I haven't read all the posts so it's possible that some of the things I'm gonna write about the whole "stage shortening topic" might have been posted by others already. Anyway...
I think at first it's important to make clear that the whole discussion isn't as easy as some are trying to make it look. At least, we don't know if it was. If the weather forecast was "there is a 50% chance there will be snowfall so bad on the Pordoi and Fedaia that the passes become entirely unraceable" it was the right decision to shorten the stage. Even if there was only a 20% chance I'd argue it was a legitimate option. Both from an entertainment standpoint and a marketing standpoint it's very reasonable to say that you'd rather certainly have a good stage than maybe not having a stage at all. The problem is that once the riders start the climb of the Fedaia there is no turning back. You either race the original route or you have to cancel the stage.
Now I don't know how bad the forecast was. To be honest my guess is it wasn't that bad, since in that case the decision of which route they take wouldn't have come down to the opinions of the riders and teams. And that is what annoys me so much.
Listening to teams and riders seems sensible at first and it gives people a very easy argument to justify the shortening.
"Oh you are just an armchair cycling fan who has no idea what it's like to race under these conditions. You don't understand how hard that stage is and what those riders are going through. You'd endanger them just for the show. Who are you to think you know better..."
But that's besides the point. The problem is that while I'm not the guy to judge whether a race can go through, the riders and teams most definitely aren't either. Because while my opinion might be biased, whose opinion could be more biased than theirs? The problem is that 90% of the peloton, maybe even more, had absolutely no f*cking interest in riding a 200km long mountain stage today anyway.
I ask you this, if today had been a sunny day with 20° Celsius, how many riders still rather would have raced the shortened version? Probably about half the gc riders cause they are better on short stages. Most stage hunters won't mind if they have to be in the break for two hours less, the riders going into the break to support their teammates even more so. And all the sprinter teams and guys not good in the high mountains will definitely prefer an easier stage. Ineos knows that Bernal excels on hard mountain stages, but then again, he is already leading the race and a lot can happen on the Fedaia and the Pordoi. They rather won't take the risk and ride the shorter stage.
And those are the people you are gonna ask about whether a stage should be shortened or not? You think Giacomo Nizzolo has a more objective and unbiased opinion than a random fan? It's like asking a worker if he'd rather go home 2 hours earlier but get paid the same. Of course he's gonna agree to that, you don't have to love your job to do it, but does that mean it's a good idea for the company he is working for?
The reality is, cycling fans live for days like these, when riders blow up left and right, everyone is at their limit and you can see how tough it is in the athletes faces. Does that make it more fun for the riders? Definitely not. But if we cancel that part of the sport then why have the sport altogether. A huge part of why freaks like us love cycling so much is because it brings athletes to their absolute limit and simple one climb, 100km watt fests in sunny weather are not gonna do the job. It's not iconic. This stage was supposed to be and as brutal as it ended up being anyway we will never know how all of this might have panned out over an extra 60 kilometres.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram