Women's Tour de France

blazing_saddles

phreak wrote:

Just seems we sell women short in cycling with this frankly bizarre rule that stage races are capped at 100km per day.

Now 120 in events below WT and it's an average. WT is 140kms average, but not exceeding 160kms.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racin ... sed-299549

DeVlaeminck

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's the same type of view that sees the u16 females in my soccer club stuck on a smaller pitch than the u13 boys, that saw women prevented from running long distance races, that stopped them playing football, boxing etc.

Is it an inequality that ladies tees exist on a golf course?

Do you think it is? I don't mind giving you my opinion on that as part of a discussion but I'm not just here to educate you.

Ok

That'll learn you, TWH

Excellent contribution to the debate.

The UCIs record in promoting women's cycling is awful, arguably it's no further forwards than the 1970s.

I mean wtf should there be a cap of 160kms on race distance ? There is an argument that could be made, think Blazing did earlier, that equivalence should be measured in race time rather than kms. That's a reasonable argument to make. Where is the rationale for 160kms though - that is nowhere near what men race in time or distance - logistically it may be all race organisers can support but why a limit?

frisbee

Chrissie Wellington (and a lot of other female ironman athletes) demonstrate that women can be extremely competitive over long distant events. Proper go hard for 8+ hour events. I don't know why they treat female professional cyclists so gently.

kingstonian

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's the same type of view that sees the u16 females in my soccer club stuck on a smaller pitch than the u13 boys, that saw women prevented from running long distance races, that stopped them playing football, boxing etc.

Is it an inequality that ladies tees exist on a golf course?

Do you think it is? I don't mind giving you my opinion on that as part of a discussion but I'm not just here to educate you.

Ok

That'll learn you, TWH

Excellent contribution to the debate.

The UCIs record in promoting women's cycling is awful, arguably it's no further forwards than the 1970s.

I mean wtf should there be a cap of 160kms on race distance ? There is an argument that could be made, think Blazing did earlier, that equivalence should be measured in race time rather than kms. That's a reasonable argument to make. Where is the rationale for 160kms though - that is nowhere near what men race in time or distance - logistically it may be all race organisers can support but why a limit?

Anyone know if the female professional cyclists are wanting the distances increased? If they were I expect it would happen, if they aren't then why would the organisers extend distances if the competitors were against it?

Richmond Racer 2

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's the same type of view that sees the u16 females in my soccer club stuck on a smaller pitch than the u13 boys, that saw women prevented from running long distance races, that stopped them playing football, boxing etc.

Is it an inequality that ladies tees exist on a golf course?

Do you think it is? I don't mind giving you my opinion on that as part of a discussion but I'm not just here to educate you.

Ok

That'll learn you, TWH

Excellent contribution to the debate.

The UCIs record in promoting women's cycling is awful, arguably it's no further forwards than the 1970s.

I mean wtf should there be a cap of 160kms on race distance ? There is an argument that could be made, think Blazing did earlier, that equivalence should be measured in race time rather than kms. That's a reasonable argument to make. Where is the rationale for 160kms though - that is nowhere near what men race in time or distance - logistically it may be all race organisers can support but why a limit?

Thanks! A kind word from you is like balm on a sore shoulder

stagehopper

Kingstonian wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's the same type of view that sees the u16 females in my soccer club stuck on a smaller pitch than the u13 boys, that saw women prevented from running long distance races, that stopped them playing football, boxing etc.

Is it an inequality that ladies tees exist on a golf course?

Do you think it is? I don't mind giving you my opinion on that as part of a discussion but I'm not just here to educate you.

Ok

That'll learn you, TWH

Excellent contribution to the debate.

The UCIs record in promoting women's cycling is awful, arguably it's no further forwards than the 1970s.

I mean wtf should there be a cap of 160kms on race distance ? There is an argument that could be made, think Blazing did earlier, that equivalence should be measured in race time rather than kms. That's a reasonable argument to make. Where is the rationale for 160kms though - that is nowhere near what men race in time or distance - logistically it may be all race organisers can support but why a limit?

Anyone know if the female professional cyclists are wanting the distances increased? If they were I expect it would happen, if they aren't then why would the organisers extend distances if the competitors were against it?

Emma Pooley and Nicole Cooke both pointed out that their mountain training rides were often a couple of hours longer than the equivalent races. And it's not as if they don't race up the same mountains you see in the Giro and Tour.

mamba80

Check out no 3 !

https://totalwomenscycling.com/lifestyl ... ortant-kit

considering that cookson when with BC didnt get a female national junior series to run along side the boys event (BC still dont) then little chance his views on women will ever change or women will get the respect they deserve.

For those of you who ve never ridden with a top female racer and think they struggle when cycling over a railway bridge!!!
i can tell you they are fuggin strong and would put most amateur men to the sword.

DeVlaeminck

Kingstonian wrote:

[
know if the female professional cyclists are wanting the distances increased? If they were I expect it would happen, if they aren't then why would the organisers extend distances if the competitors were against it?

If you watch a Half The Road you'll see that plenty do want to race longer, tougher races. You'd see at least one example of a race organiser being told by the UCI the distances, terrain and number of stages of his women's race are excessive, had the same race been designed for men most of us would have been asking why the stages were so short.

RichN95.

Personally I don't think that women's races should be longer, I think that men's races should be shorter.

Women need to do their own thing. Innovate beyond the constraints of men's cycling's history and traditions, rather than strive to replicate its shortcomings.

m.r.m.

I do not intend any offense, but don't longer stages for women add another complication especially when it comes to tv coverage? That being bathroom breaks being much more complicated for women during races compared to the men.

How often do men typically break on a 250 km race and how often do women break on a 120 km stage?

RichN95.

M.R.M. wrote:

I do not intend any offense, but don't longer stages for women add another complication especially when it comes to tv coverage? That being bathroom breaks being much more complicated for women during races compared to the men.

How often do men typically break on a 250 km race and how often do women break on a 120 km stage?

But...



Presumably invented so women could have 'equality' by standing up to pee, rather the sticking with the more sensible option.

Lanterne_Rogue

RichN95 wrote:

M.R.M. wrote:

I do not intend any offense, but don't longer stages for women add another complication especially when it comes to tv coverage? That being bathroom breaks being much more complicated for women during races compared to the men.

How often do men typically break on a 250 km race and how often do women break on a 120 km stage?

But...



Presumably invented so women could have 'equality' by standing up to pee, rather the sticking with the more sensible option.

I suspect it's more an outdoors thing than equality. When it's blowing a gale on a Scottish hillside and the rain is coming horizontally, and the air temperature is barely above freezing, I'm reliably informed by my wife that one of these things is heartily welcome even if the actual apparatus is ridiculous. I'm happy to go with her assessment of this.

Not sure she could use one on a bike though - she barely goes in a straight line when she has both hands on the bars...

RichN95.

underlayunderlay wrote:

I suspect it's more an outdoors thing than equality. When it's blowing a gale on a Scottish hillside and the rain is coming horizontally, and the air temperature is barely above freezing, I'm reliably informed by my wife that one of these things is heartily welcome even if the actual apparatus is ridiculous. I'm happy to go with her assessment of this.

I was joking. A reference to some women wanting whatever men have, even if it's not in their best interests.

bobmcstuff

RichN95 wrote:

Women need to do their own thing. Innovate beyond the constraints of men's cycling's history and traditions, rather than strive to replicate its shortcomings.

100% agree with this - why try and replicate 100+ years of history (with events which actually might not be the best thing in the modern context) when you have so much opportunity to do something different...

DeVlaeminck

M.R.M. wrote:

I do not intend any offense, but don't longer stages for women add another complication especially when it comes to tv coverage? That being bathroom breaks being much more complicated for women during races compared to the men.

How often do men typically break on a 250 km race and how often do women break on a 120 km stage?

Why is that a complication, is it not possible for women to pi ss by the side of the road :?:

Seriously I get your point but if it's an issue could bib shorts not be designed with access, I mean if it's OK for men to get their tackle out and relieve themselves is it not OK for women
to do something equivalent. Is that what the UCI are concerned about?

DeVlaeminck

bobmcstuff wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Women need to do their own thing. Innovate beyond the constraints of men's cycling's history and traditions, rather than strive to replicate its shortcomings.

100% agree with this - why try and replicate 100+ years of history (with events which actually might not be the best thing in the modern context) when you have so much opportunity to do something different...

Fair point but if the women racers and race organisers disagree with you at least let them choose? If they want to do something different fine, no problem, but if the something different is what the UCI thinks is best for them why not force the men into it too?

It shouldn't be about making women conform to the model established by the men but it shouldn't be about making them conform to any model, least of all one based on a false perception of their physicality.

tailwindhome

Women's Tour de France doesn't need to be as long as the men's



They'll stop and ask for directions to Paris.


#I'mhereallweek

davidof

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Cookson says to camera that he thinks a shorter race of a week to ten days with shorter stages is possible but he doesn't think " an exact mirror image of the TdF is appropriate for the physicality of women".

I don't know if Cookson follows women's cycling at all but they already do that with the Route de France... which was cancelled this year thanks to the... UCI!