mjr wrote:Tacascarow wrote:It's an expensive sport to televise compared to stadium based sports, in equipment & manpower. & IMHO other than the occasional spills (which the cameras are nearly always late for) rather boring to watch, (other than the scenery).
It's going to get cheaper, as small drones replace the manned helicopter/plane cameras/relays. They're being used for amateur races (recorded online coverage only AFAIK) so I guess the extra power demand of the relay task might still be a problem.
Is it really expensive? Or is it just that the costs of wiring a stadium up for pictures is a pay-one/use-many deal, whereas cycling set-up costs has to be paid each event/series?
Plus you also need to address the matter of doping, which whether true or false is a stigma still firmly attached to the sport & very much to the tour?
I'm not sure that's unique to cycling. I feel there's a growing disquiet that it's not being talked about in coverage of many other sports... I hope that the recent Panorama might encourage more questions, but there's so many ex-pros involved in sports coverage that omerta will probably prevail again.
I agree drones & also onboard cameras will make televising the sport cheaper & more interesting. Although still costly in manpower. Each drone will require a pilot & cameraman & you will need many over a long days riding plus the logistics of moving them on every day.
I don't disagree with you as regards to doping & other elite sport. As long as big money & sport have mixed cheating has ocurred, (although predominately equine in the past). But that stigma is very firmly attached to competitive cycling whether we like it or not.
I think the fans are as guilty as the industry as well, look how many here on this forum wouldn't accept Lance Armstrongs guilt even when the evidence was stacked against him.