Pub Talk - Substitutions

tailwindhome

This house believes that the sport of professional cycling would be improved by the introduction of substitutes and blood substitutes to the Grand Tours. It would make the sport safer, improve rider welfare, improve the enjoyment of cycling fans globally* and bring an extra tactical element to the sport.

Each team would begin a Grand Tour with 9 nominated starters and 4 'on the bench'.


Team Substitutions
- A team can make 3 substitutions throughout the race.
- They make their substitutions known to the commissaire before 10pm on the night preceding the stage. These substitutions are released to the public and media at 11pm
- A rider can be substituted and then return later in the race - however each change counts against the total of 3
- No team substitutions can be made when a stage is in progress
- Only riders who have completed every stage are eligible for the aggregate time competitions (Yellow & White)
- The Team aggregate time combination is judged on the best 5 riders - 5 riders must complete every stage for a team to be eligible
- Only riders who complete the final stage are eligible for the points based competitions (Green and KOM)

Blood Substitutions
Each day a 'blood substitute' travels in the team car - if a rider is injured, the race doctor (and only the race doctor) may determine that the rider is unfit to continue the days stage and permit the blood substitute to take the place of the injured rider for the continuation of the stage. The 'finishing' time and position of the injured rider will be the time and result achieved by the blood substitute.

Blood substitutions don't count against the allowance of 3








(c) Frenchfighter

RichN95.

I'll modify it.

Only two subs maximum.
For confirmed proper injuries only (breaks, concussion etc). And only for riders who did not finish the stage. It would encourage proper duty of care.
Subs can only operate as domestiques. Not eligible to win anything, not listed on any rankings, do not contribute to team ranking.

It annoys we when people point to someone like Talansky yesterday or Contador before and say 'can you imagine a footballer doing this?'. No they'd bring on a sub and care about the person's health.

The_Boy

Subs would be a terrible idea IMO. The whole point of a stage race is the attritional nature of it.

Agree that the macho culture can be detrimental to the health of riders, but some of the worst examples of management farming completely and utterly in their duty of care to their athletes have come in rugby where substitutes and blood substitutions are long established.

DeVlaeminck

Why would we want to make it easier for teams to control the race - it's when they can't control it that the best racing happens. The loss of riders and the cumulative fatigue opens the race up - makes it better.

Also as The Boy says, the whole point of a 3 week race is that it tests how riders stand up to 3 weeks of racing, if they can dip in and out of the race it rather defeats the point . I really doubt the riders would actually want this anyway because as bike riders they understand that part of the challenge is the recovery.

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Why would we want to make it easier for teams to control the race - it's when they can't control it that the best racing happens. The loss of riders and the cumulative fatigue opens the race up - makes it better.

Also as The Boy says, the whole point of a 3 week race is that it tests how riders stand up to 3 weeks of racing, if they can dip in and out of the race it rather defeats the point . I really doubt the riders would actually want this anyway because as bike riders they understand that part of the challenge is the recovery.

But on the other hand we have riders who keep going with concussion, broken legs and all sorts. For no real reason. Yesterday, any other sport would have pulled Talansky out. He was clearly in massive trouble. If he'd known that he could pull over and David Millar could have started tomorrow in his place he wouldn't have felt obliged to carry on with unknown risk to his health. And Contador. Those 10km he kept riding for could have ruined his career.

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Why would we want to make it easier for teams to control the race - it's when they can't control it that the best racing happens. The loss of riders and the cumulative fatigue opens the race up - makes it better.

Also as The Boy says, the whole point of a 3 week race is that it tests how riders stand up to 3 weeks of racing, if they can dip in and out of the race it rather defeats the point . I really doubt the riders would actually want this anyway because as bike riders they understand that part of the challenge is the recovery.

But on the other hand we have riders who keep going with concussion, broken legs and all sorts. For no real reason. Yesterday, any other sport would have pulled Talansky out. He was clearly in massive trouble. If he'd known that he could pull over and David Millar could have started tomorrow in his place he wouldn't have felt obliged to carry on with unknown risk to his health. And Contador. Those 10km he kept riding for could have ruined his career.

You say that, but I've seen clearly concussed rugby players who literally don't know where they are left on the field of play to keep getting knocked upside the head. In one case, a player who had been forced off the field of play with head injuries was subbed back on later in the game because his team were under pressure. Shameful stuff and substitutions didn't prevent it.

It's basically a cultural issue and part of the sport. A riders' union, pressure from media, pressure from fans amongst others things would be a far better way of tackling it.

And for the avoidance of doubt (cos this is the internet) I agree it needs tackling.

tangled_metal

Blood subs works with rugby, a sport where bloody injuries happen without preventing the player from being physically able to compete. What the game no longer likes is one player's blood contacting other players. The blood sub's only role is to fill in while the player gets wrapped up so the blood does not contact others. The substitution is then reversed.

Your idea seems to propose an injured rider gets taken out for treatment to return at a later stage. Sounds similar but different for a few reasons IMHO. First cyclists get minor blood injuries fixed on the move while holding on to a vehicle with a medic hanging out patching them up. The cyclist does not stop the sport like rugby players have to. At least not in the same way. The rugby player is missing for a very short time. Your idea seems to imply the blood sub happens for at least the rest of the day's race, a potential long time. If the cyclist falls within 1km of the end they.don't lose out anyway of course.

Having substitutes, other than blood subs, does take away the physical endurance of the race. It would still be harder than any mortal cyclist can manage but with subs it reduces the superman or superhero element somewhat. I understand the op sees riders trying to carry on when badly injured as something subs might help, but IMHO if a rider is injured beyond what a patch job on the move can sort out then it is likely to take longer than a day out to recover to be truly competitive.

Basically something that works for one sport rarely works as well in another. Rugby works ok with the end stop.start of video refereeing. Football has not taken it on because the view is it will take away the high tempo nature of the.game.

If you want to stop riders continuing when badly injured I'm sure there is could be rules where all.injured riders must get the ok from the race doctor who had race ending powers. Everything from scrapes to breaks must get the clearance from the race doctor. That'll allow the tour to prevent any macho tendencies or team pressure for the rider to continue.

RichN95.

The_Boy wrote:

You say that, but I've seen clearly concussed rugby players who literally don't know where they are left on the field of play to keep getting knocked upside the head. In one case, a player who had been forced off the field of play with head injuries was subbed back on later in the game because his team were under pressure. Shameful stuff and substitutions didn't prevent it.

It's basically a cultural issue and part of the sport. A riders' union, pressure from media, pressure from fans amongst others things would be a far better way of tackling it.

And for the avoidance of doubt (cos this is the internet) I agree it needs tackling.

It still happens in other sports, of course. We saw it in the World Cup a couple of times, including the final - but he was ultimately taken off after about 15 minutes - in cycling it could take a couple of hours.

I'm not campaigning for substitutes here - as you say there are better ways of tackling it.

joelsim

Hang on, how can a blood substitute work? A rider gets injured 20km from the end and the sub comes on to complete it? So Cheng Ji falls off just near the end of a hilly stage, Kittel who is the sub jumps on a bike and sprints for the win?

k-dog

Yeah, much as it's hard on teams if they have a bunch of crashes I don't think this would work. You couldn't leave someone on the bench until a mountain finish in the third week and then have them go for a stage. They'd be fresh while everyone else has ridden 20 stages.

antsmithmk

I thought substituting blood had been going on for years?

joelsim

antsmithmk wrote:

I thought substituting blood had been going on for years?

Tyler did well on someone else's.

Lanterne_Rogue

I can sort of see the point in subs, but would limit it to just one or two whilst the inevitable implications and potential abuses worked their way through the system - and no swapping in and out. The caveat about someone having to DNF a stage may also encourage teams to drop out badly injured riders earlier rather than later. I'd suggest that trialling it in the one-week events would be the way to go, just to work the quirks out of the system.

d_o_g

Ridiculous. The point of cycling is that you keep going as hard as you can until you can't go anymore. No-one has a gun to your head.

I don't see the benefits at all.

Lanterne_Rogue

D O G wrote:

Ridiculous. The point of cycling is that you keep going as hard as you can until you can't go anymore. No-one has a gun to your head.

I don't see the benefits at all.

The top riders don't have a gun to their head. Lower down the rungs, the suspicion is that riders push themselves far too hard because they're essentially disposable - this came up in the discussion about TUEs - do you ban them, and leave ill people struggling on without medical help because their contract may depend on it, or do you try to minimise the damage? A substitute system that essentially ensured the sub was a domestique (no points, prizes or stage wins) would probably have a bigger impact at that level of the sport than at the level of the GC riders - who would still lose out on a GC podium if they were subbed out.

DeVlaeminck

Have there been any documented cases of riders suffering long term damage from being forced to continue in a stage race? Seems to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. No doubt Talansky was in pain but he's a grown man and if it was that bad there is no way he'd have been within the time limit. If that's the worst thing that happens to him this year he's lucky.

I'm not sure that being able to sub in a domestique who isn't allowed to win a stage (what if he crosses the line first?) is really going to persuade Riis or Vaughters to pull their team leader either.

Macaloon

ASO were particularly taken with the prospect that the Kilburn GlobeStrippers - their house squad of discards - would offer substitute services to the highest bidding teams. Once binned, a rider may not return to the race. And until selected 'strippers' ride as a team with explicit instructions to entertain the fans.

tailwindhome

You all hate change, don't ya?

Wouldn't it be awesome if at the OPQS presser last night they announced that they were subbing in Uran and Poels for Martin and Petacchi for today's stage?

Or that Boonen was going to start stage 2 in place of the injured Cavendish

tailwindhome

Tangled Metal wrote:

Your idea seems to propose an injured rider gets taken out for treatment to return at a later stage. Sounds similar but different for a few reasons IMHO. First cyclists get minor blood injuries fixed on the move while holding on to a vehicle with a medic hanging out patching them up. The cyclist does not stop the sport like rugby players have to. At least not in the same way. The rugby player is missing for a very short time. Your idea seems to imply the blood sub happens for at least the rest of the day's race, a potential long time. If the cyclist falls within 1km of the end they.don't lose out anyway of course..

Yeah. I'm using the term Blood Substitute too loosely but you've got my meaning.

symo

Nah this idea is rubbish. Removes an endurance element.

tailwindhome

symo wrote:

Nah this idea is rubbish. Removes an endurance element.

Pah! They said the same about derailleurs.

d_o_g

So you could potentially sub your sprinter the moment the road turns upwards, give him a nice ten day rest, and then bring him back after the mountains? Potentially he could also still win the green jersey under the proposed rules.

Mental.

Suppose it would have allowed Cipo to have won in Paris...

tailwindhome

D O G wrote:

Suppose it would have allowed Cipo to have won in Paris...

Exactly - the best sprinters in the world would contest the biggest sprint in the world instead of being on the beach.

And that's a bad idea because?

d_o_g

Because it immediately devalues a win at the last sprint on a GT. Those wins are held in such high regard because of what it takes to get there to even be in the contest.

tailwindhome

D O G wrote:

Because it immediately devalues a win at the last sprint on a GT. Those wins are held in such high regard because of what it takes to get there to even be in the contest.

Hold on to team cars, get pushed up the climbs and get the grupetto head count right?

DeVlaeminck

TailWindHome wrote:

You all hate change, don't ya?

Wouldn't it be awesome if at the OPQS presser last night they announced that they were subbing in Uran and Poels for Martin and Petacchi for today's stage?

Or that Boonen was going to start stage 2 in place of the injured Cavendish

Logically hating your proposed change does not equal hating all change.

Answer me this - do you think the race would benefit from allowing teams to be able to control the race more? Do you like the predictable or the unpredictable, the planned or the spontaneous?

There's also the issue that subbing a Greipel, Cav or whoever in and out of the race might give us more matchups between the big guns but it changes the context - these wins are important because they are part of the hardest 3 week grand tour. We see these riders match up in Oman, California etc there isnothing special in it and your suggestion takes what is special outof the Tour and these stage wins become just another win on a 10 month calendar of racing.

tangled_metal

Each day's win is built on all the days raced so far. A sprint finish at the end of a GT could be argued as being more impressive than a sprint at the beginning. Only because of how impressive it is for a sprint specialist to survive that far. That is my view and understanding of current situation. Giving the sprinter a rest for whatever reason takes something from a sprint win later on. Another sprinter who doesn't get a rest but is beaten in the same race could legitimately feel aggrieved. These people are employed for their contribution to a team. They've got talent, ability and the physical.traits to do what they do. It is their job too. Taking substitute backed time outs give advantages which could be argued affects their opponents livelihood. Imagine a team's sprint specialist who never wins because his team doesn't sub him out for whatever reason. Is he going to get his contract renewed?

Is this idea is aimed at the smaller names in a team, the domestiques who play their role and put themselves on the line for their team's big names? So, a team employs these riders, who are possibly not in a secure position who can be replaced more easily than the big stars. On top of this they must employ an understudyv for them. Pay two riders for the one job? Why not just employ one rider who is more likely to last?

tailwindhome

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Answer me this - do you think the race would benefit from allowing teams to be able to control the race more? Do you like the predictable or the unpredictable, the planned or the spontaneous?

I'm not sure that allowing substitutions would mean that teams (and I assume you mean a small number of teams) ability to control (and by control I assume you mean strangle) the race would be increased

Take the current GT in progress. Would Astana's ability to control the race be increased or decreased if Sky, Tinkoff, Belkin, BMC, Trek and Lampre still had 9 riders in the race?

Would your enjoyment of the race be increased or decreased by the announcement on the second rest day that Movistar were 'bringing on' the Quintana brothers for Stage 16?

takethehighroad

Where is this pub, by the way, where you discuss substitutions and the greatest cycling photo of all time? Sounds like the next BR drinks should take place there

DeVlaeminck

TailWindHome wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Answer me this - do you think the race would benefit from allowing teams to be able to control the race more? Do you like the predictable or the unpredictable, the planned or the spontaneous?

I'm not sure that allowing substitutions would mean that teams (and I assume you mean a small number of teams) ability to control (and by control I assume you mean strangle) the race would be increased

Take the current GT in progress. Would Astana's ability to control the race be increased or decreased if Sky, Tinkoff, Belkin, BMC, Trek and Lampre still had 9 riders in the race?

Would your enjoyment of the race be increased or decreased by the announcement on the second rest day that Movistar were 'bringing on' the Quintana brothers for Stage 16?

The ability of any team to control the race is largely down to them having the numbers and freshness - that trumps other teams having numbers. We can see that from the way sprinters teams are more able to bring it back for a sprint early in a grand tour. So yes Astana would be better able to control the race under your system.

No my enjoyment of the race would not be increased by the Quintanas coming in to stage 16 - it'd make a farce of the race parachuting a couple of fresh climbers in. Nairo would almost certainly shoot off and take the win against a load of riders with fatigue in their legs and it would mean exactly naff all because of that. What you don't get is that seeing the best riders in the world is not necessarily thrilling without the context. I can go and see a post Tour crit exhibition race - yes it's fun and a day out but I don't care who wins. Your example of bringing in Quintana for stage 16 reduces the Tour to that kind of status - meaningless.

tangled_metal

A stage is partly the sum of all the stages preceding it. That's my view. Change that and you've changed the tour.

I wonder if they said that about team support? IIRC riders used to carry what they needed to fix their bike with them. Seen photos of some tour great with tyres or inner tubes over the shoulder while racing. Imagine if riders had no mechanic support! Perhaps change, if the right changes, is sometimes good. Not with subs IMHO.