one of those pure TT-ist who cried about the route in the media finally came 9th - due to losing time on the flats...
if cycling is to be entertaining, and in order to attract sponsors and fans it has to be, b*tching about one of the most (if not THE most) spectacular ITT is either shortsighted or plain stupid.
on the one hand some people would like to preserve some old traditions (wtf would that be, racing TT on a race circuit? 300km pan flat stages? removing those hills from MSR because they werent there a hundred years ago?) on the other they would love to get paid more and have some basic job security. looking on how numerous disciplines change, pro cycling sometimes looks as if taken straight from a stone age. and when someone tries something fresh, like smaller teams, shorter punchier stages, there's always a number of folks worried about tradition. do they worry about tradition when a team folds or no one shows up to cheer for the peloton?
one more thing: one of the arguments is specialization amongst the cyclist. well, flick me. do we design racing for the athletes, or maybe let them train for specific races? I don't give a single damn about how many sprinters have to be left home because nowadays GTs don't have like a half of stages being entirely flat. no one cares for that kind of racing anymore. on the other hand - the climbers - who cry about having to learn proper bike handling skills because the stage don't always ends up at the top. for god sake, go and play pro cycling in a museum, the sport changes, I'd argue it becomes more open thus more exciting. are there really people out there who miss 'the old days', day long racing without tv broadcast, pointless hours spent on the bikes only to race up the final ascent?