wessy wrote:Again thanks some informative and historic background, i see now the reason for the team selections, intriguing. just tuned in today (Wednesday) at the 80k to go stage and they are all sharing food bags obviously very important to keep your energy levels topped up.
But they seem to be saying that no one will make a break today, and that it is very rare that this happens in the tour, not sure why this is happening today.?
It is very unusual because there are so many reason to have a breakaway the main two being to simply get time in front of the cameras - particularly important for the smaller teams who won't be featuring much at the individual stage wins - and for tactical reasons, sometimes you put 'good' riders (but not thought to be GC contenders) into the breakaway and if they aren't brought back by the peloton, suddenly do become GC contenders with the one-off time gain they made that day, or for their team leader to break free of the peloton catch up with the breakaway, and then have his 'good' rider to support him (the GC basically uses him as a shield to ride behind) whilst he's recovers from the burst of energy (called going into the 'red') catching the breakaway.
It would seem today that with the mountain top finish of yesterday taking place so soon in the race (it goes on for three weeks remember) that an unofficial truce between the riders as taken place to ride as one group today (to catch their breath so to speak from yesterday) and let the sprinters fight it out for the win at the end of the stage.
If so look out for Ewan again and McCarthy, who seem to be the best two sprinters in the Tour this year.
It will also mean Alaphillipe will stay in yellow for yet another day as the peloton will all receive the same finish time.
Posts : 2748 Join date : 2013-06-17 Age : 71 Location : Bolton Formerly Chew Moor
Yep i thought it was a truce through concensus due to a tough start so far, a good sprint at the end otherwise less eventful, no doubt one stage will be explosive soon.
wessy wrote:Yep i thought it was a truce through concensus due to a tough start so far, a good sprint at the end otherwise less eventful, no doubt one stage will be explosive soon.
It builds over the weeks, more than having explosive stages early on.
In terms of cricket if you like they are just building the first innings so far and don't want to lose too many wickets to early doing so.
Tomorrow is another uphill finish so all the excitement will be going up the last mountain.
As it's early days all the GC boys should be there at the death but no doubt Roglic will want to stamp his authority on the Tour once again and wouldn't surprise me if he wins it.
One subplot you might want to follow is the battle for the green jersey.
Peter Sagan wins it every year as he's been the world's best rider but there's a new younger sprinter Sam Bennett who is looking to pick up green jersey points just as easily It will be interesting to see how things go because Bennett is here to win sprint stages and Sagan is free to do what he wants on all stages- but I think it will be close never the less.
Last edited by Sluffy on Wed Sep 02 2020, 21:33; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Sorry had Wout on the brain - I meant the Irishman Bennett)
New leader of the Tour in case people have missed it.
Britain's Adam Yates [Bury boy] moved into the lead of the Tour de France after Julian Alaphilippe was given a 20-second penalty on stage five, which was won by Wout van Aert. France's Alaphilippe, who is now 16th overall, was penalised for taking a bottle from a team support member inside the final 20km. Yates leads Primoz Roglic by three seconds in the yellow jersey. "This is not the way I'd imagined taking the yellow jersey," said Yates. "If I'm honest, no one wants to take the jersey like this. "I was looking to take the jersey on stage six anyway so I'll go in with the same tactic - try to win the stage and see what happens."
Alaphilippe had led Yates by four seconds and looked to have retained the yellow jersey after finishing safely in the bunch in Privas. But television images showed him being given a water bottle with 17.8km to go - under the rules of world governing body, the UCI, riders are not allowed to take on food or drink in the final 20km of a stage. It was a bizarre way for the Frenchman to lose the jersey he had taken by winning stage two, especially after Deceuninck-Quick-Step had ridden on the front of the peloton for most of the day to protect Alaphilippe and set up sprinter Sam Bennett. "I didn't realise at all that it was unauthorised," said Alaphilippe. "It's not a problem - I'll pick myself up again and we'll forget about it."
Posts : 31124 Join date : 2013-10-05 Age : 71 Location : Pooh Corner
Sluffy, I've got a question. As you know I'm not up on cycling, so bear with me. It's in a few parts, so I'll just give you the bottom lines.
1. How many riders can enter. 2. How many can actually win the race, given it's a team sport. 3. Could the race still be run without teams, with riders competing alone, although with a back up crew. 4. Are the sprint riders in a race within a race. Never quite understood it.
Might seem daft questions to you, but I'm interested. For instance, how do the lead riders teammates help their lead rider to win?
It varies from race to race but in the TdF there are 22 teams and each team as 8 riders, so that's 176 in this years race at the start.
No substitutes allowed once the race starts so if one of your team mates gets ill or injured and cannot continue, you carry on with the race a man down and so on until Tour is over.
In theory any one of those 176 riders could win but in reality only a certain few can and those are the ones who are either the best climbers or the best Time Trialists, depending on how the organisers have planned the race. Sometimes this will have three or more Time Trials in a race and say only two or three mountain top finishes, sometimes it might only be onw time trial and six or seven mountain top finishes - the point being you can gain a lot of time on your rivals if you can do one or the other exceedingly well - and if you can do them both exceedingly well (like Froome could and Roglic who is the favourite for this race) you usually win.
The race is (if you move away from the actual cycling) all about getting your team sponsors name - which are on your jerseys, in front of the TV cameras.
Obviously when you win, everybody sees a picture of the winner (and thus the company's name on his shirt).
I mention this because in a three week race not every stage is the same. As I've mentioned there are the mountains - that really make or break who will win the Tour - and can be very exciting when its mano a mano, with only one reaching the top alive (so to speak).
The Time Trials are utterly boring to watch - but provide time gaps between riders that can win the race.
Often the story plot is that time trials will lose time to their mountain rivals on the mountains and the mountain boys will lose time to their time trial rivals in the TT's, so one tries to build a cushion of time in their specialism and cling on grimly in the one that isn't specialism and limit their losses and the net result determines if they win or not.
There are also broadly speaking two other types of stages - flat ones, where generally everyone can stay together and they end in a stampede for the line - these are the sprint stages.
To explain the theory behind out to win one of these, the idea is that your team gets to the front of the race as near to the end of the race as possible and that there is a 'train' of your team mates riding flat out, one behind the other, going as fast as they can, with your best sprinter the last in that train.
The idea being if you are going flat out, then no other riders are that much faster than you to be able to pass you. So as your lead rider tires and peels off your number two man takes up the strain of going flat out until he's exhausted and so on until your nearly in touching distance of the line and your fastest man is there and should be able to win it!
In the Tour every stage win is a big thing, riders can make their careers off a good Tour, so every opportunity for a win is important.
Now some teams haven't got great mountain climbers or Time Trailers so they specialise in winning the sprint stages. There is great prestige as to who ends up being the best sprinter in the Tour, Mark Cavendish was the very best - but he would never have been able to win the Tour like Wiggins did (Wiggins was a very good TT but not the best at going up mountains) who made his time on the TT's and limited his looses in the mountains.
In theory, as the Yellow jersey is for the leader/winner of the Tour, the Green jersey is for the best point scorers (don't worry about the definition it really incidental these days) but in reality signified the Tours best sprinter - so was a very sought out jersey to have.
That's changed slightly over the last few years because one rider Peter Sagan who is technically NOT a sprinter was so good a rider that he could pick up points in the mountains with the best of the mountain boys and pick up points in the sprints, with the best of the sprinters and combing them both always won the green jersey over the decade or so.
But to answer one of your questions, yes there is a race with the race for sprinters. Even on some 'lumpy' stages teams will work for their sprinter to get them over 'hills' they might otherwise struggle with in order to give them a chance of winning a stage that isn't a pure 'sprint' stage as such.
The final sort of stage which I've just alluded to is the 'lumpy' ones - they aren't mountainous as such but neither are they flat - and these stages are sometimes the ones where teams do the unexpected in order to create some time gap for their leader in order to win the Tour.
In years gone by, yes the riders rode as individuals, or as country's but in the modern era it is about teams. The Tour organiser (a private company) 'invites' teams to compete (usually being all the top tier professional teams and a few wild cards (usually specifically French second tier teams) - so as it stands, no, you couldn't turn up with your trike and try to win it!
The big prize is obviously to win the Tour and it's rare these days to have a rank outsider unexpectedly winning it. Sometimes though the 'wrong one' in a team wins!
Froome could (and should) have won the Tour Wiggins did, but he rode to orders. Thomas beat Froome a couple of years ago (rightly so) even though Froome was the team leader and last year the same happened to Thomas when Bernal won with Thomas being the Team leader.
Bernal and Thomas were the best two riders last year (they finished first and second anyway) but the plan really was to break the opposition with one of the two shooting off up the hill with all their rivals having to chase after them, with the other taking it easy at the back of the chasing group. Once the chasing group caught up, the 'resting' one then zooming off up the road, with the rivals having to chase him, whilst the first one caught his breath again, ready for rocketing off when the group finally caught up with the other one - and so on.
It just so happened that Bergan got the lucky break when the rivals finally got knackered and held that advantage to the end - it could so easily have been Thomas - and that really was the plan - but the team won so everyone was happy bar Thomas but he's a team player and understands these things.
The big thing about cycling is 'drafting'.
It takes more energy to break through the air than it does if you are in someone else's slipstream, so you usually will have the other riders in the team doing all the donkey work for their leader, even sacrifice their own chances if they need to.
If say the leader has a puncture, depending on circumstances a team mate will even give up his bike to the leader and allow him to carry on, whilst he waits for the team car to turn up and help him out instead.
In short although it's a team competition it is all about the win, and the best person who is able to give you that win is the team leader.
So in say sprint teams, the 'win' for them means looking after their star sprinter so that he can win as many sprint stages as possible.
It's all about the best thing for that particular team and giving your best rider (in whatever bit of cycling he's best at) the best chance of getting the team noticed - as that means the sponsor is noticed to - and that's why they put their money in, in the first place.
I've said a lot and hope you can pick up most of what I've tried to say but please ask more if I've not or you have other questions to ask.
Posts : 31124 Join date : 2013-10-05 Age : 71 Location : Pooh Corner
Thanks for that Sluffy. Appreciate the time you took to educate a cycling dummy. There really is a heck of a lot to go at, but I've learned a lot. One thing I forgot to ask is, you know on the final day it's something of a procession? Well, does it have to be? Or is the etiquette that anything else would be scandalous. I suppose what I'm trying to say is, if someone still had a chance to go from second to first, would he have to forego it?
boltonbonce wrote:Thanks for that Sluffy. Appreciate the time you took to educate a cycling dummy. There really is a heck of a lot to go at, but I've learned a lot. One thing I forgot to ask is, you know on the final day it's something of a procession? Well, does it have to be? Or is the etiquette that anything else would be scandalous. I suppose what I'm trying to say is, if someone still had a chance to go from second to first, would he have to forego it?
Yes in a word.
The race is won or lost the day before and the last day is really to celebrate the overall winner but is also considered to be the blue ribbon race of the sprinters year.
In this Tour the previous day is the only Time Trial stage of the race - and even this is up a mountain - meaning it takes away the chance from the pure Time Trialists and gives a chance to those who aren't usually that good at TT's but can climb mountains really well.
The days prior to the TT are killer mountain stages - so really it is hand made for the favourite Roglic to win the Tour - if he makes it that far!
The last time the lead changed hands on the final day was in a Time Trial stage (in Paris) in 1989 when the darling of the French, Laurent Fignon, had his lead overturned and lost the Tour by just 8 seconds to American Greg LeMond who himself had just comeback from a hunting accident where he was shot and nearly died.
If you're interested the following tells the story of the end of that race - (Note the last day in Paris is Stage 20) -
After stage 19, Fignon had developed saddle sores, which gave him pain and made it impossible to sleep the night before the time trial. He was however still confident that he would not lose his 50-second advantage on LeMond during the 24.5 km (15.2 mi) from Versailles to the Champs-Élysées.[71] In the final-day time trial, LeMond again opted for the aerodynamic handlebars, a tear-drop helmet, and a rear disc wheel. Fignon meanwhile used two disc wheels, but ordinary handlebars and was bareheaded, his ponytail moving in the wind. When Fignon reached the half-distance time check, LeMond had taken 21 seconds out of his lead. LeMond finished with a time of 26:57 minutes, the fastest-ever time trial in the history of the Tour, at 54.545 km/h (33.893 mph). As LeMond collapsed on the floor from exhaustion, Fignon made his way to the finish. He ended with a time of 27:55 minutes. With an average speed of 52.66 km/h (32.72 mph), it was the fastest time trial he had ever ridden. Nevertheless, he finished third on the stage, 58 seconds down on LeMond, and therefore lost the race by the slight margin of eight seconds. A November 1989 Bicycling article, supported by wind-tunnel data, estimated that LeMond may have gained one minute on Fignon through the use of the new aerobars.[72] As of 2019, eight seconds is still the smallest winning margin in Tour de France history.
LeMond's unexpected Tour victory resulted in significant media attention, with sports writer Nige Tassell describing it in 2017 as "now the biggest sports story of them all".[77] Not only had LeMond overcome a significant time deficit, he had also won the Tour after coming back from a near-fatal hunting accident.[77] Owing to its small margin of victory and exciting racing, the 1989 Tour has repeatedly been named as one of the best editions of all time. In 2009, journalist Keith Bingham called it "the greatest Tour of them all",[78] while Cyclingnews.com in 2013 described it as "arguably the best [Tour] there's ever been".[79] American media, traditionally not overly interested in cycling,[80] made his victory headline news and TV broadcasters interrupted their regular programming to break the news.[81] Sports Illustrated, who named LeMond their Sportsperson of the Year, called it a "heroic comeback"
Fignon knew about LeMond's cycling 'innovation's' but to his way of thinking it was kind of like not in the spirit of the race, so he rode mostly in the 'old fashioned' cavalier way - and consequently lost!
He was haunted for the rest of his life by being known as the man who lost the Tour by 8 seconds - it seem to break him really.
All the riders set off in the positions they are in, the last man goes first, then 3 minutes later, the next to last man and so on, with the final rider to start being the leader from yesterday being Fignon.
LeMond is one of my cycling hero's and I was happy for him but felt more for poor Laurent.
The only ever Time Trial that wasn't boring - most of them really are!
Posts : 31124 Join date : 2013-10-05 Age : 71 Location : Pooh Corner
Cheers Sluffy, thanks once again for the info. Interesting stuff. Started reading a book about Tommy Simpson tonight and got hooked, which is why I'm posting at half two in the morning. Better get some sleep.
Thought I would try to explain todays race a little because it highlights various races within races.
If you watch the clip below and listen carefully near the start you will hear the commentator say that one of the riders deliberately lost time yesterday - so why did he do that?
The answer is that he and a group of others tried to win the stage today BUT they could only do that if they were no threat to the leaders in terms of time.
The breakaway riders are decent riders in their own right and if they had similar times to those leading the Tour they would not be allowed to get so far in front, the leaders would tell their teams to chase after them and close their lead down until they are brought back to the rest of the peloton.
But if they were already several minutes down on time they were no threat to the tour leaders so they were allowed to go, whilst they kept their eyes on each other lower down in the race.
So in a sense you have two different races going on at the same time - one of a group of riders trying to win the stage and one of the leaders keeping their powder dry for another day marking their rivals further back in the race.
You will start to see similar themes throughout the race where the GC boys are playing a longer game whilst others who are down on their times and thus no threat being allowed to race amongst themselves for the days stage win.
There is also another race with a race going on in the clip over getting points towards the green jersey - Irishman Bennett increasing his lead today by chasing bonus points - even though he is a sprinter and today wasn't a sprinters stage.
Tbh the highlights aren't exciting but they are good enough to use to explain some of the things happening so you can understand what's going on that bit more.
boltonbonce wrote:Cheers Sluffy, thanks once again for the info. Interesting stuff. Started reading a book about Tommy Simpson tonight and got hooked, which is why I'm posting at half two in the morning. Better get some sleep.
I'm a bit of a night owl myself as I don't have work to get up early for these days (through choice I may add)
Tommy's seem as something of a hero to the continentals, not really sure why though? I assume you know how he died, I won't spoil it if you don't but there is a statue to his memory on one of the Tours iconic climbs, Mont Ventoux.
Posts : 31124 Join date : 2013-10-05 Age : 71 Location : Pooh Corner
I like a good sporting biography, even if I'm not up on his/her particular sport. I've always been aware of the Simpson story, and how he met his death, but it's nice to get a sense of the man himself. He was probably the only cyclist I could name back then. Your insights have given me an idea of the complexity of race riding, but my problem with it is, of course, the rather large elephant in the room. Drugs. Can it ever redeem itself? Or is this something they're going to have to live with. I should add that cycling isn't alone in this regard, but it's in great danger of being defined by it. Do you, as a passionate advocate of the sport, get frustrated when people dismiss it hands down? I've been guilty of this myself, but would like to think there's a way back for the sport. Are you hopeful? Or is it going to be a year on year battle to beat the testers?
boltonbonce wrote:I like a good sporting biography, even if I'm not up on his/her particular sport. I've always been aware of the Simpson story, and how he met his death, but it's nice to get a sense of the man himself. He was probably the only cyclist I could name back then. Your insights have given me an idea of the complexity of race riding, but my problem with it is, of course, the rather large elephant in the room. Drugs. Can it ever redeem itself? Or is this something they're going to have to live with. I should add that cycling isn't alone in this regard, but it's in great danger of being defined by it. Do you, as a passionate advocate of the sport, get frustrated when people dismiss it hands down? I've been guilty of this myself, but would like to think there's a way back for the sport. Are you hopeful? Or is it going to be a year on year battle to beat the testers?
People cheat.
Always have, always will.
You see it every time you watch a match, dives claiming corners and throw ins, they know they touched last, shirt grabbing, deliberate fouls, etc, etc.
T happens in cricket, when players don't 'walk', in athletics a whole country is banned for institutional drug taking at the moment, even darts (see 'fartgate').
The only two widely accepted 'cheat free' sports seem to be golf (but some of their clubs seem to test the rules) and snooker.
Footballers have taken performance enhancing drugs for decades - this article is from twenty years ago for example -
I'm not a defender of drugs, like most people I wish sport was clean but we live in the real world where people try to gain from cheating, rather than the ideal world of gentlemen and 'play up, play the game' ethos - the idealistic world of 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'.
I simply take it as part of the package of the world we live in.
As far as I know at the top level of cycling it is clean but you never can be certain - although there's no obvious effects - they are going up mountains at a million miles per hour and not even being out of breath anymore like they used to do, for instance.
It a kind of very perverse way the periodic scandals add very much to the theatre of cycling - and it's the theatre aspect that I like the most rather than being a purist over the sport itself - I certainly for instance don't involve myself in anorak minutiae such as how the bikes set up or even bother with which make of bikes riders even use - it's about all the twists and turns in the story as it unravels through the weeks and months.
I like it for being a soap opera - even though I don't actually follow TV soap operas - as this is 'real' and 'happening' and not pretend and made up.
I would moan how such things would never happen in real life when watching soaps on the telly yet sat rivetted and agog when the various cycling scandals (The Festina affair, Floyd Landis, Armstrong, Michael Rasmussen) all took place at or during the Tour over the last twenty years or so.
One of the five time winners of the Tour Jacques Anquetil is alleged to have said some fifty years or so ago - You can ride the Tour on just Perrier water!
Worth a look at some of his other quotes attributed to him too -
Anquetil was a very shall we say 'interesting' character and if you may like to just have a read of his private life and involvement in drugs from his wiki bio -
So in summary I wish the drugs were not there but I can't be sure they aren't. I believe the sport is clean at the top - but who really knows for sure? I take the scandal when it happens as a positive - at least they are trying to do something (does everybody really believe Mo Farah was drug free all those years for instance - British Athletics certainly didn't!) and as I say it makes for splendid theatre - and after all isn't that why we watch sport - to be entertained.
That's the reason I do anyway.
How did you feel after this which won us the game against Blackburn for instance?
Rhetorical question - just trying to make people think about cheating to gain an advantage over others.
Posts : 31124 Join date : 2013-10-05 Age : 71 Location : Pooh Corner
I remember that pen, and I was convinced it was legit. Then I saw it back. I suppose you take things like that as just part of human nature. Drugs on the other hand is where the money is, and not only do they threaten sport, they threaten lives as well. Money talks in all sports, and winning is paramount, so the days of the corinthian spirit have passed, but I'd like to think a flame still burns. I'm hopeful a time will come when the testers are infallible. The technology is surely coming. Until then, I suppose the cynics will nod knowingly. Thanks for all the info though. There are a few names in there I'm going to read up on.
I remember as a youngster players having injections so they could play in the clubs next match - that was taking drugs - so which drugs are legal and which aren't?
Wiggins took an 'illegal' drug but with legality due to a health exemption BUT the health exemption was shall we say bogus in order for him to take the performance enhancing drug in the first place?
He went on to win both the Tour and an Olympic gold that year as well!
And - as far as I know it was the same sort of drug (at least has a very similar sort of name) as the ones footballers were having injected in to them back in our generation - cortisone injections - and the one I put the link up on my previous post from twenty years ago about how they were detrimental to health.
Is Wiggins a national hero or a drugs cheat? Where footballers having cortisone injections to stay in the game and make their money or doing performance enhancing drugs at the time?
How many amongst us have not cheated knowingly in some way - I have gone over the speed limit when driving every now and again - not stupidly though - I'm sure we all have, it's part of being human I guess?
People will cheat and sports people will cheat at sports too - irrespective if they make money or prestige from it, they will do it in friendly's with their mates down the park, even if just to laugh about it down the pub afterwards!
I think it is naive to aspire to the perfect world, in order for it to be perfect we ourselves need to be and act perfectly too - and we simply as a species don't - I guess its in our genes to rebel, push the boundary's, survival of the fittest the evolution that as made us to be what we now are?
Professional sports people by definition must be competitive by nature and must always be looking out to improve themselves against their rivals. I guess it's inevitable some go down the drugs path. Most will know exactly what they are doing and the risks associated with it but will do it non the less.
Science will always come up with cutting edge stuff and no doubt if it aids performance and is at that point in time is undetectable, then of course some people will drug cheat.
It's certainly not what should be happening but it IS the real world and simply cannot be denied that such things happen and always will do.
People lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, bully, unfaithful, feckless and God knows what else all the time - and that's just some of the people we all probably know/met/worked with/mates down the pub/etc.
Why should sportsmen be somehow be deemed to be on a higher pedestal than the rest of us?
That's just idealism I'm afraid, they all have feet of clay like the rest of us have.
Enjoy the moment, enjoy the theatre and know it means nothing more than entertainment. It's all a game when all said and done and as I've said before I even reckon life itself is just the same to a great extent - even that doesn't add up to much in the scheme of things does it - so why get so het up over anything much really - that's my philosophy, and it seems to work just fine for me.
Although I've not read it I can imagine you would enjoy the book by British cyclist Vin Denson called The Full Circle.
Here's his wiki bio - in which he talks about Simpson's death.
Posts : 31124 Join date : 2013-10-05 Age : 71 Location : Pooh Corner
I think sportsmen are on a higher pedestal because we put them there. They're doing something we can't, for whatever reason, do ourselves, and we want to project everything that's good and decent onto our surrogate self. Silly really, because they're no better than us as human beings, and fall victim to the same demons that plague us all. Yet if they fall short of a standard few of us could sustain, we topple them with alacrity. I suppose that's the imperfect world we live in, and, as they say, we can like it or lump it. I should say that I myself have never cheated at sport, but I did it regularly when Johnny set his quizzes. All in fun of course. He knew the score.
boltonbonce wrote:I think sportsmen are on a higher pedestal because we put them there. They're doing something we can't, for whatever reason, do ourselves, and we want to project everything that's good and decent onto our surrogate self. Silly really, because they're no better than us as human beings, and fall victim to the same demons that plague us all. Yet if they fall short of a standard few of us could sustain, we topple them with alacrity. I suppose that's the imperfect world we live in, and, as they say, we can like it or lump it. I should say that I myself have never cheated at sport, but I did it regularly when Johnny set his quizzes. All in fun of course. He knew the score.
I've never cheated at sport either, I even walked at a critical time in a cricket match when given not out even though I knew I'd nicked it - the opposition even clapped me off although I wasn't too popular with my team mates but so what, its me that has to live with my actions not them and I've always been more comfortable in myself in doing the right thing when I can.
I don't go along with putting sportspeople on a higher pedestal because they can do stuff we can't - there's loads of people in all sorts of professions that can do that - doctors, nurses especially these days but how many of us had even heard of people like Whitty and Van-Tam let alone idolised them?
It's more to do with the cult of 'celebrity' to my way of thinking - they're famous for simply being famous - who really cares why three old footballers are no longer commentators on Sky or what the likes of Lineker says on twitter?
I don't but plenty do and for why - they were once good at kicking a ball???
We get what we deserve they say - I've just seen the list of the contestants for Strictly - why on earth would I or anyone want to know how good or bad a dancer they are? Far beyond my comprehension - ballroom dancing isn't even popular in the real world ffs!
It's all false and manufactured to me - players 'image' rights, endorsements, sponsorships - being in the public eye - is simply kicking a ball better than the next man worth such exaltation?
I don't believe so - but my view doesn't count for much.
It is what it is though, this is the world we've decided to live in - sportsmen are valued in financial terms more than doctors and nurses who save lives.
Kesara sara I suppose.
Another good win for Wout today - probably showing he's taken over the mantel from Sagan as now the best all round rider in the world.
The old guard is making way for their successors it seems and I look forward to the future and watching the cycling world change once again.
Home
