La Vuelta 2026 ***Spoilers***

[TakeTheHighRoad]

Just a note on the neutralisation. I heard an interview with (I think) Larry Warbasse, but it was typical of the narrative that "you don't want to lose 20 days of work with a crash on the final day". Where's the cut-off for this? Is it OK to lose 19 day's of work with a crash on the penultimate day? Pog lost 9 day's of work with a crash, when we all agree he would've won the Vuelta

I think the answer should either be that the race is raced for 21 days, or the rules should stipulate that the last day of a Grand Tour doesn't count for GC. The last minute changes just make everyone look bad, not least the riders

 

[mididoctors]

Just a note on the neutralisation. I heard an interview with (I think) Larry Warbasse, but it was typical of the narrative that "you don't want to lose 20 days of work with a crash on the final day". Where's the cut-off for this? Is it OK to lose 19 day's of work with a crash on the penultimate day? Pog lost 9 day's of work with a crash, when we all agree he would've won the Vuelta

I think the answer should either be that the race is raced for 21 days, or the rules should stipulate that the last day of a Grand Tour doesn't count for GC. The last minute changes just make everyone look bad, not least the riders

Whatevers the answer is I agree it shouldn't be last minute

 

[mididoctors]

Pogacar would have raced it

 

[No Ta Doctor]

Just a note on the neutralisation. I heard an interview with (I think) Larry Warbasse, but it was typical of the narrative that "you don't want to lose 20 days of work with a crash on the final day". Where's the cut-off for this? Is it OK to lose 19 day's of work with a crash on the penultimate day? Pog lost 9 day's of work with a crash, when we all agree he would've won the Vuelta

I think the answer should either be that the race is raced for 21 days, or the rules should stipulate that the last day of a Grand Tour doesn't count for GC. The last minute changes just make everyone look bad, not least the riders

Part of the issue here is that GTs have traditionally (at least in recent decades) ended with a parade and a sprint with no real GC action. Then in this era of flag-to-finish coverage everyone decided sprints were boring, because who wants to watch hours on end of no action? So the organisers decide the city center circuit needs a kicker a few km from the finish line to make it interesting and all the fans said "yeah, great finale!" But for their entire racing careers, GC riders have knocked off after twenty days (except for the few last day TTs, the Giro especially liked them). De facto, the GC has been twenty stages. It's only really become an issue as organisers have looked to spice things up, which is done without any real input from or consultation with the riders, so it's literally only when they get close to the stage that opinions solidify about whether it's good or not.

Largely the point the GC riders will be making is that they're not racing the 21st stage anyway, that the race is already done and dusted, and that the terrain on offer doesn't have what's needed for an actual GC day. So they've got nothing to gain by the added spiciness and everything to lose. There's a huge difference between crashing on a dodgy circuit on the last stage and e.g. crashing out on a descent on a GC day - even the 19th stage - if you're talking about "losing all that work"

 

[T4tomo]

and that the terrain on offer doesn't have what's needed for an actual GC day.

this is the crux, but could get unmerited (for want of a better word) gaps on GC coming from splits in the groups caused by a crash on the closing lap of these circuits as the sprint teams assemble at the front. the way it is being handled (from what we have seen at TdF and V this year) to my mind is perfect. Take away that "GC destroying" risk and let others battle out a stage win, and let the final stage crowds see a lot more of the riders by having a circuit style stage finish

 

[TakeTheHighRoad]

the terrain on offer doesn't have what's needed for an actual GC day.

Just to expand on this point slightly. I know the Nice finish to the Tour in 2024 was a GC day as it was a Time Trial, but what if it was the same circuit as there was in the women's TDF this year (i.e. laps of the Col d'Eze)? Would that have been an OK way to finish a Grand Tour?

I agree about the "de facto 20 day race" as a concept, but then that's where I say this should be written in the rules. The sport is by definition abitrary, so we can avoid the bad look of last minute changes by saying from the start "this is what the rules are"

 

[Dorset Boy]

this is the crux, but could get unmerited (for want of a better word) gaps on GC coming from splits in the groups caused by a crash on the closing lap of these circuits as the sprint teams assemble at the front. the way it is being handled (from what we have seen at TdF and V this year) to my mind is perfect. Take away that "GC destroying" risk and let others battle out a stage win, and let the final stage crowds see a lot more of the riders by having a circuit style stage finish

I don't really have an issue either as it's not dis-similar to the current 5 km rule.
HOWEVER, it needs to be set out in the race rules before the event starts, and not a last minute decision.
They also should say that the first 20, 30, 40 or whatever kms of the final stage are neutralised too, for the photos and champagne sipping etc, and then the race is on properly.

 

[No Ta Doctor]

Just to expand on this point slightly. I know the Nice finish to the Tour in 2024 was a GC day as it was a Time Trial, but what if it was the same circuit as there was in the women's TDF this year (i.e. laps of the Col d'Eze)? Would that have been an OK way to finish a Grand Tour?

I agree about the "de facto 20 day race" as a concept, but then that's where I say this should be written in the rules. The sport is by definition abitrary, so we can avoid the bad look of last minute changes by saying from the start "this is what the rules are"

Personally I'd have no real objection, as it's clear it's a GC day if they make them race Col d'Eze laps. I don't think it would be a good idea though, but I appear to be almost alone in thinking the parade + sprint is fine. I think you should ask the riders though, it's them that will decide - which is largely why the late changes occur.

I don't really have an issue either as it's not dis-similar to the current 5 km rule.
HOWEVER, it needs to be set out in the race rules before the event starts, and not a last minute decision.
They also should say that the first 20, 30, 40 or whatever kms of the final stage are neutralised too, for the photos and champagne sipping etc, and then the race is on properly.

I'm not all that bothered about late changes - they happen all the time for weather etc. and we're going to have to get used to them on that account as they'll be more frequent from here on in.

I also think it would be a shame if there were a very small gap - say a handful of seconds - in the podium placings and you didn't let them race. If the race is actually so tight that getting away on a kicker on the final day is going to decide it, then let them have at it imo. I think we'd see the GC riders racing for bonus seconds on the Champs Elysée if the difference going into the stage was under 10". The point here is that if the only thing that would change the GC on the last day is bad luck then I'm happy to neutralise it. If it's possible to win it by skill and strength then race it. The question is what stage have you designed and what are your expectations of who will race it and how it will be raced?

But again, run it past riders first, it's them that should have the final say

 

[Blazing Saddles]

Some of the recent posts express my feelings far more eloquently than I could.
I don’t have an issue with neutralised processions, so long as it doesn’t require a last minute pretext to achieve them.

As TTHR says, it’s time for a rule change. Do away altogether with the faux stage 21 and have an epilogue. That allows for two options: the neutralised stage, or if the organisers are feeling daring, a short ITT of a maximum say of 10kms.

 

[TomDW]

Pogacar would have raced it

yeah and won, boring....
Thought it was a great last stage full of excitement, the last gasp to achieve a victory. Of note was how important Brennan's Visma lead out was for his victories. On his own at Stage 21 although he achieved the break the attacking duo of Johannessen and Romele out classed him.

 

[No Ta Doctor]

Can I ask, what is the actual problem with a late change? I think it probably has more impact on e.g. the points jersey than the GC.
If people don't really mind if it's neutralised or not then what's the big deal about exactly when the decision is made, and how?

I'm genuinely curious here. I've heard so much outrage over neutralisations in the past that seemed to make sense to me in allowing a proper race without GC danger (Paris, Milan...)

 

[No Ta Doctor]

yeah and won, boring....
Thought it was a great last stage full of excitement, the last gasp to achieve a victory. Of note was how important Brennan's Visma lead out was for his victories. On his own at Stage 21 although he achieved the break the attacking duo of Johannessen and Romele out classed him.

To be fair, he might have won that earlier in the race, before everyone had him marked out as the guy who had to close the gaps because he was the clear favourite. He got worked over good and proper

 

[TakeTheHighRoad]

Can I ask, what is the actual problem with a late change? I think it probably has more impact on e.g. the points jersey than the GC.
If people don't really mind if it's neutralised or not then what's the big deal about exactly when the decision is made, and how?

I'm genuinely curious here. I've heard so much outrage over neutralisations in the past that seemed to make sense to me in allowing a proper race without GC danger (Paris, Milan...)

I can't venture much further than the optics of it all.

It appears as though the riders have only just looked at the roadbook and decided not to race. As we know, Sporting Directors scout routes months in advance in order to plan. The idea that 24 hours before they're due to race on a circuit they decide it's unsafe (or whatever reason they give) seems amateurish and makes the sport look bad

This is true for 2 of the examples you cite (at the end of each GT), whereas Milan is more acceptable as that was due to them only noticing the dangers of the circuit as they were riding it