Boycotting it all because of that Women's RR route. Utterly shameful.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
They were apparently beholden to use the same start/finish locations, and although they could get Mikuni Pass into the acceptable distance, decided it would be better to have them circle the speedway circuit instead.It almost looks deliberately designed to be boring.
Or it was just "big mountain too hard for weak woman" thinking.
edit: might as well just have made them circle the Fuji Speedway if they don't give a *** anyway.
It almost looks deliberately designed to be boring.
Or it was just "big mountain too hard for weak woman" thinking.
edit: might as well just have made them circle the Fuji Speedway if they don't give a *** anyway.
Love the topic title!
Only missing a picture from the current Olympic champion
I hope they'll still call him the '2016 Olympic champion' every five minutes after this summer.Please don't. The Sporza guys mentioned this every 5 minutes in their commentary, which was really annoying and totally irrelevant.
I think part of why has to do with the women's competition to be rather lopsided for the moment. At least compared to men's competition. Harder stages/races would suit the strongest women even more, while they are already so dominant as it is now. Unexpected winners seem (from my perception at least) more scarce in the women's peloton. I think the ratio between women that are 100% pro, who get to train in optimal conditions with top grade trainers and material on one hand, and those who have a dayjob and have to train on hand-me-down bikes on the other, is completely out of whack. I haven't really thought this through, but this is what comes up at first thought. Making races harder effectively shuts out even more women for the time being, which might hurt growth more than anything else. Unfortunately, it might be process that takes more time where different facets need to gradually improve and grow across the board. Again, first thoughts.Women's riders have been actively begging for harder races for years. Edita Pucinskaite, Emma Johansson, Emma Pooley, Judith Arndt, Annemiek van Vleuten and Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig have all spoken up about their desire for more difficult and selective races. Increased professionalism and diversification should not be an either/or matter. They can go hand in hand, and in fact they complement each other well. A diverse World Tour calendar increases the number of potential players in it, increases the number of riders who are able to win World Tour events (right now, there are pretty much no ITTs or major mountain races, especially this year with Bira folded into Itzulia Women which didn't run following restricted budget after Covid cancellations, and Giro Rosa downgraded), means prize money distributed among more riders and teams enabling more riders to earn a living from their sport and generates more suspense and variety that can help encourage more spectators.
But if the problem is that the current calendar is lopsided in favour of a particular rider, neutering a race that could be tougher to make it better suited to that same type of rider is hardly going to benefit the sport. How exactly are the different facets and specialisms supposed to grow if all of the races suit the same style of rider?Are there generally actual (former pro) women involved in stage designs for women's races?
I think part of why has to do with the women's competition to be rather lopsided for the moment. At least compared to men's competition. Harder stages/races would suit the strongest women even more, while they are already so dominant as it is now. Unexpected winners seem (from my perception at least) more scarce in the women's peloton. I think the ratio between women that are 100% pro, who get to train in optimal conditions with top grade trainers and material on one hand, and those who have a dayjob and have to train on hand-me-down bikes on the other, is completely out of whack. I haven't really thought this through, but this is what comes up at first thought. Making races harder effectively shuts out even more women for the time being, which might hurt growth more than anything else. Unfortunately, it might be process that takes more time where different facets need to gradually improve and grow across the board. Again, first thoughts.
My knowledge of women's cycling is far too limited, so everything i say is simply based on gut feeling. But in this case we are talking about national teams. If you make this race harder, there seems to be only one possible outcome at this time.But if the problem is that the current calendar is lopsided in favour of a particular rider, neutering a race that could be tougher to make it better suited to that same type of rider is hardly going to benefit the sport. How exactly are the different facets and specialisms supposed to grow if all of the races suit the same style of rider?
The main reason there is a lack of unexpected winners is partly to do with the bogarting of the prize money by a select few riders and teams, which gives them better opportunity to dedicate themselves to the sport and enables those teams to sign the best young prospects. And the other reason is that there is far more homogeny in the women's calendar than the men's, perpetuating that situation by marginalising riders with lopsided skillsets. The WWT is chocked full of sprints and flat one-day races, and moderately hilly to Ardennes level races. The WWT has barely had any genuine major mountains, and I can count the number of ITTs on one hand.
What we have is a situation where any specialist has to either settle for a secondary role, or has to try to adapt to a calendar that offers heavily restricted opportunities to any rider that is neither a sprinter nor a puncheuse. It's not an issue of the races being too hard for the specialists, it's that they don't get enough races for their specialism to truly be able to compete. There are precious few races available for a one-dimensional grimpeuse like Eider Merino, but as a result, she's not a valuable commodity to the top teams because if you get a puncheuse who is a decent climber, they can compete in a huge number more events than Merino, and she's of little value as a domestique because if you have a stronger climber than Merino in your squad, she's unlikely to require the assistance on the limited number of mountain stages the calendar includes (most of which are also Unipuerto). The end result is that a rider like Merino can't get a spot on one of the biggest teams (and was one of the riders that made way when Movistar cleared space for Annemiek) so she doesn't develop to the best of her abilities and the all-rounders who are good climbers will beat her even in her specialism. Take Anna Kiesenhofer as another example - she won on Mont Ventoux in the Tour de l'Ardêche, but after less than a year on a pro team she withdrew back to the amateur ranks racing Gran Fondos and the like in her playgrounds of the mountains, and from the sounds of things is much happier for it.
The other issue for the lack of unexpected winners is that the lack of TV coverage and the concentration of so many of the stars into a small number of teams has meant far less of the time-honoured "break of the day" formula that men's cycling typically has, so you see a lot more of the péloton together and various moves attempting to go at various stages until the right composition happens and the elastic snaps, so this tends to be later in the race and with stronger names in it than an early BOTD would usually have - plus, with smaller team sizes, there's more incentive to bigger names to get into those moves because there's less risk attached as if you try it and there's eight top level riders on an Ineos or Jumbo chasing you down.
Plus the nature of parcours along with the lack of long form stage races means you seldom get the kind of stages that in men's cycling we would anticipate to go to the breakaway, nor do you often have races where the route is decisive enough and opens up big enough gaps that you have strong break riders who are far enough down in GC not to be a threat. And in the one race we do have like that, the Giro Rosa, you do indeed often find in the second half of the race that a strong break goes and settles the stage - take 2020's stage 9, won by Évita Muzic, 2019 to Maniago won by Lizzie Banks, the 2017 stage won by Sheyla Gutiérrez, the stages won by Mayuko Hagiwara and Lucinda Brand in 2015, and the 2016 final stage won by Thalita de Jong. If we have more difficult races, then yes, a lot of riders not in the elite tier are shut out of winning GCs and major classics... but their stagehunting opportunities actually improve, because you won't find the van Vleutens and van der Breggens of this world being fresh enough to contest every stage, so saving energy and picking your day for the break will become a more valuable skill.
Sure, but parcours does not have much to do with that (other than the finding of willing stage hosts). Keeping the races focused on a particular type of course that favours a particular type of rider will only perpetuate the status quo because the only riders who will come through and become new stars are those that fit the same mould as the old stars. Sure, it'd be good to find a way to get women to be able to quit their dayjob and be a pro cyclist by investing in development... but you need the opportunity to diversify the calendar to get people the chance to compete, otherwise why will they bother.My knowledge of women's cycling is far too limited, so everything i say is simply based on gut feeling. But in this case we are talking about national teams. If you make this race harder, there seems to be only one possible outcome at this time.
As far as those different facets that need to grow, i was indeed talking about tv broadcast, prize money, commercialization, youth development, scouting, coaching etc. Making some changes too sudden, might have an opposite effect of what you'd want to achieve. The teams/countries that are ready for the next step might actually enlarge their lead over the smaller teams. Let's say starting next year prize money, TV time etc is comparable to what we have in the men's races, then the teams benefiting from that most, will be the teams that are already on top right now. Their sponsors get more attention (because they dominate most races), those sponsors will put more money in the team because it starts to pay off. Those teams get more prize money on top of that. And if races become harder, they will win even more races on top of that, because they already have the best cyclists with the best entourage and the best equipment. Again this is what comes to mind right now. When all these things were to change suddenly, i could see the situation become worse before it gets better. Maybe that's a hurdle women's cycling has to take, i don't know. But maybe building from the ground up, might be a better solution in the long run. Investing in youth development, professional entourage, finding a way to get women to be able to quit their dayjob and take a chance as a pro cyclist without having to fear to pay the rent. I think a lot of that would need to come from local initiatives, so i don't know if UCI or local governments can find incentives for teams and local sports divisions to invest in such projects.
My knowledge of women's cycling is far too limited, so everything i say is simply based on gut feeling. But in this case we are talking about national teams. If you make this race harder, there seems to be only one possible outcome at this time.
As far as those different facets that need to grow, i was indeed talking about tv broadcast, prize money, commercialization, youth development, scouting, coaching etc. Making some changes too sudden, might have an opposite effect of what you'd want to achieve. The teams/countries that are ready for the next step might actually enlarge their lead over the smaller teams. Let's say starting next year prize money, TV time etc is comparable to what we have in the men's races, then the teams benefiting from that most, will be the teams that are already on top right now. Their sponsors get more attention (because they dominate most races), those sponsors will put more money in the team because it starts to pay off. Those teams get more prize money on top of that. And if races become harder, they will win even more races on top of that, because they already have the best cyclists with the best entourage and the best equipment. Again this is what comes to mind right now. When all these things were to change suddenly, i could see the situation become worse before it gets better. Maybe that's a hurdle women's cycling has to take, i don't know. But maybe building from the ground up, might be a better solution in the long run. Investing in youth development, professional entourage, finding a way to get women to be able to quit their dayjob and take a chance as a pro cyclist without having to fear to pay the rent. I think a lot of that would need to come from local initiatives, so i don't know if UCI or local governments can find incentives for teams and local sports divisions to invest in such projects.
Danish team now official:
Mens TT:
Asgreen
Womens TT:
Norsgaard
Mens RR:
Asgreen
Fuglsang
Valgren
Juul
Womens RR:
Norsgaard
Uttrup Ludwig
Yes, and I have already added it to the OP. With Vingegaard out of contention, this is for sure the best team available.
I completely disagree.
Look, I LOVE Chris Juul, I think he is hilarious and a generally good guy - and a great domestique to boot.
But, selecting him for the Olympics, on the back of him doing a full Giro and then a full Tour, slaving away every single day, makes absolutely no sense at all.
For a 1 day race with those characteristics, selecting Juul over Honore, Kron, Skjelmose, Kragh and Cort, makes absolutely no sense to me.... especially when you already have Asgreen fulfilling the exact same role in the road race.
I am even a bit iffy on Valgren. though he has been better this year than the past two - but I would also be hard pressed selecting him today, over any of the other guys mentioned. The one thing that may make me select him anyway, is his championship experience.
Agreed. And I have higher hopes for Asgreen to contend than anyone else (other than Fuglsang), so I don't think he should be used as a helper. Both he and Valgren should attack in the zone between Fuji and Mikuni.Maybe it was a bit exaggarated to call it the best team available, but I definitely think it makes sense to bring Juul. He is experienced and a good and reliable teammate both on and off the bike, even if you already have Asgreen who can do some of the same things (and better) in the team. I could see the value in bringing Cort instead of Valgren, because he could be used tactically due to his sprint ability and has showed great climbing form this year. I doubt Skjelmose and Kron have really been considered for this.
This team is clearly selected to fit Fuglsang's ambitions, which makes sense, since he's probably the one with the best chances of winning a medal. And with only four spots, Lund can't bring too many chefs. It will be different for him, when he has to select the WC team for Belgium later this year.
Maybe it was a bit exaggarated to call it the best team available, but I definitely think it makes sense to bring Juul. He is experienced and a good and reliable teammate both on and off the bike, even if you already have Asgreen who can do some of the same things (and better) in the team. I could see the value in bringing Cort instead of Valgren, because he could be used tactically due to his sprint ability and has showed great climbing form this year. I doubt Skjelmose and Kron have really been considered for this.
This team is clearly selected to fit Fuglsang's ambitions, which makes sense, since he's probably the one with the best chances of winning a medal. And with only four spots, Lund can't bring too many chefs. It will be different for him, when he has to select the WC team for Belgium later this year.
I have to disagree.
If he was not riding the Tour, or had not done the Giro, I might be persuaded, but arriving jetlagged in Tokyo, with 2 complete GTs in your legs, does not seem wise to me, with so many great options around.
But even so, I think on a 4-man team, bringing 2 guys that are pure Domestiques, and someone who has been off his best level for over 2 years, means you have very few tactical options.
Yes Asgreen could surprise, but according to himself, he is riding the RR solely as a Dom for Fuglsang.
For that route, with that team size, with that timing - I would have brought Fuglsang, Asgreen, Cort and then either Honore or Kron.
I'd have Asgreen to take care of Fuglsang, Cort for the early(ish) break, and Honore/Kron for when the lieutenants move in the pre-finale.
As it is now, our team is pretty much a 1 trick pony (everyone for Fuglsang), which I fear can be a disadvantage, unless Fuglsang finds the form from 2 years ago, where he can dominate everyone.
The team in Rio was also pretty much just a one trick pony and it woked out fine, although it only had three men in it (I know the course was harder, too).
I agree, that there are other tactical choices, that Lund could have considered, he probably has, but I also think the chosen strategy makes sense, but it will of course depend on how hard the route actually is, and how the race unfolds. Lund knows that Juul, Valgren and Fuglsang not only know each other quite well, but also have proved that they can work well together. And I would think Fuglsang has been consulted during the process as well, though Lund obviously had the final say.
I can't see, why Valgren wouldn't be able to play the same role as Honoré/Kron in your scenario, and I still won't rate them higher than him, especially not in a championship race, where we know Valgren usually performs at a high level, and just because Asgreen will mainly be there to help Fuglsang, it doesn't mean he could/should only be used to fetch bottles.
Juul's fitness level could be an issue, though they might not expect him to be present for long into the final anyway. It should also be noted that the IOC/UCI deadline for entry submissions is July 5th, so, though it seems very unlikely, Juul could be replaced, if he were already feeling too tired on the first rest day of the Tour.