OK, *rolls eyes* so they didn't exactly copy all my suggestions: but I have another suggestion that might help.
One of the main problems is the sheer number of riders in the peloton, which - frankly - is what leads to crashes.
Too many riders all trying to get up the front of the block, and too many riders being squeezed into narrow pinch-points along the route.
Mr Prudhomme's suggestion about reducing the teams to 8 members each is a step in the right direction - although I prefer my suggestion of having teams of 9, but only 7 of them ride each day. Teams can then select the best mix of riders for each day's parcours, with the proviso that GC and jersey contenders have to ride every day. So, basically, the domestiques can be interchangeable.
My next suggestion - ASO, are you listening? Sit up at the back, and pay attention - is to have alternative routes at a few points along the way, with teams/riders being able to choose which way to go.
For example, a steep hill with KOM points, could have an alternative flatter route. Riders choose whether to go up the climb, or take the (generally longer) route around the outside.
Yes, those Buffalo Boys can go round the outside. Round the outside? Round the outside.
This would make more sense of the breakaways, for example: a small break could ignore the KOM hill, saving their legs by riding around it, leaving the KOM points for the genuine climbers arriving later.
Sprint points, maybe, could be treated the same way: with a choice between the shorter route, or the longer route with Sprint point. So the riders going for the sprint jersey would go that way, and the early breakaway would take the shorter route, in order to stay away.
Every "choice" point would be, in effect, splitting the peloton: thus reducing the size of the bunch. It would also give teams a chance to demonstrate their firm grasp of team tactics (or not, ha! ha!) by forcing them to make decisions as to which way they would go.
It would also serve to keep the jersey points amongst those who are competing for it, rather than "wasting" jersey points on members of breakaways, who are often not even interested in jerseys.
And would tend to keep the jerseys separate from the GC contenders, who would obviously take the route that is easiest on their legs.
How does that sound, folks? Sensible? Silly? Worth a try? Do you have a better suggestion?
Hi Coug!
ReplyDeleteI often share your views but this time I can't totally agree with you... Even if I can't explain why. I don't know, it sounds like the Tour will be "easier" for someone more than for the others. For example, the green jersey is not won by the rider who earns more points, but to the rider who earns more points AND reaches Paris after climbing the Alps and the Pyrenées. And this is the most difficut part of it. I may not be open-minded, but I think that the Tour must be the same for all!
BTW, Taylor Phinney released a very nice interview in which he said that the cause of most crashes in the last kms is the use of caffeine pills or painkillers, which make riders feel better than they really feel. Here it is: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13076/Taylor-Phinney-Interview-Getting-the-pill-culture-out-of-the-sport.aspx
Alice (conservative for a day)
Hi Alice,
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to pinpoint Taylor Phinney's too.
Barbara.
Hi Alice,
ReplyDeleteThat's ok, you are allowed to disagree!! I just wondered if it might be a way to break up the massive peloton, making it more interesting for viewers and safer for riders.
It can truly be said that if there were an easy answer, someone would have thought of it by now!
Regarding the Taylor Phinney article, I read that when it first came out and I was horrified. The whole concept of crushing up what sounds like a handful of caffeine pills and painkillers, to be taken in one go, is just outrageous. Presumably caffeine works faster on the body than painkillers - I rather thought they took some 20 minutes to work so there wouldn't be much point chugging them in the final kms - but what a terrible thing to do to your body.
No wonder riders are collapsing in a heap as they come over the line.
If you haven't read that article, do so now.
And of course this supports Frankie's argument about being given the X-stuff, whether deliberately or accidentally: I have speculated earlier about Frankie being given the wrong "special" bottle, and this definitely supports the argument for accidental poisoning.
No, I can't imagine why someone would want to take their diuretic during a race, I'm not an athlete, but I'm sure someone can come up with a theory. Maybe to push urine out before the end of the race, in case of a dope test?
Some riders (I have read this in cycling books) arrive at a Finish so dehydrated that they can't immediately pee for Doping Control, which (it could be argued) gives them the excuse to drink a lot of water, thus diluting their urine. Could that be "useful"? I read in one book that the rider concerned doesn't allow himself to pee in the last hour of a race to make sure that he has enough urine to provide a sample at Doping Control, so that he doesn't have to sit around for a length of time waiting for it to become available.
Of course, anyone expecting to be tested would not want to take a drug at all! So really, none of it makes sense.
Poor Frankie.
Coug
If Frank got someone else's bottle, it means that someone else in the team has something to hide, doesn't it? It's quite unlikely that supporters on the road hand out bottles with drugs to anyone... But hey, someone put pins on the road so that's not so strange... However, if this is the case, we will never get the culprit.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, a very simple way to make the Tour safer is that in "flat" stages there shouldn't be timing. In this way, a small group of sprinters would be able to fight for the victory safely, while the GC contender would be allowed to arrive a bit later (maybe just in 5 minutes, in order to avoid a big difference between the two groups).
Bye, Alice (little less conservative)