Paris-Roubaix Femmes, 2021 - Oct. 2nd

[Leinster]

Is it also sexism (or is it ageism) that is the underlying reason for the male juniors not to do it?

Is it not sexism to treat the elite women the same as the junior men?

C’mon everyone, stop complaining about an obstacle 90km from the finish of the race and focus on the progress that we’re even having this discussion.

 

[King Boonen]

The juniors are not the elite male riders, just like the elite female riders are not the elite male riders. By your logic neither does the route of the elite men's race have any relevance.

You can feel whatever you want to, it's as logical as feeling that the route of the juniors is lazy and dismissive and ageist.

Comparing the elite level of the two sexes seems completely appropriate, especially when we are talking about possibly the most iconic part of the route, and this is not the first time we have seen the women’s route of what is supposed to be the same race omit parts of the course. They are the pinnacle of male and female competition. ASO made the choice to omit it. Their argument was that it would appear too early in the race. That’s very easily rectified, the can arrange women’s one days races of up to 160km (that’s 20km longer than allowable for juniors) and that extra distance could easily have been used. This wasn’t forced on ASO, they made the choice not to include it and their argument doesn’t hold up based on that scrutiny.

I'm finding @Netserk 's parallel between sexism and agism quite appropriate.
But that's only because the sexism remark's inadequate, thus making the agism reference a fitting analogy for the false argumentation.

If the girls show they can handle the course and it proves manageable in all aspects, but ASO continues avoiding Arenberg in the coming years, then I'll start complaining.

Why would ASO choose to omit the most iconic sector of pavé if it wasn’t either because they don’t think the women’s peloton can cope or they couldn’t be bothered to organise a longer route that could include it?

 

[King Boonen]

Is it not sexism to treat the elite women the same as the junior men?

C’mon everyone, stop complaining about an obstacle 90km from the finish of the race and focus on the progress that we’re even having this discussion.

We can start on the prize fund next…

 

[sir fly]

Comparing the elite level of the two sexes seems completely appropriate, especially when we are talking about possibly the most iconic part of the route, and this is not the first time we have seen the women’s route of what is supposed to be the same race omit parts of the course. They are the pinnacle of male and female competition. ASO made the choice to omit it. Their argument was that it would appear too early in the race. That’s very easily rectified, the can arrange women’s one days races of up to 160km (that’s 20km longer than allowable for juniors) and that extra distance could easily have been used. This wasn’t forced on ASO, they made the choice not to include it and their argument doesn’t hold up based on that scrutiny.



Why would ASO choose to omit the most iconic sector of pavé if it wasn’t either because they don’t think the women’s peloton can cope or they couldn’t be bothered to organise a longer route that could include it?

'Cause it's the first time they're arranging it in this shape. There's no feedback at all.
There were sectors in the men's version that waited for approval too, I'm sure.

 

[King Boonen]

'Cause it's the first time they're arranging it in this shape. There's no feedback at all.
There were sectors in the men's version that waited for approval too, I'm sure.

If there’s no feedback why leave it out in the first place?

 

[Netserk]

There's a greater athletic difference between the elite men and the elite women than there is between the male juniors and elite women.

Different groups are different. Shocking. You'd almost expect different pelotons to generate different levels of revenue. Maybe that would even have an impact on the prize sizes ...

Is it not sexism to treat the elite women the same as the junior men?

As in degrading the juniors? I'm quite sure Evenepoel was faster as a junior than any woman has ever been.

 

[sir fly]

If there’s no feedback why leave it out in the first place?

You're trolling a bit, aren't you?
... from the very beginning.

 

[King Boonen]

You're trolling a bit, aren't you?
... from the very beginning.

No. Why do you think they shouldn’t include it?

 

[sir fly]

No. Why do you think they shouldn’t include it?

Go a page back and read there if it isn't clear enough on this page.

 

[King Boonen]

Go a page back and read there if it isn't clear enough on this page.

It would be early because ASO chose to make it that way. It would arguably be much more iconic to have the Arenberg sector as the first sector in the first edition of the women’s race.

 

[Bonimenier]

It would be early because ASO chose to make it that way. It would arguably be much more iconic to have the Arenberg sector as the first sector in the first edition of the women’s race.

Don't you think a full fresh peloton flying onto Arenberg as first sector is unnecessarily dangerous?

 

[sir fly]

It would be early because ASO chose to make it that way. It would arguably be much more iconic to have the Arenberg sector as the first sector in the first edition of the women’s race.

But should it ruin or skew the race in any way, would be lame to lament and exclude it in the next edition.
It's better (and safer) to keep it as an improvement option.
Better in both sporting and marketing sense.

 

[King Boonen]

Don't you think a full fresh peloton flying onto Arenberg as first sector is unnecessarily dangerous?

1) It didn’t need to be the first sector, that argument was more because of the course they chose, but 2) No. we’ve seen large groups reach Arenberg plenty of times and get through fine.

 

[Bonimenier]

1) It didn’t need to be the first sector, that argument was more because of the course they chose, but 2) No. we’ve seen large groups reach Arenberg plenty of times and get through fine.

Those large groups already rode 160km so there is a natural selection of those who still have the legs to battle for the first positions. And even then we have seen lots of crashes. Hardly comparable with a full peloton of fresh riders where I would expect even more chaos.

 

[King Boonen]

But should it ruin or skew the race in any way, would be lame to lament and exclude it in the next edition.
It's better (and safer) to keep it as an improvement option.
Better in both sporting and marketing sense.

Nah, the same argument can be made about plenty of incidents in men’s racing. We still have bunch sprints in GTs for example. The base assumption seems to be that there’s likely to be a big incident so leave it out. I think the base assumption should be there likely won’t be a big incident and including it is better than not.

 

[King Boonen]

Those large groups already rode 160km so there is a natural selection of those who still have the legs to battle for the first positions. Hardly comparable with a full peloton of fresh riders.

We’ve seen big groups fight to enter first, it still thins out because the riders have no choice. Unless the assumption is the women aren’t able to do that, I don’t see this as an issue, especially as the average speed entering it would likely be lower in the women’s race. The break of the day may also have been established if it were just roads and no cobbles beforehand.

 

[sir fly]

Nah, the same argument can be made about plenty of incidents in men’s racing. We still have bunch sprints in GTs for example. The base assumption seems to be that there’s likely to be a big incident so leave it out. I think the base assumption should be there likely won’t be a big incident and including it is better than not.

ASO opted for "better safe than sorry".
I would too, considering there's a responsibility for the riders and business to manage.

 

[Bonimenier]

We’ve seen big groups fight to enter first, it still thins out because the riders have no choice. Unless the assumption is the women aren’t able to do that, I don’t see this as an issue, especially as the average speed entering it would likely be lower in the women’s race. The break of the day may also have been established if it were just roads and no cobbles beforehand.

That doesn't really address my post.

 

[King Boonen]

That doesn't really address my post.

I don’t see any other way to address it. No, I don’t think it would be unnecessarily dangerous.

 

[King Boonen]

ASO opted for "better safe than sorry".
I would too, considering there's a responsibility for the riders and business to manage.

Surely that’s an argument for dropping bunch sprints and mountain descents from GTs too?

 

[sir fly]

Surely that’s an argument for dropping bunch sprints and mountain descents from GTs too?

If there's a history of accidents, sure.

 

[King Boonen]

If there’s a history of accidents in bunch sprints..? Yeah, we’ve got that covered.

 

[Leinster]

Y'know what? The men's PR didn't even include Arenberg until 1968. I'm ok with the women's edition holding off on it for a year or 3.

 

[Bonimenier]

I don’t see any other way to address it. No, I don’t think it would be unnecessarily dangerous.

Fair enough, although I disagree. In the men's race there are always ton of accidents on the first sectors, so it seems logical that there also will be in the women's race. So it doesn't sound like the best idea to start with the sector they enter with the highest speed to me.

 

[sir fly]

If there’s a history of accidents in bunch sprints..? Yeah, we’ve got that covered.

In concerning proportion.