UCI points - time for a redesign

Now, this is an issue that I raised here months ago: the new UCI system (well, new a year ago) means that points are essential for a team to make the Pro Team  or top league.

Not enough points = relegation to second league, or Pro-Continental.

This put added spice into the end-of-season the-music-has-changed-all-move-round-one-team dance as well, as the lower teams were frantically having to buy in riders who had managed to acquire points, to ensure that the team would get Pro-Team status again.

The unfairness of this was apparent - to me, at least - late in 2010, when I commented that it would mean an end to the days of letting a Domestique have their day and win a stage, as points would be congregated in fewer riders, in order to get fewer riders higher up the league table.

It also discriminates against all the Domestiques, as they work their tails off and get no points at all. So they have to rely on team managers observing them through the season in order to assign a fair value to them when it comes to salaries and new contracts.

And now that poor old Contador has finally, finally been given the chop (no, not from Saxo) all his points will be re-distributed to everyone who finished below him. OK for this year - not that much has happened yet - but how unfair is this for last year? All those riders who would have been worth more? Not to mention Saxo as a team: they all worked to get Conti the wins, yet they've now lost all those points, and there is a very real chance that they will be relegated to second division, which is utterly, utterly unfair when you think that Contador was riding for Astana at the time of the offence..

So I think it's time to rejig the points system a little.

For a start, all points won need to be shared between the members of a team.

It's up to the UCI to adjust the total to make easily-divided numbers, but as a rough cut, here is my suggestion.

As an example, the Tour de France stage win gets 20 points. So the rider who won the stage gets 12, and the other 8 team members get a point each.

The Tour de France overall winner gets 200  points, so that rider should get, say, 120 of them, the rest of the team getting 10 points each.

This way, the total number of points remains with the teams and contributes to the Team rankings, and to the overall team classification within each race, with no change. But it distributes those points among the entire team.

The individual riders' rankings won't be affected: the overall scores won't be as high, and the differences might be closer, but it will still remain that the rider who wins most has the highest ranking.

And of course if a team-mate comes second or third, then those points get shared out among the team as well.

I'm not sure about sprint and KOM classifications: should all those point remain with the rider? Well, maybe no: even on climbs and sprints, other team members are expected to help, not just the relevant lead-out team or climbing domestiques. So every team member should benefit from points.

And at the end of the year, when the UCI are deciding who goes ProTeam and who goes ProContinental, they just add up all the points for all the team members, not the top 15 as they currently do.

There you go, UCI:  Schleckland has single-handedly solved the problem of your unfair new points system, and if you'd thought of it yourselves, you would not now be struggling to find a face-saving way of not having to relegate Saxo Bank part-way through a year.

Which I think they are: wow, can you imagine the consternation among the UCI officials? I can only imagine they didn't think of this ramification to their bold "Ban Him For 2 Years Retrospectively" decision. (For "bold" read "stupid" or "ill-though-out" or "what the *&$$%@ are you thinking of?!" )

It's nearly midnight in the UCI head office - the lights are dim, the coffee is cold, the doughnuts are stale, the sandwiches are limp.  A haggard committee are still sitting around the central table.  One has his head on the table in despair, two are texting,  one is gazing out of the darkened windows as though hoping to see an asteroid come crashing through the air in the style of the opening credits of Smallville.

In the interests of avoiding being "done" for libel, names have been changed. And in fact, as I have quite a low opinion of committees in general, and the UCI in particular, they don't deserve to have individual names, anyway.

One: "Look, we have to make a decision. CAS found him guilty."
One: "Yes, but-"
One, firmly: "No. Stop it. We've discussed this all afternoon and all evening, we have to stop. CAS said guilty, all we have to do is decide on the punishment. Ban? Or not ban?"
One: "We can't ban him now, it's ridiculous, it's been nearly two years."
One: "Yes, but we can't let him off without a ban, not after all this fuss."
One: " Curses on that damned technician, it's all his fault for leaking the results to the press."

There are mutters of agreement, and several people make stabbing motions in the air, with "wheep! wheep!" noises.

One: "Did we sort that guy out?"
One: "Yup, they'll never find the body now."
One: "Good. Right, ok, it happened, moving on: Ban, or not?"

They all look at each other. No-one wants to say it.

One: "Umm, how about a short ban? Say, 6 months?"
One: "Don't be stupid, we'd be shot down in flames. They would say it was a joke, and it doesn't reflect the seriousness of a two-year enquiry."
One, incredulously: "Are you saying it has to be two years, then?"
One: "Yes."

Shocked silence in the room.

One, tentatively: "Two year ban?"
One: "Can we do that? He'd kill us. These are the best years of his cycling career...."

They look at each other again, doubtfully. There is a long, long silence. A sandwich finally falls limply off the plate and lies, unheeded, on the floor.

One speaks up, hesitantly: "We - we could - "
One: "What?"

They all turn to look at him. He quails under their combined gazes.

One, impatiently: "We could WHAT?"
One, in a quavery voice : "W-w-we could implement the ban retrospectively?"

There is silence again - but this time, it is an excited, tremulous, hopeful silence.

One: "Brilliant! Two year ban, backdated to original offence, it's nearly all done by now, just another couple of months of ban then he'll be back racing in time for la Vuelta, oh thank god, brilliant, well done, great stuff, come on guys, wrap it up, leave this mess: you-" he points at the one still texting - ".. send a press release to AP and we'll sort out the details in the morning."

They rush to leave the room, slamming the door and heading for the lift, leaving one member typing at his laptop. We move forward and look over his shoulder to see what he is typing.

"Contador: UCI decide to apply 2-year ban, retrospectively.  Ban will be lifted on-" he consults his calendar, and does some quick calculations "August 5th. Results of races won for the duration of this ban will be-"

There is a pause. The figure sits, motionless, clearly unsure as to what to type. He rummages in his pocket, pulls out a coin: sits for a  moment with his eyes closed as though organising his choices.

He flips the coin, looks at it, and finishes the press release:

"..removed from his palmeres, prizes and points being redistributed accordingly."