4 ms·

I think you have the riders confused. The rider going for the overall win (general classification or GC rider) would be the one agreeing to not go for the stag

I think you have the riders confused. The rider going for the overall win (general classification or GC rider) would be the one agreeing to not go for the stage. He may be the stronger rider with a 90% chance to win the stage in an all out battle. But, since the race win is much more prestigious than any one stage, he may value the potential time gains over that 90% chance of a stage win and agree to give it up. The defector would then be this GC rider deciding to take the stage win AND the time gains. This leaves the other with only time gains which he may not value at all since he is not in contention for the overall race. In grand tours like the Tour de France or Giro d'Italia, 95% of the riders have no hopes of winning the entire race. They are there to help their teammates who do have a shot and/or attempt to win individual stages. Because of this they often lose lots of time on stages they aren't going to win and thus don't care about winning some trivial amount back.

hammock 7y ago
Ok that makes sense. Then, in the OP story, isn't the guy who won the weaker rider? So the type of deal we're talking about here is irrelevant - the stronger rider just made a bad deal.
- QuotedForTruth 7y ago
  Did you make a bad deal if the other party reneges? If you pay someone for something and they don't deliver was that you making a bad deal? No way! The weaker/winning rider offered the deal. It was mutually beneficial. If they fight, they likely get caught and neither gets 1st or 2nd. If they make a deal and cooperate, the stronger/losing rider would get 1st and the weaker/winning rider would get 2nd. I don't think that's a bad deal for either rider. To then break the deal is where the problem is. The weaker/winning rider would have had no shot to win without lying first. Thats unsportsmanlike in a sport where these deals are considered ok (which they are).
  - hammock 7y ago
    I hear you. If both riders held up their end, it would have been mutually beneficial. But by "bad deal" I mean, notwithstanding the deal being mutually beneficial, there was really no reason for the weaker rider not to defect and sprint at the end. In OP story, the stronger rider is expecting to finish first. Contrast that with the case you described in parent comment, wherein the stronger (GC) rider is expecting to finish second under the terms of the deal. Very different setup.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      In the article it's clearly stated that breaking the deal haunted the weaker rider for the rest of his career (and life). There was plenty of reason not to defect, and he regretted it immediately and never stopped regretting it. Giving your word and then violating it, and being called out publicly for it in an area where your word is important, is highly damaging to you. Guy ended up divorced partly because his wife kept throwing it back on him that his entire career was built around breaking a promise.

hammock 7y ago

Ok that makes sense. Then, in the OP story, isn't the guy who won the weaker rider? So the type of deal we're talking about here is irrelevant - the stronger rider just made a bad deal.

QuotedForTruth 7y ago
Did you make a bad deal if the other party reneges? If you pay someone for something and they don't deliver was that you making a bad deal? No way! The weaker/winning rider offered the deal. It was mutually beneficial. If they fight, they likely get caught and neither gets 1st or 2nd. If they make a deal and cooperate, the stronger/losing rider would get 1st and the weaker/winning rider would get 2nd. I don't think that's a bad deal for either rider. To then break the deal is where the problem is. The weaker/winning rider would have had no shot to win without lying first. Thats unsportsmanlike in a sport where these deals are considered ok (which they are).
- hammock 7y ago
  I hear you. If both riders held up their end, it would have been mutually beneficial. But by "bad deal" I mean, notwithstanding the deal being mutually beneficial, there was really no reason for the weaker rider not to defect and sprint at the end. In OP story, the stronger rider is expecting to finish first. Contrast that with the case you described in parent comment, wherein the stronger (GC) rider is expecting to finish second under the terms of the deal. Very different setup.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    In the article it's clearly stated that breaking the deal haunted the weaker rider for the rest of his career (and life). There was plenty of reason not to defect, and he regretted it immediately and never stopped regretting it. Giving your word and then violating it, and being called out publicly for it in an area where your word is important, is highly damaging to you. Guy ended up divorced partly because his wife kept throwing it back on him that his entire career was built around breaking a promise.