The women's road racing thread 2015

[Jonhard]

British cycling has always done rigid thinking. But more justification now for Armitstead to be #1 than ever before, surely. And they do need a TTer.

Pooley would still be a weapon you'd think. With teams so small in Rio, an attacking option would complement a wingman nicely and no one else is really dangerous enough to do that role well.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

Emma Pooley is doing a sort-of return for the TT at Rio, and Shane Sutton wants her to domestique for Armitstead (typically one-eyed view, as usual) in the road race as well. So we will see Emma as a road cyclist in 2016 and the sport is instantly improved.

How is it one eyed? Clearly, nobody would suggest that a Pooley who is fully dedicated to the sport and on top of her game should be a domestique for anybody, but she didn't race in 2015, raced a half season in 2014 and raced for a non-UCI team in 2013. Presumably she doesn't intend to race a serious calendar in 2016 either. It will be five years since she was on a top team, riding a full calendar and two and a half years since she last showed top tier form in a big bike race.

I realise that she hasn't been sitting on the couch eating burgers for all that time, and is still in excellent condition. But triathlons and marathons aren't the same thing. If she was to have a full season back on the road and showed that she still has her old form that would be different, obviously. A comeback focused around the ITT is a better bet - her form as a triathlete should carry over more easily.

After August 2008, British Cycling put as little effort into Nicole Cooke as they possibly could get away with, and everybody except Lizzie on the road has been an afterthought since then. One of their spokesmen even had the temerity to call Armitstead's World Championships win "a breakthrough for women's cycling in this country" as if they hadn't less than a decade earlier had the reigning World AND Olympic champion.

Emma's value to them is as nothing more than Armitstead showed she was to her in the Commonwealth Games. A tool that Lizzie can use. And, knowing Lizzie, blame if it doesn't go according to plan A.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

Emma Pooley is doing a sort-of return for the TT at Rio, and Shane Sutton wants her to domestique for Armitstead (typically one-eyed view, as usual) in the road race as well. So we will see Emma as a road cyclist in 2016 and the sport is instantly improved.

How is it one eyed? Clearly, nobody would suggest that a Pooley who is fully dedicated to the sport and on top of her game should be a domestique for anybody, but she didn't race in 2015, raced a half season in 2014 and raced for a non-UCI team in 2013. Presumably she doesn't intend to race a serious calendar in 2016 either. It will be five years since she was on a top team, riding a full calendar and two and a half years since she last showed top tier form in a big bike race.

I realise that she hasn't been sitting on the couch eating burgers for all that time, and is still in excellent condition. But triathlons and marathons aren't the same thing. If she was to have a full season back on the road and showed that she still has her old form that would be different, obviously. A comeback focused around the ITT is a better bet - her form as a triathlete should carry over more easily.

After August 2008, British Cycling put as little effort into Nicole Cooke as they possibly could get away with, and everybody except Lizzie on the road has been an afterthought since then. One of their spokesmen even had the temerity to call Armitstead's World Championships win "a breakthrough for women's cycling in this country" as if they hadn't less than a decade earlier had the reigning World AND Olympic champion.

Emma's value to them is as nothing more than Armitstead showed she was to her in the Commonwealth Games. A tool that Lizzie can use. And, knowing Lizzie, blame if it doesn't go according to plan A.

If your argument is that British Cycling have treated women road cyclists in general and Cooke and Pooley in particular like crap, I have no disagreement at all. It is completely, indisputably, true that they have done everything they possibly can to ignore women's road cycling and women road cyclists. I don't however think it's fair to resent Armitstead for not getting treated like crap after she wins the WCRR - it's actually a small step forward.

This is a different issue though than the sporting one of whether any rider could reasonably expect be picked for the Rio RR at the end of 2016 as leader without having done a full season on the road since 2012.

Pooley is one of the most impressive endurance athletes in sport. I'd love to see her back on the road in a serious way, but understand why we won't see it - I remember her pointing out that she got more prize money for coming third in some insignificant triathlon in the Philippines than she ever got for winning a bike race. If ever there was a rider with better things to be doing with her time, it's her. But understanding why she won't come back to the road in a serious way isn't the same as thinking that it makes no difference to her ability to be a central player in an Olympic RR years and years later.

(That said, Jonhard does have a point that, given small teams, it's likely that being a "domestique" for Armitstead would as likely mean being used as an attacking threat as plugging away on the front anyway)

 

[Libertine Seguros]

She did plenty of attacking in the Commonwealth RR, when it was planned to be her last race, and Lizzie still gave her the up-and-over without even looking at her, like a piece of used jet trash, no "thanks for the help", no trying to work with her, no nothing.

I don't resent Lizzie for not being treated like trash after winning the WC, however I do resent British cycling acting like it's some step forward, because for them it's only a step forward because it's Armitstead. I resent Lizzie Armitstead because she's a massive moaner who likes to blame somebody else whenever things go wrong and is smug when things go right, and I resent British Cycling for the fact that British Cycling want to present her as a poster girl and put her achievements, none of which Cooke hadn't already done several years earlier, forward as some kind of breakthrough, which they aren't. Quite ironic when you consider Armitstead threw a strop in København because of not being prioritized over Cooke, who British Cycling didn't want to help even when she was begging them cap in hand a few years ago to help when Nürnberger's new sponsors pulled out at the last second.

And also that it's not presented as "she could give us another option", or "she could strengthen our team" or "she could strengthen the British medal winning hopes", it's "she could help Lizzie Armitstead". Pooley's a team player and would absolutely do that job if asked, but plenty wouldn't, and could feel perfectly justified.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re:

I'm getting the impression here that you aren't Armitstead's greatest fan. She may not be a great team player, may have sulked at one race or other, may have failed to gift a race to a teammate you'd have liked to see win, or whatever. Even if she's the worst person who ever lived, she's still the obvious leader for the Brits in the Olympic RR. And while British Cycling have undoubtedly committed many crimes against women's road racing and against Pooley and Cooke in particular, saying that everyone will be riding for Armitstead in that race isn't amongst them.

British Cycling ignoring the achievements of Pooley, Cooke etc was dreadful. Them treating Armitstead's win as a breakthrough for British women cyclists is historically illiterate, but it's better than them repeating their past stance. I can see why it's frustrating for someone who likes Pooley and Cooke and doesn't like Armitstead, but changing things in the future isn't going to involve unscrambling the eggs of the past.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Why not? These women's roles and what they achieved without the kind of support from British Cycling that Lizzie enjoys is kind of part of how she's got to where she is. I don't like Lizzie, no, but I especially dislike the rewriting of history that is being done around her (not by her) in order to present the cycling revolution story that BC wants to present. Lizzie fits the right mould; she can win the "right" races (i.e. Olympics and Worlds RRs, BC doesn't care about any others, which Emma all too frequently can't) and since she hasn't had the bulk of her success despite BC like Cooke, she's less likely to go off message. I have little love lost for Nicole Cooke, believe it or not; she was selfish and hard to work with, but a large part of that was because BC didn't want to work with her either. It's all PR, and it's all nonsense, she's just as selfish as Nicole (PS I didn't expect her to gift Emma the win in the Commonwealths, but she could have worked with her or at least acknowledged her existence after she worked for Lizzie's ungrateful backside all day).

I just really resent that the first thought Shane Sutton has upon hearing a former World Champion TTer and somebody suited to hilly/mountainous races is planning to return solely based on trying to get a medal at the Olympics is, "great, now we've got another high quality rider who can ride for Lizzie". Just like Sky, which of course emerged from the BC umbrella, they're lucky plan A is normally so effective, because plan B appears to be "search for excuse for plan A not working".

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re:

Why not? These women's roles and what they achieved without the kind of support from British Cycling that Lizzie enjoys is kind of part of how she's got to where she is. I don't like Lizzie, no, but I especially dislike the rewriting of history that is being done around her (not by her) in order to present the cycling revolution story that BC wants to present. Lizzie fits the right mould; she can win the "right" races (i.e. Olympics and Worlds RRs, BC doesn't care about any others, which Emma all too frequently can't) and since she hasn't had the bulk of her success despite BC like Cooke, she's less likely to go off message. I have little love lost for Nicole Cooke, believe it or not; she was selfish and hard to work with, but a large part of that was because BC didn't want to work with her either. It's all PR, and it's all nonsense, she's just as selfish as Nicole (PS I didn't expect her to gift Emma the win in the Commonwealths, but she could have worked with her or at least acknowledged her existence after she worked for Lizzie's ungrateful backside all day).

I just really resent that the first thought Shane Sutton has upon hearing a former World Champion TTer and somebody suited to hilly/mountainous races is planning to return solely based on trying to get a medal at the Olympics is, "great, now we've got another high quality rider who can ride for Lizzie". Just like Sky, which of course emerged from the BC umbrella, they're lucky plan A is normally so effective, because plan B appears to be "search for excuse for plan A not working".

Well "why not?" is the central question. I'd certainly be all in favour of unscrambling those eggs and retrospectively giving Cooke and Pooley the recognition they deserve. But I don't expect British Cycling to do so, or to be capable of retrospectively crucifying itself in the way I might like to see. BC is a bureaucracy which is no less prone to protecting itself than any other powerful bureaucracy. I don't think it's remotely interested in or capable of fixing its past misdeeds. If, on the other hand, it is finally seizing on the success of one of its riders in a way that leaves the road version of the women's sport less ignored, then, even taking into account the unfairness on earlier riders, I think that's a good thing.

I agree with your distinction between mythmaking around Armitstead, so as to portray her as a ground breaker, and mythmaking by her, by the way. It is clear that BC have decided to try to make their newest WC into a "big thing" beyond the grimly underresourced world of women's road cycling. But I think that's a straightforwardly good thing.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So this is slightly old news now but I rather overlooked it since we're well into wintersports season... now we have a minor calendar rejig, as the women's Tour de Pologne, not run as a UCI race since 2008 and now under the control of the same organizers as the men's race, is moving in the calendar to piggyback the men's race. Obviously the men's Tour de Pologne has moved into July this year to accommodate the travel required for the Olympics, and is running from July 12-18, during the Tour de France, and is rather unusually finishing on a Monday. The move of the women's race to match this now places the women's Tour de Pologne a week after the end of the Giro Rosa, and running for three days beginning on the same day as the men's race ends, thus enabling competitors to enter the Giro Rosa, the Tour de Pologne and La Course ahead of the Olympics.

It also affects the planned route, as the idea is now for the women to hold a first day TTT on a variant of the same course as the men hold their final day ITT on; the women will then spend two days' further racing in the mountains of the south on courses fairly similar to those used in the last two road stages of the men's race. This is of course excellent news; it gives us a chance to see more racing, there will likely be a bigger audience than could have been anticipated without the connection to the men's race, and the adjusting of the prospective course to utilise more mountainous terrain in the south of the country will provide more interesting racing, better Olympics preparation and also may mean better support on the roads, because I suspect that in addition to ensuring more attention is paid and improving the field, the fact that the Poles have an excellent young climber who is from near where the race is now being held, will likely be peaking and has a strong TTT squad with her may have factored into consideration...