Cyclings mixed messages?
bramstoker
Posts: 250
Cycling strikes me as sport with very mixed messages, i see many people on here and some commentators and reporters get very passonate about drugs yet they say things like "sporting" when a rider gifts another a win for favours in the future.
You dont usually see this in any other sport, jockeys dont pull up at the line to let another win, footballers dont allow the other team a goal to allow them a favour in future games.
When this was tried in F1 people were up in arms that a team mate allowed a driver to pass him to gain the maximum points, so why is it acceptable in pro cycling? People say its a long standing tradition, but then so is drug taking, so why is influencing the outcome of a race in one way acceptable and the other not?
You dont usually see this in any other sport, jockeys dont pull up at the line to let another win, footballers dont allow the other team a goal to allow them a favour in future games.
When this was tried in F1 people were up in arms that a team mate allowed a driver to pass him to gain the maximum points, so why is it acceptable in pro cycling? People say its a long standing tradition, but then so is drug taking, so why is influencing the outcome of a race in one way acceptable and the other not?
A feather is kinky, a whole chicken is just perverse.
0
Comments
-
The way cycling works, the physics, mean it's impossible to stop, because it;s impossible to govern.
In F1 it's clear cut.
Cycling's like real life - s'why I like it.0 -
In what other sport can you gain from anothers' efforts? Drafting doesn't happen in other sports.bramstoker wrote:You dont usually see this in any other sport, ....
The nearest comparison I can think of is the pace-setters you get in long distance running, who pull up well before the finish.0 -
It happens in F1 also. i.e someone only needs 4th to win the championship. No need to bust a gut or risk overtaking if could realyl screw you up in the future....
Cycling is unique when it comes to gifting other riders wins. Situations only arrive in stage racing. It will not happen in 1 day races.
As for the drugs meh... I'm all for more out spoken riders/teams. Not going to happen if they can be flagged a hipocrite and potetionally screwed over by someone who jsut got caught....0 -
-
bramstoker wrote:You dont usually see this in any other sport, jockeys dont pull up at the line to let another win, footballers dont allow the other team a goal to allow them a favour in future games
But you do see footballers allow an undesignated player to take a penalty to complete a hat-trick, players subbed for a standing ovation, players brougt on in the last 5 minutes to lift the cup ala Puyol on Saturday night etc...0 -
Cycling as a sport is one where it is impossible for one rider or a team to totally dominate all races - there is often co-operation between teams and riders throughout the year and often what you see in one race is 'payback' for earlier efforts. This is one of the unique aspects of the sport and has occurred since the cycling was in it's infancy - when GT stages were in excess of 400km it required rider co-operation in the peloton to share the pace and often the spoils and led to the role of domestique who work on the instruction of the team leader. If a peloton of 200 individuals took it upon themselves to ride as individuals the dynamic of the races would be very different and probably less interesting.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:The way cycling works, the physics, mean it's impossible to stop, because it;s impossible to govern.
In F1 it's clear cut.
Cycling's like real life - s'why I like it.
Drugging seems impossible to govern as well, should we not give up on that as well?
Why is F1 clear cut? If it benifits the team shouldnt the drivers do whats best for the team as they pay the wages?
But whys is one unacceptable (drugs) and the other not (race fixing).A feather is kinky, a whole chicken is just perverse.0 -
bramstoker wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The way cycling works, the physics, mean it's impossible to stop, because it;s impossible to govern.
In F1 it's clear cut.
Cycling's like real life - s'why I like it.
Drugging seems impossible to govern as well, should we not give up on that as well?
Why is F1 clear cut? If it benifits the team shouldnt the drivers do whats best for the team as they pay the wages?
But whys is one unacceptable (drugs) and the other not (race fixing).
No, I mean literally impossible. As said above, since in cycling you gain from another person's effort, you cannot stop inter-rider co-operation.
Doping is, in theory, possible to govern. Favours, gifts, etc etc is, by the very nature of the sport, impossible to govern.
Without it you don't have a sport.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:bramstoker wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The way cycling works, the physics, mean it's impossible to stop, because it;s impossible to govern.
In F1 it's clear cut.
Cycling's like real life - s'why I like it.
Drugging seems impossible to govern as well, should we not give up on that as well?
Why is F1 clear cut? If it benifits the team shouldnt the drivers do whats best for the team as they pay the wages?
But whys is one unacceptable (drugs) and the other not (race fixing).
No, I mean literally impossible. As said above, since in cycling you gain from another person's effort, you cannot stop inter-rider co-operation.
Doping is, in theory, possible to govern. Favours, gifts, etc etc is, by the very nature of the sport, impossible to govern.
Without it you don't have a sport.
When Rick says 'etc etc' he includes brown envelopes passed between team cars. It is ludicrous really.___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
I just don't understand why anyone who isn't directly connected to the riders really cares. Why does it matter to the viewer if rider x wins instead of rider y? How does it affect anything?0
-
-
Rick Chasey wrote:P_Tucker wrote:I just don't understand why anyone who isn't directly connected to the riders really cares. Why does it matter to the viewer if rider x wins instead of rider y? How does it affect anything?
If you've put money on something....
Fair enough. Although the canny gambler should know about this aspect of cycling and taking it into account - if he doesn't it's his own fault.0 -
Gambling on cycling is madness- I still do it though.
My Giro was about as successful as Sky's!!0 -
I think difference is:
- In cycling, you get the same time whether you finish 1st or 2nd provided you are close enough. So if you are AC in the Giro this year and winning the overall comp, then you've no need to take a load of stage wins as you know you'll win the overall.
If you haven't won before you'll go for it, but if you're AC who has won plenty and going to win overall there is no need to win every stage.
- In other sports you gain a greater advantage by winning over coming second (e.g. in F1 you get more points, in Football the goal difference might make a difference to your performance at the end of the season).0 -
RichN95 wrote:The worst offender is Mark Renshaw. Almost everytime I see him, he slows up in the last 200m and lets someone else win.
Genuine lol there.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:rebs wrote:Cycling is unique when it comes to gifting other riders wins. Situations only arrive in stage racing. It will not happen in 1 day races.
Err, what?
You telling me Flanders and Roubais and any pro tour 1 day would be gifted? You clearly know that its totally common in stage racing. 1 day 1 race. Not many will give that up if they are in a position to win.
I have a feeling you are going to back this up with examples so just let rip :P0 -
rebs wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:rebs wrote:Cycling is unique when it comes to gifting other riders wins. Situations only arrive in stage racing. It will not happen in 1 day races.
Err, what?
You telling me Flanders and Roubais and any pro tour 1 day would be gifted? You clearly know that its totally common in stage racing. 1 day 1 race. Not many will give that up if they are in a position to win.
I have a feeling you are going to back this up with examples so just let rip :P
It depends what you mean by gift I guess.
It's not that uncommon to see a super-favourite for a 1dayer to give up his chances to help a teammate for their unquestionable support later on in the year - a classic example would be Pozzato's victory in Milan-San Remo (where everyone was so busy looking at Boonen..)
The '96 Roubaix where Levefre decided who would win rather than the riders.
There are also examples (the precise nature of which escapes my memory) where a bit of Dutch investigative journalism found that the winner of the smaller race was decided at the start line, and there are of course, the more 'celebratory' races where heroes come home to bask in the glory > many of which are one day races too.
It's true the "i'll let you win the stage, I have the GC to worry about" is exclusive to stage racing, but cycling's deal-making nature makes sure that deals and 'gifts' are often struck, just perhaps a bit less obviously.
When you hear phrases like "the greats like Merckx may buy victories, but they never sell them" you have to assume that that extends to all road cycling.0 -
I think the comparison is a bit rubbish. It’s more frowned upon in F1 because any tactic of the sort can impact significantly upon a championship. The driver that yields rarely does it out of the goodness of his own heart, or even with “favours in the future” in mind. It’s the team principals “unfairly" manipulating the standings. Anything of the sort in cycling is typically a rider making his own decision to allow a friend some prestige for one day, with it unlikely to ever have any bearing on the significant places.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:The way cycling works, the physics, mean it's impossible to stop, because it;s impossible to govern.
In F1 it's clear cut.
Cycling's like real life - s'why I like it.
1) In F1 it only happens within teams - big difference. Very rarely would teams work together by making a driver yield to one from another team (if ever) unless you buy into Hamilton's paranoid rantings that Toro Rosso is helping out its bigger brother by holding him up. You don't need favours in F1, just performance over your team mate.
2) Why is it clear cut? The waters here are exceedingly muddy. In Germany last year Ferrari was 'bringing the sport into disrepute' because the team orders occurred at a point when Massa still had a (mathematical) chance of winning the championship. When Raikkonen let Massa past in Shanghai 2008 no-one batted an eyelid. Fans and media took the view that it was necessary for Massa to contest the championship and so was apparently okay and 'part of the sport'.
3) I do find it amusing that the team orders ban was bought in after Ferrari used them blatantly in Austria 2002, and removed for the very same reason after Germany 2010.
So, cycling I get, but its F1 I get mixed messages from.0 -
Luckao wrote:I think the comparison is a bit rubbish. It’s more frowned upon in F1 because any tactic of the sort can impact significantly upon a championship. The driver that yields rarely does it out of the goodness of his own heart, or even with “favours in the future” in mind. It’s the team principals “unfairly" manipulating the standings. Anything of the sort in cycling is typically a rider making his own decision to allow a friend some prestige for one day, with it unlikely to ever have any bearing on the significant places.
With bonus seconds on offer it would have some effect on the standings.
I still dont see why "gifting" is acceptable and PEDs isnt, both effect the true outcome of a race and both seem as morally wrong as the other.A feather is kinky, a whole chicken is just perverse.0 -
bramstoker wrote:Luckao wrote:I think the comparison is a bit rubbish. It’s more frowned upon in F1 because any tactic of the sort can impact significantly upon a championship. The driver that yields rarely does it out of the goodness of his own heart, or even with “favours in the future” in mind. It’s the team principals “unfairly" manipulating the standings. Anything of the sort in cycling is typically a rider making his own decision to allow a friend some prestige for one day, with it unlikely to ever have any bearing on the significant places.
With bonus seconds on offer it would have some effect on the standings.
I still dont see why "gifting" is acceptable and PEDs isnt, both effect the true outcome of a race and both seem as morally wrong as the other.
Why exactly do you feel that a rider has to try to win every race that he enters? Does he not have the option to, for example, roll around at the back of the bunch?0 -
fish156 wrote:
In what other sport can you gain from anothers' efforts? Drafting doesn't happen in other sports.bramstoker wrote:You dont usually see this in any other sport, ....
The nearest comparison I can think of is the pace-setters you get in long distance running, who pull up well before the finish.
Interesting question by the OP and I think this answer is pretty much spot on. It all stems from drafting.
Cycling must be one of the only sports where your rivals can simultaneously be your allies in a given situation. It encourages cooperation and giving and taking favours.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:Why exactly do you feel that a rider has to try to win every race that he enters? Does he not have the option to, for example, roll around at the back of the bunch?
Race
noun, verb, raced, rac·ing.
–noun
1.
a contest of speed, as in running, riding, driving, or sailing.
2.
races, a series of races, usually of horses or dogs, run at a set time over a regular course: They spent a day at the races.
3.
any contest or competition, especially to achieve superiority: the arms race; the presidential race.
Why dont they just draw lots to see who wins? and why do people get so passionate about doping, yet most people who have posted here seem to be almost defending what amouts to race fixing.A feather is kinky, a whole chicken is just perverse.0 -
bramstoker wrote:With bonus seconds on offer it would have some effect on the standings.
I still dont see why "gifting" is acceptable and PEDs isnt, both effect the true outcome of a race and both seem as morally wrong as the other.
The thing with gifting is that you have to be in a position to be gifted the stage - i.e. one of only two people who can win and having done something to earn the gifting.
So it's not as though it's a completely undeserved victory.Twitter: @RichN950 -
bramstoker wrote:P_Tucker wrote:Why exactly do you feel that a rider has to try to win every race that he enters? Does he not have the option to, for example, roll around at the back of the bunch?
Race
noun, verb, raced, rac·ing.
–noun
1.
a contest of speed, as in running, riding, driving, or sailing.
2.
races, a series of races, usually of horses or dogs, run at a set time over a regular course: They spent a day at the races.
3.
any contest or competition, especially to achieve superiority: the arms race; the presidential race.
Why dont they just draw lots to see who wins? and why do people get so passionate about doping, yet most people who have posted here seem to be almost defending what amouts to race fixing.
Just because something is called a race doesn't mean the participants have to race. Pro-cycling is a business, the primary aim of which is to get the sponsors maximum coverage. A rider is free to do whatever he pleases to acheive that aim, be it using a race as training to help him achieve something later on in the season, or offer/repay a favour to someone for similar reasons.0 -
Abdoujaparov wrote:fish156 wrote:
In what other sport can you gain from anothers' efforts? Drafting doesn't happen in other sports.bramstoker wrote:You dont usually see this in any other sport, ....
The nearest comparison I can think of is the pace-setters you get in long distance running, who pull up well before the finish.
Interesting question by the OP and I think this answer is pretty much spot on. It all stems from drafting.
Cycling must be one of the only sports where your rivals can simultaneously be your allies in a given situation. It encourages cooperation and giving and taking favours.
Yet we dont see this in cyclocross, mtb or track, or at least its not as obvious.
Everyone explains why it may happen, but no one seems to be bothered by it, why do we accept this, yet decry AC or Armstrong ect when they take PEDs or are accused of it?A feather is kinky, a whole chicken is just perverse.0 -
bramstoker wrote:Yet we dont see this in cyclocross, mtb or track, or at least its not as obvious.
Everyone explains why it may happen, but no one seems to be bothered by it, why do we accept this, yet decry AC or Armstrong ect when they take PEDs or are accused of it?
1. Cyclocross, MTB and Track are more or less completely different sports, with their own politics and dynamics.
2. No-one minds because really the only person losing out is the one doing the gifting (and a few people with bets on), which isn't the same with people doping.Twitter: @RichN950 -
To be honest I really can't see what the fuss is about at all. Gifting usually occurs as pay-off for cooperation on a break, where one rider is interested in time and another the stage. It's a deal where both riders profit. It's exactly the sort of thing that makes cycling interesting.
Without cooperation, temporary alliances and deals you might as well just watch time trials.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
