Legs
usually riding on Zwift...
- Location
- Staffordshire
You've said it much more eloquently than I.Flying_Monkey said:
Are team tactics fair?
- Thread starter HLaB
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
So the problem, in essence, is that there aren't enough big races in womens cycling? After all, most mens teams will have a couple of leaders who share the big races (Grand Tours, other stage races and the Classics) and surely that model would work perfectly well in womens racing, providing there were enough races to share?Flying_Monkey said:
...or are you just saying she's an arsey cow?
Excellent thread. Two elements - let me get stuck into the one we know most about first. The Millar thing always brings up vivid memories. I believe Millar had plenty to be upset about. The train barrier was closed after a break without Millar in had gone by. The Barrier stayed down for a period of time 90 - 180 seconds (depending on who recounts it). No train ever came. Other teams ganging up on him was one thing. Having somebody in his own team do a Charlie Wegelius/Tom Southam on you, when you are in the leader's jersey is an entirely different thing. [I just bet that had the internet been invented there would have been some mouthing off about just how difficult he was to work with and what a hell of a sore loser he was !] Motorbikes helping other riders. Seems it was all pretty appalling. Was Millar challenging to get on with ? Driven would have had to be an understatment. We are now used to the UK being effective at sport. Go back to Millar's time or even when Cooke was coming into the scene and GB had zero road champs or aspirations on the road anywhere. The last GB guy to do anything had a quite straightforward view on doping, "if 10 kill you, then I will take nine". For Simpson, Millar and Cooke to achieve, they had to be extraordinary, probably in more ways than just on the bike.
The thread title is - are team tactics fair. Context 1 - team event TdF, Vuelta, Giro, single day classics, colluding between teams would not be fair. One of the reasons the Vuelta has failed to develop like the TdF is that it always was a Spanish stitch up. the media and reader take was - You want a stitch up - get on with it, but you won't see Lemond, Armstrong or Ulrich busting a gut to get there, let alone win it. You want a spectacle that is international (and draws more sponsorship and therefore money) - take the partisan bias in turning a blind eye to behaviour not acceptable in a sporting context out. Stick in a rule that prevents collusion. Don't give us professional wrestling and then wonder why the big riders & sponsors don't show.
The thread title is - are team tactics fair. Context 1 - team event TdF, Vuelta, Giro, single day classics, colluding between teams would not be fair. One of the reasons the Vuelta has failed to develop like the TdF is that it always was a Spanish stitch up. the media and reader take was - You want a stitch up - get on with it, but you won't see Lemond, Armstrong or Ulrich busting a gut to get there, let alone win it. You want a spectacle that is international (and draws more sponsorship and therefore money) - take the partisan bias in turning a blind eye to behaviour not acceptable in a sporting context out. Stick in a rule that prevents collusion. Don't give us professional wrestling and then wonder why the big riders & sponsors don't show.
Skip Madness
New Member
Ullrich did win it!resal1 said:
Next item. One we know a great deal less about. We know Cooke was outside the BC Plan for years and simply showed them up as pathetic in 1999 when at 16 she won. The furor about not selecting her for the Olympics and then after the 2000 Nat Champs stitch up was huge. Letters in Cycling Weekly. Basically BC jammed the race with every female rider that they gave grants to and they just queued up attacking. At first it was Cooke and Heal as two responding, but then, I think Heal punctured and it was Cooke on her own for about 50km, until she was done in and then the 1 rider who had not attacked, Gilfillan shot up the road. There used to be a site called www.esycycling.com They had one report and the BC site had another entirely different report. I remember one of the organisers of that site telling me that he had BC ring up and ask him to take the story down. He thought it was because it was not making them look good in front of UK sport as to what they were doing with their grants ! That sort of stuff is back to professional wrestling. Do it, entertain a few people who want a known result each week. [The web site author did not take it down !]
I really wanted Pooley to win this year. I was so upset for her last year that they did not send the women's race up the Tumble. What they gave the women last year by comparison to the men was a shambles. Pooley was never going to drop Cooke on the course last year and as facts showed, Cooke could deal with Armisted and Pooley as two individual riders. If it had gone up the Tumble would Pooley have won ? Debatable. Pooley would have had a gap going over the Tumble, but would she have held it to the line ? Well all hypothetical as it never went over the Tumble and we don't know how far it would have been to the line. but would it have been a nail-biter ? I think it sure would have been. And if I think why I watch any sport it is for that nail-biter. I knew of the course for this year and thought - at last, Pooley can now ride away from Cooke, if she is ever going to do it. She was never going to get a better course for her talents which are different to those of Cooke. I went there more to see the women's race than that of the men and I have to say, I was hugely disappointed, in one sense with what I saw. I wrote my piece on the other thread because of that disappointment.
I wanted Pooley to win because I wanted a change and I felt sorry for Pooley last year, when she was robbed of a parcours for her talents, when that same parcours was offered to the men. I have had a interesting week following other threads. Like Skip I watch, the BBC thread. I also watch Bike Radar. [I don't post on either because, frankly, too often the debate descends into farcical - Bike Radar or idiots who know nothing, spout forth - BBC. Not all opinions are equal. - compliment folks - I admire the debate here, not too often "yaa boo sucks"] And I think we have a hot potato here. Having had a look around and a think and with what I saw first hand on the hill, Emma was never going to crack Cooke this year on that most brutal climb in the 5 times I saw them climb it. 4 times up Cooke looked stronger, the last time up, Cooke matched anything Pooley did. I made my comments in irony. It was a Cervelo stitch up and I think that is certainly not what I wanted to see. If I could not have Pooley ride off into the distance from the climb, I wanted the best two riders go head to head. I am going to pause here and paste in some relevant stuff from Bike Radar, which changed my mind.
I really wanted Pooley to win this year. I was so upset for her last year that they did not send the women's race up the Tumble. What they gave the women last year by comparison to the men was a shambles. Pooley was never going to drop Cooke on the course last year and as facts showed, Cooke could deal with Armisted and Pooley as two individual riders. If it had gone up the Tumble would Pooley have won ? Debatable. Pooley would have had a gap going over the Tumble, but would she have held it to the line ? Well all hypothetical as it never went over the Tumble and we don't know how far it would have been to the line. but would it have been a nail-biter ? I think it sure would have been. And if I think why I watch any sport it is for that nail-biter. I knew of the course for this year and thought - at last, Pooley can now ride away from Cooke, if she is ever going to do it. She was never going to get a better course for her talents which are different to those of Cooke. I went there more to see the women's race than that of the men and I have to say, I was hugely disappointed, in one sense with what I saw. I wrote my piece on the other thread because of that disappointment.
I wanted Pooley to win because I wanted a change and I felt sorry for Pooley last year, when she was robbed of a parcours for her talents, when that same parcours was offered to the men. I have had a interesting week following other threads. Like Skip I watch, the BBC thread. I also watch Bike Radar. [I don't post on either because, frankly, too often the debate descends into farcical - Bike Radar or idiots who know nothing, spout forth - BBC. Not all opinions are equal. - compliment folks - I admire the debate here, not too often "yaa boo sucks"] And I think we have a hot potato here. Having had a look around and a think and with what I saw first hand on the hill, Emma was never going to crack Cooke this year on that most brutal climb in the 5 times I saw them climb it. 4 times up Cooke looked stronger, the last time up, Cooke matched anything Pooley did. I made my comments in irony. It was a Cervelo stitch up and I think that is certainly not what I wanted to see. If I could not have Pooley ride off into the distance from the climb, I wanted the best two riders go head to head. I am going to pause here and paste in some relevant stuff from Bike Radar, which changed my mind.
OK - thanks skip - I was too intent on typing/lazy to confirm, but the record of winners supports my argument - Its there. It has been there for ages. It has been partisan for ages. It has generated little interest for ages. Now it is getting less partisan, (icy light of quality media coverage prevents dodgy decisions being unnoticed) it is getting more attention. Not many people want to watch professional wrestling.Skip Madness said:
Back to what I wanted to share that changed my mind. 2 posts. Both from Bike Radar
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12712083&start=40
Stagehopper - Cooke has ridden for "Cervelo" - she joined the team when it was called Univega in 2006 bringing on extra sponsors herself (Raleigh and Lifeforce). At the time she was criticised for not joining T-Mobile but in her two seasons with Univega they topped the world rankings thanks in no small measure to her huge efforts. In 2008 she was with Halfords/GB in an attempt to win Olympics + World (which went pretty well) before idealistically launching VIsion 1.
Late last year after the failure of her Vision 1 team (which was giving much needed experience to young British riders) she joined one of the three giants of the women's peloton the German Equipe Nürnberger Versicherung who had been established for ten years.
They had announced a change of sponsor to become Team Skyter (a shipping company) a couple of months previously only for the sponsor to do a runner in December 2009 claiming costs were higher than expected, leading to much argument in press between Skyter and the Nurnberger management and promises of legal action etc to get hold of the funds/budget for the season.
It was eventually late January 2010 when the likes of Cooke, Amber Neben and Trixi Worrack found out that they were left without contracts (it seems the team management may not have signed a contract with the sponsor despite the announcement). By this stage the rosters of the major women's teams were filled and budgets allocated. Neben, like Cooke, is now riding for her national team. So that's two Olympic champions from 2008 screwed over.
------
As for the race itself, Cooke is wrong to criticise. It was clear the Cervelo girls were going to work her over if they could. She and Pooley attacked each other on every hill only for Pooley to sit up and wait for her team mates when the two neutralised each other. It would have been great to see a longer race and the two of them go head to head for a couple of laps.
Ironically the only other time she was beaten was 2000, when she returned as a 17 year old to defend the title. Story I've read is that British Cycling were so furious that someone from outside the system had won the race as a 16 year old that they put together a team of experienced riders from across the World Class Performance Programme and attacked Cooke repeatedly from the start to make sure she was beaten.
Then from Hotoph
I heard a rumor that after powering Univega to number 1 slot in the World and enabling them to secure the Cervelo sponsorship deal, they rewarded Cooke by reneging on her pay. ( A not uncommon thing to happen at the end of the season in the women's peloton). Last I heard she was taking them to court. In that case whatever we think, the court would decide who was right and wrong. I would love to know what went on.
Quite a big reason not to ride for the team. Quite a reason to get riders to ride against her.
Have a look at this pic. I think it was penultimate time after the top of the hill. Cooke was on the front dragging Emma (can only see her shadow) away from Sharron and Lizzie, who had been distanced separately, when they came past me. Cooke kept looking back at the gap to Sharron, and was just driving it. Pretty good tactics to me - get the odds even and then sort it out, 1 on 1. What is that Cervelo car doing in the gap? Doesn't it have to get to 60 seconds ? No way was it that, 20 30 yes. Then somehow, Sharron and Lizzie were able to catch up again? Why did the commisaires allow the car into the gap ? Do they not know why the 60 second rule is there?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishcycling/4742230475/in/set-72157624252506147/
Maybe there is some more to this story we don't know? Everyone wants a plucky underdog to win and 10 years is one hell of a long time in anyone's book. But hold on we are sick to death of following false heroes on the men's scene. Emma is certainly not that.
Emma is the best rider in the UK at present, bar none.
But Emma and Cervelo need to win square. That car is not there admiring the view. Final lap up and Cooke did not seem quite so keen on breaking it up. Beryl has some absolutely scathing things to say about what riders did ganging up on her and organisers stitching her up so she did not win. I read her book and it did not come across as sour grapes to me. Legitimate complaints about small minded, pettyand jealous people. Which leaves this a bit disappointing as Lizzie Emma and Nicole are all great riders and no way can be described as lightweights. What should have happened is they should have had a super race we could enthrall over not one that leaves a sour taste in the mouth. That car - the roads were narrow - it could only have got into the gap if the commisaire allowed it in. Refs can ruin a game they can also make it. These girls deserve better.
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12712083&start=40
Stagehopper - Cooke has ridden for "Cervelo" - she joined the team when it was called Univega in 2006 bringing on extra sponsors herself (Raleigh and Lifeforce). At the time she was criticised for not joining T-Mobile but in her two seasons with Univega they topped the world rankings thanks in no small measure to her huge efforts. In 2008 she was with Halfords/GB in an attempt to win Olympics + World (which went pretty well) before idealistically launching VIsion 1.
Late last year after the failure of her Vision 1 team (which was giving much needed experience to young British riders) she joined one of the three giants of the women's peloton the German Equipe Nürnberger Versicherung who had been established for ten years.
They had announced a change of sponsor to become Team Skyter (a shipping company) a couple of months previously only for the sponsor to do a runner in December 2009 claiming costs were higher than expected, leading to much argument in press between Skyter and the Nurnberger management and promises of legal action etc to get hold of the funds/budget for the season.
It was eventually late January 2010 when the likes of Cooke, Amber Neben and Trixi Worrack found out that they were left without contracts (it seems the team management may not have signed a contract with the sponsor despite the announcement). By this stage the rosters of the major women's teams were filled and budgets allocated. Neben, like Cooke, is now riding for her national team. So that's two Olympic champions from 2008 screwed over.
------
As for the race itself, Cooke is wrong to criticise. It was clear the Cervelo girls were going to work her over if they could. She and Pooley attacked each other on every hill only for Pooley to sit up and wait for her team mates when the two neutralised each other. It would have been great to see a longer race and the two of them go head to head for a couple of laps.
Ironically the only other time she was beaten was 2000, when she returned as a 17 year old to defend the title. Story I've read is that British Cycling were so furious that someone from outside the system had won the race as a 16 year old that they put together a team of experienced riders from across the World Class Performance Programme and attacked Cooke repeatedly from the start to make sure she was beaten.
Then from Hotoph
I heard a rumor that after powering Univega to number 1 slot in the World and enabling them to secure the Cervelo sponsorship deal, they rewarded Cooke by reneging on her pay. ( A not uncommon thing to happen at the end of the season in the women's peloton). Last I heard she was taking them to court. In that case whatever we think, the court would decide who was right and wrong. I would love to know what went on.
Quite a big reason not to ride for the team. Quite a reason to get riders to ride against her.
Have a look at this pic. I think it was penultimate time after the top of the hill. Cooke was on the front dragging Emma (can only see her shadow) away from Sharron and Lizzie, who had been distanced separately, when they came past me. Cooke kept looking back at the gap to Sharron, and was just driving it. Pretty good tactics to me - get the odds even and then sort it out, 1 on 1. What is that Cervelo car doing in the gap? Doesn't it have to get to 60 seconds ? No way was it that, 20 30 yes. Then somehow, Sharron and Lizzie were able to catch up again? Why did the commisaires allow the car into the gap ? Do they not know why the 60 second rule is there?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishcycling/4742230475/in/set-72157624252506147/
Maybe there is some more to this story we don't know? Everyone wants a plucky underdog to win and 10 years is one hell of a long time in anyone's book. But hold on we are sick to death of following false heroes on the men's scene. Emma is certainly not that.
Emma is the best rider in the UK at present, bar none.
But Emma and Cervelo need to win square. That car is not there admiring the view. Final lap up and Cooke did not seem quite so keen on breaking it up. Beryl has some absolutely scathing things to say about what riders did ganging up on her and organisers stitching her up so she did not win. I read her book and it did not come across as sour grapes to me. Legitimate complaints about small minded, pettyand jealous people. Which leaves this a bit disappointing as Lizzie Emma and Nicole are all great riders and no way can be described as lightweights. What should have happened is they should have had a super race we could enthrall over not one that leaves a sour taste in the mouth. That car - the roads were narrow - it could only have got into the gap if the commisaire allowed it in. Refs can ruin a game they can also make it. These girls deserve better.
[Dodgy motorbikes taking Delgardo away from Millar - we don't like - nasty cheating Johnny Foreigner. The evidence is there. That Cervelo car is in the gap. The rules are broken. 3rd time up and my view was that Armisted was a gonner. What is going on here ?]
Emma - you had your chance on the hill. She did not want to/could not take it.
Ignoring the scary fact that the Cervelo car is in the gap, let's keep on thread - team tactics - are they fair ?
That photo has Cooke and Pooley in a straight fight to the finish. What is it with these rules, what do they say ? Emma was waiting for Laws and Armisted. She was waiting to get the numerical advantage to prevent Cooke being able to get away from her, by the 3 being able to TTT back up. Also it allowed Cooke to be attacked by the others to wear her down, whilst Emma waited. Emma got away in the end. Emma did not look like she was going to get away when she came past me. Her tactic worked.
And now the killer - If Emma hadn't won this year, does she come back next year doing what BC did to Cooke in 2000 ? I now see where Cooke is coming from and why a National Championship has to be a different race, an individual race. If not we legislate for Armagedon. Obviously Emma thought what she was doing was acceptable and within the rules. She waited and let her numerical advantage get restored. What would she have done if each rider had to ride from themselves and sacrificing oneself for the team-leader, entirely acceptable in events which are team orientated like TdF etc, was not acceptable in this race? I would like to believe that it would have empowered Emma. Instead of riding a negative race that resulted in, what was to me, an Emma fan wanting her to beat Cooke, a huge disappointment, the wrestler in the white shorts beat the one in the black, I think Emma would have had an entirely different strategy. She would have attacked Cooke properly and more importantly, arrived at the race ready to do that. We as fans would have had the genuine spectacle rather than looking at the start sheet and counting 3 Cervelo, 1 Cooke = Cervelo win, or next year Cervelo 3, Cooke and bought agents 6 = Cooke win.
I was not at the 2001 Nat RR. I know that the BC riders were there and again, and Cooke was on her own. A 3 on 1 break was formed. But I know that the riders were all briefed about team riding before the start. The nature of that briefing I don't know. I have read conflicting things in different threads on different boards about what was said to the riders this year. Some state that they were told they had to race as individuals and others state that there is nothing in the rules to stop them. I don't know which is right. What I do know is I don't like professional wrestling and I love sport for being unpredictable.
Context 2 - the National Championship to determine the individual best rider on that parcours (and please - vary it each year) I come down on "riders must ride as individuals. No team tactics please". Anything else just opens it up to be exploited by a wrestling promoter.
Emma - you had your chance on the hill. She did not want to/could not take it.
Ignoring the scary fact that the Cervelo car is in the gap, let's keep on thread - team tactics - are they fair ?
That photo has Cooke and Pooley in a straight fight to the finish. What is it with these rules, what do they say ? Emma was waiting for Laws and Armisted. She was waiting to get the numerical advantage to prevent Cooke being able to get away from her, by the 3 being able to TTT back up. Also it allowed Cooke to be attacked by the others to wear her down, whilst Emma waited. Emma got away in the end. Emma did not look like she was going to get away when she came past me. Her tactic worked.
And now the killer - If Emma hadn't won this year, does she come back next year doing what BC did to Cooke in 2000 ? I now see where Cooke is coming from and why a National Championship has to be a different race, an individual race. If not we legislate for Armagedon. Obviously Emma thought what she was doing was acceptable and within the rules. She waited and let her numerical advantage get restored. What would she have done if each rider had to ride from themselves and sacrificing oneself for the team-leader, entirely acceptable in events which are team orientated like TdF etc, was not acceptable in this race? I would like to believe that it would have empowered Emma. Instead of riding a negative race that resulted in, what was to me, an Emma fan wanting her to beat Cooke, a huge disappointment, the wrestler in the white shorts beat the one in the black, I think Emma would have had an entirely different strategy. She would have attacked Cooke properly and more importantly, arrived at the race ready to do that. We as fans would have had the genuine spectacle rather than looking at the start sheet and counting 3 Cervelo, 1 Cooke = Cervelo win, or next year Cervelo 3, Cooke and bought agents 6 = Cooke win.
I was not at the 2001 Nat RR. I know that the BC riders were there and again, and Cooke was on her own. A 3 on 1 break was formed. But I know that the riders were all briefed about team riding before the start. The nature of that briefing I don't know. I have read conflicting things in different threads on different boards about what was said to the riders this year. Some state that they were told they had to race as individuals and others state that there is nothing in the rules to stop them. I don't know which is right. What I do know is I don't like professional wrestling and I love sport for being unpredictable.
Context 2 - the National Championship to determine the individual best rider on that parcours (and please - vary it each year) I come down on "riders must ride as individuals. No team tactics please". Anything else just opens it up to be exploited by a wrestling promoter.
Final point - (too much typing from me). Conspiracy theories - why was that car there? What was said in the briefing - how did it differ from that which was given in 2001 and presumably later years? (Can I remember speaking to riders about the briefing in later years ?)Are the rules the same or have they been changed ? Was this a masterplan to make sure Emma won/Cooke lost ? That BC acted underhandedly in 2000 was evidenced by the difference 2000/2001. Surely not now. Different beast entirely? Innocent mistakes, team car just happens to sneak by unobservant commisaire ? Could be ? As I stated, probably at this stage too little evidence is out there. We just don't know. Back to the debate - team tactics - should they be allowed. I want to read what other people think. { I recommend the whole bike radar thread. Ignore the Millwall supporters - Cooke actually rang around various teams to get the best deal before moving - and your point is - Cooke is a lot more sensible than you ?}
Skip Madness
New Member
That's a hell of a lot of text you've poured into the ether there!
I doubt there was anything sinister at play. In some ways I'd rather everyone was overt about it being team-oriented because if it weren't, you'd end up with team-mates riding - I'm guessing - half-heartedly against each other and whole-heartedly against everyone else. It's easy to say, "Team allegiances are abandoned," but when you're on a pro contract I suspect it's harder to believe in it absolutely.
If you wanted to run with the line of mysterious forces, I suppose it would be that Armitstead has probably superseded Cooke as Britain's chance in London 2012, so building her up now would make sense. But in reality, any problems or mistakes with team cars were probably just incompetence. This is British Cycling we're talking about, remember.
Frankly I think it would have been a lot different had the race not been cut in half. I understand the crash was a major hold-up, but there should have been six laps at least. To me that was the fiasco.
To be honest if I were riding, the nationals wouldn't interest me much. For me it's exciting because it's an opportunity to watch women's racing on telly, but in terms of racing prestige I'd actually find it a bit of a distraction one week before the Giro/Tour.
Thanks for the depth of info there, though - always good to get some extra context.
I doubt there was anything sinister at play. In some ways I'd rather everyone was overt about it being team-oriented because if it weren't, you'd end up with team-mates riding - I'm guessing - half-heartedly against each other and whole-heartedly against everyone else. It's easy to say, "Team allegiances are abandoned," but when you're on a pro contract I suspect it's harder to believe in it absolutely.
If you wanted to run with the line of mysterious forces, I suppose it would be that Armitstead has probably superseded Cooke as Britain's chance in London 2012, so building her up now would make sense. But in reality, any problems or mistakes with team cars were probably just incompetence. This is British Cycling we're talking about, remember.
Frankly I think it would have been a lot different had the race not been cut in half. I understand the crash was a major hold-up, but there should have been six laps at least. To me that was the fiasco.
To be honest if I were riding, the nationals wouldn't interest me much. For me it's exciting because it's an opportunity to watch women's racing on telly, but in terms of racing prestige I'd actually find it a bit of a distraction one week before the Giro/Tour.
Thanks for the depth of info there, though - always good to get some extra context.
Similar threads
