@carleton

I think Gaimon has a bit of history in track though, right? T-town I think?
Maybe not pro rank trackie, but definitely not new to it

I recall not riding on the track for maybe a year and getting the willies while riding the first few laps and I was very squirrely when I returned to the faster races. I would simply let myself get shuffled to the rear and not contest any sprints or simply come off early. If I had the legs to hang up front, it would have been scary.

Even though I was experienced, it's generally a "Use it or Lose it" kind of thing when it comes to being smooth.

^it's probably because you had forgotten how rough the track is at DLV ;)

lol

Just speculating, but honestly I'd guess it was for content.

That makes sense, in a way. But, I wonder if he bit off more than he could chew. Sounds like he was racing in the UCI Pro races at TTown today (Friday).

A telling quote from his IG:


(emphasis mine)

First TP and maybe first (or near first) mass start race in 10 years? In an international pro race no less.

Now I'm really curious as to what happened. Did anyone see it?

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/r...alendar-428030

UCI is cutting the track world cup in half, moving it to a different season, and excluding some of the best teams in the world from competition as "part of its plan to develop track cycling." Smdh.

The elimination of trade teams helps out the smaller countries when it comes to getting qualifying points. When a rider is part of a trade team, their points stay with them, and the national national federation gets to use those points. Countries that don't have riders on trade teams must shoulder the full brunt of fielding riders and getting qualifying points.

There are only so many points available, and a country can only qualify so many riders. Essentially what ends up happening is the powerhouse countries get to double dip on points despite already maxing out the riders they get to send. This leaves the smaller nations to scrap over an ever decreasing supply of points.

First rule of UCI Track cycling - Don't ever try to win (or even worse, actually win) being smart and (sort of) unconventional.

Yeah, I kinda agree with this.

The UK was notorious for exploiting this. They would have like 2-3 trade teams in the field (like team KGF) as well as their National Team. They'd take all of the points and leave nothing for the others. The Dutch BEAT team as well. Between BEAT and their National Team, there were no more points available for Sprint events.

Don't get me wrong, the US has done it, too. But, that's why the system is flawed if the idea is to get representation for every country into the PanAms, EU Championships, and Olympics. If left to the old way, with just points, the Olympics would be stacked with riders from maybe 3-4 countries in all track events.

You can find the teams listed here: https://www.uci.org/track/teams

For example, Great Britain is fielding 4 teams which include 19 riders for the 2019-2020 season:

- HUUB WATTBIKE TEST TEAM
- TEAM BREEZE
- TEAM INSPIRED
- TEAM WALES

This isn't counting those who will be riding for the British National Team.

The points for all of the above will go to Team GB when it's time to figure out how many rider slots (that can be assigned to anyone) a team gets for the European Championships, World Championships, and Olympics. This is how Team GB might have 3 riders in a Keirin Final. See how that can affect the outcome?

If it's a numbers game, the more people you have out there collecting points, the more you get and the fewer available for your competition.

So, let's say the British have 19 people out there scooping up points but can only put 10 on their National Team. Guess what? Those points that the other 9 riders collected don't get redistributed to the other teams. They are just lost in the system. So, the points that the 1st 10 got are now even more valuable!


2019-2020 Track Trade Team Count:
Canada: 2
USA: 0
Australia: 1
Germany: 2
Japan: 4
New Zealand: 2
People's Republic of China: 7
France: 0
Netherlands: 1


EDIT:

Updated the verbiage in a paragraph above from "who gets to go" to "rider slots".

It seems obvious to me that the points/qualification structure is what needs changing, not the presence of trade teams.

Related: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/huub...track-reforms/

Also FWIW I don't think this would be a bad thing.

It is if you are trying to develop track cycling in countries other than France, GB, Australia, Netherlands, and NZ. Many, if not all Olympic/National federations base athlete funding on podium finishes at major events. If you;re the UCI and you're trying to broaden the track cycling market (China about 15 years ago, HK, Malaysia, Korea...) then you have to figure out a system that incentivizes them to participate, otherwise it just becomes the "Same Old Boys Club", and the less competitive nations won't support the sport.

Well, using that idea of only letting the best athletes contest the Games:

- The Olympic baseball tournament will be comprised only of several Cuban, US, S. Korean, and Japanese teams (multiple teams each country)
- The Olympic basketball tournaments will be only multiple US teams.
- Gymnastics would only be US and RUS athletes.
- Table Tennis tournament would only be several Chinese athletes.

:D

Why don’t they just not give points to trade teams?

Let's see how that would look at the local level.

Imagine if a high school basketball team had a bench so deep (meaning that even the backup players who don't play are very good) that they can field an entirely separate team...and compete in the local HS division. Lake View High Team A and Lake View High Team B.

Teams would get their butts kicked by Lakeview High coming and going and Lake View High School would get +1 or +2 wins every week where schools with only 1 team only get a max of +1 every week...if they win. The players keep the points that they score and the the teams with the most total points get invited to the State Championships.

Further, what if Lake View A & B could beat up on teams in the local division and then use their combined points total to earn easy access to the State Championship tournament! And then the coach transfers the best players from teams A & B to that one Lake View team with hella points to easily qualify for the biggest tournament of the year.

That would be ridiculous, right? :D


That's kinda how the Trade Team Athlete's points --> National Team points system works.

I would imagine that would create a situation where the Trade Team owns the points instead of the Athlete.

What would the Trade Team use them for? All of the big events are for Nations, not teams: PanAm Championships, Oceanic Championships, European Championships, Asian Games, World Championships, Olympic Games.

I don't think they would let a professional Trade Team compete against National Teams in those events. That would be like the Atlanta Braves playing in the Olympic Baseball Tournament.

No, you misunderstand, just give the qualifying points to the national teams, the trade teams don't get any points at all, they just compete to win the event they are competing in.

Oh. Yeah, I misread what you wrote.

I don't think they give points to the trade teams. The points are attached to the Athlete. And by being assigned to the National Team roster, the National Team gets the points.

(If I understand correctly).

So, you are suggesting to give the points to the National Team based on Nationality even if that athlete is never selected to the National Team?

I can create a UCI Trade Team for the next season and assign myself as an Athlete. If I enter USA Elite Track Nationals and get 1 point for participating, are you saying that Team USA should get that point even if I am never assigned to the National Team?

The point I’m really making is that if the issue is the points system then re-design that, you don’t necessarily have to destroy the trade teams to achieve that.

That's fair.

This argument makes sense to me.

I also see the argument from the trade teams side, which also makes sense.

I think Carleton's examples highlight a bit of the issue. Unlike other sports, like the NBA or NHL, track cycling does not have national or international leagues in which trade teams can compete. For basketball, soccer (futbol), ice hockey, and road cycling, there are several professional leagues that employ athletes from around the world, who then come together on the national teams to compete in the World Cup or Olympics. Track cycling lacks that space, which is where a trade team really fits.

Could argue that this would make for better, more entertaining competition. Is Olympic basketball fun to watch?

And even so, while I get the importance of maintaining the competition of national teams format at the Olympic games, I don't see any reason why outside events should have to conform to the same format. These changes seem to turn the World Cup into a mini-Olympics, making them in many ways less interesting/exciting, and in a sport that already sees a dearth of good events to watch, I only see this making that problem worse.