Mara Abbott in Pink!!!!! (Hey Guys)!

[Dr. Maserati]

On this one at the end. CN does better then Velonews true, and I don't hold Velonews up in the highest regard, although I would prefer Velonews as the forerunner. They have been around since 1972, I just wish they cover more women's cycling here. Actually the one I hold in the highest regard here is the Daily Peloton. They do a lot of women's racing with Bart Hazen and Vaugh Trevor is very much a supporter of women's cycling, cause I know him personally. The Daily Peloton is without a doubt the best news source for women's cycling in America I can think of, although Podium Insight has been extremely good for the women in the last two years as well.

Your quote from above...... "In America...."

The reason I quoted this post is it is a response to my post.

I'm sorry but you have confirmed my initial suspicion - your view is not about coverage of ladies cycling or the Giro Donne, it is a nationalistic viewpoint - which will ebb and flow on Americans success.

If your view is on a better representation of ladies cycling then it might be better to offer constructive arguments and solutions on ladies cycling as a whole - as opposed to selecting which race doesn't get coverage because of the nationality of the winner - did you express this frustration last year?

I am European, not American - CN is a global site for English speakers - Velonews & PZ are US sites, I rarely visit them.

I support your view that ladies cycling should be given a higher standing in the sport and its reporting - but I have yet to see an argument from yourself on why that should be so except on the 'historic' win by an American athlete.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

short answer is almost no one watches female sport of any type (excepting tennis)

athletics? swimming? heck, even track cycling - the women's races are watched just as avidly by the fans as the men's from most of my recollection. Basically, any sport in which the events for men and women are concurrent, the viewership for women is closest to parity.

you can argue till you are blue in the face that it is as exciting as men's racing... but the viewership number simply don't bear that out

sorry, but the quality of the event and the viewership numbers are NOT related, i.e. you cannot use the viewership to judge the excitement of the event. You can use it to judge the interest in the event, but not the excitement of it. You're on a cycling forum where the majority of posters believe that the Giro d'Italia provides a better quality of racing than the Tour de France. But the Tour de France is the one with the much higher viewership. The Monaco Grand Prix draws bigger numbers than the rest of the F1 calendar because of its historical and traditional prestige, but the circuit doesn't allow for overtaking and more often than not the race is a procession.

Sometimes there are women's races that are boring. There are a lot of men's races that are boring too, but because more people know about it and are invested in the characters, the names involved and so on, they can become more emotionally invested in the race. To whit, a seriously exciting race with no atmosphere because none of the fans care who wins, or with few fans, will not seem as exciting (because of the lack of atmosphere) as a race in which little happens but people are emotionally attached to the protagonists.

Unfortunately, for many reasons, some of which I accept and others of which I disagree with, people aren't following women's cycling closely enough to develop any attachment to the characters beyond "oh hey, that Liz Hatch is hot, right?" (for the record, there are others I prefer). Which is counterproductive. I wouldn't begrudge Liz anything she does - after all, she's a lowly domestique much of the time, and those guys are ignored and underappreciated in the men's game, so what it must be like for the women I just don't know; she would say, not without justification, that any publicity is good publicity so why not? But at the same time, it only reinforces the idea that women's sport is for ogling the ladies and not for taking it seriously as an athletic competition, which makes it difficult for the races to be taken seriously. It's only if people are willing to become emotionally interested enough to pick favourites, riders they like and riders they dislike, that women's racing can develop.

The women are also in a chicken and egg situation; they can't build a fanbase without having the TV exposure (when race websites are slow and unreliable, and it takes ages using twitter, cyclingfever, podiumcafé and other sources to slowly piece together results, that's an amount of effort that many are unwilling to put in), but what TV exec is going to take a punt on something which could be described as niche at best?

 

[BBRoberts]

Bbq

the race gets no coverage because no one ALMOST no one cares about woman's cycling.

the entire point of watching athletic completion is to see feats of strength, agility, endurance, or ability FAR above and beyond what you are able to achieve yourself

since even professional women racers are barely faster than even fat/masters/catIII weekend warrior type males... what's the point?

perhaps it is of interest to other female bike racers; but that is about it.

G. Jensen is mentioned in this thread; even at the height of her (epo fueled) 'dominance', her TT times could barely top those of Cat III and Cat II american men (amateurs).. Much less the professional men's peloton...
same thing goes for leatherface Longo

short answer is almost no one watches female sport of any type (excepting tennis) because it's a little lame to see 'professional athletes' who perform no better/faster/longer than men who fall into the weekend warrior category.

you can argue till you are blue in the face that it is as exciting as men's racing... but the viewership number simply don't bear that out

No one cares because no one knows. You got to have a solid format before anyone cares or takes interest. You made points about feats of strength, agility, endurance, or ability, etc, and we know what shortcuts men are taking at the pro level to attain this, so the women are at a huge disadvantage cause you don't see a massively doped women's peloton to achieve those feats you boost. Since men are stronger then women, this is a double whammy for them since they don't dope. It makes men look like gods and women look much less then goddesses.

However, no finer example then Mara Abbott winning the Stelvio today, and she is a superb climber. How many men in the whole world could keep up with Emma Pooley and Mara Abbott on the Stelvio? Not many, I can assure you, not many. You got to put this sport in the proper context for women. How many men in the whole world can out sprint Ina Teutenberg? Not many, not many!!

The best pro women are as good as cat-2, some even cat-1 at times, but some of the specialists are also good, very few men in the world can beat them. Races are not just about speed, but about race tactics and many women races now are very fast, right from the gun. Women races are sometimes faster then men's races cause the format has changed. Did you not notice that the women passed the men last year in the Liberty Classic? They had to tell the men to allow the women to race by them cause the men were going too slow!

Things have changed, women's races are much faster now, shorter but faster. The new format was intended to make women's racing more exciting, and it is. Leather-face Longo as you say, is incredibly fast for someone over 50. I doubt very few men in the world could beat her, that are 50. I've been to tons of races and I don't believe fans care so much if it's men or women. If the race draws top women that can give a good show, at least our fans have been very supportive of their races and enjoy them very much. It's just big media won't carry it cause it's locked into the massive media models from Lance and company, and they refuse to look at any other models. I know it's not true, cause I have seen women's races locally grow from no interest many years ago to even more interest then the men's races in a five year period, and that came from local support. Local people getting out there and putting a face on their events. Fans, fans always love a good fight on the bike, no matter if it's men or women.

Jeanson would have been a great champion, no matter if she doped or not.

No one watches women's sports? Well tennis and ice skating is very popular, but in cycling believe it or not, there are millions of fans of women's cycling worldwide, they are just not all in one place! They are the unheard voices, a brother, a sister, a mother, a father, there are millions out there who follow women's pro cycling.

I don't buy that men's pro cycling is all that exciting anymore. I quit watching it many years ago cause it was all fake, massively doped riders doing those so called super human feats. The non stop relentless doping scandals has turned me off bigtime to men's cycling and I was a big fan when Greg was winning. Things started to go south for me after the Festina Affair, but I still watch the TDF cause it’s a culture event, very well done and scenic with nice side pieces and profiles.

The media is who I blame 100 percent for the sexual bias toward women. It lies nowhere else, not with the fans, not with the riders, just the media. That's mostly what needs to change. When that changes, then you start to see fairness across the board. Viewership is based on what viewers are being fed, and if they get a balanced diet, it will also be a healthy medium as well, instead of this bizarre culture we are locked into now.

 

[BBRoberts]

simple reply

Your quote from above...... "In America...."

The reason I quoted this post is it is a response to my post.

I'm sorry but you have confirmed my initial suspicion - your view is not about coverage of ladies cycling or the Giro Donne, it is a nationalistic viewpoint - which will ebb and flow on Americans success.

If your view is on a better representation of ladies cycling then it might be better to offer constructive arguments and solutions on ladies cycling as a whole - as opposed to selecting which race doesn't get coverage because of the nationality of the winner - did you express this frustration last year?

I am European, not American - CN is a global site for English speakers - Velonews & PZ are US sites, I rarely visit them.

I support your view that ladies cycling should be given a higher standing in the sport and its reporting - but I have yet to see an argument from yourself on why that should be so except on the 'historic' win by an American athlete.

No, not really. Yeah Mara Abbott is our champion, but I like Emma Pooley tons, she is really tops in my book. I used to be a great climber, and climbers like Abbott and Pooley get my blood boiling. It's because we got two pure specialists climbers in this tour that makes it so great. Mara winning with Emma would not be very exciting, but with Emma, it's a blockbuster! I just wish someone had really covered this race for us in a big way, those two riders certainly deserve it as does Vos, Guderzo, etc. I am actually a huge fan of Italian riders, always have been. If an American is not very good, then I don't make a fuss over them, but clearly it looks like Mara Abbott has proven she is the best climber in the world today, and that is something to brag about.

I'm not really a big Lance fan. Heck, I think Greg was much more entertaining to watch, but there are tons of riders I fancy, like Pantani. I've got a lot of friends in Italy, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands I can tell you any rider that proves herself is a winner in my book, be it American or European. Like I said, I am not against British sites having a slice of the media pie, I just wish women got better coverage over there. Here, we are trying very hard here I think, at least Vaugh, Bart and Lyne have done a good job so far. I wish Velonews would do more, but their track record has never been very good.

You should know that British sites get a large amount of traffic or hits from the USA readers, so we make a big difference and we should have a voice in what content is being broadcasted. I have been expressing my frustration for many years about the lack of coverage in women's cycling, and I am just one person. Can't do it all, just a voice in the wilderness. However, I believe I done my bit to help, in fact much more then that over the years.

It wouldn't matter if Emma Pooley won, I would still push for better coverage of the Giro Donne because it is the premiere stage race in the world for women.

 

[Skip Madness]

Geneviève Jeanson's "domination" was, besides being EPO-fuelled, largely North American. She didn't achieve a great deal in Europe, with the exception of the Flèche Wallonne. Even so, her record time up Mount Washington beats many of the men's winning times, and was not that far off some times by the likes of Tyler Hamilton and Tom Danielson.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, not really. Yeah Mara Abbott is our champion, but I like Emma Pooley tons, she is really tops in my book. I used to be a great climber, and climbers like Abbott and Pooley get my blood boiling. It's because we got two pure specialists climbers in this tour that makes it so great. Mara winning with Emma would not be very exciting, but with Emma, it's a blockbuster! I just wish someone had really covered this race for us in a big way, those two riders certainly deserve it as does Vos, Guderzo, etc. I am actually a huge fan of Italian riders, always have been. If an American is not very good, then I don't make a fuss over them, but clearly it looks like Mara Abbott has proven she is the best climber in the world today, and that is something to brag about.

I'm not really a big Lance fan. Heck, I think Greg was much more entertaining to watch, but there are tons of riders I fancy, like Pantani. I've got a lot of friends in Italy, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands I can tell you any rider that proves herself is a winner in my book, be it American or European. Like I said, I am not against British sites having a slice of the media pie, I just wish women got better coverage over there. Here, we are trying very hard here I think, at least Vaugh, Bart and Lyne have done a good job so far. I wish Velonews would do more, but their track record has never been very good.

You should know that British sites get a large amount of traffic or hits from the USA readers, so we make a big difference and we should have a voice in what content is being broadcasted. I have been expressing my frustration for many years about the lack of coverage in women's cycling, and I am just one person. Can't do it all, just a voice in the wilderness. However, I believe I done my bit to help, in fact much more then that over the years.

It wouldn't matter if Emma Pooley won, I would still push for better coverage of the Giro Donne because it is the premiere stage race in the world for women.

Ok, again I have replied to your post that was a response to mine.

I am sorry to be blunt about this - not only I am not American, I am not English or British - my nationality is irrelevant, I am a cyclist.

If your argument is the lack of coverage in ladies cycling then nationality should have no bearing.

Mara or Emma - good luck to them both, they are both superb athletes who deserve respect and recognition for their efforts - not because of their nationality but because they are cyclists.

 

[Freddythefrog]

bizarre culture

No one cares because no one knows. You got to have a solid format before anyone cares or takes interest. ...

...The media is who I blame 100 percent for the sexual bias toward women. It lies nowhere else, not with the fans, not with the riders, just the media. That's mostly what needs to change. When that changes, then you start to see fairness across the board. Viewership is based on what viewers are being fed, and if they get a balanced diet, it will also be a healthy medium as well, instead of this bizarre culture we are locked into now.

+1
Then ask yourself - why are we locked in this bizarre culture ? Does the culture then draw in more "moths" who are incapable of changing the culture from that which is totally unacceptable in other parts of our society, into one that mirrors the majority of our society ? If the answer is "yes it does", one then needs to address how the shareholders get ethics into their business model that they would want to see meeted out to their own wives, girlfriends and daughters, in their working lives.

And the shareholders have a straightforward question to ask when looking in the mirror. The return on your investment that is a punt that you make because you want a return on your investment that is bigger than in a bank savings account - are you entirely happy that it is achieved at via a suppression of females that, if it were to happen to your wife/girlfriend/daughter, would send you into the stratosphere. Select from these 2 options - "Yes I am going to do something, I have a conscience" or "no, let the suckers go to h*ll. If they are dull enough to attempt a break in at the boys club, let them learn the hard way. Sport isn't anything about "fairness"".

To the Mayor of BBQ - Take the vote off them. In fact don't let them have bank accounts or allow them to own property. Too stupid, too weak.

 

[BBRoberts]

Nationality

If your argument is the lack of coverage in ladies cycling then nationality should have no bearing.

Nationality does have a bearing by default, it's not my bias choice, just the way it is. America had Lance for men, and Kristin Armstrong for women, plus tons more of USA women who have dominated both the Worlds and the Olympics. By the same token nationality has a bearing for the UK, they have Nicole Cooke and Emma Pooley. No one could argue that the biggest countries for cycling don't have a bearing, they do, mainly Italy, UK, USA, Australia, etc.

Personally though, I don't have a bias overall in cycling although I support USA team and USA riders. FYI, my biggest women's heroes in the history of cycling are all from Italy, and parts of Europe, none from the USA, cause my heroes are the climbers. I am sorry to say I don't have any USA heroes on my list. The closest would be perhaps Dede Barry or Amber Neben, but actually I would have to say today it's Mara Abbott hands down, but no one will ever top Fabiana Luperini and she is an Italian. If I had a bias, it would the Italian culture, I'm totally in love with it.

The lack of interest in women's cycling mystifies me. Even though the men's pro peloton has been massively doped for years and EPO scandals are as numerous as people getting busted for spitting on the sidewalk, it hasn't effected big media interest to cover men's pro cycling it seems in the slightest. They don't care about that, only about profits and it's a massive machine that seems to overshadow doping even in the extreme. That's tell me not only is this cycling culture bizarre and twisted to the extreme, but probably not a healthy thing to have your kids aspire too.

However the women race clean, and while that's morally correct, media have zero interest. What does that tell you? This is a sickness in the media where their only motivation is profit. I'm not talking about CN right now, I am generally talking about TV coverage worldwide. Internet is really secondary, TV is first level, and commands the most attention and viewership dollars, so the problem starts there.

I just think it's a world big media never explored or cared to even look at. The pro women worldwide are a lot fun to work with and watch. They usually give you a good show and your money worth. They are very cool looking in lycra and some are very attractive, some of the big stars like Tiffany Cromwell or Rochell Gilmore, there are so many others. I just think the women could really grow into the hearts and minds of the public if big media would give them a chance. I'm betting they could rival Tennis or Ice Skating, but they just need to be given a chance. We know men will always dominate the scene, and it appears doping doesn't seem to matter at all with the media, but it would be nice if the women could get at least half the attention and coverage the men get. That would be for starters reasonably fair. Right now, I've been looking at the data and numbers for years, and the almost total blackout of women's pro cycling is absolutely ridiculous. I just can't believe it, but that's the way it is.

 

[Skip Madness]

I'm very happy for Abbott, who demonstrated once more on the two biggest stages that she's a superb climber and a highly deserving winner. Arndt, Guderzo and Vos all rode better than I expected. Valdarno really came good over the final few stages and wound up with three riders in the top eight. Olga Zabelinskaya's very strong ride also bodes well for her future.

I've also become a fan of Evie Stevie over the past year and am glad that she took her stage in such style. With another season at the top level I hope she'll be closer to competing for the overall next year.

 

[BBRoberts]

Final GC

Vos, Arndt, Guderzo rode better then I expected as well, however I knew Arndt was always a excellent climber for a big rider. She used to burn up the road in the Grande Boucle during the mountains stages. Emma Rode well, Mara rode better! Emma flatted, but doing the math, it doesn't appear it made any difference. Mara still would of won, but Emma might have been on the podium if it wasn't for the flat.

Tut's 4 stage wins is admirable for a rider near retirement. That's a nice going away prize. I knew Stevens wouldn't factor into the big climbs with Mara and Emma, neither Claudia but I have to say Claudia did pretty good all things considered. I think Mara Abbott proved she is the world's greatest climber, but at the same time, I admit we would need several of these contests to say absolutely Mara is the best. I like to see Emma and Mara in some more battles to come on the big category climbs. However, I just feel Mara is the better athlete and pure climber. Truly Abbott is a machine, and she rides clean!

 

[BBRoberts]

+1
Then ask yourself - why are we locked in this bizarre culture ? Does the culture then draw in more "moths" who are incapable of changing the culture from that which is totally unacceptable in other parts of our society, into one that mirrors the majority of our society ? If the answer is "yes it does", one then needs to address how the shareholders get ethics into their business model that they would want to see meeted out to their own wives, girlfriends and daughters, in their working lives.

And the shareholders have a straightforward question to ask when looking in the mirror. The return on your investment that is a punt that you make because you want a return on your investment that is bigger than in a bank savings account - are you entirely happy that it is achieved at via a suppression of females that, if it were to happen to your wife/girlfriend/daughter, would send you into the stratosphere. Select from these 2 options - "Yes I am going to do something, I have a conscience" or "no, let the suckers go to h*ll. If they are dull enough to attempt a break in at the boys club, let them learn the hard way. Sport isn't anything about "fairness"".

To the Mayor of BBQ - Take the vote off them. In fact don't let them have bank accounts or allow them to own property. Too stupid, too weak.

True life isn't fair in general, and sports, often very unfair!!

 

[BBRoberts]

Story for Freddy the Frog

Once I went to a race with the president of a certain high profile bike club, which had hundreds of members. She was a climber and a very good one at 50+ years of age, and beautiful looking more like 30 instead of 50. Irony of this... What was interesting is that while she rode with many guys and gals who raced and just regular weekend warriors, etc., she basically like most people only saw professional cycling in terms of the Tour De France and the Tour of California. While she must of known women race bikes in the back of her mind, it never hit home until she went to her first pro women's road race with me. A few days later when we got into our 3rd stage, it finally hit her, she has an Epiphany.

She said to me, oh my God, I never knew this existed and I never knew this could be so interesting and exciting. Women can race bikes and it's really cool, and I never knew this was going on and that it was ever like this. I said "you know women race at the pro level don't you?" She said well I guess I did, but I never knew it could be anything like this! This is so cool, those women are really, really fast and they are really good!

Irony...

She was the president of a major bike club, yet she had no idea that women could race bikes at the pro level like the men can. She came away from that event shaken, but not stirred enough to become anything more then to continue her position as the president of that bike club, which isn't bad mind you since she holds down a day job. However, the irony is women's pro bike racing is like a secret, and I guess if it is very professional or exciting then no one should know about it. At least that's the way big media sees it, keep a damper on it.

For the average fans and other presidents of various bike clubs, more then likely they have no idea either. Locally, we served up healthy portions of pro women bike racing for many years now, and finally now, finally its very popular here locally. I think grass roots support is the other key element besides big media. However, if we can't get big media on board sooner of later, it's hopeless I think. I had read Edita's Pucinskaite blog where she said the UCI had promised to televise all the World Cup women's races next year.

Ah, don't hold your breath on that one, but miracles do happen sometimes!

 

[Freddythefrog]

Reply for BBR and Greg

Thanks BBR. I could come out with some tales, but perhaps the most annoying thing relating to all this, is spending ages working very hard getting some TV/press people involved, who then do one or two stories and then give up. Suddenly they are no longer at their desk and will "get back to you, later". When/if I get them in a spot where I can really ask and get proper honest responses to questions about why they gave up, it boils down to lack of concurrent feed. Journos go on web sites like this or magazine based sites or even buy the magazines and see nothing or low quality material about the women's side of the sport. They then draw the conclusion that rather than "uncovering a hidden gem", they have been taken for a fool and sold a deal to cover something that does not exist. Basically - if it is proper sport - CN or magazine X would cover it properly - they do cover it, and they read the coverage, but it is written and presented in such a condescending and negative manner that it must be "housewives go cycling at week-ends". If that is what the specialist journos, thee ones who really know about cycling think, then why should I try and swim this cause against the tide ? - is their view. Take Pro-Cycling in the UK. It might as well be called Men Only Pro Cycling. It does nothing to cover the women's side of the sport. The collateral damage damage consequent on the editorial policy of this and other similarly styled magazines, is staggering. Set against that back-drop, every initiative I have attempted, or observed others attempt, has fallen back to how it was before. Traction cannot be gained.

I repeat, given that the current CN output on women's road is now c. 50% of what it was 7 years ago and the premier status in the English speaking world of this site in terms of Cycling News, current prospects are even worse than before and the demise of many major events for women can be firmly laid at the feet of those with editorial control in the cycling specific media.

That is why I backed up your statement that the main thing that has to change right now is the media. Not the total media but the editorial direction of the specialist media is the key element. Anything other activity, no matter how honorable or how well executed, is doomed because of that drag weight.

Greg you want a starter. Go to your Board and tell them you want to bring Editorial Policy in line with their published employment policy document - ie equal opportunity. For that you are going to have to spend some pennies for several years that will not be proportionate to hits per page. Tell them that you will be doing this for several years because for several years the monopoly position this site has gained, which has advertising revenue spin off advantages, has acted in a highly prejudicial way to the interests of a significant minority group. As a responsible board they need to spend for sometime to make good that disadvantage it has exercised for many years on a specific group of competitors. It is pay-back time.

They don't want to do it - you know where you stand. Carry on as at present. We can all sit back and do nothing - because nothing is worth doing - it will have no effect. Laura can run her women's team on a shoestring for the next 10 years and in 10 years time it will all be in the identical position it is to now. Oh it will have gone through 3 or 4 sponsors who sign up, dewey-eyed that they have seen something good and with potential and they will have left thinking - "that cycle sport - what a weird business. A bunch of little frightened boys on the throttle levers who just won't let go".

If the Board do want to do it - Now you are going to promote your coverage of women's races. Select some events and advertise that you have selected them. Tie in this coverage with this well hidden secret let out by Edita on her blog that the UCI have some deal to get TV coverage out there for all the women's World Cups. Throw in the Giro, Tour du L'Aude, Thuringen and perhaps a series of races stateside. The Geelong Tour would have been another great race to do good but that died back to zero due to lack of media coverage.

In the close months of the season start your campaign. 15 weeks before the 1st World Cup, produce 30 articles so that 2 articles go out per week. 10 top riders, 5 newbies, 5 event histories, 5 team profiles and 5 stories about where women's cycling has been and where it is going. Good, high quality, articles of which CN is capable of producing. If A journo does not buy into the plan don't ask him to participate. In the UK we have listened to Hugh Porter and Phil Ligget commentating on women's events. The criticism is not even subliminal at times. Only use people who want to do it, not anyone who thinks they were on the lottery winners list and won the consolation prize. Come the event get two riders, pre-race interviews AND follow up with those identical riders' views after the race, say 3 or 4 days after the event as well as perhaps just a couple of quotes after they crossed the line. Have one a newbie and another an old hand. Go out of your way to get news stories. Transfers, teams for events. Interview managers put their views on the news stories.

Come the event, for all these you have committed to follow, have a live commentary like you have for major men's races - [Jeepers just how insulting is the live Fleche (typical) coverage that pauses for 2 lines - "the women's race has just finished, we think Vos won". 5 minutes later "I can now confirm the 1,2,3 in the women's race, Vos, Cooke, Arndt". - That is so huge an insult. Does the numpty typing it not understand how offensive it is?]
After the event do what you generally do well right now - get a good number of quality photographs up and a good story. But don't settle for a single rider or team-manager's take on how the race went and call it "job-done". Get the view from several and then, in the days following the event put out some quality analysis, interviews with riders and look ahead.

I could keep typing with more ideas, but I think it is a waste of time. Things are getting worse on the women's scene and this year that has particularly been the case with events lost and lack of quality coverage on this site and elsewhere.

I re-iterate. Tinkering at the edges is a waste of space. It needs a deliberate editorial policy, sanctioned for support, at board level.

Somewhere (I cannot find a link - somebody posted it in another similar thread elsewhere) there exists a picture of the 1987 podium in Paris. Two riders both in yellow jerseys, Longo and Roche together. 23 years later and that would not be a prospect in the mind of the most wildly optimistic proponent of women's cycling. In 2010 we mourn the first year without a Women's tour with the long serving organiser screaming "foul" against the press and the UCI as his show was rendered unviable.

As you stated BBR - the main thing that has to change is the media. At the moment it is no level playing field and the market is rigged. Normal rules do not apply.

 

[BBRoberts]

Return to Froggy

That's awful long and I can't reply in full right now cause my eyes have been hurting lately from working on covering a race for women, but let me respond quickly. I saved your thoughts to a file, not wasted.

This thread at the link below is still active and has been allowed to flow freely at CN. It has 140 pages and running. I'll post page 140. It's a sexist thread basically showing women as nothing more really then women as sexy chicks on bikes. What this does is play into the stereotype that women are good for podium girls and girls that have cute butts on bikes, but don't take them seriously as professional bike riders. This works well for the male dominated pro racing crowd, they love this stuff.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=2133&page=140

This is part of the problem at CN. You get little solid coverage of the pro women but they allow stuff like this to run rampant. I posted a solid non-sexy photo of a pro road women in one of these pages to break in and throw a wrench into this disgusting stuff, and CN removed the photo if you can believe that! That tells me a lot about CN. It was not sexy I guess so it had to go! It's true, they removed the photo, I checked and checked and checked, it's gone, removed!

This thread is buried in here now, nobody is reading now, it's just you and me so I am sure CN won't mind too much now. CN also is the most prolific site in covering doping scandals now for many years, IMO. Spinoff forums from CN like rbr have been completely taken over by doping threads for many years now. While this is touted as a doping free discussion forum, the irony is they have been probably the biggest contributor of feeding a steady stream of doping articles to fans and cycling forums. It is any wonder fans are mostly male and obsessed with doping scandals? It's the biggest food group on their plate they been fed for years now. That is why I said the readership culture is sick, bad diet.

In articles for instance, like referring to Rico's girlfriend they are condescending or subordinate towards women. Instead of referring to her in the first person because she is a pro cyclist, which by the way I believe she was cleared of those charges of doping, they refer to her as Rico's girlfriend. This kind of stuff, reporting like that makes women the subordinate of men in pro cycling. That's pathetic, women need to always be referred to directly in the first person when we are talking about pro cyclists, and Rico's so called girlfriend has been a pro cyclist for a very long time!

Begging sponsors for money won't work in women's cycling. Women haven't seemed to figure that out yet. While Peanut Butter is somewhat breaking out of that mold, it's still basically the same thing as Jackson is doing. They will still have to keep begging for money year after year. That's the wrong answer cause these are basically charities, there is little return on the investment. Trying to convince anyone that there will be a return in this climate is dishonest and a bad idea. Don't try to fool investors. I've got a better idea, although it's not really mine at all.

Nicole Freedman went to MIT. She's smart! Get someone onboard like Nicole Freedman and build a business model, a company, a business which sells products or services, and I am not talking about some nickel and dime chump change thing like selling cycling clothes or jerseys, stuff related to cycling. Take for instance the guy who started collecting plastic liter soda bottles from the trash dumpsters and then started filling them with worm poop and selling that for fertilizer. I think he started with little cash and now he is a millionaire many times over.

Nicole Freedman…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us6fJNCk1q0

That's my point. Get somebody smart like Nicole Freedman and build a solid business for profit, but whatever you do, hit a homerun with a brilliant idea that the worm poop kid did. Once you got your own profits, then you no longer have to beg sponsors for money and force pro women to go on casual rides with the CEOs of that business while they stare at your butts. That's disgusting and degrading to pro women cyclists.

Once you got a highly profitable business, now you can sponsor your own team, be your own boss, choose your own calendars, make your own jerseys and call the team whatever name you want without plastering some companies names all over it, like prostitutes from the bordello. Get a good business model, turn your own profits and go from there. I think Highroad was the best name of a women's team I can think of cause it didn't mimic the name of some company but gave the illusion of something truly related to cycling, and that is the Highroad, which reminds fans of the chemistry of the mountains. That was the best name I can remember in recent times.

Cheers Froggy, I have to go make Tacos!

 

[BBRoberts]

A bit more Froggy

I would to add one more thing quickly Froggy.

Everyone I know including myself have been guilty of promoting the cutest or sexiest looking girls to put a face on women's cycling. It was not a conscious choice per say, that's just part of the business, and we can't let them down. For years many sexy women have spiced up the peloton including Liz Hatch, Tiffany Cromwell, Rochelle Gilmore, Lynn Gaggioli, Odessa Gun, Emilia Fahlin to name only a few. It was never intended to give them an unfair slice of the pie.

What's going on is women's cycling desperately needs all the help it can get, and when we see someone who can add much more to cycling then it will ever return to her, we take full advantage of that. That's just the way it is, not the way it should be. Alison Starnes gets a fair amount of attention as a beautiful tall blond, and we cover her. Liz Hatch gets tons, and it's not fair, but the sport is so out of kilter, that everyone i know in the business will cover these girls whenever given the chance because it's no secret this is a way of serving and building readership. I agree it's a bad model, and in the end what really counts is athletic performance, not how sexy or cute riders are. Unfortunately sex sells, and I wish that was not predominate in women's cycling.

What I see as a balanced model would be something where we use the cutest or sexiest women as side profiles to highlight and spice up the race for TV audiences and the readership, but then actually render the bulk of the serious attention and coverage to the best athletes and winners. That would work in my opinion. Right now what we got is women like Liz Hatch getting all the attention and the best women like Mara Abbott get nothing. That's bad, not good, not good!!

I think women can use their sex to better their status if done correctly in the media along with the top athletes and winners. The problem is a lot of the time the top riders and athletes are not always attractive to the public, I mean like Tomboys or sort of like Butch Boys. It's after all women's cycling and they are very attractive in lycra. The idea to make it sexy like Ice Skating or Tennis in the likes of Anna Kournikova is not a bad idea when you have someone who can really add to the sport like Emila Fahlin. Emila gets more hits then Cavendish on the HTC website and Modesta Vzesniauskaite gets 6 times as many hits as all of the HTC women, so go figure.

The problem and solution is to build a model that highlights the most attractive women, and then give the closing and serious segments to the top athletes and winners, cause when it comes down to it, that is what cycling is about, the top athletes and the winners. It just takes a good media model, which if marketed correctly, all camps will prosper.

 

[BBRoberts]

a footnote

Here's a footnote for today...

The only women's pro race I know of to covered in it's entirely this year on national TV is the Tour de Toona. It's not even a NRC race, but I know the guy who is soley responsible for bringing this about. It should be either 60 or 90 minutes, covering all stages with highlights and possible profiles, he usually does a good job. The problem is, not his fault, it's likely not to have Emma Johansson or Emila Fahlin or any top stars to give it a boost for TV audiences. While it's nice attempt to put women's road racing on the map, it's hard to say if it will draw international talent. The course are good with the Blue Knob coming at the end for a big climb, the prizes, very good. However it's likely to be only consisting of domestic talent, and a few riders from Canada.

Tour De Nez or Nature Valley have recieved very marginal coverage in times past for women. Tour De Nez got two five minutes segments on Versus last year.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Of course it will always be a problem about women's sport that, as sports have traditionally been a very male pastime, and the majority of sporting authorities are run by and for males, there will be an attitude where the sporting achievements of the women are subordinate to their marketability, and of course their appearance is a key part of that.

This, despite expectations, does affect male sport too, but to a much lesser extent. Sporting goods can advertise their products using the big stars regardless (see the likes of Wayne Rooney and Ronaldinho advertising for Nike), but somebody like Thierry Henry gets the benefit of being able to rake in the sponsorship money for sporting goods (send message: this product is useful for your achievement and sporting excellence) but also the benefit of being able to market various health, hygiene and beauty products (send message: this product will not only make you successful, but good-looking too!). Why is that? Because Thierry Henry is perceived as being an attractive guy, while Rooney and Ronaldinho aren't.

This problem is multiplied manifold for women. Even in those sports where they DO achieve some modicum of equality of presentation, attractiveness features into the perception of the competitor. Hence why Anna Kournikova is more marketable than, say, Kim Clijsters, despite Kim being a much better tennis player. You have to be really impressive to achieve the same level of recognition if you aren't blessed in the looks dept. - but there is nobody out there who has heard of Kournikova but hasn't heard of the Williams sisters.

There are flip sides to the coin for women's sport as well. Many of the people I discuss cycling with are female. But while they can watch the sport and fangirl over various male riders and I'll think nothing of it, I'll feel like a sexist jerk if we're looking through stuff from a women's race and I mention that I find, say, Anna Sanchis quite attractive. The fact that they know full well that I have an interest in women's cycling above and beyond the material viewpoint of the riders' appearances is no object; because of the way women's sport has been presented and perceived for years, there's almost an onus on the men who follow it to prove themselves innocent of the pervading sexism. I will add that this is self-inflicted however; none of the people I discuss the sport with have ever made me feel uncomfortable about following it or about finding any of the riders attractive; nevertheless my absolute favourite riders are not ones inducing any kind of crush.

When you look at the women's péloton, it's interesting to note that the education level of many of the riders, when compared to their male counterparts, tends to be much higher, even amongst the crême de la crême. Emma Pooley fits her cycling around a PhD, for example, while Christiane Söder left Cervélo at the end of last year because she'd been offered a prestigious scholarship position; the laissez-faire attitude to further education on the continent (take as long as you like as long as you can afford to live - take one or two Scheine a semester if you like, and fit it around work, you get your degree when you've amassed enough Scheine) allows them to maintain their cycling career and still make enough money for a post-cycling career, and even forces retirement from cycling simply because there's more money to be made in their academic roles. It seems that the goals and expectations of the sporting glory are rather lower...

 

[BBRoberts]

Return to Seguros part -1

It's both been a male past time and a women's past time dating back to the very beginning, in fact women led the way. They were first to put on races with single unicycles and such way back before the tour, before cycling was the biggest sport in American. This is accounted for in history books, but there are some recent accounts here in a pdf.

http://cyclingintro2.webs.com/CyclingIntro5b.pdf

Since Baseball took over and became more popular then cycling and since the advent of the TDF, it has become a much larger male dominated past time. Sports in general, perhaps although I have not studied the root of all sports. There is an attitude of women being looked upon and treated as subordinate to male sports mostly as the status quo entrenched models, which have existed for decades. However also there is a gender war going on, just like there are class wars, upper and middle class, which with the gender wars it's men and women. Much like the upper class holding 99 percent of the wealth, same hold true in cycling, and they are not likely to relinquish that lead.

Top ten men or thereabouts are paid millions of dollars to race at the pro level. Women on the other hand, their top ten get paid almost nothing. I would be ashamed to admit that the top five women in the world probably don't pull in over 50k a year if that, probably much less in salaries. Middle and bottom women pros getting almost nothing. With prize money, a bit more, but still not too hot! Used to be in that so called golden age, not really all that golden, between 2000 and 2005, top women were getting as much as 100k or more, but very few were getting it. The rest much less. Missy Grove I believe was the only rider to hit six figures, but she was the exception. So, there is also a gender war going on between men and women on many levels.

Look at Lindsey Vonn? She a beautiful blond and she got plenty of press and million dollar endorsements? What did Nicole Cooke get for winning back to back Olympic Gold and the World Championships? Nicole Cooke got probably almost nothing compared to Lindsey Vonn. Kristin Armstrong got chocolate Milk endorsement, not too good, not for someone of her status. Unfair? Grievously so, and women are leaving cycling in droves, there is no future in it. On the flip side, and this is kind of weird, there was and has been for years a big increase and swelling in the ranks of women's cycling in the USA. What's up with that? It's a big country, 300 million, plus women are into the social scene. Cycling is way to see the world, travel if they get on a pro team or the national team. So there is a big turnover with teams, musical chairs.

However women's cycling is in a crisis, and if it keeps losing races and structure in the current organizations, it will eventually disappear to the point of be back in the mid 90's when women's cycling in the states was little more then social gatherings. I used to go to these races, in fact I was at some of the first races held for women in many well known events and I can tell you these races were often nothing more then social gatherings. However since 2000, team tactics have improved a lot and socializing during a race is pretty much gone now in the short fast classics because of the speed and pressure to perform, but it still exists in stage races where they won't pull riders off the back. I've seen it even in the really big classic stage races, still exists today. That needs to stop that because lots of women will flock to these events for the chance to socialize while racing, and bike racing should only be about bike racing, they can socialize later. Besides, it makes then look pathetic. If riders can keep up, then they should be pulled, IMO. It's not a scenic tour! It's a bike race! This country is filled with a huge number of older women who are still allowed to keep racing in the pro ranks year after year. I think new young riders should be encouraged and built up like the AIS does, we should not allow some of these dinosaurs to keep coming back unless they are really good. It's only fair, you know? Certainly Van Gilder should stay if she wants, but some of those others should go, IMO. They don't belong in a pro field in a premiere event, IMO.

Olympic coverage of women's cycling is pathetic, and the Worlds not much better unless you live in UK. Eurosport covers it well, but Versus does not, not sure if Universal Sports will this year. TV coverage is pretty much non existence for women pros.

 

[BBRoberts]

Return to Seguros part -2

I find your perspective on how we view women's cycling and how others view us as well view women's cycling interesting. This has not been discussed. Yes, there are some complicated problems here. Part of the problem is women don't support women all the time in their sport. A lot of women support the men pros and they google eye them and pay them homage instead of their own gender. This is a problem, and I don't think that will go away. Obviously too top pro women like to hook up with top pro men cause they make all the doe. So their priorities are not to put women's cycling on the map, but to meet a rich cycling dude and hook up like Lynn G did and so many others have done. This plays into the men's game, not the women. How many pro men go to and pay homage to women's pro races? Almost zero!! I saw Indurain one time at a race for pro women, but it's very rare. You might have a few podium guys called in like this year they got Bettini for Stelvio, but these guys normally will not attend and support women's cycling. They are paid to do these presentations.

Also there is a huge amount of lip service out there. You can ask almost any pro man and they would say they support women's cycling wholeheartedly, but the reality is it's only lip service cause they will do nothing in real terms of supporting it. You get the same from race promoters who say they firmly believe in women's cycling but yet they put all their press and money into men's events. It's just a big lie, and everybody pretends to support it while very few really do anything worthwhile.

However, they way we view women's cycling has been skewed for decades, but that part is actually improving. When I used to go to some old classics, there were a fair amount of guys who came over to the women's podium, but none of them were true bike fans. All of them were ogglers, hecklers, guys that whistle at girls butts. None of them cared about who won, it's strictly a sexist thing. This has changed. Today, well even a few years ago we had less fans at the podium for women but they were real fans who came to see who won and take photos, fans who saw women as pro cyclists, not sex objects. Today, the podium fans have grown considerably for women and they are true fans but the problem is that it means very little without big media to back it up.

Also there is the perception of those who perceive us who cover the races. People have not gotten over the taboo thing yet about women's cycling. I have taken lots of photos where I had to edit out some girl or some guy fan who thought I had alterative motives when I took women's photos and that is while wearing a press pass to boot, so people need to grow up! Its just people have not adjusted to women being taken seriously and they think someone who does, couldn't be and there must be some other motive. I have had many wrecked photos by someone giving dirty looks in the background when you shoot women, just a lot of immature people out there. This prejudice still exists. If a women or a man in the press takes a photo of a male pro rider, there is no problem, but if a male press agents shoots a women pro rider, you always have to deal with ogglers at races standing around getting in the way of a good shot.

It takes years to change this behavior by the general public cause I guess people still see women that should just race in secret and let them have their social gathering, but don't cover it. I even heard people say they admire the racing stats of some women pros but they try not to look at them too much when they race. How pathetic, what a cop out. What do they do then, close their eyes and dream of their favorite rider? This kind of self righteous nonsense keeps women locked in a box with fans.

Fans needs to grow up, and women need to start acting professional so fans will take them seriously. In our races, finally after many years, the oglers are much less, and covering women pros has become much more normal and accepted. It's expected, and finally it seems here, fans and the press are in sink and certainly our promoters highlight the women. If you have a race that is well known as a place when they throw down the welcome matt for women's cycling where both the city and the promoters, press, etc are really in sink, then women cannot expect anything better except big media and they need to stop herding into the starting line at the last minute like Deer caught in the headlights. For crying out loud, you came to race for the fans!!

Another problem is however, women often don't think anyone should make a big fuss over them. For instance, I am accepted, but yet they tell me they don't want anymore press covering them, just me. I've been around too long, they have to accept me, but it seems they still would likely like to keep women's pro road racing a secret social club, and don't want too much press. This has to change. So neither fans or the women have come full circle yet nationwide. I have heard the Women's Prestige Series has not been the big hit promoters had hoped for. It's complicated and takes time to set things right. Things have leveled out pretty good here, but it's taken five years of work to do it. Really, it's a stigma that can be wiped out by local grass roots support, and can also be wiped out on a massive scale with big media over time. I think covering the NRC series on TV all year long for women would really help take a big bite out of that stigma.

What you say is true about women being highly educated, many are. Soder is a doctor, Thorburn was a doctor. What does that tell you? Add to that women don't start racing as toddlers, cradle to grave like a national past time like in Italy. Here it's more of rehab spinoff from running or skiing, or some other sport. Perhaps they want to race while holding their day job but most women work full time jobs. What does that tell you? That tells you that women's pro cycling is not serious enough yet, nor is it taken seriously enough yet. They can't make a living racing a bike, so most are not likely to rise to a world class level because they are not racing full time. It's still hobby and social club scene thing. While Thorburn was good, it was not a career path for her. You can't make any money riding a bike!

Emma Pooley has PHD, yes, and even Luperini was going to be a Lawyer. The best climber in the history of the world for women probably still has little money from bike racing in her bank account to show for decades of bike racing. Does Lance need a career job? No, will Lance or even the top ten men ever need a career job? NO!! In fact lots of men in the top 100 could probably save enough over their cycling careers to never have to take a career job. For women, not a single one will ever retire off of their earnings except Leontien or Missy Grove I guess, although Missy got in big trouble.

So there are many problems with this picture. If media was better, then more sponsors would support women's teams and then salaries would increase, and women might start riding full time as pros and making good money, but the Olympics coverage and other big races for women must also be covered by the media. In turn fans would become more respectful, and also women would have to start facing the camera and acting more professional instead of some of the catty capricious behavior we see now.

However, as Alison Starnes noted somewhere, things are a lot better for women then they used to be, but we lost a lot since the so called golden age of 2000 to 2005.

 

[Deagol]

it's actually "Giove" not "Grove"


Edit: I agree with much of what you say. I did enjoy the women’s version of the Coors Classic. I also have a sister who races on an amateur team. I was not kidding about taking a working vacation to visit/cover the Giro either. I never thought/implied it would be easy, but neither is my normal job and the surroundings of this cube farm would be no match for the mountains of Italy.

 

[BBRoberts]

Deagol

it's actually "Giove" not "Grove"


Edit: I agree with much of what you say. I did enjoy the women’s version of the Coors Classic. I also have a sister who races on an amateur team. I was not kidding about taking a working vacation to visit/cover the Giro either. I never thought/implied it would be easy, but neither is my normal job and the surroundings of this cube farm would be no match for the mountains of Italy.

Certainly Inga Benedict (Thompson) was a great rider, and a good climber. Longo was the counterweight, but I like Bunki Davis, Tobin and Zack as well. Longo had Canins to deal with, and the Americans had to deal with both of them. Berglung was certainly a head turner. As a teenager I used to shoot videos of the bike races in the USA classics. I was there when some of the first US races were born for women in the 70's. I watched it evolve over the years and into the 90's, and the 90's probably had the best riders in the history of women's cycling, although the level of professionalism and team tactics, better teams came after 2000.

I just think the women today should follow-up and work harder to support their side as a whole, instead of just racing and then leaving straightaway back to their regular lives. There is much they could do in small ways that can help. Heck, to show you just one example of the differences between men and women, I have seen almost fist fights break out over who gets the men's interview with men. Men pros will seek you out and if they don't get an interview, they are often ****ed. Women, on the other hand could care less if they are interviewed or not. They just don't seem to think it's important, or about anything else except racing and then getting the hell out of there!! Women almost never support their own winners at the podium in times past, but that is slowly changing. Used to be they just went home, but now some are supportive of their podium winners and hang around to cheer, regardless if it was a member of their team who won. I was always perplexed by that, cause if you won, how would you feel if not a single pro rider in the peloton hung around to celebrate your victory?

In other amatuer sports, women athletes raise huge amounts of cash to supports their events, riders and teams. I don't see that with women's cycling much. Just women who want to race and then go home.

 

[Deagol]

that is strange .....

 

[Freddythefrog]

Greg, Laura have you read ?

BBR. Those were some very well put together descriptors analyzing the problems. My take on it is they all spin around the media. Get everything in a promotion right and without the media, it will all drop to dust. e.g. Women's Geelong Tour in Aus. Never saw it but spoke to riders who did it several years. should have taken off. Is in fact dead and now there is even a men's race instead !
Greg, I fear that CyclingNews is not going to change. (But you can't believe how much I want to be proved wrong.) My take on it is that nobody is going to do the right thing and stand in front of the Board and tell them what they should do, if they want to look in the mirror and recognize that the person there is decent. However, both Laura and yourself dipped into this thread, can we get some sort of response to indicate you have read what has followed ? My expectations are low. Sadly, I don't think change is on the horizon, despite some of the excellent information you have in this thread.

 

[BBRoberts]

Froggy

Hi Frog, I think this thread had ran it's course. Reason being it's not up to me to keep it alive or provide all the anwsers. I given much more then my two cents. If you notice two things about this thread, not a single pro women has given their two cents in this thread besides Laura, but she works for CN and it's their job to moderate these threads. They are paid employees of CN so I don't count her as part of the readership, although she might have something worthwhile to say. The other thing, quite grevious is that originally this thread was about Mara Abbott in Pink, and while I also posted a link to sign her guestbook, not a single US women pro has signed her guestbook in support. The link to her guestbook has been posted on a lot of other American sites. Well, I take that back, Team Estrogen signed but only after I left a link there for them to follow. However, not a single top level women pro has signed Mara's guestbook. Go figure about the problems with women's cycling.

 

[BBRoberts]

Cookes Dad give his two cents

I just remembered I save this somewhere in a file. It's somewhat interesting. Might be a good way to wrap up this thread since nobody else is saying much. What should be noted although Nicole Cooke's father responds about track cycling being possibly more exciting then road racing, the fact is the coverage of women's track events at the Olympics games were worse then dismal, almost nothing, a few minutes here and there. If you blinked, you missed it! In the 2004 Olympic Games, USA channel devoted 4 hours, the full coverage of the women's road race, the most in history of women's cycling. Since there, coverage has almost completed dropped off the radar. Coverage of the road race for women in 2008 was about a half hour on NBC, but it was sliced into five minute segments spread over the many hours. Who in their right mind would follow that? On the internet, NBC aired the women's road race, but without any commentary, just background noise at the race. How extremely weird is that?

----------------------------------

Nicole Cooke's Father responds to the Kerry Litka's five part blog series, (The Problem's With Women's Cycling)...

----------------------------------

I think everyones missing the point here: yes, women are not as fast as men, but if it was all about speed then we'd all be watching motoGP.

What makes racing interesting is close competition and classy riding, which women are capable off, as the track world cup will testify. Is Anna Meares any worse a rider because she would have her **** kicked by Chris Hoy? No.

Women's track racing is quality but for some reason or other this has not transfered to road racing. This may be because track racing is more interesting than road per se, i can't really say.

For the last couple of days, my odd bit of TV watching relaxation has been the Olympic games. A cracking women’s cross country relay. Apparently the commentator said the pace was electric. A day later a great men’s cross country relay. I never knew the difference between classic legs and freestyle legs before. Again the commentator was eulogising about the pace. Then finally last night, the women’s 5,000m speed skate. Clara Hughes of Canada won bronze. Clara had been part of the very strong team Canada road squad which put world number 1 Anna Millward, Australia, into trouble on the last two laps of Rivington road race course at Manchester 2002. They had her 50m off the back of the break that at one time had, I think it was 5 Aussies in a total of 11. Canada put the hammer down and Anna never made it back on. Clara had earlier won the Time Trial. Nicole had her revenge that day, team or no team, Aussie World number 1 or whatever.

Wind on 8 years - the tension of the 5,000m ice speed skate was great, with the final athlete knowing she had to pull a hell of a performance out on the slow ice (?) and doing so. I didn’t have my enjoyment ruined because the pace of that final heat was XX seconds outside the World record or YY seconds behind the men’s record. I have no idea what those gaps are and I defy anybody to tell me how knowing them would enhance my enjoyment. I could not discern any real difference in the cross country skiing. The story was nothing about the speed or time, it was about the Swedish team making a break as the Norwegian star tried to close 35 seconds up to the 3 leaders on the last lap.

The Swedish skier did the sensible thing and broke away, on the final lap, on his own to win. The other two in the medal positions then dillied and dallied, allowed the Norwegian to catch them up on the final climb, go past them and then he promptly took the "good" route down, whilst going like a snail to get his breath back. I have never seen that before, said a bemused commentator. He is holding the other two up. He has deliberately gone in front of them and now slowed down. Dead right he was. They want to get past, - well then logic dictates they go in the rough snow around him and waste a bit of energy trying to get past him and he speeds up on the good line and holds them there, burning joules– Not likely. He had it sown up. He has the stronger sprint and he now needed a breather to recover before using it. (I wish I could get a job commentating).

Thanks for posting the link, (Problem's with Women's cycling). Lots of terrific comments on the various posts and much straight talking in a manner I have not seen before. As ever, some nonsense to be filtered out.

At one stage the debate gets to a point I never quite moved to making in the thread of a few weeks ago. A sport cannot be serious about attracting women to it when they are so obviously treated as a sub species. You cannot have a men’s kilo and women’s 500m, a men’s 4,000m pursuit and a women’s 3,000m, a men’s 4 up 4000m team pursuit and a women’s 3 up 3,000m. Imagine the closing athletics events of the Olympic games being a 3 x 300m dash for the women and a 4 x 400m event for the men. The UCI regs on stage lengths maxima for women and a cap on 9 days as the max for any women’s tour are more of the same. It is just setting the sport up for condescending and biased reporting of the women’s events by the press. Sponsors know that if they sponsor a women’s event or team they are in the 2nd (3rd, 4th?) division. It is s e x i s m designed into the structure. I will hijack the point of the one author - it may or may not be intended.

We saw it at the Olympics. 5 up men’s teams for the road race, 3 up max for the Women. Cav’s lead out train is going to look a bit thin in London if he had just two other riders, perhaps 1 of whom was there for the long break and is now stuffed. Limiting the men to 3 riders per major nation would not be tolerated. Fortunately the organisers of the CG have a different perspective (motivated by?) and as above, did not cap the women’s team’s at 3 and as described above it lead to a fascinating event in 2002 and then in 2006, Australia went about the job of winning the gold in a whole team manner, beyond anything any of the home nations could muster. Australia achieved their aim.

Apart from an interest in Clara Hughes following from Rivington, she is one of a tiny group of people around the World who have won individual medals at both summer and winter Olympic games. Obviously despite the pride in their men’s ice hockey team, Canada decided that one of those (slow) 2nd class citizens should carry the flag at their home Olympic's opening ceremony, a bit like team NZ had cyclist Sarah Ulmer carry the flag for their nation a few years ago. I don’t know and I am not searching, but I don’t think you will find any shots of Clara Hughes with her kit off.