Tour Specialists Ruin the Tour

From: Bryan Boldt

(snjr wrote):

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't like it when riders race only
one event each season.

(BB replied):

Besides, exactly who is racing "only one event each season"? Ok, Lance only
races one grand tour
each year, but pay closer attention to his early season schedule and you
might find a few other
"real" races he does as well.

From the LA online site, FWIW:

March
~ 5-9 - Tour of Murcia, Spain
~ 24-28 - Setmana Catalana, Spain

April
~ 8-11 - Circuit de la Sarthe, France
~ 20 - Amstel Gold, Netherlands
~ 27 - Liège-Bastogne-Liège, Belgium

May
~ Training month

June
~ 8-15 - Dauphiné Liberé, France

July
~ 5-27 - Tour de France

There may have been changes in what he actually rode. So at least one other
big-time race, LBL and he wasn't riding for training, was he?

Maybe after the attempt on #6, successful or not, he'll either quit or try to
get that Ardennais Weekend and Am-Gold he's come so close to. --Tom Paterson

"Jim Price" wrote in message
...
Mack Mad wrote:

Don't blame the riders for something that is becoming a mandate of
sponsors.

I agree with not blaming the riders. Blame the sponsors for messing up
the sport.

Lance frequently says he wants to win the Tour de France because it is
what
motivates him, but he ALSO reiterates that it is all that matters to his
sponsor as well.

Is being equivocal considered a good thing in Texas?

Johan would be stupid to jeopardize his chance to win the
TdF by mandating that Lance ride the Giro or the Vuelta. His sponsor
would
want him fired immediately.

I think the point was that it shouldn't be Johan dictating that, it
should be the TdF organisers. In most other sports, if you just want to
concentrate on the major events, you've at least got to qualify for
them. Lance's amazing achievment is lessened by his concentration on the
single goal of the tour, compared to previous five time winners who have
competed all year IMHO.


Being a team sport, you have to qualify for the Tour based on team results.
In this case it is easy for Lance to go to the Tour because he knows a year
in advance that he has already made the event.

Mario Cipollini's team had to do the Giro to even try to qualify for the
Tour.

In the end it is the Tour organizers choosing who gets to their event. 14
teams are automatically chosen by their ability to gain UCI points during
the year, as they are the top 14 teams in the world. The remaining 8 are
wild cards based on performance (or French perogative) up to the Tour.

ONCE, USPS, CSC, Rabobank, Cofidis, and iBanesto did not participate in this
year's Giro d' Italia, despite being a top club and being guaranteed a spot
to compete.

I am not saying that I agree that riders should only concentrate on the TdF.

However, if you take it to a rider level and require each rider to
accumulate UCI points in order to qualify for the TdF, then Lance again will
easily qualify (as will all the other top stars) because he did well in the
TdF and earned the UCI points from it. He consistently is in the upper
echelon of the UCI classification because of his performance there.

So in many respects he has followed the direction of the Tour organizers and
qualified for the event.

DiabloScott wrote in message ...
Tour invitations come from both UCI team rankings, previous Tour
entries, and wildcards so there already is some requirement to produce
results during the rest of the season.

From UCI reg 2.6.003
The organiser of a Major Tour is required to invite:
a) the «Top Clubs»
b) the winning trade team from the previous year's World Cup
c) the trade team to which the winner of the same event in the
preceding year belonged
d) the trade team which won the team classification at the previous
running of the event
e) the other TT/Is in the order of their UCI classification at the end
of the last event of the previous
year's World Cup such that the total number of teams covered by a) to
e) totals to 14.

So, by virtue of c), USPS gets an invite to the 2004 Tour even if they
do sweet FA for the remainder of the 2003 season or the first part of
the 2004 season, no "results" are necessary for their inclusion.

Mack Mad wrote:

Being a team sport, you have to qualify for the Tour based on team results.
In this case it is easy for Lance to go to the Tour because he knows a year
in advance that he has already made the event.

Mario Cipollini's team had to do the Giro to even try to qualify for the
Tour.

In the end it is the Tour organizers choosing who gets to their event. 14
teams are automatically chosen by their ability to gain UCI points during
the year, as they are the top 14 teams in the world. The remaining 8 are
wild cards based on performance (or French perogative) up to the Tour.

ONCE, USPS, CSC, Rabobank, Cofidis, and iBanesto did not participate in this
year's Giro d' Italia, despite being a top club and being guaranteed a spot
to compete.

I am not saying that I agree that riders should only concentrate on the TdF.

However, if you take it to a rider level and require each rider to
accumulate UCI points in order to qualify for the TdF, then Lance again will
easily qualify (as will all the other top stars) because he did well in the
TdF and earned the UCI points from it. He consistently is in the upper
echelon of the UCI classification because of his performance there.

So in many respects he has followed the direction of the Tour organizers and
qualified for the event.

I accept that for the team side of it. I wouldn't necessarily restrict
any encouragment for individual riders to do a wider range of events to
just UCI points, however, especially if hidden within a team context.
For example, how about giving individual Giro entrants a time bonus in
alpine stages and Vuelta entrants a time bonus in Pyrenean stages. Make
the bonuses significant enough to outweigh any ideas that it would not
be worth doing the other events if you were serious about the Tour.
Something like a minute a stage ought to do it.

--
Jim Price

http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

Armstrong has always had enough UCI points to qualify to ride the
tour, even when he didn't win it.

I'd be interested in seeing precisely what criteria you'd attach to
such a statement. You'd have to have two different sets of points. One
for performance and one just for showing up.

Me, I don't see anything wrong with specialization. That is the option
of the competitor and whatever sponsorship deal he cuts.

Joe Torre, likewise, can choose to keep Derek Jeter on the bench all
season and just use him in the world series if he so chooses (if
that's prove helpful).

The team rosters are full enough to field lots of impressive riders,
and Lance's presence at the Giro and Vuelta is not needed to make
those events as impressive as they are.

Personally, I think it is cruel to mandate riding in more than one
major tour in order to qualify to the TDF.

}-k

Jim Price wrote in message m...
Mack Mad wrote:

Don't blame the riders for something that is becoming a mandate of sponsors.

I agree with not blaming the riders. Blame the sponsors for messing up
the sport.

Lance frequently says he wants to win the Tour de France because it is what
motivates him, but he ALSO reiterates that it is all that matters to his
sponsor as well.

Is being equivocal considered a good thing in Texas?

Johan would be stupid to jeopardize his chance to win the
TdF by mandating that Lance ride the Giro or the Vuelta. His sponsor would
want him fired immediately.

I think the point was that it shouldn't be Johan dictating that, it
should be the TdF organisers. In most other sports, if you just want to
concentrate on the major events, you've at least got to qualify for
them. Lance's amazing achievment is lessened by his concentration on the
single goal of the tour, compared to previous five time winners who have
competed all year IMHO.

Actually I believe that the original statement about five-time-winners
being rare is a defensible position. While it seems sadly that it is
the norm on newgroups, the wrath that people like to dish out is
usually unwarranted....But I guess everyone is a Napolean when they
can be.

Playing with math and english:

Quote: 5-time Tour winners are few....

Since 1957 there have been 5 five-time-winners and 17
non-five-time-winners give or take 1 or 2 for poor counting on my
part. This means that about 21% of the discrete winners from 1957 on
have been five-time-winners certainly a substanial minority.

and far between...

Since 1957 there have been 46 tours and 5 five-time-winners that means
every 9.2 years a five time winner comes along. compared to
non-five-time-winners who come along every 2.7 years.


The original post says nothing of the pecentage of tours
five-time-winners have won. Also might I mention that if you are going
to take 1961 as the date you are counting from, In the strictest sense
Anquetil is not a five time winner. You can't point out a logical
error and then perpetuate it in your own calculations(or atleast you
shouldn't). This innaprpriatly forshortens the counterpoint. I.E:

If we take the percentage of tours won by five-time-winners since 1957
it is 54.3% if we push it 1961 and still count Anquetil(and is 5 wins)
it is 59.5%. If you drop one of his wins (better but kind of still a
mis-representation) it is 57.1%.

Lastly, It is statistically incorrect to start our counting at 1957
since we end up throwing out 45 signifigant data points. If you aren't
going to inlcude these tours in you statistical analysis then you have
to give a reason they aren't included as relevant. For instance if I
flip a coin ten times and I get

HHHTH TTTHT

But for some reason I only count the last five I will say that it is a
weighted coin that comes up tails 80% of the time. With out a reason
for throwing out the first 5, I am a hustler.

Bunching often occurs and skews small data sets, but to only count the
bunch seems completely silly from a statistical point of view.
Furthermore, I see no fundemental change in cycling that make me
believe the 1957-2003 "bunch" of five-time-winners is anything but
just that. Of course 91 data points is hardly enough data to do any
real trending, but it wouldn't be surprised if it was 55 years before
we saw another 5 time winner, Or maybe another year before we see our
first 6 time winner

SPA














DiabloScott wrote in message ...
Originally posted by Kurgan Gringion "DiabloScott"
wrote in message -
...

Tour invitations come from both UCI team rankings, previous Tour
entries, and wildcards so there already is some requirement to
produce results during the rest of the season. I think potential
5-time Tour winners are few and far between and it's just an anomaly
that Armstrong came so close after Indurain.

Dumbass -

The first 5-time winner (Anquetil) won his first Tour in 1961.

Since then, there have been him and 4 others - nearly half of the Tours
since 1961 have been won by 5-time winners.


As Mark already pointed out, Anquetil's first victory was 1957 - TESTA
DI MINCHIA! Also, using your poor example; since 1961 25 of 42 Tours
have been won by 5-timers, that's quite a bit more than half, are you
home-schooled? - Come insult me again when you can divide - PISCIASOTTO!

A five-time winner comes along once every 8 years on average
since Anquetil.

"Steven" wrote in message
om...
Furthermore, I see no fundemental change in cycling that make me
believe the 1957-2003 "bunch" of five-time-winners is anything but
just that.

I believe there was a change in the way the riders approached the TdF after
Bobet.

"Steven" wrote in message
om...

Since 1957 there have been 5 five-time-winners and 17
non-five-time-winners give or take 1 or 2 for poor counting on my
part. This means that about 21% of the discrete winners from 1957 on
have been five-time-winners certainly a substanial minority.

and far between...

This discrete winners approach is bizarre my friend.

That said, the 5 time winners era started earlier than the so-called
specialization. So it is rather a matter of a testing 3 weeks race giving
all opportunity for the strongest rider (in TTs+ climbing) in the field to
outperform the others (or to win by his bare regularity as opposed to ups
and downs of others), and thus pushing the flip-a-coin aspect (including
tactical coincidences) of shorter or less demanding races aside.

"Nev Shea" wrote in message
et...
(Steven) wrote in
om:

Actually I believe that the original statement about five-time-winners
being rare is a defensible position.

Too bad you didn't start defending the position here

While it seems sadly that it is
the norm on newgroups, the wrath that people like to dish out is
usually unwarranted....But I guess everyone is a Napolean when they
can be.

but then you just had to start whining like a newbie pussy, so I couldn't
bother reading your argument once I saw how long winded it was.

Nobody has bothered to count overlap yet -- Ullrich has a win and
finished 2nd 3 times to Armstrong (plus Pantani and Riis), so next year
he could go for 5; Lemond is a virtual 5 time winner (or did he say 4),
and that is without losing prime years to a gunshot. Could Poulidor have
won 5 if it weren't for Anquetil and some bad luck?



Since Lemond is a 4 time winner, then Poulidor must be a 9 time winner.

That makes Pou Pou the Greatest of All Time.