Talk:2011 UCI World Tour

Tiebreaker

The relevant UCI reg has a sentence "Concerning stage races, only the final individual general classification on time shall be taken into account for the application of this article" that Cycling News seems to ignore. However, the UCI never presents riders as sharing a position, and has history for riders with the same score changing position after a race that neither took part in. Kevin McE (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updating during Grand Tours and other stage races

It would make life easier if the points are only allocated after the end of each tour. Racklever (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the UCI only updates the standings after each event, so sure, ok for me I'll stop updating every day. But this means we'll be three weeks behind on the virtual standings by the end of the Giro of course... :) Pelotas^talk 08:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's usually much easier to wait till the end of an event to complete updates. That's not to stop editors from keeping a running total as a /subpage of their user page or this talk page if they wanted to make the final edit quicker and simpler. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, updated standings to be found at User:Pelotas/UCI World Tour. Just FYI and I`ll only update them every now and then. Pelotas^talk 09:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-CAS recalculation of Contador's points

Can anyone work out what the hell the UCI have done with the points after Contador? In 2010, Valverde's cancelled results were dealt with by redistributing points for General classification/one day races, while his stage points were simply cancelled. However, they have not necessarily done that for Contador. To take the case of José Rujano (easy to analyse, as he only competed in one WT race, the Giro, in 2011. Before Contador was disqualified, he was 7th in GC (60 points), and had one win (16 pts), two seconds (8 pts each, one behind Contador), one 4th (behind Contador, 2 pts) and one 6th (no points, but relevant, behind Contador). So while Contador's results stood, he would have had 94 points. He is now credited with 114 points. So where do those extra 20 points come from? 10 points are easy to analyse: they are the step up from 7th to 6th in the GC. But to move from 2nd to first (stage 9) is worth 8 points, from 4th to 3rd (stage 16) is worth 2 points, and 6th to 5th (stage 15) is worth 1 point; there are 21 extra points, but he has only been given 20.

So is this an error in the case of Rujano? Are stage points reallocated, but only if the rider had at least one to begin with? Is it a general principle that riders get promoted if the podium is involved, but not otherwise? Can anyone identify another case with discrepancies? Has anyone seen any announcement from UCI on how they intend these points to be reissued? Unfortunately, they have not put out a revised spreadsheet of the reallocated points, as existed before the recalculation Kevin McE (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost as if they make it up as they go along ;) --Pretty Green (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]