From: bhilden@bigriver.Eng.Sun.COM (Bruce Hildenbrand)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Subject: Re: Rule Change for 1993: Lapped riders not eligible for primes
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:26:12 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigriver-248

In article <1992Oct15.032426.3946@leland.Stanford.EDU> roadman@leland.Stanford.EDU (arthur walker) writes:
>Bruce Hildenbrand thinks that if you're lapped by at
>least as many as place in each remaining prime and
>finish sprint, you oughta be outa there.  If it's a crit
>instead of a points race.  Tough luck for the flashy
>mega-sprinters who detonate after winning the crowd
>prime or just can't hang with the all-arounders or
>who miss the fat break that laps the field.
>
>Well, that's what he thinks.  It comes from his 
>conception of what bike racing is all about, I guess.
>
>Here's what I think.  I think crits are for crowds.
>Crowds want to see high speed sprints; they don't
>want nelson vails or his 90s equivalent precluded
>from contesting these sprints because his legs 
>turned into blocks of lead for a couple of minutes
>after a big prime sprint.  So let them see their
>sprints, if it makes them a bigger economic unit
>for the sponsor's advertising; "good for the sport"
>and all that.  And forget what the Europeans do;
>bruce is The Expert on moving the discussion across
>the pond to jack up his Relative Level of Authority.
>So make the crowds happy and let those gutless
>sprinters who never did suffer in training but just
>lucked into the right parents continue to think 
>they're Real Bike Racers. 

I guess we can deduce from Art's attitude that he was never
in a postition to lose substatial financial reward in a
race by sprinting for a big buck prime with riders that
had specifically sat up and rested a few laps.
Or, maybe he is one who has lined his pockets with money
gained by sitting up a few laps and "beating" riders who
have ridden every lap of the race.

Mr. Walker's idea that we should not penalize riders because
they might tire out and get dropped is simply ludicrous.
With that logic, why have any laps at all, why don't we
just line everybody up about 100 meters from the finish
line and say go!

Of course, we should have an appeal process in case somebody's
legs "block" up in the first 50 meters.  Boy, it would sure
be unfair to penalize somebody if they could not ride the
whole 100 meters without tiring.

I will now shift the discussion overseas and assume my
Supreme Level of Authority.  Mr. Walker obviously knows
very little of European cycling or he could easily have
strengthened his argument by pointing out that a lot
of smaller professional criteriums(especially the ones after
the Tour de France) are "fixed".  The winner, or group
of potential winners, is determined beforehand and the
race is really a show of speed and finesse to excite the
crowd.  This is the "good for the sport" show that Mr.
Walker desires and I agree that it is good for the sport.

However, in these criteriums(or kermesses as they are called
in Europe) the prize money is equitably split between all
racers before the "show" starts.

My main gripe with the system described in the original
posting is that by allowing racers to sit up and rest
a few laps then sprint for primes, you are not equitably
handing out prime money.  You are, in fact, doing an
injustice to the racers who have trained hard and are
by the fact that they are on the lead lap, in the best
form.

As I said before, I think it is unfair to take money
away from the leaders of a race and give it to other
racers who have not performed as well.  I don't see this
happening in any other sport, why should we do this in
bike racing?

I will restate my original example and say that one year
at the Coors Classic, I witnessed the Italians sitting
up and resting a few laps, then getting back into the pack
and sprinting for primes that reached almost $1000 in value.
Is there anybody out ther in net land that thinks this is
fair?  If so, why?

Bruce