Another major classic that was lost. Let's see exactly how it was lost. Remember, that of the roughly 190 dudes, about 189 are losers. 60 people crashed out, or dropped out. In fact, 7 guys were so slow that they were disqualified from the race because the race organizers wanted to tidy up the velodrôme. Only one person is not a loser. Well, I can't possibly comment on whether he's a loser in real life, but at least for one day, he is not a loser on the pavé. Whether someone is a loser in real life is a really subjective thing, isn't it. People can decide for themselves, based on their own principles, beliefs, and definitions. Remember that man can not judge man, only God can judge man. In this way it's always objective and fair.
I'm a big fan of objective sports. Specifically, most of the sports that measure a specific thing: like who gets to the line first, who jumps the highest, who runs the fastest, etc. But not ski jumping. Ski jumping is a very subjective sport, where "style" points are awarded for no reason. No one cares if your landing looks better than someone else's. Did you fly farther than someone else? If so, you should objectively be the winner, and everyone else should be the loser, which they are if you put your mind to it. It can be argued that if you're being chased by something that wants to eat something, then only the last place is the loser and everyone else is the winner, but let's assume that the monster is super hungry and wants to eat everyone minus one.
Also, remember that most things are not Russian, where there are only losers and no winners. Let's assume that for the rest of this post. You can believe what you want after you close the browser tab (because who opens things in separate windows anymore).
So in the Roubaix velodrôme, a winner is always crowned, and many losers also appear and they are completely irrelevant. Objectively speaking, only the winner is remembered. The loser is forgotten in the annals of history. When you see a list of winners, you see great names. Spartacus, Tom, Eddy, Museeuw, Stuart O'Grady. You never see a list of losers. Show me where there's a list of losers and I will give you props and let you write a guest post on my blog. I guarantee it.
Anyways, on to the race, and how it was lost. If you take on the French TGV train, you've lost.
If anyone had gotten hit by the TGV, they lose. By rule, anyone crossing lowered barriers, should have lost. But for some stupid reason, the race organizer likes winners and not losers. This is markedly different from their stance in 2006, where the following three people cross the crossing when they shouldn't have, and then were relegated (courtesy of Phil Liggett). Spartacus won this race legitimately. These guys lost because they were trying to cheat. But for some reason the 2015 racers didn't lose because they all cheated. Come on man. Be consistent. Punish everyone indiscriminately. Anyways, the 2006 train incident, (courtesy of Phil Liggett), where Tom was promoted to first loser.
You also lose if you can't take any food because your fake teeth fell out (guy on right):
You also lose if you crash into a spectator:
Anyways, for real analysis, I think you always lose if you take Degenkolb into the Velodrôme. Should have left him behind when you could. You always lose if you lead out your teammate, like Lampaert. And if you led your teammate out incorrectly, your whole team loses, like EQS. They are the greatest losers in the history of the sport. You always lose if your name is Greg Van Avermaet. Props to Degs for making everyone else a loser.
The next one of these cycling analyses that no one reads is going to be Liège-Bastogne-Liège. For those of you who know anything about history, these were major battles in WWI and WWII, respectively. Please read up before reading my next How the Race was Lost installment. By the way, USA is the two-time defending World War Champion. Just saying. We're winners.
Wow this comment box is stupid. I wrote up my long response and it got deleted when I had to select what I was commenting as. Lame.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I was going to say that I would have done exactly this same thing as those riders. In fact, what they did was completely within the nature of the sport, which is defined not only but fitness but by skill, risk taking, and opportunism. In fact, while this was a very visible risk, I'd argue that these riders see things equally risky and opportunistic many times each race, but they are just less visible. Hell, in my three years in collegiate cycling, which is like a baby training grounds free from stress and douche bags, this shit happened all the time. It's just the nature of the sport.
Same thing just happened to me. I might switch blog providers. I actually completely agree with the riders' and race jury's decision in this case. Nothing anyone could have done. The only people who should be at fault are the people who schedule that stupid train. The train should be stopping for the cyclists, not the other way around. If this were the Tour, that would have happened, but not at P-R. But no one will read far enough down to this comment to know as such. Except you, Garrett. Because you're not a loser like everyone else who reads just the text and doesn't comment.
DeleteBut I am still saying that all of them lost. Only Degs won. And that if people break the rules, they should be punished accordingly. It's a good way to manufacture more losers. Otherwise, they should change the rules. Rules exist to be followed, not to be broken. I will now find everyone who broke those rules and relegate them in my own final results.
DeleteI completely agree that I vastly prefer sports that have an objective winner. In fact, to tout a preposterously unpopular opinion, I think that an athletic activity *must* be largely (not entirely, but largely) objective in order for it to count as a sport at all
ReplyDeleteThe reason this is unpopular is that it takes a lot of very popular athletic activities and calls them not sports. And I get that that upsets people. But while I have immense respect for the amazing athletic abilities of gymnasts, for instance, I think that that is a fundamentally different type of athletic activity from what I call "sports"
If you're going to proclaim a winner in anything that entails competition, I really do prefer objective ones, be it sports, job performance, or card games. Unless you're playing Durak, which is, as alluded to above, Russian--and thus there are no winners, only a loser