2020...2021 Olympic Women's Road Race, Tokyo, 137 KM

Page 24 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The assumption on that has to be that it’s the one sport where the men’s and women’s events are held concurrently. Since I was a kid, watching Wimbledon was always about watching Becker vs McEnroe in one match, and then Graf vs Navratilova the next.

It’s why it worries me when I hear the UCI/ASO saying the women’s Tour can’t be held same day/same routes as the men’s. It’s almost like they’re being set up to fail and not get the viewing numbers/clicks that they would if they were sharing podiums, finish lines and, most of all, coverage.
If they run as suggested, then I'm not too concerned as they'd be running the format that I personally actually had hoped for. I had thought the best way around this would be to have an annual start on the Champs Elysées, with a prologue while the guys are clinking champagne glasses, before they arrive, so they can then present the first maillot jaune after the men's race finishes and before the awarding of the final maillot jaune for the men's race, and sell it as an 'if you haven't had enough of your cycling fix, continue to watch same place, same channel for the women's Tour' package that you have to pick up if you want the Tour coverage. It also gives a bit more certainty to the calendar, rather than rendering most of July off-limits to privateer organisers who cannot guarantee that La Course won't just move head to head and affect their break even potential.

I've said my piece about why I think ASO is doing this now, however, while the Giro is weak as their organisors are struggling to compete so they can "win" as their race obviously would be starting up without the history that the Giro has so if they came in before now their race wouldn't be the automatic #1 stage race and they're only interested in playing if they're going to 'win'. And, perhaps more importantly, because their pet project the Dakar Rally had been making huge losses but has now been shored up by Saudi oil money; I think they'd been trying to avoid taking financial risks in their cycling portfolio while the Dakar was losing money, shoring it up with the profits from Le Tour, but now that it's a bit more secure I think they've got more freedom to expand in cycling again.
 
Sad to see what happened today, not good for woman cycling actually… but the winner deserves to win, very strong performance.
10 minutes for the break was way to many for such a route… so it’s everyone else mistake.
I dont know how this is not good for cycling. An unheralded amateur wins. The Dutch powerhouse screw up. There cant be better publicity than this. This can get more amateurs interested. The other possibility would be AVV/other dutch wins. Meh. that is what has been happening for god knows how many years.
I would also say that this race is the poster child for reducing team sizes and increasing the uncertainty and the suspense.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Olympics is the Olympics and goofy results happen. But this is a good example why race radios are needed in real races. It's pretty dumb when an event is decided by lack of information and its a deterrent to sponsors when you add too much randomness.
 
Olympics is the Olympics and goofy results happen. But this is a good example why race radios are needed in real races. It's pretty dumb when an event is decided by lack of information and its a deterrent to sponsors when you add too much randomness.
I strongly disagree, that is basically road cycling. My only concern with banning race radios is that in our times where spectators have access to all infos all the time it could become unfair if radios are banned. But this "lack of information" is actually the natural form of bike racing, while being informed (and fed and everything) all the time by a car behind is in my eyes more a mistake in the design.
 
Reactions: Volderke and sworks
Of course other teams wanted and counted on the Netherlands to chase or was of the opinion that they were the ones supposed to bring the gap down. That was their chance on winning with tiring some of the Dutch team. If they help they lose, because then it would have probably been an empty goal to score in for the Dutch.

Sometimes you gotta be willing to lose to win, if it makes sense.

And if the Dutch sacrifice a couple of their riders and brought the gap down earlier. AVV probably wins this, no problem. So who lost the most and had anything to lose? The Dutch.

The others should feel no responsibility or remorse for not helping. That was their chance on winning. Making the Dutch spend energy. Mind you, AVV would have probably won anyway. But the chances for someone else at least becomes higher in the peloton by making them do the work. Now the Dutch just refused until it was too late, so congrats to the winner!
 
So what if everyone had known that Kiesenhofer was out front. Given the situation with 40km left (let's charitably assume that thereafter they were only told the gap to Plichta/Shapira) and the strength of Kiesenhofer's ride, what was the likelihood of her being caught? Did the peloton have the legs, and tactics, to make up another 1'15" ?

Are we talking a change in the result, or just saving Van Vleuten face from a false celebration.
 
Last edited:
Olympics is the Olympics and goofy results happen. But this is a good example why race radios are needed in real races. It's pretty dumb when an event is decided by lack of information and its a deterrent to sponsors when you add too much randomness.
The underlined part is bit of a knee-jerk reaction. It would make some sense to question the sensibility of holding one particular race without radios, when they can use them in every other one. In fairness, the same formula applied to men too, and they had no major issues with handling a different flow of information during the race.

In no way can womens ORR used as an example of no race radios leading up to too random racing. Firstly, the teams here were smaller than required if the right balance between control and unpredictability is concerned. This was further excarberated with three major favourites being in the same team. With four-women team that left the Dutch short of domestiques when other teams were understandably reluctant to work with them.

In addition, Kiesenhofer was so strong that even in case of understanding that she's still out in front, the Dutch should probably have used at least two of their riders up for their chase to be successful. Them having so many big name leaders, I'm not sure the required cohesion as a team and willingness to sacrifice themselves for teams success was there in the first place.

So to sum it up, I think that the lack of race radios was a comfortably low hanging fruit to crab to explain the major screwjob specially the Dutch team had. The bigger reason for overt randomness of the result (at least for some people's liking) was too small size of teams which was excarberated by uneven distribution of pre-race favourites between teams and relative unfamiliarity of riders and DS's with racing without race radios.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
We need to understand that most of the cyclists in the RR have committed years of sweat and hurt to achieve an Olympic Medal - Of course it hurts when an 'amateur' flukes a victory with a limited preparation.
That's cycling, there are no guaranteed results. I can understand some of the top women who are up there in every big race being disappointed, but anyone who sees this as unfair or a fluke is a massive loser. We're not talking about immature juniors here.
 
We need to understand that most of the cyclists in the RR have committed years of sweat and hurt to achieve an Olympic Medal - Of course it hurts when an 'amateur' flukes a victory with a limited preparation.
I don’t think Kiesenhofer’s preparation was limited. She prepared very thoroughly, did a lot of research regarding the potential of overheating, and she studied the course and prepared her tactics.

I would say the Dutch were very much unprepared to do anything more with regards to preparation than select 4 strong women and hope for the best. Quite amateurish.
 
Yeah, I only saw Cille congratulating her.
It is very easy to assume that the only thing that happened while a live TV feed was coming from where she sat post-race is the only thing that happened there. Did Kiesenhofer say that she was snubbed by everyone other than Uttrup, or indeed that anyone wilfully ignored her?

I didn't see anyone other than Rivera chat to Niewiadoma after the race: does that mean nobody did?
 
Reactions: Monte Serra
It is very easy to assume that the only thing that happened while a live TV feed was coming from where she sat post-race is the only thing that happened there. Did Kiesenhofer say that she was snubbed by everyone other than Uttrup, or indeed that anyone wilfully ignored her?

I didn't see anyone other than Rivera chat to Niewiadoma after the race: does that mean nobody did?
No, Kiesenhofer hasn't said that she was snubbed, not by Van Vleuten at least.
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/laflammerouge16/status/1419589006375985154
 
I strongly disagree, that is basically road cycling. My only concern with banning race radios is that in our times where spectators have access to all infos all the time it could become unfair if radios are banned. But this "lack of information" is actually the natural form of bike racing, while being informed (and fed and everything) all the time by a car behind is in my eyes more a mistake in the design.
Natural and informationless is fine if you want to be an amateur sport. But not OK if you want sponsors to invest millions of Euros into it.
 
From the race. It seems that maybe the organizer has some accountability in not providing proper information on the situation to the riders and the riders themselves struggling with communication amongst each other. You put those two faults together and you probably get the outcome that we got.

There are variables here that you could speculate on. Because if they get all the information on the situation. The Dutch probably starts chasing earlier and they catch everyone. AVV probably wins because she is the best and strongest rider.

Instead it looks like a major screw-up by the Dutch, because there was another rider ahead. I cant totally blame them either if they just didnt know. Going by what they thought they knew, they won the race. Mission would have been accomplished no matter what the race was like.

Human mistakes all over the place (which make it seem unprofessional) and unfortunately has casted a shadow on the whole race and the winner, who just deserves to be celebrated.
 
Reactions: Kaptain Kool
I don’t know. Politics.
What time slot during the day? Do you want them to race after the men or in the morning? I don't think they'd get live coverage while the Tour is on.

So what if everyone had known that Kiesenhofer was out front. Given the situation with 40km left (let's charitably assume that thereafter they were only told the gap to Plichta/Shapira) and the strength of Kiesenhofer's ride, what was the likelihood of her being caught? Did the peloton have the legs, and tactics, to make up another 1'15" ?

Are we talking a change in the result, or just saving Van Vleuten face from a false celebration.
The gap came down fast in the end, but 1'15'' is a lot to make up. Maybe they would have been able to catch her in an ideal scenario, but giving how little they did to contain the break before that, I don't think they would have been able to ride all out as a team even if they knew (at that point).
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
What time slot during the day? Do you want them to race after the men or in the morning? I don't think they'd get live coverage while the Tour is on.
Huh? I dont understand your response to this, nor what I should respond to it.

The reason why they probably dont race at the same time, as someone else suggested they should do, I said probably has to do with money and politics (as I would say coverage and tv-slots falls under).

So you should ask that poster who didnt think it would be a problem.
 
Kiesenhofer has been very popular over at PCS.

Rnk.RiderTodayYesterday▼▲
1KIESENHOFER Anna30338180▲30158
2VAN VLEUTEN Annemiek5251923▲4328
3CARAPAZ Richard295714439▼11482
4AYUSO Juan2920629▲2291
5LONGO BORGHINI Elisa2429723▲1706
6PLICHTA Anna2354310▲2044
7VAN AERT Wout22808076▼5796
8VAN DER BREGGEN Anna22311123▲1108
9SHAPIRA Omer2024322▲1702
10VOS Marianne1961872▲1089
Huh, that's only a 168 fold increase.

Her wikipedia page view stats show a daily average of 3 in the three months up to Saturday, (and even that was skewed by 25 and 17 the two days before the race ) to 77493 yesterday. That's 4558-fold.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
What time slot during the day? Do you want them to race after the men or in the morning? I don't think they'd get live coverage while the Tour is on.


The gap came down fast in the end, but 1'15'' is a lot to make up. Maybe they would have been able to catch her in an ideal scenario, but giving how little they did to contain the break before that, I don't think they would have been able to ride all out as a team even if they knew (at that point).
Yeah, looking at how little time AVV gained on her when she tried to go solo it would have been pretty hard to catch her after giving her such an advantage.
This was a bit like giving Quaade or Martin Toft Madsen (when he was still riding for a CT team) a 10min advantage.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY