own national teams (the Tour usually has at least 2 or 3 French teams among the wildcards) (mostly due to the mystifyingly small number of French teams good enough to reach Pro Team status) (and I still don't really understand why France, home of the biggest cycle race ever, don't have lots and lots and lots of really world-class riders...).

So if the number of wildcards is reduced, the organisers are not going to be happy.  I'm not even mentioning back-handers for including certain teams, but you can bet your boots that some level of bribery goes on, behind the scenes...

So what happens now? The UCI are going to have to make a decision, and it's going to be a tough one.

Off the top of my head, I would think that they can:

1) Throw out another Pro Team to drop the total back down to 18.
2) Tell organisers "sorry, mes amis, only 3 wildcards this year"
3) Reduce the number of riders per team, so we have 23 teams but one less rider per team.
4) Tell the 19 Pro Teams that they are now drawing lots to see who has to sit out each race.
4a) Invent some complicated method of allocating places.

This is not going be good, whatever happens.

I mean, 1) throw out a Pro Team. What!!! How can they do that, once the season has already started? No, I just don't think they can do that. The sponsors would be furious. As would the team.

2) reduce wildcards? It's the obvious thing to do, but most of them have already been allocated. In fact, that was a big part of the problem, as the Dark Lords were already cut out from Giro d'Italia, Paris-Nice, the Criterium du Dauphine, and most recently the Tour de Romandie. If those races didn't want to invite the Dark Lords, what are they going to do now that they will be forced to accept them? Red faces all round, I think... and I would not want to be an organiser, and to have to park next to the Dark Lords' team bus on a dark night...

Reducing the number of riders per team, 3) is a thought: and you might remember that I've already suggested that to make the Tour safer.  My suggestion was to reduce the team from 9 to 7, allowing two substitute riders, with the proviso that only riders who ride every day are eligible for GC. This would allow teams to either use their domestiques harder, or more appropriately, giving them time to recover between rides, or to choose to go sprinter-heavy on some days, climber-heavy on others. It would also mean that more teams would finish with a full team - they could afford to "lose" two members to injury/illness without being at such a disadvantage. However, any such proposal needs a lot of thought, much more than I gave it, and would have to be announced a year before it was introduced, to allow teams time to adjust their tactics etc. It would be very poor management to just throw it at the teams with no warning.

So I have a horrible thought that it's going to be 4 or 4a: the UCI are going to come up with some ridiculous method of cutting the number back down to 18.

Perhaps they will make the teams draw straws at the sign-on box? Yes, that would go down well, wouldn't it - you get your entire team trained up for a race, ship out all your kit and equipment, to be told on the first day "sorry, you're out, pack up and go."

Perhaps they will make the bottom four teams - the original bottom three plus the Dark Lords - participate in a knock-out competition before each race to see who has to sit it out? But what if the Dark Lords lose, they will appeal! So the competition will have to be rigged to ensure that one of the others loses. Oh dear, oh dear...

Perhaps they will just rotate those bottom four? That has the benefit of simplicity, although it could be seen as jolly hard luck on the other three... mind you, they could easily have been out of the Pro Team altogether, so maybe they'll be grateful to get three-quarters of the races? Ah, but there are only three BIG races.  Oh dear, oh dear.

It's safe to say that there is no easy answer, and I am looking forward to seeing just what a cock-up the UCI are going to make of it.

Anyone else have any predictions?

"привет" to Chelyabinsk!

Amazing thing, spotted when I was checking my stats for this blog (I know, I know, I should be typing blog entries, not wasting time checking the stats - I'm a geek, ok?) I noticed that we have had a visitor from Chelyabinsk today.

Hi there!

It's amazing to think that, after having a flaming meteor hit their town, they still have managed to find time to check in and see what's going on in Schleckland.

The photo above is taken from a windscreen-cam of a driver, and shows the big "bang" before the thing came down and hit the ground.

I'm sure you've all seen news footage of it by now - LLB and I were particularly struck with the cctv footage from inside various offices and shops, where you can quite literally see people stagger, before all the glass shatters, and the blinds all blow about.

It must have been absolutely terrifying, so a special Schlecklander prize to you guys from Chelyabinsk, whoever you are!  *waves*


 

Andy will march back in March.

It's official - Our Andy has finally admitted that he's been a sicky boy, and there is no point rushing back into races when you are not properly prepared.

We all know that he had a major injury last year with the fractured sacrum/pelvis which, in retrospect, must have been all the more annoying as there were no outward, visible signs of damage. It must have been a bit hard to have to say "it hurts, it hurts" without there being any blood or bandages to show for it.

Then he came back in the Tour Down Under, not really prepared: I think Jensie's comment made it plain that Andy had not been training hard enough to be in good condition for a race. Whether we think Andy didn't train because he was worried about not being fully recovered (as indicated in his interview early in the Tour Down Under), or whether he didn't train enough because he was lazy and un-motivated (Sporza et al) is a matter of opinion.

In my opinion, obviously, I tend to believe what he has said in person, to a camera, rather than what some magazine somewhere has said, particularly when they are repeating what someone else has said.

Then there was the Tour of the Med, where he had to drop out on the first day with a respiratory infection, which was yet another blow for him, and yet more ammunition for the Schleck-knockers.

But, today, better news: Radioshack have apparently announced that he's not racing again before the end of the month. This makes a lot of sense - having been ill, he certainly won't be in race-fit condition, and he wasn't quite race-fit before the illness. 

It therefore seems sensible to take a fortnight off, and get back in training.

There's nothing about this on the Radioshack site, btw - they don't seem to talk about him very much - so we have to assume that the quote came via the press office.


“We were happy to see Andy doing well in training the last few days,” explained RadioShack Leopard manager Luca Guercilena. “There is however a big difference between training and race situations." 

“We want to prevent a relapse because of the race. Andy’s main goals are situated later in the season. It’s better that we are cautious now instead of taking steps backward.” 

So, fingers crossed everyone that he doesn't get knocked off his bike in training!

One in a Bed Sex Scandal in the Peloton..

Odd, isn't it, that cycling has all these doping scandals, but we hardly ever hear about any sex scandals within the peloton?

LLB and I were discussing this point last night, and came to the conclusion that the cycling life-style just doesn't allow for much in the way of sex scandals. I mean, between having to eat only those things provided and approved by your team doctor,  having to train for 3-5 hours every day, and having to keep your ADAMS completely up to date - well, when would there be the time, or the energy?

And then today, adding fuel to the "blimey, do they actually read this blog?" complex, Jonathan Vaughters of Garmin tweeted:

Spooky!

And no, before you ask, I'm not back on Twitter: LLB spotted it and sent it to me.


So,  what sex scandals in the peloton would we like to see?