mvl1985

Of course, this does not help athletes perform at their best in one of the most demanding sporting events in the world. From that perspective, what happened is highly questionable, and it would be good to have full transparency about the reasons behind it.

Think the budget gap is closer to 15-20M for Visma to UAE, with Netcompany-Ineos and Red Bull closer to UAE

Good for you :) For me, that battle for second place is little more than a consolation prize.

Is there no difference between the way Visma did it (smart improvements & optimizations) versus what UAE is doing now with big spending? It feels that the way Visma did it, is way more easy to copy

Do you really feel that way? For me, the suspense compared to 2022 and 2023 feels completely different, and the level of excitement is not even half as high.

Dominance = less attention for the sport.. Especially in a time the sport if facing a crucial period for it's future. It doesn't mean that UAE is to blame, but it is not good that the ranges in budgets (and so the quality of the selections) are widening up

I see the point, but cycling has always been both an individual and a team sport. Strong leaders benefit from their teams in the mountains, in crosswinds and with positioning, so it feels fair that team strength also matters in a TTT. That said, I still think Remco has a very good chance tomorrow. He is the best TT rider in the world, has a solid team around him and he has proven to be pretty good at hilly circuits.

Is it with the first 16 out of 19,5km flat and fully relying on your team?

Why?

Agree! More interesting tactical options which makes the race more entertaining to watch. Especially when there are hills in the parcours design.

Haha, that is an interesting thought about positive discrimination. It is not entirely unusual in sport. In Formula 1, for example, the most successful teams are given less wind tunnel testing time. Other forms of motorsport use ballast systems, where the fastest competitors have to carry extra weight. That said, like SilverSurfer, I think this could already have a positive impact on smaller teams. Bigger teams may have to pass up more opportunities because they need to use their energy and resources more carefully.

This is by far the best idea Lappartient has put forward, and one of the few things he has said that I fully agree with. It could genuinely make racing more entertaining to watch. I do not think it would change the balance of power when it comes to winning Grand Tours, but on individual stages it could create more unpredictability and more race scenario's that could lead to a win.

Rider safety should always come before commercial interests!

@SilverSurfer I understand that, and I am not arguing that only pure sprinters should be able to win it. Rouleurs and puncheurs can absolutely be fast men too. My concern is simply that the balance should still reward speed, sprinting and consistency, rather than allowing someone to win mainly through results on mountain or very hilly stages. In my view, the combination of stage design and the points system should make it almost impossible for riders like Vingegaard or Pogačar to win, while creating a close battle between sprinters who win several stages and versatile riders like Van Aert or Pedersen who regularly go on the attack but who can also be up there in a bunch sprint.

Yeah but the KOM classification is also clearly for the climbers right? ;) So why shouldn't the green jersey be for the fast men?

But it is meant for the fast men, right? So how do you make sure it does not end up in the hands of a rider who wins six or seven mountain/punch stages?

100% agree, although for me that does not necessarily mean the rider who wins the most stages. I think it would be exciting to design the points system and the courses in a way that creates a close battle between a rider who wins the most stages and riders who consistently finish in the top five while also picking up points in the intermediate sprints. As a consequence, I think the system should be designed in a way that prevents a rider like Pogačar from dominating purely through his strength in the mountains and on punchy stages.

I would love to see Piganzoli selected after the way he impressed at the Giro, racing with such confidence and flair. Tulett, however, is probably the more sensible choice, both for the balance of Visma’s Tour squad and Piganzoli’s long term development.

That sounds for me more like a luxury tax than a salary cap, and it may not make the racing itself much more competitive. The richest teams could still sign the best riders, pay the penalty and treat it as the cost of doing business. Meanwhile, development teams would receive more money, but could still lose their best talent to those same wealthy teams. It might improve the distribution of money across the sport, which would be valuable in itself. But that is not necessarily the same as creating a more competitive peloton.

But wouldn't his experience be better without pressure?

I agree. Seixas is exceptionally talented, but the Tour de France is completely different from winning a one week stage race or a classic. He has never experienced three consecutive weeks of racing at this level. Targeting the podium would force him to protect his position every day, instead of learning, racing freely and discovering how his body responds in the final week. A strong general classification result could be a consequence of good racing, but it should not be the objective.