One of the more famous incidents in LA’s career came in the 2003 TDF when, while riding up a climb, his handlebar caught the strap of a spectator’s musette, bringing him down and giving archrival Ulle a chance to put critical time in him—time that in retrospect might have been enough for Jan to win the Tour. As Tyler reports in his book The Secret Race, he (TH) prevailed upon Ullrich and others to wait for LA in the name of good sportsmanship.
All of this is well known to hard core fans. What I did not know until I read Tyler’s book is the reason why LA got tangled up with this musette. He was purposely riding on the edge of the road, near the spectators, because, according to Tyler, it made it difficult for other riders to draft behind him without themselves becoming dangerously close to the spectators.
This, it seems to me, changes the situation significantly. If the musette incident had been a purely chance accident, I can understand why Tyler might have felt the other riders should wait for LA. It’s something that could have happened to anyone, and if it did, they would appreciate having the others wait for them. But if Tyler is right, it was not purely chance. LA was purposely courting danger for the sake of trying to gain an edge. The very thing that brought him down was what he was using to dissuade other riders from drafting behind him. That being the case, why should they wait? LA was in effect gambling; he made a calculation that the benefits of riding on the edge of the road—not having anyone draft behind him—outweighed the risks, his going down. He lost that gamble; should he not have to pay for that, just as surely as riders afraid to draft behind him would pay for their decision? It's like someone who gambles when buying a stock expecting to be bailed out when the stock does poorly (Big Bank Syndrome).
The honor among racers, as I understand it, does not extend to accidents or problems that are caused by their own actions. LA had no qualms about putting time into Zulle in 99, rationalizing his decision by saying that any rider should have known that there would likely be crashes on the narrow causeway, and therefore should get to the front. Same with Mayo on the cobbles in 2004, and he even had no problem putting time into his own teammate, Contador, on a windy stretch of an early flat stage in 09. For that matter, if a rider takes a descent too fast, trying to gain crucial seconds, and crashes, no one would be expected to wait for him. If taking advantage in those situations is fair, on the grounds that the riders should have known the risks of falling behind, wouldn’t it have been fair for Ullrich to ride away from LA on the grounds that LA knew the risks of riding on the edge of the road?
From here, it seems that LA was guilty of a double standard.
All of this is well known to hard core fans. What I did not know until I read Tyler’s book is the reason why LA got tangled up with this musette. He was purposely riding on the edge of the road, near the spectators, because, according to Tyler, it made it difficult for other riders to draft behind him without themselves becoming dangerously close to the spectators.
This, it seems to me, changes the situation significantly. If the musette incident had been a purely chance accident, I can understand why Tyler might have felt the other riders should wait for LA. It’s something that could have happened to anyone, and if it did, they would appreciate having the others wait for them. But if Tyler is right, it was not purely chance. LA was purposely courting danger for the sake of trying to gain an edge. The very thing that brought him down was what he was using to dissuade other riders from drafting behind him. That being the case, why should they wait? LA was in effect gambling; he made a calculation that the benefits of riding on the edge of the road—not having anyone draft behind him—outweighed the risks, his going down. He lost that gamble; should he not have to pay for that, just as surely as riders afraid to draft behind him would pay for their decision? It's like someone who gambles when buying a stock expecting to be bailed out when the stock does poorly (Big Bank Syndrome).
The honor among racers, as I understand it, does not extend to accidents or problems that are caused by their own actions. LA had no qualms about putting time into Zulle in 99, rationalizing his decision by saying that any rider should have known that there would likely be crashes on the narrow causeway, and therefore should get to the front. Same with Mayo on the cobbles in 2004, and he even had no problem putting time into his own teammate, Contador, on a windy stretch of an early flat stage in 09. For that matter, if a rider takes a descent too fast, trying to gain crucial seconds, and crashes, no one would be expected to wait for him. If taking advantage in those situations is fair, on the grounds that the riders should have known the risks of falling behind, wouldn’t it have been fair for Ullrich to ride away from LA on the grounds that LA knew the risks of riding on the edge of the road?
From here, it seems that LA was guilty of a double standard.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram