|Does it belittle a stage win.....(NOT A SPOILER)||ClydeTri|
May 19, 2003 12:22 PM
|This seems to be an annual discussion. Does it degrade or detract from a stage win when you have a sprinter, say Mario Cipollini for example, win it when that sprinter has no intention of not only trying to win the tour, but to even finish the tour. Granted last year Mario did finish the Giro, but even the announcers seem shocked by that when discussing it as normally Mario just bails out when the going gets tough.
My personal thoughts ? It does take something away from a stage win when the sprinter doesnt even plan to try to finish the whole tour. Its almost like sports where you bring in a ringer or hired gun. Just my thoughts though.
May 19, 2003 12:30 PM
|I really don't care if the sprinter's focus after winning stage in the Giro is the Tour. Just like how Robbie won a stage in the Giro last year and then bailed a couple of days later to get geared up for the Tour and then won the Sprinter's Jersey. I mean, if you are going to do a 3 week tour, finish it. It takes a tougher man be it sprinter or otherwise to win stages and then complete the remaining amount of the tour in anonymity then to win a stage and then pack up.|
|I totally disagree||russw19|
May 19, 2003 1:05 PM
|You guys seem to forget one thing.... every single day, every single stage..... it's a race! The sprinters are trying to win stages. They are the ones who when you think about it are the ones who are racing every single day. You guys seem to have what I think of as backwards logic on this issue... and let me explain my take on this... it may make sense, and it may not. But I am not trying to belittle your opinions, but just show you another side of it that I think you guys, and anyone else who thinks this way, are not accounting for.
Every day the sprinters are competing. I don't think you can say the same thing about the guys who actually win. I will argue here that the sprinters are the ones who are racing the full race, and the guys like Armstrong are not. But before you all call me a crackhead, read what I say, then think about it first... then call me a crackhead.
Everyday the sprinters are fighting for the race, in one form or another. If the stage is flat, they are fighting to win the stage. And it can be downright brutal to do so. Watch what goes on in the final 5 kilometers of a sprint finish stage like today's in the Giro. Lot's of hard work going on there for the sprinters. But where was Simoni, Garzelli, Frigo? All they have to do is stay out of trouble and make it to the line. That's it on a day like today. When the road turns uphill or the stage is a time trial, they work to secure the overall win. But on those days, the sprinters are working their butts off too. On mountain finishes, you will see sprinters like Cippo and Petacchi riding tempo for as long as they can, bringing bottles to the front for the climbers, and doing all the unsung things that teammates do for one another in a stage race. Then when they get dropped, the real work begins... they have to continue to bust their butts to finish inside the time limits alone with no team support so they don't get eliminated from the race. It's not as easy as you would think to be a sprinter on a mountain day. It is exponentially harder than being a climber on a flat day. But you don't ever here Armstrong being called an incomplete rider because he aims to finish with the main field and not lose time on a flat day, even though he has no ambition to win the stage. It's unfair to not extend that to the sprinters. Especially when they are in the mountains. You don't get the same effect drafting in the mountains. I would think is way harder to survive a mountain stage for Cippo as it is for Armstrong to survive a fast flat day. The same holds for Time Trials. The sprinters have to be fast enough to not be eliminated. Most of the time that's not an issue, but when Armstrong puts in a super fast time and you have to finish inside 110% of that... it's hard. The sprinters are really the guys working 100% everyday. The Top GC Contenders have more of a relaxed day on the flat stages. That's also why many sprinters drop out of races before they are done... it's more of a torture for them to finish than anyone else because they are competing on the days when other's are not.
I agree winning a tour is an amazing feat, but I am honestly more impressed by someone like Eric Zabel who is competitive every single second of the race. Not just for a select few hours.
It is like saying you are more impressed that someone like Jeff Gordon wins the driver's championship over the course of the whole season than the guy who finishes 4th but has the most wins. Only because he didn't race as many races. It a different sport looked at with the same flawed logic. Reward the wins and the winners, not just the guys who hang on the best.
Just my take on it.
|Let's not get carried away...||Brooks|
May 19, 2003 3:05 PM
|To say that sprinters are "competitive every single second of the race" is pure hyperbole. I don't see Cipo or any other sprinter contesting the flat stages until the final few kilometers, and then their team is leading the top sprinter to the final hundred meters. Granted, McEwen tried to break away in the second(?) stage to the puzzlement of the broadcast crew, but that certainly was an exception not the rule. I don't recall seeing Zabel bridge to a break, these guys just let their teams do the work for them. And I don't recall seeing them ride tempo in the early parts of mountain stages.
The time cut argument is somewhat false as well. Usually a "grupetto" forms in the mountains with the sprinters (and other stragglers) all together. An organizing committee is not going to DQ all of them and will adjust the time cut accordingly.
And, yes, I am more impressed with sprinters who do finish the big tours and bust their keisters to climb the mountains.
May 19, 2003 2:17 PM
|How you view this is dependant upon whether you take a macro or micro view of any tour?
If you are macro, like me, I'd prefer to see the riders at least try to finish a Tour. I feel like, if you are going to enter a tour, then you owe it to your sponsors and teammates to at least try and finish and bring as much exposure as possible for the full three weeks. And maybe in the process you can win a points or KOM jersey.
If you take a micro view, then you look at individual stages as giving maximum value for the likes of sprinters.
I guess it all depends on what the sponsors and teammates feel about guys bailing when the going gets tough, mostly in the mountains. If I was a high level domestique, for say Cipo, then what motivation do I have to ride hard the whole way, when this guy comes in, tries to win a stage or two, and them bails? It doesn't seem fair. And don't you think a sponsor would love the exposure of having a rider in a tightly contested points competition for the entire 21 days, not just 7-10 days? They would get multiple mentions by everyone.
This is a quite interesting subject! As long as everyone just voices their opinion and doesn't start calling each other names, like has happened before when this subject arose :-) Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
|I don't think your macro view is macro enough.||russw19|
May 19, 2003 3:29 PM
|First you mention sponsors... Sponsors gain way more for someone winning a stage then just finishing it for the sake of finishing. It seems the obvious focal point of this thread is Mario Cippolini, so I will just go ahead and use him as an example. FIrst off, he DID FINISH the Giro last year. He hasn't finished the Tour in the last 3 years because he wasn't invited. Sponsors want him to win races.. nobody gives two craps when he finishes 51st on the stage.
You mention domestiques... if you ride for Dominca Vacanze, your primary goal is going to be to help Cippo get across the line first. When Cippo drops out of the race (this is hypothetical since he will most likely finish the Giro since his team was snubbed for Le Tour) your job would be to help someone else win a stage. A domestique is just that... they work for others.. they work for the team. If Cippo drops out, you work for someone else. Also teams have MACRO objectives. If you can not meet your objective of winning more stages in the Giro (last year, McEwen for example) before you fry your legs in the mountains, drop out and go for wins in Le Tour. That is the Macro viewpoint. Yours is still too micro.
I think your point, although interesting and good, would have had more merit if you would have said you were looking at this from a fan vs. rider viewpoint. Let's face it, the people who don't like riders (sprinters) dropping out of Grand Tours are people who are fans of guys like Armstrong. I hate to make this next statement, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but these are often the narrow-minded people who only think winning the Tour is the only thing in racing. You know it's funny because nobody complains that Lance doesn't race Paris-Roubaix... but we jump all over Cippo for dropping out of the Giro. Newsflash.. he finished it last year.
I think the biggest problem with this issue is that these guys make what they do so damn easy looking that we can not fully fathom just how hard they work everyday. And we also are not privy to the team's or the individual's objectives. Sure we all know Lance wants to win the Tour... everything else is icing on the cake, but that's his goal. But look at what the sprinters do.. they drop out of one race when they are no longer competitve to save their legs for a race they are going to be competitive in. Is that so bad? Did anyone here rip into Tyler Hamilton for not being competitve in last year's Tour? No! Because he rode hard in the Giro. And he got hurt too. How did his getting hurt help CSC's Tour aspirations? It didn't! That's another reason riders pull out of races. To save their strength and health for another day.
Has anyone here ever run a marathon? What did it do to your immune system? Can you imagine running 7 back to back everyday? Could you do all that and stay healthy? That's what all the riders, sprinters inclusive, face when they race a 3 week stage race. There is a reason there are only 3 of them per year on the calendar. It's too damn hard! In the past 20 years, (and I would have to look up the exact amount, so this is guessing) I would have to say less than 20 riders have finished all 3 Grand Tours. And when was the last time anyone finished in the top 10 of all 3 Grand Tours in one year? It's too damn hard. So of course the obvious to all esle in the world except us in the USA is that nobody should really try to be competitve in all 3 Grand Tours every year.
But your statements above that a rider should at least try to finish a Grand Tour because he "owes it to his sponsors or team mates" shows how little most people in the USA really understand the sport. Actually a top sprinter who knows their place and role on the team owes it more to their sponsor and team to drop out of the Giro before the race ends if he intends to be fresh come the start of the Tour. It is that rider's job to win sprints... not to climb mountains. If they can not win sprints because pride tells them to fini
|Excuse me, your anti-Americanism is showing.||purplepaul|
May 19, 2003 4:06 PM
|Perhaps most people in the US don't really understand the sport, at least not from a European point of view. I suspect that most Europeans don't really understand how Americans see things. For example, many Americans see it as poor sportsmanship to quit. Like when a baseball player grounds out to the pitcher and doesn't bother to run to first base. They get boo-ed everytime. We love a winner, but we respect those who suffer through to the end, giving it their best shot.
Personally, I'd like Cipo to ride to the finish because I find the race more exciting when he's there. He's a strong personality, and Paul, Phil and Bob seem to always have something to say when he's there. It's just more enjoyable. I can understand that Europeans don't feel the way Americans do about quitting before the finish. But I'd appreciate it if there might be an attempt at reciprocity.
|You know what they say about assumptions, Paul?||russw19|
May 19, 2003 4:49 PM
|They tell you that I am an American! I live in Florida. I was born in Ohio!
My anti-americanism is not coming thru in that post... I lived and raced in Belgium for 2 years about 10 years ago. My expirience and insite are what is showing thru. I am not trying to thumb my accomplishments in anyone's face, nor do I want to be this board's new Nick, but I have raced for a Div. 3 team in Europe, and I do understand both sides of the coin. I am an American and I grew up playing baseball and soccer and hockey and football, but I understand what really goes on for the nobodies and the sprinters when the race gets tough because I was there and did that too. I was a sprinter on a team that got into some tough races. I know what happens to you when you are not going to be able to win a stage or a race. You get relegated to bringing water to other guys and running instructions back and forth to the team car(being monolingual I got out of this "duty") but I liked being on the team, so I did what I was told to do. If that meant I had to give up my rear wheel in a race I had a good chance of winning so that some kid from the area who knew the sponsors could finish in the middle of the pack, well I gave him my wheel and stood at the side of the road patching a tire while he rode away. That was my role. And that kid's uncle paid the bills, so I did what I was told.
So there is your attempt at reciprocity... learn to not judge someone to your own standards before you label them. There is a whole other world on the other side of that Atlantic and Pacific Ocean... either side you go to, they don't think the same as you. Try to see their point of view before you demand they see yours and you label them "anti-american" in their views.
|My comments still stand.||purplepaul|
May 19, 2003 5:25 PM
|So, you're an anti-American American. There are lots of them on these boards. I didn't think you were from somewhere else. What you said is what I've heard from Europeans who put down Americans as being too clueless to understand their sport. In light of your experiences in Europe, I think it makes sense that you've picked up those attitudes, though you seem unaware of it.
BTW, I label you anti-American because you dismiss our ability or desire to understand the "other" side. Inherent in your argument is that Americans are inferior. Your post espoused the same ideas that my America-hostile European cycling friends delight in inflicting me with. So, it sounds to me like you're anti-American too. Or, at least, have a Euro-centric position with regard to cycling.
But that's not the biggest crime I can think of.
|My comments still stand.||russw19|
May 19, 2003 5:46 PM
|Then I guess my assumtion comment regarding you still stands...
Nowhere in my post did I put down Americans. But I guess it is because in your eyes I don't see the accomplishments of Lance Armstrong to be the holiest of holy in the cycling world. If it makes me "Euro-centric" to see that there is much more to the world of cycling that a sprinter being towed to the final 300 meters of a race and then quitting when he has to climb, well goddamn if I am anti-freaking-american. I think that shows your own personality's shortcomings than mine if you have to resort to labeling me as "anti-american" because I can see another culture's point of view with out being the ethnocentric idiot you are being. To portray anyone who doesn't agree with you as anti-american, well I guess in this day and age if stands to reason that people like you would resort to that attitude. Next are you going to question my patriotism? Am I a bad american because I choose to watch cycling and hockey over football and baseball? If I prefer blueberry pie to apple.. oh my freaking god, what a bad american I must be. I knew it when I first saw your post... you have some outrageous ASSumptions about people you don't know. I bet you make friends really well too. Gee, your european friends don't like you either... big surprise. Maybe if you stopped trying to push your "pro-American" ideals on other people without even knowing their ethnic background or history, they wouldn't try to educate you to the way some of the rest of the world thinks.
My last post to you wasn't in any way shape or form "anti-american" or "euro-centric" it was tolerant of others and their opinions... it was one that showed that world opinion may not go hand in hand with your individual ideals... if that is what you label as "pro-american" keep those ideals to yourself, as I don't want to be part of them.
|My comments still stand. Again.||purplepaul|
May 19, 2003 6:24 PM
|Russ, you're not anti-American because you disagree with me. You said some things that I feel are a put down to Americans because you limit our ability/desire to understand another point of view. Nowhere did I mention Lance Armstrong, but the way you did proves you have some hostility that is not unlike many Europeans who hate that an American is dominating a European sport. They also can't seem to tolerate America's fondness for him.
I think I made it clear that I understand that Europeans look at cycling and competing differently than many Americans do. But you refuse to recognize that you are the one being narrow-minded by ASSuming that Americans can't see beyond their noses. Lots of Americans understand the sport as well as you do and don't have to agree with you.
I also never said that my European friends don't like me. They wouldn't be friends if that were the case. Instead, we enjoy ragging on each other, but they maintain that it is unfair to criticize a small European country simply because it is so small whereas it is not unfair to put down the US simply because it is so big and powerful. That's a very Eurocentric way of arguing, they can hit me but I can't hit back. And what you're saying is we should understand them but they shouldn't return the favor. That seems pretty anti-American to me, not un-American, just biased. I didn't mean to tear you apart, just to point out that what you said was demeaning, IMO, but I made no assumptions about you outside of this cycling discussion.
I realize you're angry and offended at what I wrote, so your insults are taken with that in mind. Now if you previous post was not anti-American, I don't think the same came be said about your last one.
|I don't think your macro view is macro enough.||reklar|
May 20, 2003 1:36 AM
|> But your statements above that a rider should at least try to finish a Grand Tour because he "owes it to his sponsors or team mates" shows how little most people in the USA really understand the sport.
Russ, I appreciate the gist of your argument. When I was younger I probably believed that winning the tour was everything and the specialists were scrubs who lacked real talent. That was before I started riding or even knew much of cycling though! That said, I think that Paul has a point here about the anti-american sentiment you espoused (see quote above). I can't stand most patriotism arguments and labelling your argument as anti-american rubs me the wrong way. But when you make statements like "how little most people in the USA understand the sport"...well...even if true, it is inflammatory.
Perhaps it wouldn't have been as objectionable to Paul had you said most people who are fans of the tour winner, whether that be Armstrong, Indurain, whatever, do not know much about cycling. Leave the USA fans out of it. All of *that* said, I'll make a few comments which may make Paul upset further. ;)
One thing to note is that the tour is really the only race that gets any coverage (spotty at best) in most of the american press. I had never heard of it until Lemond won it! (I was only 13 at the time). The way it is pitched in america by the press, etc., makes people believe that winning the tour is everything. Heck, Armstrong plans his whole year on it. I think your average joe in the U.S. probably thinks that since Armstrong does this that it is the only thing that matters. Like winning an NBA championship or something...It is not that american fans lack intelligence or insight but rather experience with the medium. Cycling hasn't been on TV (OLN is a more recent phenomenon) for the most part except for the tour which for years had only one lousy weekend on network TV. And the americans who do cycling are only notable (by the press) if they win the tour! Outside the cycling world, I would bet that Tyler Hamilton for instance is a complete unknown in America.
Cycling just isn't on the radar in America. We have other sports which most find more interesting. While Armstrong and Lemond before him both boosted interest in cycling, they both did it via the tour which further reinforces the general feeling that the tour is all that matters...
|I don't have a problem with anything you've said.||purplepaul|
May 20, 2003 7:57 AM
|It seems a pretty accurate description of the state of cycling in America.
The thing is, I don't know why it matters so much that Americans don't appreciate cycling the way people in some other countries do. Sure, I'd be thrilled if that were the case. But I don't know why it's so scornful that we look at things one way and they look at things another (substitute your favorite countries for "we" and "they").
Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to criticism that smacks of Eurocentrism since I deal with it on a daily basis. It's usually good natured, but it sometimes crosses the line to "you stupid Americans..." type of thing, said with a smile, of course.
|I don't think your macro view is macro enough.||russw19|
May 20, 2003 11:15 AM
|Look guys.. I avoided Paul's last attempt to bait me into a flame war because it is uncalled for on this board. Paul is standing up for he thinks is right... and to him that is the American thing to do, but when I did the same over something he is obviously misinterpreting I am labeled "anti-american" and that is bullsh!T.
OK lets slow this way down so everyone gets to understand it... Most people in America understand Football, Baseball, Basketball, and NASCAR.... not cycling. We on this board are a very small minority! I NEVER said Paul or you or anyone else in this thread, nor on this board for that matter, doesn't understand the sport.... I said and I will quote myself for the people who still aren't catching on... it "shows how little most people in the USA really understand the sport." Think about it folks... how else would there have been so much backlash to Greg LeMond winning SI's Sportsman of the Year award over Joe Montana in 1989?
People in the US don't understand cycling. We look at guys who either drop out of don't finish the Tour as losers. If they start the race, they damn well should finish it. But do we feel the same way if Micheal Jordan doesn't play 48 minutes of a basketball game? Do we get all pissy when Greg Maddox throws for 7 and 2/3rds innings instead of all 9? Do we care that NFL linebackers only play defence and still don't play every down? It's ludacris for anyone to think that a specialty rider like Cippo or McEwen has to finish the tour just to establish credibility in your eyes. Do you hold your other sports heros to the same standards? No you don't. Is that what is anti-american about my thinking? Because I have the sense to bring that arguement up and make you look at how your american sports idols aren't held to the same set of standards? If so, then I am un-american. And I really don't give a crap about this arguement anymore... it is obvious that you either do or do not see this point. If you do, cool, if you don't, great. Either way, you win, because I don't care. If you choose to think that Cippo's accomplishments are less than spectacular because he didn't finish the 99 Tour de France, oh well, I can not and will not change your mind. But if you have any appriciation what so ever for what it takes to do the job these guys do, then I need not be argueing with you because you already saw my point.
Paul, I was never mad or offended at your logic for trying to get your point across... but when you were no longer able to and had to resort to labeling me as anti-american, well you crossed a line. You went from me making a blanket and non-specific statement about the bulk of sports fans in the US (which shouldn't have included you, but by your response, I guess it did) to making a personal attack on someone for expressing their opinion. That was a d!ck move if you ask me. I didn't place any labels on you in particular until it became a response to your provocation.
Reklar, I respect what you are trying to say in your post, but there is one thing that bothers me about it... you end you post with a statement about how cycling isn't on the radar in America. You say that we look at cycling in terms of other sports... I can see that clear as day... what you seem to miss is that was my exact point in stating that most people in the USA don't understand the sport. All we see is the Tour de France and thru eyes tainted by other sports. If what I said was "anti-american sentiment" how are you not guilty of following me down that slippery slope?
I will leave this entire thread at that.. I don't care to read anymore of it and I won't participate anymore in it.. it will only lead to flame wars anyways... and that wasn't my intent initially, so it surely won't be now either.
|I don't think your macro view is macro enough.||innergel|
May 20, 2003 7:08 AM
|Wow! This is an even better discussion than I had first thought it would be!
For what I can see based on the last few days posts, it is all based on the long-term goals of the sponsor. If they felt they could get the most exposure having the rider stay through to the finish, then that's what they will have them do. If they feel like dropping out after x number of stages to save the sprinter for later races is the way to go, then that's what they will have them do. Not knowing the long-term team strategy, it's hard to make a truly informed decision as a viewer and fan.
Being American (as if you couldn't tell), my exposure has only been via the grand tours, hence my view until recently has been that this is the ultimate goal of racing. To finish and win a tour. Dropping out prior to the finish seemed to be a selfish act. I don't think I'm moving off that view much, but I can certainly better understand the motivations behind riders dropping out when there is not much point in continuing. I still think that if a rider is going to enter a stage race, he should be prepared to attempt to complete it.
Maybe if the TV coverage would explain the reasoning behind why a rider drops out, it would help. When Paul, Phil, Bob say "Cipo, McEwen, etc. has dropped out" with little or no explanation, then it appears that they have just given up. If they would say "Cipo, McEwen, etc. has dropped out because their sponsor, team manager wants to save them for x race, or this tour is being used as a training ground for..., etc." then it would give the "uninformed viewers" a better insight into the mechanisms behind the scenes.
Thanks for providing a different perspective on this topic.
|a triathlon analogy....||ClydeTri|
May 20, 2003 8:25 AM
|in for example the Ironman Hawaii they give "prems" (excuse if misspelled), which is money for the fastest swim, bike or run. An anology would be a collegiate or olympic swimmer going out on the swim and smoking the field and running up on the beach first with all his sponsor decals on his wetsuit and then walking off not even thinking of doing the bike or run leg, but collecting his "prem" $$$ and getting some tv exposure time for his sponsors as first out of the water. No, for that leg to mean something, he needs to continue and give his best to finish the race, or it would just be a joke. Granted this is a 8 hr event, not a stage race, but I think there is some analogy there to be taken.|
|I don't think so.....||burdiman|
May 19, 2003 1:11 PM
|A stage race brings us (the viewers) a variety of racing. I would rather see the best of each discipline duking it out each day. Sponsorship and advertising drive this sport so the teams have a variety of talents to maximize their exposure.
If you want to talk about ringer then you have to point at Armstrong. While he is 'dialing in' his body for the TDF, most of the other riders have to work at gaining publicity for their teams. Heck Cipollini probably races more than Armstrong and may be more worthy of a TDF start.
|Let's not confuse racing with work||Mel Erickson|
May 19, 2003 1:37 PM
|Nobody works harder than Armstrong. You think "dialing in" is just a matter of tweaking here and there? His "dialing in" consists of grueling training rides over 6-8 hours, day in and out along with trying to keep his family together and satisfy the press and hangers on. Armstrong's no ringer.|
Jul 23, 2003 6:00 AM
|Is that what I said? I don't think so. I know he rides his a$$ off but he has the advantage of focusing only on the Tour. A relative luxury I would say. I never said he was a ringer either. Man you read a lot into what I wrote.
I never questioned how hard Armstrong works. It is common knowledge that he is one of the hardest training cyclists in the world.
|re: Does it belittle a stage win.....Absolutely Not||Swat Dawg|
May 19, 2003 2:27 PM
|Besides the point that it is exponentially more difficult for sprinters to ride Mtn. stages than for someone like Armstrong, there seems to be no rebuke for some of the small little climbers who just suck wheels in all the flat stages, and even up most of the mountains to save themselves for later when they'll know that 1) they won't be chased because they aren't GC contenders, and 2) the other climbers have been fighting it out for the whole two weeks. Cycling is increasingly segmented into specialists that are paid to be really good at one thing, or else they're paid to be a domestique that is just decent at it all. When the road goes uphill sprinters become supporters, and if they aren't in the shape to be good support then dropping out isn't wrong. Cipo wouldn't be so fast over all these years if he tried to be a climber too, but even then he climbs in like what, the top 1-2% of all riders in the world Furthermore, our American demagod, Armstrong, spends a lot of time each Spring dropping out of races, or riding with no intent of winning. Not to hate on him cause I think he's amazing too, but apply the criticism evenly.|
|I don't think so||CHRoadie|
May 19, 2003 2:27 PM
|You've got to look at the way that stage races are run. Each stage is like a race just by itself, and the winner of each and every stage gets a whole lot of glory. Should Mario just take a month off and not compete? Or should he participate in a few of the 'mini-races' and count each victory as a win?|
|sprinter, climber, tt specialist- whatever.....||stik__boy|
May 19, 2003 4:29 PM
|its a job. any one of us would die to have; but could you do it? no!!! i race motorcycles. (road race) and i've frequently thought it would be the best job in the world to travel the world racing for a gp team. but i couldnt. 3-4 days of testing before the qualifying, racing, etc even started??? ah, no. a weekend kills me. we couldnt even handle the traveling these guys do let alone fathom riding for 5 hours against the worlds top 1%. its damn tough job. no way to make a living really---- so i think Cippo should quit, and give me his spot on the team..... i'll see what i could do as a measly sprinter who barely finish's mountain stages. humph!!!!! 8p|
|I don't think so||Bill B|
May 19, 2003 4:32 PM
|Does it belittle a win if the pitcher doesn't go all nine innings, no. His job is to get the team into the lead not wear his arm out throwing unneccesary pitches. A sprinters job is to win the flat stages and a climbers job is to help his teams GC rider stay near the front on the climbs or go for the stage win if his tesm does not have anyone going for the over-all win. It is a team sport and each man has his role to play.|
|Perfect analogy put into terms of an American sport! -nm||russw19|
May 20, 2003 11:20 AM
|re: Does it belittle a stage win.....(NOT A SPOILER)||mackgoo|
May 20, 2003 12:40 PM
|No that's like saying Lance's tour wins are meaningless because basically that's all he does with the exception of a few races he uses to build up.|| |