• World Champion
  • *
  • Country: de
  • Posts: 11866
  • Liked: 7717
  • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
Re: Mens' transfers and Rumors 2019-20
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2019, 00:23 »
nah, it's not that easy :P

A transfer period exists and applies to all changes of team, whether between two UCI WorldTeams or between a UCI WorldTeam and a UCI professional continental team. [...] A UCI WorldTeam or licence applicant may only recruit riders during the transfer period. For the purposes of this article «recruit» shall be deemed to mean concluding a contract with a rider to ride for the UCI WorldTeam or licence applicant’s team.
Note to the UCI: It's not a 'transfer period' (from August onwards) if the actual transfer only becomes effective several months later (in January). It's just a stupid, pointless rule that apparently doesn't even extend to all 'transfers'.
Good bloody grief.

In any case, this rule ought to preclude any 'recruiting' of a rider for the following year (like Pellaud for 2020 by Savio) outside this poorly-named 'transfer period' (which is 1 August-31 December).
The rule may be written extremely convolutedly, but the fact of it remains: Pellaud's new pro contract (or indeed Nibali's #trek signing) wasn't allowed to be announced until the beginning of August, and the fact that they were announced could be grounds for fining the riders and teams involved:
Riders and UCI WorldTeams [or UCI professional continental teams] may not reveal that they are involved in negotiations about transfers outside the transfer period. Upon complaint by a prejudiced team or any third party with a legitimate interest, the rider is liable to a fine of CHF 2,000 and the UCI WorldTeam [or UCI professional continental team] to a fine of CHF 5,000.

... but only if a 'prejudiced team or any third party with a legitimate interest' lodges a complaint. :fp

Oh for flip's sake, UCI. You're lining up hoops for people to jump through just for the sake of watching them jump through, and then, once they've jumped through all the hoops, you dismiss them with something that feels like a "talk to the head" reaction.

My problem here isn't the rule itself (though it could damn well be written in a less legalese and more understandable way).
It's the fact that
a) nobody gives a flip about the rule, and
b) the UCI doesn't give a flip about nobody giving a flip about the rule.
If you don't enforce stuff like this, how can you be expected to enforce more important rules? :S
  • ReplyReply
  • Cyclingnews Women's WorldTour Correspondent
    2017 0711|CYCLING PR Manager; 2016 Stölting Content Editor
    Views presented are my own. RIP Keith & Sean


    Recent Posts

    Back to top