Cyclings mixed messages?

luckao

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.

I can't think of many situations where a rider pulls his team-mate to the line on, say, a mountain stage and then yields right on the line. Any domestique capable of that should probably be captain of another team. What we've seen this week is the race leader being the one yielding and, if anything, depriving himself of any bonus seconds that might have been available by gifting wins to riders who will have no bearing on the GC. They aren't even team-mates. It further undermines the F1 comparison.

If you want to talk about favours between teams, that doesn't happen in F1, and it's a more complex dynamic that you'd have to broach within the context of cycling alone.

dougzz

RichN95 wrote:

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.

One of the reasons I hate betting on things other than Horse Racing, although I still do. Without starting a big debate on it, HR has specific rules to cover non tryers, as in you must ride a horse out to achieve it's best position.I know there's lots of examples on not doing this, particularly to keep the handicapper at bay, but in general HR is a better bet for proper results. I like to bet on American Football, and drive myself insane when a team won't run up the score at the end, and thus doesn't cover the spread. In many ways this is similar to the gifting, not a victory but dignity, you don't try to beat another team by a massive margin as they'll look for payback later. Oddly in college football, as opposed to the NFL, running up the score is completely acceptable.

RichN95.

dougzz wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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.

One of the reasons I hate betting on things other than Horse Racing, although I still do. Without starting a big debate on it, HR has specific rules to cover non tryers, as in you must ride a horse out to achieve it's best position.I know there's lots of examples on not doing this, particularly to keep the handicapper at bay, but in general HR is a better bet for proper results. I like to bet on American Football, and drive myself insane when a team won't run up the score at the end, and thus doesn't cover the spread. In many ways this is similar to the gifting, not a victory but dignity, you don't try to beat another team by a massive margin as they'll look for payback later. Oddly in college football, as opposed to the NFL, running up the score is completely acceptable.

I remember when the F1 Ferrari team orders thing happened someone brought up the betting angle and the Radio 5 F1 correspondent basically said "If you know about F1 you knew this was likely to happen, so if you bet on Massa then you only have yourself to blame. If you don't know about F1 then you shouldn't be betting on it and only have yourself to blame"

Wheelspinner

I know it happens, and don't especially care, but I suspect anyone who was wagering seriously on the outcome might have genuine cause for concern. It may be a "tradition", but there's also the possibility of some serious problems with corruption and race-fixing.

From the recent Giro, if I'd backed Bertie with a grand at 10-1 to win stage 19 outright, but it paid only 3-1 for a top 3, I'd be a bit unhappy. How could I be sure it was not just a "nice gesture", or was there really a discreet commercial transaction to his benefit on the side involved as well?

Conversely the bookies might be a bit cheesed if they offer long odds on some journeyman domestique actually winning a stage, only to find he officially does thanks to being handed the result like that. I can't be ar$ed checking, but I'd suspect you would have got very good odds on Tiralongo to WIN that stage as opposed to, say, Contador. Watching that finish, I reckon Contador can add the Bookmaker's Club to the list of former friends, right underneath the Spanish Beef Producers Guild.

The only bit that does irritate me a little is seeing the "winner" celebrate wildly, when Blind Freddie can see he was handed the result.

RichN95.

Wheelspinner wrote:

The only bit that does irritate me a little is seeing the "winner" celebrate wildly, when Blind Freddie can see he was handed the result.

That's a bit harsh. Tiralongo has been a pro for a decade and he's never previously had a victory*, so let him have his moment.


*Apart from the King of the Speed Bumps, sorry mountains, at the Tour Down Under.

Wheelspinner

RichN95 wrote:

That's a bit harsh. Tiralongo has been a pro for a decade and he's never previously had a victory*, so let him have his moment.

Kind of reinforces my point though.

No argument that he put up a great ride, and am sure the gift was well-intentioned. But, if the day before you had gone to your local or online betting shop and asked for odds on Tiralongo to WIN that stage outright, not just place in the top 3, 5 or even 10, the odds given would probably have been extremely attractive, since as you say the guy doesn't exactly have a history of winning races.
Next day, surprise surprise, he crosses the line first, thanks to the short-priced favourite easing up and letting him have the glory. Great for you if you placed the bet, but your bookmaker would be miffed I suspect.

For the record, I'm not a bookie..

RichN95.

Wheelspinner wrote:

Great for you if you placed the bet, but your bookmaker would be miffed I suspect.

For the record, I'm not a bookie..

The bookie would love it. The favourite winning is their worst case scenario - their profits are at their minimum, and often they'll make a loss. A rank outsider is a beautiful result for them. Unless there's some betting scam going on (almost impossible in cycling), then they may have to pay out to a couple of very lucky punters, but the rest is all profit.

P_Tucker

To be honest, I'm struggling to care about gamblers or bookmakers.

colsoop

For a rider to be gifted a win he has to be up there at the finish in order for this to work. Which means beating all the other teams and their riders, all are trying hard to win the stage for themeselves or their teammates.

You could argue lead out men for sprinters are essentially gifitng their man the win or at least the oppurtunity to win.

Although i think gifting a 1 day event is not quite the same as a tour stage win being gifted.

dougzz

P_Tucker wrote:

To be honest, I'm struggling to care about gamblers or bookmakers.

Yep that's fair. The purpose of sport is not to provide a medium for betting (horses and dog's aside). If you choose to bet on it, which I do, you take your chances and suck it up.

thegibdog

Wheelspinner wrote:

I can't be ar$ed checking, but I'd suspect you would have got very good odds on Tiralongo to WIN that stage as opposed to, say, Contador. Watching that finish, I reckon Contador can add the Bookmaker's Club to the list of former friends, right underneath the Spanish Beef Producers Guild.

The only bit that does irritate me a little is seeing the "winner" celebrate wildly, when Blind Freddie can see he was handed the result.

Contador could easily have just sat in the peleton and not attacked at all. Tiralongo would still have won but would Contador have been equally at fault for not "racing" properly?

How far do you take it?

If someone decides they are going to take it easy on that stage in order to do better in another stage - is that wrong?

If someone decides to go on an early break in order to get a bit of exposure before fading and getting dropped, when staying in the peleton would have meant finishing safely in the first group - is that wrong?

If someone decides to miss a training session before a race thus reducing their chances of winning - is that wrong?

Stone Glider

If you find 'gifting' hard to swallow, what about the lone breakaway? He will be unlikely to finish at the head of proceedings but fulfils a vital role for the team and the sponsors.

If you want a sport where all concerned try as hard as they might in every race......


try dog racing

The only people to be upset about 'gifting' are, surely, gamblers. I care not at all about their efforts to make money.

mididoctors

bossng the race is part of the sport and spectacle