At the start of the year there were some predictions and it’s often worth reviewing to see what became of them… better than deleting the post if they all proved wrong.
Jonas Vingegaard to win the Tour. Got that wrong. It’s not ideal opening a blog post with a list of excuses but one of the perils of making predictions in January is events come over the horizon like storms. The idea that Jonas Vingegaard would win the Tour de France again was based on his domination in 2023, see how he dismantled Tadej Pogačar in the Combloux time trial and how good Visma-LAB looked this time last year after three grand tour wins and they’d hired Cian Uijtdebroeks. The crash by the San Cristobal Hermitage on Stage 4 of the Itzulia Tour ruined the plans for many riders that day and while Visma-LAB did play their cards close when it came to communicating Vingegaard’s rehab, his being competitive in the Tour de France was still a big deal; he cried after his stage win at Le Lioran and if certainly the second best rider overall he was far ahead of third and the rest. The hope is for an unimpeded contest next summer but it’s often a big ask for all the top riders to come in healthy and incident-free.
But the crash as a random event doesn’t explain all of this, it’s an insufficient excuse to hide behind. The other story was the improvement of Tadej Pogačar, a change of coach over the winter led to new training, a revised position on the bike and this was really evident in the Giro where he won the first time trial stage and was second to Filippo Ganna in the next. All while the UAE team were looking more coherent, Milan-Sanremo aside. Looking back it’s striking how fortunes have changed between the two top teams.
Visma-LAB to finally win a Monument classic. A similar excuse again, trying to predict the winners of the major cobbled classics is risky without an official startlist. This time the crash in Dwars Door Vlaanderen blew things out of the water. What’s perhaps forgotten now is how Visma-LAB had a great start to the season: winning the Omloop and taking Paris-Nice and Tirenno-Adriatico at the same time: they looked set to boss the spring. Then the wheels fell off and while Matteo Jorgenson was a revelation in April, the rest of the squad had problems that went beyond the Dwars disaster, for example Christhope Laporte was ill. Come Paris-Roubaix and the last chance Mathieu van der Poel was simply too strong and as imperious as he was, his team were taking on all comers too with Jasper Philipsen second and Gianni Vermeersch all over the moves. Is this bad luck clouding things now, does it make it harder to see a big win in 2025? It feels like it but the depth is there, Van Aert’s still a formidable rider but he’s 30 now.
Bora-hansgrohe as a force to be reckoned with. Partly, the arrival of RedBull not as just a sponsor but a team owner has brought in a lot of money. But that wasn’t – quite – on the cards at the time, the idea was more that they were on the up and some riders were due better results after a discreet 2023. Only the team wasn’t the menace predicted, early on Primoz Roglič looked adrift in Paris-Nice and even if he was back to winning ways at the Dauphiné it felt like a salvage operation on the last day rather than a confident conquest; his Vuelta was more convincing even if the squad behind him were not used to leadership in a grand tour. Sam Welsford impressed in the Tour Down Under but didn’t take this form to a Euro bunch sprint; Aleksandr Vlasov at times looked better than Roglič but delivering wins while being consistent is his challenge. Dani Martinez was the best of the rest in the Giro, again solid but not race-shaping. The squad looks a lot more solid for 2025 but hiring riders is the easy part.
What would Soudal-Quickstep do without Remco Evenepoel? He’s their totem rider but the squad has the paradoxical “wolfpack” label because of its flat hierarchy, anyone can go and grab a win. Only now it’s got a top dog where tactics and strategy, including recruitment, revolve around him. Crucially transfer talk has died down, 2023 saw a lot of speculation at the Tour and then the pulled merger. At first glance they’re alright without Evenepoel thanks to Tim Merlier’s wins. Of the team’s 34 wins, 15 went to Merlier, six to Evenepoel. So not as many spread around the rest of the team and near invisible in the cobbled classics. 34 wins is a nice problem to have but it’s not the same team of old as only six other riders managed a win, the more they build themselves around Evenepoel, the less they’ll resemble the opportunistic winning machine of old. As Ineos show you can be very strong but if there’s no leader then the whole squad suffers. Assume Evenepoel will leave one day – sooner rather than later – and it’s still worth watching to see what kind of team they aim to be.
More long-term contracts got broken? Yes. A contract’s only valid if both sides want it to be. The post at the start of 2024 used UAE as an illustration of a top-heavy team and wondering if they could hold it together. Now some stories of personal ambition did emerge but they were not declarations of independence, instead the team has impressed for the way it has kept unity despite Tadej Pogačar’s voracious ambitions: he wants two grand tours a year meaning few leadership opportunities for others. Money helps, hiring lieutenants who know leaving won’t bring them much more money but will even come with added pressure is a good reason to stay but Tom Pidcock bucked this idea, a move in part so he can do more of the racing he wants. Reviewing 2024 the issue is more applicable to any undervalued riders on small teams and particularly if they have an agent bold enough to tear up a contract they’d written only months earlier.
No team imploded. Indeed several squads have been around so long now their founders are stepping back. The prediction though was we’d see the signs for coming trouble. So Any warnings? XDS and Astana is an odd marriage, the Kazakh team has gone from grand tour powerhouse to de facto Pro Conti outfit in a decade and XDS coming on board seems unusual: if the sponsor has long term plans, starting out with a team focussed on a short term goal of racking up UCI points just to stay in the World Tour is an odd first step. Movistar is another team that’s seen better days, also because its budget has been overtaken by rivals but the Spanish squad has just got backing for five more years. Rather than rattle off the challenges facing each team – ie will Ineos’s Jim Ratcliffe get frustrated, can DSM/Picnic change sponsors so often – a non-speculative warning came via Intermarché-Wanty’s accounts with excessive losses for two years in a row and pledges of cuts. Plus Arkéa-B&B are already cutting back riders and management raising the alarm themselves.
Covid? It’s still here and while many viral infections do the rounds in winter, Covid is just more infectious and can be pesky in summer too. Your blogger was checking SARS-CoV-2 proxy measurements like waste-water testing in June as much as the results and climbing times from the Dauphiné and Suisse. Now typing Covid can still attracts a certain kind of commentator so to stress the point we’re not in the public health emergency of before, just that a viral infection that provokes respiratory illness is not ideal for aerobic sport, let alone elite athletes expected to perform at their season’s best. With hindsight it proved lucky there was a mini-outbreak around the end of the Dauphiné where many finished the race and then needed a few days off; even Tadej Pogačar caught it around this time while training at Isola but this meant it came and passed for many in time for July; Evenepoel even attributed some of his weight loss before the Tour to being bed-ridden. But as this blog was first to report, some teams started quarantining riders during the Tour de France. Of course by then it was too late, riders reporting symptoms were done for when it came to get a result, and some were DNF. It’ll remain an chronic problem for athletes, particularly pro cycling where riders travel by plane and train to many races. This itself is a curiosity, for example is it that much harder to win five tours today than it was pre-2020? Of course the wider questions for society weigh more.
UCI points were on manager minds even if they didn’t become much of a sporting topic. Astana and Arkéa-B&B look done for on the table above. There’s one season remaining but the former are doing their best to tackle this with a new sponsor and massive changes to the roster. It has still causes problems and stress for many team managers. Cofidis have the most to be worried about right now if Astana surge but a slew of other teams have concerns.
Did you see more of Amina Lanaya in 2024? The idea was that David Lappartient would be onto bigger and better things than the UCI so Lanaya, as effectively his deputy at the UCI, could emerge to do more of his work and taken on a bigger public profile. It’s worth remembering that cycling fans, even the peloton and team managers, are not the UCI’s constituency as to get elected to the top it’s the votes from national federations that count. So perhaps Lanaya as been more visible in meetings with them? But it’s also said that Lappartient rates Lanaya to the point that if he leaves the UCI to run the IOC – despite talk of Kirsty Coventry being the prime pick – he’d want her to be his chief of staff. All told her profile is no higher.
One Cycling hasn’t launched anything, but it hasn’t imploded either. The project bubbles away and this blog got an April Fool’s out of it. It could be launched in tandem with wider UCI reforms to pro cycling for the future, although the due date always seems to be tomorrow, pro cycling’s Saint Augustian request of “give me calendar reform, but just not yet”. One thing to note right now is RCS is packaging up its media and events business into one unit with plans to spin it off. Is there a buyer waiting for this flush with Saudi cash? It would make an obvious deal and then to roll this in with Flanders Classics which does the classics but also the Tour de Suisse and more now. But sans ASO?
Cycling got harder to watch on TV, and more expensive too. The prediction was you’ll either become better in a foreign language, or poorer came only too true here. A year ago talk of Eurosport’s streaming service being pulled was enough to make the prediction and alas by August Eurosport Player was stopped. GCN’s demise in 2023 meant near global streaming halted, this year Europeans got a taste of this but they could at least opt for HBO, Warner, Max, Discovery or whatever-it’s-called-where-you-live and get Eurosport within a bundle of channels, albeit at the price of paying for plenty you don’t want. Watching the Vuelta a España on RTVE for three weeks later did wonders for my Spanish listening abilities. But language lessons are a problem for the sport if major events simply aren’t available to the general public outside their home country. Worse the rights jumble isn’t settled yet with Warner Brothers exploring a demerger where live TV like sports could be separated from portfolios of films, dramas and cartoons.
Shorter cranks were cited as a something coming in 2024. Did you change yours? If you didn’t, many did and plenty of the cycling media had articles and podcasts about it in the year (here, here, here). The shift was helped by Tadej Pogačar who was among those downsizing to 165mm levers, his new coach for the year is Javier Sola who’s got a background in biomechanics. Cranks are measurable and even visible trend – they’re stamped with the length but arguably the real story behind this is a wider shift in position. Pogačar for example has a straight seatpost with his saddle all the way forward, others go further with a set-back post but rotated 180° to make it a “set-forward” and then the seat slammed forward too. It’s not ubiquitous yet but to ride a team-issue bike from 2014 is to feel something different: then stretched out like a business class traveller, now a jack-in-the-box position, ready to spring forward. All set for 2025?
Long-covid is a health crisis… just one that is largely ignored. In the UK, even the government admits that between two and three million people have it (I’m assuming there are similar numbers elsewhere – i.e. about 3-5%).
Presumably, it’ll be similar numbers for cycling, and that could be career-ending.
I can only imagine PR – and people’s “feelings” (as opposed to the scientific reality, as always with covid) – is the only reason riders aren’t masked during races, particularly stage races, and grand tours even more so. Considering the number of things that cycling teams take account of, this is possibly the biggest risk that they largely ignore (except when it’s too late).
A bit silly to first say that I don´t want to start an argument that is bound to lead us nowhere and then to post a comment saying that I must argue against what you just presented, but here I go nevertheless:
If and when cyclists contract Covid-19 before, during or after a bike race, it´s likely to happen anywhere else but on the bike.
And unless they are going to wear masks all the time whenever they are in a crowded place, in any kind of close-contact setting or in an confined or enclosed place for any length of time, there is absolutely no point in their wearing masks before the start or during the race.
I was thinking more the crowded instances at a race like the Tour de France, rather than, say, Romandie.
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting they wear masks during a race.
If I was riding the TdF, I would be wearing a mask in every public indoor space for two weeks before the race and for the three weeks during the race. It’s really not that much of a hassle.
‘I don’t think anyone’s suggesting they wear masks during a race’ – as in not while on a bike, racing.
There is no reliable evidence that masks, as a community public health measure, have any measurable effect on the transmission rates or the incidence of respiratory illnesses, including covid19.
All the evidence that proponents of masking put forth is low quality evidence, e.g. based on telephone surveys and self-reporting of respondents. The strongest evidence is generally studies done amongst population of users who are health-care professionals and in clinical settings – but these are rarely controlled studies, and even so, this is a different population and environment to the community. And even there, the effect on incidence is low and no where near high enough to suggest that community masking could ever /halt/ the spread of a respiratory illness.
The most robust forms of evidence – randomised, and (cluster) controlled studies – NEVER find a statistically significant effect to community masking.
So, please, stop with the “If only they wore masks?” (in whatever form). Wear one if you wish, but there is NO GOOD EVIDENCE to justify the imposition of their use on others. You might as well advocate for the wearing of lucky shamrock sprigs.
And I don’t care if I’m Inrng’s “certain kind of commentator” – cause I’d much rather be the scientific evidence based commentator, than fall in with the crowd who revere all the various kinds of snake-oil that was elevated and pushed by public-health pseudo-science over the pandemic period.
And yet the science does not back up your claims.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118
or
Comprehensive review confirms mask effectiveness against respiratory infections, urges better design and policy support
or
this quote from another study – you’d have to google it to find the link as I can’t post multiple links (if I could, I could post dozens).
‘So if an infected person and a healthy individual are both wearing masks, the team believe this could result in up to 94% less exposure.’
That’s why surgeon’s wear masks – it’s not so they don’t spread pathogens to their patient; it’s a fashion statement.
Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review
ASM Journals
Clinical Microbiology Reviews
Vol. 37, No. 2
22 May 2024
‘… masks are, if correctly and consistently worn, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases and show a dose-response effect.’
Science, not guff off the internet, or ‘what I feel’.
Oh, the hilarity of what you’ve linked to. You have linked to a survey article – it is neither a primary study, nor a systematic meta review. It is essentially editorial in nature.
Your survey cites (as 15) the Cochrane Review on masks. Cochrane is a charity that was created to improve the state of medical literature and medical evidence, by providing a library of systematic meta-reviews of available high-quality primary evidence (i.e., RCTs and such) – updated as new evidence comes in. The Cochrane library is regarded as *the* gold standard in such reviews, and Cochrane researchers have been pre-eminent in moving forward the goal-posts for evidence based medicine, and systematic reviews.
The article you cite quotes this from the Cochrane review on masks – which I think is slightly selective:
“overall masks were the best performing intervention across populations, settings and threats.”
However, they are citing version 4 of the review, from 2011. At that time, there were few RCTs or CCRCTs. The single RCT that made it through their filter did indeed show NO statistical effect. The CcRCTs mixed interventions or had other issues and don’t draw a conclusion. So the above statement is based on *case control* studies – a _lower_ quality form of evidence.
But… that was 2011. The Cochrane review was updated to v4 in Nov 2020 (and v6 in Jan 2023) to incorporate studies from after ’09. And it states:
“There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). ”
Things did not get better for masks in the v6 review, which incorporated 2 studies carried out during the pandemic.
And remember, the v5 Cochrane review from Nov 2020 was summarising additional primary evidence we obtained in the 2010s. It wasn’t new information.
The other hilarious part is that the survey you cite was authored by a mask campaigner.
So… an editorial survey by an idealogue, that cherry-picks an ancient Cochrane review – ignoring all the RCTs since.
Versus the more recent Cochrane reviews which do not ignore them, and which conducted in a way so as to minimise any effect of authors’ biases.
People who understand the scientific process will choose the latter over the former, as the evidence basis for deciding on intrusive public policy proposals.
I posted four separate articles. There are many more.
J, I gave the link to the Cochrane review. Do you understand what a systematic review is, and what Cochrane are in the field of meta-reviews of medical evidence?
Paul J, there are studies that say masks work and studies that say they don’t.
But wearing a mask is almost zero effort, so if I was a rider in a grand tour, I’d just wear one.
That was my point.
Sorry, had meant to link directly to the Cochrane review, but apparently did not. It’s cited by your (non-systematic, editorial) survey, but here’s the direct link to the latest version:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full
I only see 1 link from you J, not 4.
Anon, you’ve linked to another editorial/opinion survey, and from Greenhalgh of all people. Where she is trying /somewhat/ to argue *against* RCTs as the highest standard of primary evidence, and Cochrane’s systematic reviews as the gold standard of the synthesis of evidence – ha! So she then does her own meta-review, using her own criteria to try come up with a result she likes better than the Cochrane results and after all that, guess what her *OWN* meta-analysis finds?:
An OR of [0.5, 1.46] for masks against Influenza/SARS-CoV-2, and an OR of [06, 1.6] for masks against all viral respiratory infections.
So, despite all the opinionated stuff she’s put in the survey portions, the background and conclusion, the little bit of scientific meat in that paper with an actual meta-review, where she’s hoping desperately to prove masks work, finds EXACTLY WHAT I STATED: No statistically significant, reliably measurable, beneficial effect to masks.
That’s brilliant, one of the most prominent maskers as 1st author on a review that backs up the Cochrane review.
(Note: Cochrane are actually quite conservative in their findings – despite Greenhalgh trying to smear them somewhat, the Cochrane Review holds the primary study data as being generally low in quality, and overall that much more and better primary data is needed to draw a stronger result).
J, I did not argue that no body should be allowed to wear masks. My claim was this:
“Wear one if you wish, but there is NO GOOD EVIDENCE to justify the imposition of their use on others”.
I am quite sure I am correct in that claim as things stand, as I base it on systematic meta-reviews of the available primary RCT/CcRT data, as carried out one of the most trusted sources of such reviews in the field of medicine.
Wear one if you wish, but do not do anything to try force others to.
Paul J, masks are much more effective at stopping ‘you’ giving a virus to someone else than they are at protecting ‘you’ from getting it. That’s why their use was mandatory, for a time – and that worked at stopping the spread. And it did almost no harm to anyone, despite some people’s obsessions about being ‘forced’ to wear a mask. Really, it’s just consideration for others and acting for the greater good.
But nobody is forcing anyone to wear them now, and at no point did I ever suggest that they should.
I said, ‘If I was riding the TdF, I would be wearing a mask in every public indoor space for two weeks before the race and for the three weeks during the race. It’s really not that much of a hassle.’
J, your claim: “masks are much more effective at stopping ‘you’ giving a virus to someone else than they are at protecting ‘you’ from getting it. ”
There is no good (i.e., actual controlled studies) evidence for this.
This is the “source control” postulate, which mask proponents came up with to try work-around the fact that the RCT/CCT evidence did not show an effect for wearers. There is even less evidence available for this source-control postulate.
When I read Inrng’s words “Now typing Covid can still attracts a certain kind of commentator…” I thought no…no no no… please no!!!
Sadly, the demons were released on the very first comment.
Yeah those comments were totally unreasonable and hysterical.
That’s half the point, mention Covid and people get excited.
The funny thing is, Covid had a pretty big impact in 2024 – Sepp Kuss is one example – but people’s responses are not necessarily related to the actual impact of the illness itself. I think it’s a good thing that the current response in races is pretty reasonable (i.e., based on symptoms rather than only test results), but the reality is that races can still get blown up by Covid, just as can happen with something like norovirus.
I certainly don’t like the sound of RCS being sold off (particularly if Flanders Classics also were). For me, the integrity of the races is the most important thing in cycling.
Surely their survival is the most important thing?
They’ve survived 100 years and more – they don’t need to be bought by despotic gov’s.
I wisely refrained from making any predictions apart from Vingegaard making it three in a row, but I don´t think that mine would have fared any better, if I had made others.
OTOH It´s often much more interesting to find out how and why a prediction that didn´t seem too outrageous at the time didn´t actually come true.
“Watching the Vuelta a España on RTVE for three weeks later did wonders for my Spanish listening abilities”
Watching the Tour and La Vuelta on RTVE should be essential for all, if only to listen how Pedro Delgado turns every stage into an heroic mission. It is a delight, especially when Albert Contador rides up L’Angliru – up there in the lead – and and they don’t catch him…
It’s a good team on RTVE but almost a different broadcast to other races as not all stages are live in full and the action tends to come late, the race has a different “ritmo”.
I like end of year review of predictions more than the predictions to begin a year.
Right or wrong with your predictions, Inrng is still the best blogger.
Ha, not many others around. Like showing up to a group ride on a bike with mechanical shifting and rim brakes.
I always do that.
Here’s to classic blogging and classic bikes. May they grace our roads and reading for many years still.
oops, the above Anon post was me
I am so tired of hearing people singing Pogacar’s praises. Taking cycling’s past into consideration, I think this year was just horrible to watch. There were so many moments where I had to laugh in confusion at what was happening on the screen.
Like the moment in the tour where Vingegaard attacks, and Pogacar follows him, riding with no hands in his wheel. It is just absolutely ridiculous. This just doesn’t happen.
Vingegaard, a rider composer of mainly lungs and legs and nothing else – who has a Vo2max higher than ever recorded in cycling history, and says himself that he has never pushed more watts. He is beaten with such a large margin by a rider with a hollow birds chest.
AND he rides for Mauro Gianetti, whose past is as dark as they come.
For me there is something that does not add up.
And just like before, Pogacar is now the face of the sport, so the governing bodies will not bring him down for fear of the sport itself.
Sorry to hijack the thread, and feel free to delete this as suspicion with no evidence. I just had to say it.
Open your eyes people, we have a rider who rides around like a man among boys. It will not end well
Lighten up, Francis. Pogacar lost by a bigger margin in 2023 than Vingegaard in 2024.
Watts, You’re not alone.
‘He rides really fast so he must be doping’. Please, no more of this.
Well one prediction for 2025 is someone, probably Pogačar or Vingegaard, will do Hautacam faster than Bjarne Riis and we’ll have the same “debates” on 17 July.
I can think of at least one guy here in on the blog that will find a 3+ minute improvement of Riis’ Hautacam “natural” if it is done by pogi and “dubious” if done by vingo… 😉
Well, you are not *completely* alone. I share most of your sentiments.
Mind you, I’m not a pogi-hater, and without firm evidence against, I’m inclined to give him the benefit of doubt.
But I do find the pogi-fanboys intolerable. Especially those that whine that Vingo’s Dormancy was dubious, while they are unable to find a 3+ minute PDB improvement anything than natural.
And I will avoid most of the pogi-races next year.
I am not naive enough to think that Pogacar’s competitors are clean. And I actually have been giving Pogacar the benefit of the doubt up until now, but this year we saw so big margins that it doesn’t even seem like competition anymore.
Vingegaard makes sense as a rider to me, meaning I don’t know if he is clean, it just makes sense that a rider of his stature can do what he does.
But really, he has beat Pogacar because of his bad days before, and having the stronger team. This year we saw Pogacar beat Vingegaard consistently uphill, without Vingegaard having any bad days. To me there is a huge difference.
We see a rider seemingly not even breathing, beating everyone.
I don’t know what they are doing at UAE, I just know something is up
Vingegaard’s VO2max is “reportedly” 97 while Pogacar’s is “reportedly’ 90. Vo2max is only one of several determinants of performance. Perhaps Pogacar is a generational talent winning since his JIT days. How about Vingegaard? I don’t think Pogacar bumped into an Italian doctor in camper van one day and transformed into a monster part-way through his career. But I could be wrong. Skepticism is good but given the trajectory of his career is it warranted?
Pogi is certainly a “generational talent”, but he still managed to “somehow” step up this year and start winning races thru 60-80-100 km breaks, win two GTs and “somehow” without showing any sign of fatigue over a 9 month run.
Not bad after all these years. Not bad at all. And much more “natural” than vingo’s Dormany of course. Much more.
Context is everything here.
Pogacar is a climber who grew up in a mountainous area – so he could win the races he raced.
Vingegaard is a climber who grew up in a flat country where the highest point is 170 meters above sea level. So, racing only flat races he could not win as much.
I think you are right – Pogacar DID bump into an italian doctor very early on in his career.
Meanwhile Vingegaard was getting “winged” out of echelons in flat Denmark by 80kg riders 🙂
S’funny, I rode with a 0 offset post for years, then became concerned I was leaving watts on the table: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29920153/
Maybe I’ll dust off the 0 post and long stem when I get my short cranks.
Sorry, wrong link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27239728/
I think we might see different positions for different types of riders, the slammed forward style for those who go on the attack, the slammed back for those whose job it is to ride all day at a steady pace… but it’s also dependent on riders, preferences etc.
I personally do feel that having to pay for content for cycling races is a step back for many.
Yet, here in english speaking North America until recently pre-GCN it has been a cycle racing viewing desert. I appreciate that I can now pay to watch as many races as has been made available via Peacock, Max, Flo Cycling or any other pay per view that I might choose to subscribe and is available.
Is Europe a bit spoiled in it would like to have all WT cycling broadcasts “free”. I don’t know the answer to that. Bundling has been the norm here in the US we have few options.
Until recently times are changing and a few companies like Amazon Prime, Netflix and Hulu are unbundling slowly from the major cable providers and streaming direct is perhaps the future. Let’s all hope that less expenses viewing looks brighter in the future.
Stay tuned
Maybe GCN was an idea ahead of its time, offering just cycling to just cycling fans?
Some European countries have laws saying certain events have to be free to air… but laws can be rewritten. One thing that’s notable is the effect of certain riders, for example Evenepoel riding the Giro in 2023 led to the Belgian media going to the race when many might not. Similarly the emergence of star rider from a country with a big population (bigger than Denmark or Slovenia) could bring big audiences and more widespread access.
The sad thing about the whole GCN+ saga is that it actually could have been viable as an independent entity, but the corporate consolidation made it a casualty. As a result, viewership for cycling generally has crashed. The impact has been different depending where you live; if you’re in the EU, you can mostly get by with Discovery+. If you’re in the US, you have to subscribe to one service (Max) and then pay for an expensive add-on on top of that just to see cycling, which means that only very hardcore fans are likely to be watching. If you’re in Australia or New Zealand, you don’t even have that option. All of the growth in viewership numbers that GCN+ generated, along with the momentum, has vanished. My hope is that at some point in the future the teams themselves will collaborate in a broadcast platform that they all co-own, meaning broadcast revenues would revert to the teams, not a corporation with no real interest in the sport beyond profit.
This is what happens if you sell out to a big company. But only every single time.
I don’t know how much say he had but Dan Lloyd clearly regretted it.
Not so much that it was free, rather that you only needed one subscription as Eurosport, then GCN+, carried almost all the races. Discovery+ seems to have everything Eurosport had, but with extra bundled in and at a higher price.
And then in early
2026, WBD have announced they are launching Max in many European markets including UK & Ireland, so it waits to be seen what will happen Discovery + , with that.
Kooij continued as a good news story for VLAB in 2024 I think.
Yes, and interested to see what he does in 2025. Like Milan he has range well beyond the final 150m of a race and similarly both will want to start some races with team mates in support while the team might have other goals like GC.
I feel like Kooij has stayed surprisingly under the radar considering the high level he has flashed at times. I suppose it’s because he’s not one of the big names on his own team. I’m looking forward to seeing whether he can take the next step in 2025 as well.
Is his name pronounced like “coy”?
I enjoy watching him race.
One would have had to be truly clairvoyant to predict the way the 2024 season went. Ultimately it was a story of VLAB misfortune and UAE dominance, with MVDP sometimes benefiting from the relative weakness of the other teams without a healthy foil in WVA. Of course, it appears that both Pogi and MVDP took a big step up in 2024, but I’m looking forward to that hypothesis being tested more rigorously in 2025.
Thank you for all your hard work, wit and patience throughout the year.
Happy New Year! May your days be long and joyful.
165 mm cranks not for me.
I use 180 mm cranks on road bikes and have done so for about 12 years or more.
The way [power, force and cadence works this allows me to reduce my cadence a bit but keep my force on the pedals down (in the same way a higher cadence does). My big legs prefer it that way. This will not last though. I am running all the cheaper SRAM GXP 180 mm cranks that i bought all those years ago. Cheap 180mm road cranks that i don’t think are available anymore.
It is harder to setup though with the gap between to high or low being very small.