StryderHells said:
Libertine Seguros said:
Meintjes just joins the ranks of bland hangers-on. At least Leipheimer's insidious wheelsucking was to a clearly understandable end given his TT prowess, whereas it appears Meintjes is just happy to have an anonymous 8th place. He graduated from the Tadej Valjavec Finishing School of GC Contention. Given that the approach is not being used to create victory through negative racing, he doesn't incite strong dislike in the way that Leipheimer did, or Gerrans more recently, but it does beg the question why anybody would ever have a reason to become invested in Louis Meintjes the GC rider. I literally can't remember anything he has done that's stuck in my memory, he's just a rider that somehow exists somewhere in the 6th to 20th area afaik. He has two GT top 10s and may be on his way to a third, but I couldn't even remember what he looked like until I looked him up on CQ just now. That's the problem - he's a rider who is good enough to produce strong performances but not strong enough to directly impact the GC, but not willing to let go.
Who do you remember from FDJ in the late 2000s, Sandy Casar? Or Stéphane Goubert?
Pro sports is a job and he's fulfilling his contract, he's earning a good wage by doing what he's doing so I really don't see what's the issue, who needs to be remembered? He's got food on the table and a stable career, why should he change what he's doing to please people, plenty of athletes like in any other profession are performing a task to earn a wage, heroic or inspiring it's not but it keeps his head above water. I work in a job that puts food in my belly, I have pride in my work but I find my inspiration and fulfilment in places outside of that space.
Pro sports isn't bound by having to be entertainment (pro wrestling isn't a 'legit' sport) and so there's nothing wrong per se in what Meintjes and riders like him do. However, as a pro sportsman, those riders are in a position which is somewhat different to the vast majority of people in that their job is visible on a global scale and people who are not contributors to that job are invested in the performance of that job. And we fans don't watch sport out of a sense of obligation but for entertainment, so if somebody provides absolutely no entertainment and the race would easily be exactly the same if they weren't there, it's not a surprise that people don't like them.
Similarly, Eisel's comments recently are very divisive. We know full well that cycling is a job for him and the many others in the péloton, and that for many, strangling the race's excitement factor is the best way for them to win, and with that obtain maximum exposure for their sponsors, increase their income and all of that. They are professionals, after all. But people aren't upset with the riders for creating sprint stages. They're upset at the proliferation of stages that favour a type of racing that is not entertaining. Screening stages start to finish has exacerbated this. There is a simple solution, and it's one I've been taking: not watching those stages. It's an easy decision to make, as many of those days I am at work, so I can simply look at the results sheet and discussion points and then decide whether it's worth watching the highlights.
But at the same time, although it has been making strides away from this direction (to many fans', including my own, chagrin), road cycling has a great benefit to fans of being free to attend as long as you can make it to the often remote locations the key moments take place at. Which means it can't raise revenue from charging entrance fees, and therefore is reliant on sponsorship investment and locations paying for the privilege to host the race and bring fans out to the roadside in their area. And if the sport is reliant on fans to make sponsorship investment worthwhile, then turning away fans by producing a dismal spectacle is counterproductive. And fans are free to choose who they like and dislike, and many factors - patriotism, doping history, personal encounters, personality - can play into that. But one of the biggest factors that affects that choice on the part of fans is entertainment; they like riders who help them enjoy the races that they watch, bringing them back to watch more, and they don't like riders who do not provide entertainment. Most such riders are gregarii, domestiques and as such are either not expected to provide entertainment, or are relatively interchangeable and anonymous in the group so do not arouse antipathy (a domestique who is set to chasing down moves by popular riders will usually be blamed less than their team or their team leader, for example); but riders who are team leaders or with a free role, yet do not provide any entertainment, are among the most likely to create antipathy among fans. Especially when that tactic is not being used as an active option for victory as it is with, say, Gerrans (in which case other riders are equally culpable for letting his tactic succeed).
Do I think Louis Meintjes is a bad person for riding around at the back of the heads of state group to an anonymous 8th place? Of course not. However, I absolutely understand why people don't like him.
He doesn't arouse the same level of dislike from me as he does from, say, Valv.Piti, but I don't see any reason to actively care about him and if he DNSed today I wouldn't even notice he was gone.
) by the DS? For me it is hard to see a situation where Landa gets 100% freedom, unless Froome is so bad that he still has another teammate for company, which would be very much like with Ullrich struggling in the Pyrenees in 2004 and having Guerrini to guide him, therefore allowing Kloden (thankfully!) to ride his own race up ahead. This could happen with Landa, but it's highly unlikely.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram