Vuelta snubs Ratshack

[Keith]

That's a good one :
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-speechless-after-vuelta-snub?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=news_headlines
Hard to feel sorry for Bruyneel, LA's conman but hard to explain all
the same...they must know something we don't in Spain.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 14, 9:29*pm, Keith > wrote:
> That's a good one :http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-speechless-after-vuelta-snub...
> Hard to feel sorry for Bruyneel, LA's conman but hard to explain all
> the same...they must know something we don't in Spain.

the (apparently unrecognized) irony in your Schadenfreude is that had
LA been on the roster they likely would have been in.

[Keith]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:57:06 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Jun 14, 9:29Êpm, Keith > wrote:
>> That's a good one :http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-speechless-after-vuelta-snub...
>> Hard to feel sorry for Bruyneel, LA's conman but hard to explain all
>> the same...they must know something we don't in Spain.
>
>the (apparently unrecognized) irony in your Schadenfreude is that had
>LA been on the roster they likely would have been in.

Sez who ?

[B. Lafferty[_3_]]

On 6/14/2010 9:29 PM, Keith wrote:
> That's a good one :
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-speechless-after-vuelta-snub?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=news_headlines
> Hard to feel sorry for Bruyneel, LA's conman but hard to explain all
> the same...they must know something we don't in Spain.
I wonder if Bruyneel's snubbing of the Giro was part of the equation.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

"Keith" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:57:06 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
>>On Jun 14, 9:29 pm, Keith > wrote:
>>> That's a good one
>>> :http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-speechless-after-vuelta-snub...
>>> Hard to feel sorry for Bruyneel, LA's conman but hard to explain all
>>> the same...they must know something we don't in Spain.
>>
>>the (apparently unrecognized) irony in your Schadenfreude is that had
>>LA been on the roster they likely would have been in.
>
> Sez who ?

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

[[email protected]]

On Jun 15, 1:02*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" >
wrote:
> "Keith" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>

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.


> > Sez who ?
>
> 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 Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[A. Dumas]

wrote:
> The ASO owns the Vuelta now

No they don't.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 15, 4:41*am, "B. Lafferty" > wrote:
> On 6/14/2010 9:29 PM, Keith wrote:> That's a good one :
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-speechless-after-vuelta-snub...
> > Hard to feel sorry for Bruyneel, LA's conman but hard to explain all
> > the same...they must know something we don't in Spain.
>
> I wonder if Bruyneel's snubbing of the Giro was part of the equation.

I doubt it since the Giro is run by a different organization.

[Brad Anders]

On Jun 14, 6:57*pm, " > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 9:29*pm, Keith > wrote:
>
> > That's a good one :http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-speechless-after-vuelta-snub...
> > Hard to feel sorry for Bruyneel, LA's conman but hard to explain all
> > the same...they must know something we don't in Spain.
>
> the (apparently unrecognized) irony in your Schadenfreude is that had
> LA been on the roster they likely would have been in.

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

[S Perryman]

Brad Anders wrote:

> On Jun 14, 6:57 pm, " > wrote:

>>On Jun 14, 9:29 pm, Keith > wrote:

>>>That's a good one :http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-speechless-after-vuelta-snub...
>>>Hard to feel sorry for Bruyneel, LA's conman but hard to explain all
>>>the same...they must know something we don't in Spain.

>>the (apparently unrecognized) irony in your Schadenfreude is that had
>>LA been on the roster they likely would have been in.

> 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.

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

[[email protected]]

On Jun 16, 1:34*pm, S Perryman > wrote:
> Brad Anders wrote:
> > On Jun 14, 6:57 pm, " > wrote:
> >>On Jun 14, 9:29 pm, Keith > wrote:
> >>>That's a good one :http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-speechless-after-vuelta-snub...
> >>>Hard to feel sorry for Bruyneel, LA's conman but hard to explain all
> >>>the same...they must know something we don't in Spain.
> >>the (apparently unrecognized) irony in your Schadenfreude is that had
> >>LA been on the roster they likely would have been in.
> > 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.
>
> 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.

[Victor Kan]

On Jun 16, 9:51*pm, " > wrote:
> 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.

[Frederick the Great[_2_]]

In article
>,
Brad Anders > wrote:

> On Jun 14, 6:57Â*pm, " > wrote:
> > On Jun 14, 9:29Â*pm, Keith > wrote:
> >
> > > That's a good one :http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-speechless-after-vuelta-snub...
> > > Hard to feel sorry for Bruyneel, LA's conman but hard to explain all
> > > the same...they must know something we don't in Spain.
> >
> > the (apparently unrecognized) irony in your Schadenfreude is that had
> > LA been on the roster they likely would have been in.
>
> 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.

Why won't Armstrong ride the Vuelta?
Does he have something else planned?

--
Old Fritz

[S Perryman]

wrote:

> On Jun 16, 1:34 pm, S Perryman > 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

[Keith]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:58:05 -0700, Frederick the Great
> wrote:

>In article
>,
> Brad Anders > wrote:
>
>> On Jun 14, 6:57Êpm, " > wrote:
>> > On Jun 14, 9:29Êpm, Keith > wrote:
>> >
>> > > That's a good one :http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-speechless-after-vuelta-snub...
>> > > Hard to feel sorry for Bruyneel, LA's conman but hard to explain all
>> > > the same...they must know something we don't in Spain.
>> >
>> > the (apparently unrecognized) irony in your Schadenfreude is that had
>> > LA been on the roster they likely would have been in.
>>
>> 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.
>
>Why won't Armstrong ride the Vuelta?
>Does he have something else planned?

Brings back bad memories of promising to go there to help Heras win
it...

[Keith]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:34:35 +0100, S Perryman > 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.

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.