Unwritten Cycling Rules



Jan 18, 2006
182
16
0
O.K., a lot of posters are upset that unwritten rules of cycling competition were violated in this year's TDF. When do these rules apply? More importantly, when can they be thrown out the window? A few examples:

1. Cancellara slows down the peleton and effectively neutralizes the stage to Spa when the Schlecks (and a lot of other riders) crash.

2. Schleck gains over a minute on the famous cobbles riding in Cancellaras wake, while half the peleton and most of his rivals are crashing and puncturing.

3. Contador responds to an attack by Schleck and doesn't stop when Schleck's chain jumps off.

I personally think these 'unwritten rules' should be discarded, as they are arbitrarily ignored and enforced at anyone's whim depending on the circumstances. The only fair way to decide a race is to acknowledge the inherent risks of a cycling race, which include punctures, crashes, bad luck, etc. May the better man win, and if he doesn't, it's because he didn't cross the line in first place.
 
The one thing that must be understood and considered is peloton politics.
The reputation of an idividual and his standing in the peloton is of big importance.
Deal are made favors are given and paid back.
If you try and analyze the dynamics in black and white terms, you will fail.
I am relatively certain that if Armstrong were in good favor with the peloton he would have won a stage last Tuesday.
It generally all comes around on the rim eventually.
 
jhuskey said:
The one thing that must be understood and considered is peloton politics.
The reputation of an idividual and his standing in the peloton is of big importance.
Deal are made favors are given and paid back.
If you try and analyze the dynamics in black and white terms, you will fail.
I am relatively certain that if Armstrong were in good favor with the peloton he would have won a stage last Tuesday.
It generally all comes around on the rim eventually.

Very valid point JH.

The peloton if it felt disposed would have ensured Armstrong's stage win.
 
lance_armstrong said:
O.K., a lot of posters are upset that unwritten rules of cycling competition were violated in this year's TDF. When do these rules apply? More importantly, when can they be thrown out the window? A few examples:

1. Cancellara slows down the peleton and effectively neutralizes the stage to Spa when the Schlecks (and a lot of other riders) crash.

2. Schleck gains over a minute on the famous cobbles riding in Cancellaras wake, while half the peleton and most of his rivals are crashing and puncturing.

3. Contador responds to an attack by Schleck and doesn't stop when Schleck's chain jumps off.

I personally think these 'unwritten rules' should be discarded, as they are arbitrarily ignored and enforced at anyone's whim depending on the circumstances. The only fair way to decide a race is to acknowledge the inherent risks of a cycling race, which include punctures, crashes, bad luck, etc. May the better man win, and if he doesn't, it's because he didn't cross the line in first place.

Agreed. This slowing down to wait for particular riders (in yellow or not) mess is ridiculous. Leave the politics to politicians whose job it is to influence people to like them. This political b/s (as true and real as it may be) turns things into a big clique where popularity is an important consideration as to who gets waited for or not...also, backroom (or even on the road) deals are never impartial to all involved...

It shouldn't be real difficult for people that have been around here for awhile to know where I stand wrt the significance of being popular:D...
 
jhuskey said:
I am relatively certain that if Armstrong were in good favor with the peloton he would have won a stage last Tuesday..


so you are saying that Lance is or was in bad standings with the peleton? and you are saying that they should of or would have rather, if he was best chum and mate to them all, sat up and let him have a stage?
 
jhuskey said:
The one thing that must be understood and considered is peloton politics.
The reputation of an idividual and his standing in the peloton is of big importance.
Deal are made favors are given and paid back.
If you try and analyze the dynamics in black and white terms, you will fail.
I am relatively certain that if Armstrong were in good favor with the peloton he would have won a stage last Tuesday.
It generally all comes around on the rim eventually.

and further, are you intimating that rims go round? and that dynamics are no longer available in either black or white?
 
roadhouse said:
so you are saying that Lance is or was in bad standings with the peleton? and you are saying that they should of or would have rather, if he was best chum and mate to them all, sat up and let him have a stage?

I am saying that riders can work together or they can be outcast and everything doesn't need to be a gift ,but on the other hand grudges are held for a long time in the peloton. Armstrong has not endeared himself to some in the peloton in years past.
I am not all knowing but I hear a little more than you hear on Versus.
Take this for what it is worth to you.I am not trying to convince anyone.
 
jhuskey said:
I am saying that riders can work together or they can be outcast and everything doesn't need to be a gift ,but on the other hand grudges are held for a long time in the peloton. Armstrong has not endeared himself to some in the peloton in years past.
I am not all knowing but I hear a little more than you hear on Versus.
Take this for what it is worth to you.I am not trying to convince anyone.


your saying everything does not need to be a gift is exactly why Lance did not win a stage, no one gave it to him and he didn't want it that way. he tried as best he could as he stayed with the breakaway and could not out sprint the others the stage at the end, it happens. i don't think anyone knows more about racing than himself nor do i believe his efforts or intentions were to befriend everyone he could so as to win.

pretty certain you have to rub people the wrong way in order to accomplish things the right way.

Landis' book sheds a lot of light suggesting exactly what the people outside of versus tell you.
 

Similar threads