Historian reflects on 110 years of the Tour [Archive]

fiamme red

01-11-2013, 02:26 PM

Article in five parts:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/01/analysis/analysis-tour-historian-christopher-thompson-reflects-on-110-years-of-french-culture_270984

The fact that the riders in the post-LeMond era finish Tour stages without the shell-shocked visages of their contemporaries from the 1970s is, in Thompson�s view, a problem for the Tour.

�Because what used to sell the Tour for generations was the image of the racer as incredibly hard working, tough, courageous, enduring; not necessarily zipping around France at 50 kilometers an hour,� he said. �That poses a challenge for the Tour in terms of how to sell itself to the public.�

Thompson suggests the Tour has run into trouble by clinging to the belief that the public will only watch the race if the riders, like machines, increase their productive output and speed year over year. Thompson does not buy the argument that people will not watch the Tour if riders are not laying down the sort of speeds Armstrong set in 2005, when he averaged 41.654 kph over the Tour�s 2,241 miles.

�People were interested from the very beginning of the race, when the racers went much more slowly. What people are interested in is a narrative that�s heroic,� said Thompson. �Where there is suffering. Where a racer has a good day and then a bad day then a good day, so it makes for an exciting story. They don�t care whether it�s being done at 37 kilometers an hour or 45 kilometers an hour.�

esldude

01-12-2013, 01:33 AM

I definitely agree with the idea you quoted from the article. The nature of the human effort and drama of a difficult competition are what makes the Tour appealing. Whether it is faster or slower isn't that big a deal as long as it is competitive and compelling.

On the other hand, I don't know I buy all the conclusions of the linked article. He mentions Merckx starting a bike company to support himself in retirement. Well, even American pro athletes weren't much better off. During the Merckx years, most NFL retirees opened restaurants, car dealerships or had other business to support themselves. Just below the top players, most worked off-season part time jobs while still playing pro sports .And like modern NFL retirees, at least the top Tour riders seem to have it pretty well once they are done riding.

Some of his other conclusions seem overwrought. The ideas listed may well be behind why the organizers did what they did, but the reason the Tour was successful had little to do with that I think.

Likewise the idea top Tour riders were more part of the French culture than US athletes also seems wrong. Again, go back to the years he talks about pre-1985, lots of pro US athletes lived in regular or very slightly upscale neighborhoods, stayed in one city for most of their career and were very much in the regular American culture of their time. And again, current top Tour riders are every bit the freakish bauble with little national allegiance. Much of his conclusions seems to be confused with comparing current pro athletes in other countries and sports with past French Tour riders. One that makes little headway as explaining anything useful about the Tour vs other sports.

I think a more telling idea is how Tour organizers have made the race physically extreme in human performance terms, and tried to ban or limit technological advances to keep it that way. But that only put a higher premium on the performance of the cyclist. What they didn't foresee and have even now no reliable way of policing is the technological advances of enhancing physiological performance. The switchover from artisanal to clinical doping really doesn't change that the riders were trying to gain advantages. That fact it became more effective doesn't change the overall event to a spectator I don't think. The fact the rider is the engine is a constant of the Tour and the main part where one may gain "unfair advantage".

Finally, while 'enhanced' riders have more good days, and need less recovery, I don't see the individual stage winners coming across the finish looking like they didn't break a sweat. They still look to suffer, and to put out extreme effort to be where they are. When the bulk of the field is 'enhanced', the winners are still going to be people who exert themselves highly.

What is perhaps different is enhanced team strategy with radio communication between team principles and riders along with real time readouts of power output. All this greatly diminishes the chances a rider will attempt to be heroic and come up short, or that he will actually be heroic in a surprising way. All riders, even if they were all on bread and water have training, communications, power read outs, HRM's and more so they can all be much closer to their true limits and much less often go over them. Which is a big part of why finishes have a much more compact peloton than in generations past.

Should they limit technology during the tour along with the bikes themselves? Would it make for more drama? Probably, though probably not like past Tours quite. One would have all the tech to train with. One can even simulate an actual stage for training if the money is spent on it. Though if the riders had no radio, no HRM, and no power output info, there would undoubtedly be a little more chaos and a little more interest I think.

One way or another I think the unpredictability is what would attract people to a better event. In the last 15 years, you are not too far along the Tour, when someone has a pretty small time advantage and everyone knows who is likely the winner. Barring strange events like crashes or equipment malfunction, rarely do surprising things happen to the top contenders. The level of fitness, the smoothness of pro teams managing races, information available instantly, reliability of the equipment have all made the racing too consistent and predictable for its own good. This actually applies to most modern big time sporting events more or less.