Womens racing. what a waste of time.

webboo

Having watched the women’s tour on the TV and know it might not give an accurate representation of what the racing is really like but it looks like 3rds and juniors of old. I.E. someone attacks they all chase it down, it all comes together, they able along for abit before they repeat the process again and again until the bunch sprint.

m.r.m.

Pross wrote:

I assume contracts in sports in general include a clause along the lines that you will keep yourself in a physical condition to be able to compete with exclusions covering general illness and injuries picked up during the course of training for or competing in the sport.

Poor Carlos...

m.r.m.

Webboo wrote:

Having watched the women’s tour on the TV and know it might not give an accurate representation of what the racing is really like but it looks like 3rds and juniors of old. I.E. someone attacks they all chase it down, it all comes together, they able along for abit before they repeat the process again and again until the bunch sprint.

This is not true or always the case. The edition of Strade Bianche with Deignan, Johansson and 1 more rider was a really good race (for the amount that was shown). The lack of distance in a cardio sport is much more of a factor in the lack of selections. This is also why select riders dominate for so long. It's the best all rounder winning among a huge ton of good all rounders.

Taken from the Woman's Tour thread to give further credence to the point about most of them being all rounders:

bobmcstuff wrote:

andyp wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

The GC was won by a sprinter (Coryn Rivera), which tells you all you need to know about how poor the route was.

She's more of a Sagan than a Kittel.

But you're point stands, the route was pretty uninspiring this year, with only the second stage really offering non-sprinters much in the way of opportunity.

Second place was at 11s. The gap between 1st and 10th was only 34s (and I haven't checked but I'm guessing quite a bit of Rivera's lead was bonus seconds).

Pross

As someone previously explained with women's cricket, it needs people to put the money in and back it for a few years without thinking of the commercial success. As well as cricket women's football and rugby didn't really catch on in many countries but the federations and TV companies got behind it and stuck with it and they now enjoy regular TV coverage and, in the case of football, good live attendances and more money in the sport.

john80

I think really woman need to start watching their own sports and then the money will come. If they are relying on guys watching then they will never have parity as I would rather watch the Tour de France than the woman's tour of Britain with my limited TV time. 50% or thereabouts of the viewers are woman and in general they are watching Love Island and not a woman's cycling race. Cricket, football, golf are all the same. Ball is in the court of females on this one I am afraid.

john80

bobmcstuff wrote:

john80 wrote:

There will not be many sports paid employment gigs that offer to pay maternity as lets face it you are hardly winning a medal whilst pregnant and rearing kids and this is what they are paying your for. Even the GB track team probably don't pay this and only offer a speedy return for proven performers.

This seems like a spurious argument to me, as it applies to every job - if you swapped "winning a medal" with any other job purpose it would be equally applicable.

E.g., I am a consultant and you could rewrite that sentence "you are hardly charging consultancy fees whilst pregnant and rearing kids and this is what they are paying you for" (and I know this very well as it plays havoc with our profitability).

The whole point of maternity pay is that we are explicitly saying that you (the mother) will not be fulfilling your job role during that time yet we assign some social value to mums spending time with their newborns and therefore the government makes us pay you anyway.

The point I was making is that a female would be entitled to the statutory minimum whilst she is on maternity leave which is pretty much feck all. If you had a job at 30k a year and then went to this then you would be looking for some additional support from a partner or savings to survive the year. Therefore any sportsperson taking a year off to give birth and look after their kid is going to have to get back to work pretty quick or have means from another source. A top rider like Marianne Voss might for example find her team willing to stump up for a nanny to get her back on her bike quicker. A lesser rider may not get any support. In your consultant argument sitting on a chair, using your brain and communicating is a bit easier to attain after birth than smashing out 100k's at race pace. You can even use a mobility scooter to get to the office if you are too lazy to walk.

Vino'sGhost

john80 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

john80 wrote:

There will not be many sports paid employment gigs that offer to pay maternity as lets face it you are hardly winning a medal whilst pregnant and rearing kids and this is what they are paying your for. Even the GB track team probably don't pay this and only offer a speedy return for proven performers.

This seems like a spurious argument to me, as it applies to every job - if you swapped "winning a medal" with any other job purpose it would be equally applicable.

E.g., I am a consultant and you could rewrite that sentence "you are hardly charging consultancy fees whilst pregnant and rearing kids and this is what they are paying you for" (and I know this very well as it plays havoc with our profitability).

The whole point of maternity pay is that we are explicitly saying that you (the mother) will not be fulfilling your job role during that time yet we assign some social value to mums spending time with their newborns and therefore the government makes us pay you anyway.

The point I was making is that a female would be entitled to the statutory minimum whilst she is on maternity leave which is pretty much feck all. If you had a job at 30k a year and then went to this then you would be looking for some additional support from a partner or savings to survive the year. Therefore any sportsperson taking a year off to give birth and look after their kid is going to have to get back to work pretty quick or have means from another source. A top rider like Marianne Voss might for example find her team willing to stump up for a nanny to get her back on her bike quicker. A lesser rider may not get any support. In your consultant argument sitting on a chair, using your brain and communicating is a bit easier to attain after birth than smashing out 100k's at race pace. You can even use a mobility scooter to get to the office if you are too lazy to walk.

Well im not so sure a consultant using their brain is that easy shortly after childbirth. Baby brain is officially a real thing......

m.r.m.

john80 wrote:

I think really woman need to start watching their own sports and then the money will come. If they are relying on guys watching then they will never have parity as I would rather watch the Tour de France than the woman's tour of Britain with my limited TV time. 50% or thereabouts of the viewers are woman and in general they are watching Love Island and not a woman's cycling race. Cricket, football, golf are all the same. Ball is in the court of females on this one I am afraid.

This is unfortunately true and the elephant in the room.
(Logically this feels both fair and accurate, but still feels slightly chauvinistic even agreeing. Not casting aspersions towards John80. This is just a battle ground riddled with minefields )

Vino'sGhost

Love island LOLOLOLOL