Re: Re:
Valv.Piti said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
Valv.Piti said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
jsem94 said:
I hope even more that Dumoulin wins this now.
At this point, regardless of who anyone started out cheering for, you would have to be Colombian or Italian or in some other way extremely biased in favour of Quintana or Nibali not to hope for the resurrection of Tom "leaves it all on the road" Dumoulin.
What a statement, what a statement.
Are you laughing at the poo joke or baffled that I think this sort of misfortune acts as a big driver of sympathy among the more or less neutral?
Im not baffled, just think that's a really odd statement to make. You don't have to be some kind of fanatic to cheer for other riders than Dumoulin or anything like that which was what you basically implied. What the others did was not wrong, at all. Sure, Dumoulin fighted back heroically, but that doesn't mean you necessarily should cheer for him unless your nationality isn't Italian, Colombian or whatever..
Really, Dumoulin is a very good rider to have in the peloton for the spectators. It opens up for creating new routes more focused on TT-mileage and its always welcome to see a rouleur doing well in GTs which at this point are dominated by climbers. But you don't have to be extremely biased, extremist, fanatic or anything like that to cheer for someone else. Thats how you might feel, but that doesn't really justify a bold statement like that.
You are confusing a descriptive statement with some kind of moral injunction.
When a rider has some catastrophic misfortune that tends to encourage sympathy. When that misfortune seems likely to take away a first really big success that tends to encourage more sympathy. When a rider battles on, fighting on the road to overcome that catastrophe it encourages it more. And when the rider does all of that while refusing to complain about the, let's just say, ethically controversial behaviour of his opponents, more again.
Most of us have favourite riders, whether due to national bias or preferences for one style over another or whatever. But a lot of the time those riders aren't directly involved at the sharp end of a race. We will still in those circumstances usually deviate from strict neutrality, preferring one ride to the other, but we don't have a strong emotional investment in their success. In my view, Dumoulin's travails today are overwhelmingly likely to make him the sentimental favourite for a large majority of those who were either completely neutral or vaguely preferred someone else without being particularly strongly attached. That's how empathy tends to work.
It won't mean that some Italian punter who watches one race a year will suddenly prefer him to Nibali. Nor will it mean that people who have some ongoing emotional attachment to one of the other protagonists will jump ship. And there will be some unpredictable reactions, like somebody randomly deciding that they don't like Dumoulin because his head vaguely reminds of them of Billy Zane or something similarly idiosyncratic. But in terms of the sympathies of the neutral in the broadest sense? I'd bet a significant amount of money that vastly more of them now want him to win than gave a toss about him a week ago.
Thinking all of that does not mean declaring that partisans of Nibali or Quintana or anyone else must be "fanatics" or foaming at the mouth national chauvinists. It just involves understanding how anyone temporarily becomes a "neutral's favourite".
I vaguely like most of the main protagonists in this race. That includes Dumoulin, but I wouldn't have put him in a pre-race list of the three guys I'd most like to see win. After today, I certainly hope he wins (although I don't think he will). That doesn't make some kind of iconoclastic outlier. It's exactly the kind of response anyone who thinks about it should expect from the broadly unaffiliated. Which does not mean that it is some kind of ethical requirement.