heyMartin wrote:
does anyone know if this was done initially to ensure that smaller races got decent/upper level talent ?
I don't know if the UCI had any ulterior motives for how they decided on the scoring system for the races. It certainly seems to make it easier to earn a lot of points at one-day 1.Pro and 1.1 races compared to going up against the big guns at a 3-week GT. (200 points for winning, 35 points for 10th place, all the way down to 5 points for finishing 30th at a one-day 1.Pro race. 125 points for winning, 20 points for 10th place, all the way down to 3 points for finishing 25th at a one-day 1.1 race. Compared to 120/100 points for a stage win, 25/20 points for finishing 3rd on a stage, and zero points for finishing outside the top 5 on a stage at the TdF/Giro or Vuelta. There are only 175/140 points for finishing 10th on GC at the TdF/Giro or Vuelta.)
But I'm probably not the only one who checks on the results for something like the Tour de Vendee (coming up on 2 Oct) who had never heard of that race before. So maybe that was part of the UCI's clever plan.
And I'm guessing there are a few more fans turning up at of some of these races to see some of the bigger names in cycling. More of the UCI's clever plan?
Lotto Soudal has figured out how to game the system, and some of the other bottom dwellers have started to follow suit.
However, I'm half-way waiting for the announcement from the UCI, "OK, we were just kidding! No one is going to be relegated after all."
"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.