6 ms·

This kind of side deal in bike racing (especially when money is involved) is very common. And accepted by most who race at that level. It has always bothered m

by feep 7y ago

This kind of side deal in bike racing (especially when money is involved) is very common. And accepted by most who race at that level. It has always bothered me as a fan. I know one of the riders, and I know of the other. They both seem like good people. Well-written story about aftereffects, and a reconciliation of sorts.

ben7799 7y ago
Having done a lot of bike races you're even making deals with your teammates realistically. It's an odd artifact of the sport awarding prizes to individuals when it is impossible most of the time to win without teamwork, and only one person on the team that works together can actually win. I don't fault the racer in this story who reneged on his deal to win.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  If making deals is acceptable to begin with, then breaking them is wrong. I can't see any interpretation where Mike didn't do something wrong.
  - robrenaud 7y ago
    > If making deals is acceptable to begin with, then breaking them is wrong Making cycling an athletic version of diplomacy actually sounds pretty cool to me.
    - panzagl 7y ago
      let me draft for the next mile and I'll support Sil->Ber from Kiel...
  - Nelson69 7y ago
    It's also arguably not acceptable. There have been allegations of fairly large amounts of money changing hand for in some of the deals, promoters and sponsors tend to frown upon that stuff, as do sports books and it might be against the law (sporting fraud) in a few European countries. The rules and the codes regarding this sort of thing are fuzzy. There is also a class system of sorts in play. When Lance Armstrong went to the media and claimed he let Marco Pantani win on Ventoux in the 2000 Tour, that's against the code too but because Lance was so dominant nobody said much about it. The fact was, nobody could make Lance pay for that on the road. In the romantic ideal world, a bunch of Italian teams would have worked together to prevent Lance's teammates from winning some monuments (maybe Hincapie at Paris Roubaix, but he was never really in it) that they were targeting but the fact was the team was built for one purpose and that never was an option. The ability to enforce the deal is part of it. Likewise, in retrospect, Lance going public with it was a scorched earth psychological tactic that made his image even bigger. I would say, at least at some levels (u-23 national championship might not be that) that if you can get someone to gift you a win for an unenforceable deal, then you beat them and you did it mentally. It's like all the secret rules of baseball.
    - paganel 7y ago
      I don't think it is that unacceptable. I remember Jalabert giving the stage victory to the other rider at least once in the Spanish la Vuelta the year that he won it (they had been part of a 2-men escape) and more recently Contador did the same thing at least once.
- benj111 7y ago
  But yet we celebrate the individual, not the team. I can't think of another sport that is quite so teamwork orientated, but so individualistic in celebrating the winners. I'm not even sure if the winners are the 'best' riders. I'm reminded of when Bradley Wiggins won the Tour de France. He and Chris Froome had broken away from the other contenders, Froome was leading him up a mountain and Wiggins couldn't keep up, Froome had to slow down for him. Froome was the better man that day, probably that tour.
  - ed312 7y ago
    Formula 1 and most high-level motor racing is similar. Drivers get lots of fame but it is truly a team sport.
    - benj111 7y ago
      Well theres motorsport where they have identical cars. If we take F1 you can still race against your team mate. And team mates are fairly loose concepts in F1. Team orders weren't allowed for a long time, disobeying team orders isn't unusual. But yes most of the time it's the guy with the best car that wins.
      - maxxxxx 7y ago
        An F1 driver is also part of team leadership and responsible for building the team. That was schumacher’s strength and a weakness of Alonso from what I have read.
        singlow 7y ago
        The extent of the drivers role in the team varies drastically. Sure, as Schumacher move on in his career this was true. When a team brings on an experienced driver to a young team this is probably very true, such as Kimi this year. But even Hamilton, with several championships, is probably only somewhat involved in decision making, not leading it. And younger guys like Le Clerc are probably not involved in team decisions beyond the tech setup of their own car in any meaningful way. That's not to say either of them is not capable of contributing in that way, but they are on teams with plenty of proven experience at all levels, so it's just not as necessary. Alonso was on a team that struggled for several years at McClaren with a lot of leadership turnover, so they would have probably benefited from that quality, although I don't really know whether their failings had anything to do with a weakness of Alonso's in that regard, but I generally got the impression he was not the personality to really get everyone motivated or inspired.
fiftyacorn 7y ago
It does - but the other guy could have ignored the deal too. That happens a lot too
hammock 7y ago
Holding money in escrow might have been an effective way to enforce this deal.
- stouset 7y ago
  Deals like this, as the article discusses, are not made before a race, they are made during a race. Typically (but not always) this happens toward the end of a race, where competitors race prisoner’s dilemma of sorts: by working together, they can have a higher chance of clinching the 1 and 2 spots, but when one racer is demonstrably stronger than the other, the stronger rider might reasonably worry that the weaker rider will “defect” and sprint for first place. Working together improves their chance of a first-or-second finish, but might decrease their chance of a strictly first-place finish if the weaker rider defects and sprints for the finish. If the stronger rider defects and drops the weaker rider, they risk getting caught by the pack and not making a podium at all. The deal is that the weaker rider will take second, giving first place to the stronger rider and ensuring mutual cooperation that increases both their chances of a podium finish. In this instance, the weaker rider promised to cooperate and later defected.
  - QuotedForTruth 7y ago
    I realize you already know this, but just to add to what you've said... It also makes a lot more sense in stage races. The win for the day's stage is not the only win to be had. The overall race win is based on combined time across all stages. Often someone who is in the running for the overall race win will make a deal with someone who isn't. By not attacking each other, their average speed can be higher. One rider gets to win the stage and the other gets the benefit of working together to finish the stage in the quickest possible time. This allows them to gain on their rivals for the overall win. In a single stage race, the win is mostly the only thing that matters.
    - hammock 7y ago
      In that case aside from missing a stage win, it really doesn't hurt the stronger rider at all when the weaker rider defects. Wouldn't call that a prisoner's dilemma.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by feep 7y ago

ben7799 7y ago

Having done a lot of bike races you're even making deals with your teammates realistically. It's an odd artifact of the sport awarding prizes to individuals when it is impossible most of the time to win without teamwork, and only one person on the team that works together can actually win. I don't fault the racer in this story who reneged on his deal to win.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
If making deals is acceptable to begin with, then breaking them is wrong. I can't see any interpretation where Mike didn't do something wrong.
- robrenaud 7y ago
  > If making deals is acceptable to begin with, then breaking them is wrong Making cycling an athletic version of diplomacy actually sounds pretty cool to me.
  - panzagl 7y ago
    let me draft for the next mile and I'll support Sil->Ber from Kiel...
- Nelson69 7y ago
  It's also arguably not acceptable. There have been allegations of fairly large amounts of money changing hand for in some of the deals, promoters and sponsors tend to frown upon that stuff, as do sports books and it might be against the law (sporting fraud) in a few European countries. The rules and the codes regarding this sort of thing are fuzzy. There is also a class system of sorts in play. When Lance Armstrong went to the media and claimed he let Marco Pantani win on Ventoux in the 2000 Tour, that's against the code too but because Lance was so dominant nobody said much about it. The fact was, nobody could make Lance pay for that on the road. In the romantic ideal world, a bunch of Italian teams would have worked together to prevent Lance's teammates from winning some monuments (maybe Hincapie at Paris Roubaix, but he was never really in it) that they were targeting but the fact was the team was built for one purpose and that never was an option. The ability to enforce the deal is part of it. Likewise, in retrospect, Lance going public with it was a scorched earth psychological tactic that made his image even bigger. I would say, at least at some levels (u-23 national championship might not be that) that if you can get someone to gift you a win for an unenforceable deal, then you beat them and you did it mentally. It's like all the secret rules of baseball.
  - paganel 7y ago
    I don't think it is that unacceptable. I remember Jalabert giving the stage victory to the other rider at least once in the Spanish la Vuelta the year that he won it (they had been part of a 2-men escape) and more recently Contador did the same thing at least once.
benj111 7y ago
But yet we celebrate the individual, not the team. I can't think of another sport that is quite so teamwork orientated, but so individualistic in celebrating the winners. I'm not even sure if the winners are the 'best' riders. I'm reminded of when Bradley Wiggins won the Tour de France. He and Chris Froome had broken away from the other contenders, Froome was leading him up a mountain and Wiggins couldn't keep up, Froome had to slow down for him. Froome was the better man that day, probably that tour.
- ed312 7y ago
  Formula 1 and most high-level motor racing is similar. Drivers get lots of fame but it is truly a team sport.
  - benj111 7y ago
    Well theres motorsport where they have identical cars. If we take F1 you can still race against your team mate. And team mates are fairly loose concepts in F1. Team orders weren't allowed for a long time, disobeying team orders isn't unusual. But yes most of the time it's the guy with the best car that wins.
    - maxxxxx 7y ago
      An F1 driver is also part of team leadership and responsible for building the team. That was schumacher’s strength and a weakness of Alonso from what I have read.
      - singlow 7y ago
        The extent of the drivers role in the team varies drastically. Sure, as Schumacher move on in his career this was true. When a team brings on an experienced driver to a young team this is probably very true, such as Kimi this year. But even Hamilton, with several championships, is probably only somewhat involved in decision making, not leading it. And younger guys like Le Clerc are probably not involved in team decisions beyond the tech setup of their own car in any meaningful way. That's not to say either of them is not capable of contributing in that way, but they are on teams with plenty of proven experience at all levels, so it's just not as necessary. Alonso was on a team that struggled for several years at McClaren with a lot of leadership turnover, so they would have probably benefited from that quality, although I don't really know whether their failings had anything to do with a weakness of Alonso's in that regard, but I generally got the impression he was not the personality to really get everyone motivated or inspired.

fiftyacorn 7y ago

It does - but the other guy could have ignored the deal too. That happens a lot too

hammock 7y ago

Holding money in escrow might have been an effective way to enforce this deal.

stouset 7y ago
Deals like this, as the article discusses, are not made before a race, they are made during a race. Typically (but not always) this happens toward the end of a race, where competitors race prisoner’s dilemma of sorts: by working together, they can have a higher chance of clinching the 1 and 2 spots, but when one racer is demonstrably stronger than the other, the stronger rider might reasonably worry that the weaker rider will “defect” and sprint for first place. Working together improves their chance of a first-or-second finish, but might decrease their chance of a strictly first-place finish if the weaker rider defects and sprints for the finish. If the stronger rider defects and drops the weaker rider, they risk getting caught by the pack and not making a podium at all. The deal is that the weaker rider will take second, giving first place to the stronger rider and ensuring mutual cooperation that increases both their chances of a podium finish. In this instance, the weaker rider promised to cooperate and later defected.
- QuotedForTruth 7y ago
  I realize you already know this, but just to add to what you've said... It also makes a lot more sense in stage races. The win for the day's stage is not the only win to be had. The overall race win is based on combined time across all stages. Often someone who is in the running for the overall race win will make a deal with someone who isn't. By not attacking each other, their average speed can be higher. One rider gets to win the stage and the other gets the benefit of working together to finish the stage in the quickest possible time. This allows them to gain on their rivals for the overall win. In a single stage race, the win is mostly the only thing that matters.
  - hammock 7y ago
    In that case aside from missing a stage win, it really doesn't hurt the stronger rider at all when the weaker rider defects. Wouldn't call that a prisoner's dilemma.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]