Road Cycling · Public discussion

New York Times article bashing OLN coverage.

Tracy · 2003-07-08T19:00:47+00:00

Anybody catch today's article in the Times where Richard Sandomir complains that the OLN coverage isn't "basic" enough and "mistakenly" caters to the cycling enthusiast? He blasts Phil and Paul (he called Paul "Jeff") for failing to explain how people "join" a sprint. How very annoying! http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/sports/tennis/08sandomir.html It was enough to make me fire off a letter to the editor. I have no idea if it'll be published (I suspect not): To the editor: Richard Sandomir ("Two Calls as Different as Cycling and Tennis," July 8, 2003) might consider learning a bit more about cycling before complaining about the commentating. I've never once had anybody jump to my aid when Monday Night Football commentators fail to explain how many points a touchdown is, or why that guy in the end zone just put his knee down. And why not? Because it wastes the time of football fans, all of whom likely know the basic rules of the game before deciding to tune in. So I don't watch Monday Night Football, but up until OLN took over the Tour, I didn't have a sports show for me, the cycling enthusiast. Cyclists have, for years, tolerated terrible Tour coverage by ABC and ESPN, whose 30 minute daily Tour broadcasts consisted of 11 minutes of panoramic displays of the French countryside and the history of the stage start and end towns, nine minutes of human-interest background discussion on one of the foreign cyclists and his family so the average American viewer could connect with the outcome, and then, perhaps, two minutes of actual racing. The only way to get access to the smart commentary coming out of Europe was if some nice cyclist in England would point his webcam at his TV. I'm not the only cyclist who has literally watched hours of Tour de France coverage squinting at five second still-frame captures with no audio on the web. But now, a network has finally realized that what cyclists want is competent, insightful discussion by the world's most familiar English speaking cycling commentator, Phil Liggett, who is assisted wonderfully by his longtime co-host Paul, not Jeff, Sherwen. Besides, Bob Roll, the color commentator, has been spending time explaining the basics to his not-so-cycling-savvy co-commentator anyway (whose only role seems to be to ask Bob set-up softball tactical questions.) Today, Bob explained echelons and pelotons. I hope Mr. Sandomir was watching. My suggestion to Mr. Sandomir: Either watch and enjoy, learning as you go, or learn first, then watch and enjoy, but don't suggest that cycling fans sit through basic explanations of the rules when they'd rather Phil and Paul spend the time telling us more details from their vast collective knowledge of cycling.

Started by Tracy · 8 July 2003 · Last activity 11 July 2003 · 14 posts · 977 views

← Back to Road Cycling

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postNew York Times article bashing OLN coverage.Tracy · 8 Jul 2003 02 / This pagePosts 1–14Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #14Wayne Pein · 11 Jul 2003

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: Road Cycling
Published: 8 July 2003
Last activity: 11 July 2003
Original author: Tracy
Posts: 14
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 977
Views / 30 days: 6
Topics: Folding bikes Spoke count

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Tracy
Archived post

8 July 2003, 19:00 UTC #1

Anybody catch today's article in the Times where Richard Sandomir complains that the OLN coverage
isn't "basic" enough and "mistakenly" caters to the cycling enthusiast? He blasts Phil and Paul (he
called Paul "Jeff"😉 for failing to explain how people "join" a sprint. How very annoying!
nytimes.com08sandomir.html
It was enough to make me fire off a letter to the editor. I have no idea if it'll be published (I
suspect not):
To the editor:
Richard Sandomir ("Two Calls as Different as Cycling and Tennis," July 8, 2003) might consider
learning a bit more about cycling before complaining about the commentating. I've never once had
anybody jump to my aid when Monday Night Football commentators fail to explain how many points a
touchdown is, or why that guy in the end zone just put his knee down. And why not? Because it wastes
the time of football fans, all of whom likely know the basic rules of the game before deciding to
tune in. So I don't watch Monday Night Football, but up until OLN took over the Tour, I didn't have
a sports show for me, the cycling enthusiast.
Cyclists have, for years, tolerated terrible Tour coverage by ABC and ESPN, whose 30 minute daily
Tour broadcasts consisted of 11 minutes of panoramic displays of the French countryside and the
history of the stage start and end towns, nine minutes of human-interest background discussion on
one of the foreign cyclists and his family so the average American viewer could connect with the
outcome, and then, perhaps, two minutes of actual racing. The only way to get access to the smart
commentary coming out of Europe was if some nice cyclist in England would point his webcam at his
TV. I'm not the only cyclist who has literally watched hours of Tour de France coverage squinting at
five second still-frame captures with no audio on the web. But now, a network has finally realized
that what cyclists want is competent, insightful discussion by the world's most familiar English
speaking cycling commentator, Phil Liggett, who is assisted wonderfully by his longtime co-host
Paul, not Jeff, Sherwen. Besides, Bob Roll, the color commentator, has been spending time explaining
the basics to his not-so-cycling-savvy co-commentator anyway (whose only role seems to be to ask Bob
set-up softball tactical questions.) Today, Bob explained echelons and pelotons. I hope Mr. Sandomir
was watching.
My suggestion to Mr. Sandomir: Either watch and enjoy, learning as you go, or learn first, then
watch and enjoy, but don't suggest that cycling fans sit through basic explanations of the rules
when they'd rather Phil and Paul spend the time telling us more details from their vast collective
knowledge of cycling.

Report
Bob M
Archived post

8 July 2003, 19:00 UTC #2

tracy said:
Anybody catch today's article in the Times where Richard Sandomir complains that the OLN coverage
isn't "basic" enough and "mistakenly" caters to the cycling enthusiast? He blasts Phil and Paul
(he called Paul "Jeff"😉 for failing to explain how people "join" a sprint. How very annoying!
nytimes.com08sandomir.html

Well, if he'd watch the whole damn race, he'd figure out what's going on. How hard is it to figure
out how people join a sprint? Moreover, the announcers will tell you (at least they did for the
Giro) why there are sprinters, climbers, and overall leaders. They'll tell you when a person is on
someone's wheel and why.
--
Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply

Report
Nev Shea
Archived post

8 July 2003, 20:00 UTC #3

[email hidden] (tracy) wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:
Quoted message said:
Anybody catch today's article in the Times where Richard Sandomir complains that the OLN coverage
isn't "basic" enough and "mistakenly" caters to the cycling enthusiast? He blasts Phil and Paul
(he called Paul "Jeff"😉 for failing to explain how people "join" a sprint. How very annoying!
I think by "basic" and "catering to cycling enthusiast", he meant that they don't have 3/4 of the
show devoted to such fascinating topics as berets, wine, brie, and all the other fluff that filled
TDF shows pre-OLN. The [censored] actually have the nerve to show racing!
They probably just let this Sandomir clown write as a counterpoint to Abt.
NS

Report
Brian Phillips
Archived post

9 July 2003, 00:30 UTC #4

Your comparison with football is a good one, although football is so mainstream that it's obvious
why the announcers don't waste time explaining the basics of the sport. A better comparison might be
with Formula 1 auto racing, where the announcers don't talk down to the viewers- instead they assume
a fair amount of knowledge on the part of the viewer with regards to the technology of the cars, the
rules, the teams, etc. F1 fans would no doubt be furious if the announcers assumed no knowledge of
the sport and spoke to the audience as if they were all first time viewers.

Report
Raptor
Archived post

9 July 2003, 00:30 UTC #5

tracy said:
Anybody catch today's article in the Times where Richard Sandomir complains that the OLN coverage
isn't "basic" enough and "mistakenly" caters to the cycling enthusiast? He blasts Phil and Paul
(he called Paul "Jeff"😉 for failing to explain how people "join" a sprint. How very annoying!
nytimes.com08sandomir.html
It was enough to make me fire off a letter to the editor. I have no idea if it'll be published (I
suspect not):
To the editor:
Yeah, just about what you said. I've noticed an effort on OLN's part to provide more background info
during the coverage. They've dumbed down the commentary a tad this time around. That's not good
enough for the ignorant AND impatient. If these new viewers are anything like me, they'll be even
more curious to find out what all these words and questions mean, and continue watching. I don't
think OLN should try all that hard to hook those impatient enough to give up watching just because
every question isn't answered.
--
--
Lynn Wallace xmission.com~lawall "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

Report
Raptor
Archived post

9 July 2003, 00:30 UTC #6

Tele-prompter assistance WOULD be slick, but please, not live. Far too messy and dynamic to try it
live. I think it requires a substantial hidden broadcast infrastructure, so maybe next year Bobke
can do some quickie replays.
--
--
Lynn Wallace xmission.com~lawall "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

Report
Bikerecker
Archived post

9 July 2003, 04:01 UTC #7

Quoted message said:
To the editor:
Nice letter, well put. Maybe the Times will hire you, I hear they are looking for smart young
writers. Greg

Report
Matthew Mitchel
Archived post

9 July 2003, 04:01 UTC #8

[email hidden] (tracy) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Anybody catch today's article in the Times where Richard Sandomir complains that the OLN coverage
isn't "basic" enough and "mistakenly" caters to the cycling enthusiast? He blasts Phil and Paul
(he called Paul "Jeff"😉 for failing to explain how people "join" a sprint. How very annoying!
nytimes.com08sandomir.html
It was enough to make me fire off a letter to the editor. I have no idea if it'll be published (I
suspect not):
Here's mine.
Subject: Did Richard Sandomir actually watch OLN's Tour coverage? To: [email hidden] The
broadcast Richard Sandomir reviews in the July 8 Times must have been different from the broadcast I
watched. Either that or he wasn't paying any attention at all. If he had been paying attention, he
would have heard Paul Sherwen (not "Jeff Sherwen"😉 report which teams were organizing to contest the
time bonus sprint to come a kilometer or so down the road, and he would have seen the banners above
the road and the line painted on the road at the finish line of the sprint. Nor did he watch the
part of the program where the entire route, including all three bonus sprints, was previewed.
If Sandomir had been watching for any more than a minute or two during stage two, he would have
heard all the commentators debating whether or not the two riders who had broken away at the very
start of the day would manage to stay ahead of the peloton all the way to the finish, or whether
they would be caught in the closing kilometers. He also would have more than once heard Ligget and
Sherwen, and colleague Bob Roll, explain the tactics of such long breakaways, and how they had
gotten ahead because no other team felt a need to chase them as long as they stayed close enough for
the sprinters' teams to close the gap before the finish.
Either Sandomir approached the story with a preordained conclusion that bicycling is too
confusing for American television viewers to understand, or he didn't make any effort at all to
listen and learn.
I have the stage on tape in case your editors want to see the broadcast themselves.

Report
Joseph Cipale
Archived post

9 July 2003, 16:30 UTC #9

Raptor said:

tracy said:
Anybody catch today's article in the Times where Richard Sandomir complains that the OLN
coverage isn't "basic" enough and "mistakenly" caters to the cycling enthusiast? He blasts Phil
and Paul (he called Paul "Jeff"😉 for failing to explain how people "join" a sprint. How very
annoying! nytimes.com08sandomir.html
It was enough to make me fire off a letter to the editor. I have no idea if it'll be published
(I suspect not):
To the editor:
Yeah, just about what you said. I've noticed an effort on OLN's part to provide more background
info during the coverage. They've dumbed down the commentary a tad this time around. That's not
good enough for the ignorant AND impatient. If these new viewers are anything like me, they'll be
even more curious to find out what all these words and questions mean, and continue watching. I
don't think OLN should try all that hard to hook those impatient enough to give up watching just
because every question isn't answered.
Which, if you think about the above stamtenet, is indicative of TV viewing along with American
Culture in general, no?
"Give it to me fast! I don't have time to learn about it! Tell ME all I NEED TO KNOW!!!!"
Just... an observation from out west...
Joe
--
#----------------------------------------------------------# Penguinix Consulting #
#----------------------------------------------------------# Software development, QA and testing. #
#Linux support and training. # "Don't fear the penguin!" #
#----------------------------------------------------------# Registered Linux user: #309247
#counter.li.orgcounter.li.org # ----------------------------------------------------------#

Report
Edward Waffle
Archived post

10 July 2003, 15:00 UTC #10

Joseph Cipale wrote in message <[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Raptor said:

tracy said:
Anybody catch today's article in the Times where Richard Sandomir complains that the OLN
coverage isn't "basic" enough and "mistakenly" caters to the cycling enthusiast? He blasts Phil
and Paul (he called Paul "Jeff"😉 for failing to explain how people "join" a sprint. How very
annoying!

nytimes.com08sandomir.html
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:

It was enough to make me fire off a letter to the editor. I have no idea if it'll be published
(I suspect not):
To the editor:
Yeah, just about what you said. I've noticed an effort on OLN's part to provide more background
info during the coverage. They've dumbed down the commentary a tad this time around. That's not
good enough for the ignorant AND impatient. If these new viewers are anything like me, they'll be
even more curious to find out what all these words and questions mean, and continue watching. I
don't think OLN should try all that hard to hook those impatient enough to give up watching just
because every question isn't answered.
Which, if you think about the above stamtenet, is indicative of TV viewing along with American
Culture in general, no?
"Give it to me fast! I don't have time to learn about it! Tell ME all I NEED TO KNOW!!!!"
The OLN coverage of the TDF is the only concentrated TV viewing I do all year. I have to upgrade my
cable package to get OLN, which I have been doing in July for the past three years.
I don't know much about cycle racing--but I know that the TDF is an amazing event that needs to be
covered at a high level to do it justice. Which OLN does.
There would be no point in watching if it approached the idiocy of (for example) the U.S. coverage
of the Olympic Games.
This is my first post on this newsgroup--I have been reading it for a several days and am amazed at
how on topic, informative and flame-free (relatively) it is compared to others which I read or post.

Report
Jeff Potter
Archived post

11 July 2003, 01:30 UTC #11

It seems like Sandy could've just gone down the hall and asked Sam why the TV show covers the TdF
like it does. Sam has been writing indepth, savvy TdF reports for the NYT for a few decades now.
Does Sandy complain about Sam not catering enough to beginners?
--
Jeff Potter
****
*Out Your Backdoor * outyourbackdoor.comoutyourbackdoor.com for modern folkways and culture revival...
...offering "small world" views on bikes, bows, books, movies... ...new books featuring: XC ski
culture, a Gulf Coast thriller folding bicycles ... with radical novels coming up! ...original
downloadable music ... and articles galore! plus national "Off the Beaten Path" travel forums!
HOLY SMOKES!

Report
John Spann
Archived post

11 July 2003, 02:30 UTC #12

tracy said:
Anybody catch today's article in the Times where Richard Sandomir complains that the OLN coverage
isn't "basic" enough and "mistakenly" caters to the cycling enthusiast? He blasts Phil and Paul
(he called Paul "Jeff"😉 for failing to explain how people "join" a sprint. How very annoying!
nytimes.com08sandomir.html
It was enough to make me fire off a letter to the editor. I have no
<SNIP TDF stuff)
Quoted message said:
My suggestion to Mr. Sandomir: Either watch and enjoy, learning as you go, or learn first, then
watch and enjoy, but don't suggest that cycling fans sit through basic explanations of the rules
when they'd rather Phil and Paul spend the time telling us more details from their vast collective
knowledge of cycling.
It's really no different from the [censored] heard on NPR the other day with Frank Deford and the
interview with Tyler Hamilton's Mommy and Daddy. Wow. Let me rush out and buy the lastest Sports
Illustrated and watch ESPN4 tonight.
John

Report
David Ryan
Archived post

11 July 2003, 04:01 UTC #13

tracy said:

Anybody catch today's article in the Times where Richard Sandomir complains that the OLN coverage
isn't "basic" enough and "mistakenly" caters to the cycling enthusiast? He blasts Phil and Paul
(he called Paul "Jeff"😉 for failing to explain how people "join" a sprint. How very annoying!
nytimes.com08sandomir.html
I don't think he enjoyed being forced to watch for the article.

Report
Wayne Pein
Archived post

11 July 2003, 17:05 UTC #14

tracy said:
Anybody catch today's article in the Times where Richard Sandomir complains that the OLN coverage
isn't "basic" enough and "mistakenly" caters to the cycling enthusiast? He blasts Phil and Paul
(he called Paul "Jeff"😉 for failing to explain how people "join" a sprint. How very annoying!
nytimes.com08sandomir.html
Ironic how Sandomir complains that the coverage isn't basic, yet he gets Paul's name wrong. Isn't
this enough of an indication that he didn't pay attention? Or is he just stupid? Or both?
Wayne

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

More from this subject

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread