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?