Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Freewheeling => Racing => Topic started by: jane on 02 November, 2013, 07:57:10 am
-
Anyone else signed this yet? https://www.change.org/petitions/aso-amaury-sports-organization-allow-female-professional-cycling-teams-to-race-the-tour-de-france?utm_campaign=twitter_link&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition (https://www.change.org/petitions/aso-amaury-sports-organization-allow-female-professional-cycling-teams-to-race-the-tour-de-france?utm_campaign=twitter_link&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition)
-
I have now
-
+1
-
done
-
Signed :thumbsup:
-
Signed
-
Signed
-
Signed
-
Moi aussi.
-
et moi
-
et moi.
-
Done.
-
Yep
-
ONE MORE
-
This totally misses the point. Professional sports is about being paid to perform a service, in the case of road cycling it is effectively mobile billboards. If the demand from business was there then there would be a female grand tour ( doesn't have to be in France). Happy to support equality in amateur sports but as soon as it becomes professional then "he who pays the piper..."
-
A step inthe right direction? Le Course by Le Tour http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-to-host-one-day-womens-race-on-the-champs-elysees
-
PC, I have a different point of view. There's no demand from business for female sports because.... spectators are accustomed to watch male-only sports. Things can only
change if some people decide to break out the old habits.
-
PC, I have a different point of view. There's no demand from business for female sports because.... spectators are accustomed to watch male-only sports. Things can only
change if some people decide to break out the old habits.
I understand (and to some extent agree) your point of view, however for the non-cyclist, watching road cycling is not very interesting. You could use your argument for women's hockey or netball, particularly as far more women play those sports week in week out. If I were a TV exec, marketing man etc, tthese sports are where I would put my money.
-
Road cycle racing has become popular enough for the grand tours and the ToB to get daily highlight programmes, and selected live coverage, on ITV4. The women's road race at London 2012 was very exciting (once they got the commentary sorted out), and was widely praised as such. So the seed has been sown for racing cycling to have general appeal. As that grows, advertisers will realise (I hope) that the appeal is irrelevant of gender, and that a women's race is just as effective marketing as a men's race - though the women's sport needs halo races to match the men's for non-enthusiast people to latch on to.
It's notable, however, how many non-cycling-specific sponsors have left the men's sport in the last year, which doesn't bode well. I hope women's cycling can attract the marketing budgets they need to put the sport on a sound financial footing, but I think it will be a long haul.
-
The mountain stages are the big USP of the TdF. They're gorgeous to look at, and it's amazing how humans can actually race up them.
Would you want to watch another bunch of (slightly slower) riders race up the same hills?
-
I will watch any sexed sport as long it is exciting, ok don't own a telly, don't watch much sport and hate advertising on telly. AND I'm not that keen on watching sport that much anyway, that I would go out of my way to get a telly, SKY or season ticket to be able to follow said spot. The sport that I would like to watch on the box ain't on British cable, satellite or terrestrial enough to justify me paying for the setup to get it once a blue moon. To get foreign telly where the sports that I might watch on the box are often to watch cost too much to set up to again and justify, oh I'm rambling but you get the idea :)
So honestly I can't and won't be much help in getting more female sport on the box. But I'm still all for it, so a female TdF gets my vote big time and if it ever gets near me or I'm near it I will for sure go and watch it.
-
America, Italy and others show women's cycling and other sports. It is England that is still dragging it's knuckles where it comes to females in sport.
-
It is England that is still dragging it's knuckles where it comes to females in sport.
And the other constituent countries of the UK aren't?!
-
Alex Salmond says an independent Scotland will show a women's TdF every day. And England will pay for it.
-
Alex Salmond says an independent Scotland will show a women's TdF every day. And England will pay for it.
The ruthless bastard!
Anyway, for years now the Beeb have given Wimbledon Women's matches equal airtime as the Men's - oh hang on, the women only play 3 sets, so I guess they get less airtime, my mistake.
I don't think "english" telly is particularly blinkered, it just reflects the audience appetite for a particular sport.
-
It's not just a TV problem, I went to see the Gent Wevelgem this year, women's race was just before the men's. Tried looking up on internet for the women's result on cyclingnews and they didn't even mention the race at all!
I definitely happened, I was there...
(http://www.nrtoone.com/allowhotlinking/20130324_0008crop_sm.jpg)
-
however for the non-cyclist, watching road cycling is not very interesting.
I totally agree with you on this point. The TdF is more than a road race. It's also a huge touristic showcase for our country. Having said this, the question as whether
the racers are male or female seems less relevant.
-
The mountain stages are the big USP of the TdF. They're gorgeous to look at, and it's amazing how humans can actually race up them.
Would you want to watch another bunch of (slightly slower) riders race up the same hills?
people watch endless repetitive football matches, don't they?
-
people watch endless repetitive football matches, don't they?
Tends to be men though...
-
Doesn't matter who's doing the watching, as long as the money people get the audience numbers they're looking for. In any case, first class soccer seems to have an increasing female audience. However, like cycling, women's soccer (and cricket) is struggling to get any audience at all.
-
Have you watched women's soccer, it's awful!
-
Have you watched women's soccer, it's awful!
Yes, I have, and some of it is much better than the men's (eg women's England team).
-
About twenty years ago Lianne Sanderson, ex Arsenal and England player, was in one of the infant classes I taught...watching her, aged 5, run out on to the playground and run rings round the Year 6 boys on the football pitch at playtimes was an inspiration to the other girls in that school, and a good lesson in anti sexism for the teachers. Years after, they were still producing a good proportion of girl players compared to to other schools in the area. Role models are immensely important.
Have you watched women's soccer, it's awful!
Yes, I have watched it, and I bet a lot more of it than you have. But perhaps you are trolling, here, because you find it amusing to derail a thread which attempts to deal with sexism in sport. Because that's such a trivial, funny subject, not worth anyone attempting to comment upon intelligently, I guess.
Anyway, came back to this thread to post this, really, an email I received,
Jane,
Last summer I helped launch a group called Le Tour Entier (LTE) and a petition on Change.org asking for women to be included in the Tour de France.
Because 97,000 of you signed our petition, the Tour de France organisers were willing to meet with us. I’m happy to report that women will be included in the 2014 event! Thank you!
Women will be allowed to compete in La Course, a shorter stage of the race on July 27th. This is a huge step toward including women in the full race.
The women who coordinated this campaign with me also wanted to share their appreciation:
Current Olympic and world road champion Marianne Vos: “Le Tour is the pinnacle of professional cycling and this race is the start of an exciting new time for women’s cycling. I have no doubt that this race will help change the face of women's cycling.”
Olympic silver medalist Emma Pooley: “As a rider, it's a great opportunity to be involved with the greatest cycling event in the world and I'm looking forward to the race already. It's also a tribute to the many cycling fans who want to see more high-level women's racing, and who supported us in Le Tour Entier.”
Four-time world ironman champion Chrissie Wellington: “It's been an absolute honour to work with A.S.O, and all the other members of the LTE team, to develop the race and I am beyond excited that all our dreams are becoming a reality!"
Thank you for helping us take this historic step forward for women’s equality. Thank you for helping us make history -- your continued support will be crucial in allowing women’s teams in the full Tour de France.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Bertine
It's a start.
-
This totally misses the point. Professional sports is about being paid to perform a service, in the case of road cycling it is effectively mobile billboards. If the demand from business was there then there would be a female grand tour ( doesn't have to be in France). Happy to support equality in amateur sports but as soon as it becomes professional then "he who pays the piper..."
Is that why the FA felt it necessary to kill professional women's football in 1921? Because there was no demand? Nothing to do with complaints from male teams about the commercial competition?
Sometimes, there's no demand because there's no supply, & hence nobody knows they'd like it. How much demand was there for the Walkman before it was invented? The people who decide what to sponsor aren't always completely rational, or know all that they should.
-
Have you watched women's soccer, it's awful!
What a ridiculous comment! It's awful because it's played by women? Can you substantiate that in any way? I'm no soccer fan, but the few women's games I've watched on TV seem to have demonstrated exactly the same skills as men's soccer. Only the lack of a large crowd making huge amounts of noise might be interpreted as diminishing the spectacle somewhat, but there's certainly nothing wrong with the skills on display - and why would there be?
Women's cycling is no less exciting to watch than men's. The fact that the average speeds may be a couple of kmh slower has absolutely no bearing on the quality of the racing. It's simply prejudice and lack of access that keeps audiences away. Where the opportunities are equal - track championships, the Tour series etc - women's cycling gets every bit as much enthusiastic support as men's. At last, some of the marketing people are beginning to cotton on.
-
Sometimes, there's no demand because there's no supply, & hence nobody knows they'd like it.
The womens olympic games at hampden didnt sell well at all. The mens games all sold out. I guess sometimes no demand is a reflection on the appetite, not just the supply.
-
Posted by: Pedal Castro: February 02, 2014, 07:45:56 PM »
Have you watched women's soccer, it's awful!
Yes, I have and I didn't find it awful, in fact it was refreshing to watch a game of soccer where the players accepted the referee's decisions, players didn't roll about on the floor after innocuous contact with an opponent and there was an absence of the "professional" foul. I found it very entertaining to watch.
I have also watched women's road racing and again some of it has been more entertaining than the male equivalent. I particularly remember the Worlds in Australia and Belgium, the women's Olympic Road Race was good too.
I'm looking forward to seeing them race around the Champs Elysee in July.
-
Good to hear people commenting about women's sport seriously, using examples from the real world, rather than echoing tired old stereotypes for a cheap laugh, because that's what "blokes" are meant to do. "Blokes" don't have to behave like that, and good to see some of you know that. (I am assuming some of these comments come from men!) Ditching those stereotypes would make a better world for everyone in the long run.
-
But perhaps you are trolling, here, because you find it amusing to derail a thread which attempts to deal with sexism in sport. Because that's such a trivial, funny subject, not worth anyone attempting to comment upon intelligently, I guess.
Jane, just because some post an alternate view to your own, it doesn't mean that they are trolling. You could refute the views, ask for clarifications, reiterate your original point of view etc, but succumbing to petty insults does you no favours. Just in case you missed my other comments in this thread:
This totally misses the point. Professional sports is about being paid to perform a service, in the case of road cycling it is effectively mobile billboards. If the demand from business was there then there would be a female grand tour ( doesn't have to be in France). Happy to support equality in amateur sports but as soon as it becomes professional then "he who pays the piper..."
PC, I have a different point of view. There's no demand from business for female sports because.... spectators are accustomed to watch male-only sports. Things can only
change if some people decide to break out the old habits.
I understand (and to some extent agree) your point of view, however for the non-cyclist, watching road cycling is not very interesting. You could use your argument for women's hockey or netball, particularly as far more women play those sports week in week out. If I were a TV exec, marketing man etc, tthese sports are where I would put my money.
It's not just a TV problem, I went to see the Gent Wevelgem this year, women's race was just before the men's. Tried looking up on internet for the women's result on cyclingnews and they didn't even mention the race at all!
Yes the women's soccer comment was more subjective and not particularly relevant but seems to have promoted more "debate" than the other more considered posts...what does that say about some of the other posters here?
Ditching those stereotypes?!
(I am assuming some of these comments come from men!)
-
Have you watched women's soccer, it's awful!
That was the comment to which I referred and I make no apologies for letting you know I found it annoying. And I did explain why, I think. I didn't comment on your other posts, no. Is there some rule on the forum that says comment on one, comment on all? You made a comment that irritated me, I told you. End of, surely. It wasn't an argument you made, it was a throwaway comment probably based on a few games you have seen. And it made me think that you were now fed up with this whole discussion (it came after your more calculated comments) and it possibly wasn't worth debating anymore. You may not have meant that, but that's the impression that particular comment gave.
And, you know what, your reply to me is also pretty irritating. Please don't patronise me by explaining the niceties of internet behaviour and argument. (I accept you may not mean to patronise me, but again, that's how it feels.) Your comment about women's football confused me precisely because it didn't fit with your previous comments... hence my musing on whether you might be trolling. I didn't say you definitely were, but was surprised that you suddenly threw in such a throwaway comment, which as you say yourself, promoted more debate than the others. Why was that do you think?
And,your last comment, which seems to imply I am being hypocritical in making assumptions about men...all I meant was that I assumed the non sexist comments in a few of the posts were made by men when in fact, I didn't know the sex of at least one of the posters. So don't quite understand what point you were trying to make there. Anyway, I have spent over fifty years in a world full of stereotypes and would not claim to be completely free of their influences.
-
Perhaps it means that he holds a complex, nuanced position that doesn't deserve to be branded as trolling?
Perhaps being a woman and claiming to work for equality does not give you the right to make throwaway accusations of trolling at those with whom you disagree?
Personally, since we're dealing with impressions rather than hard facts, I can't get over the fact that this is the only time I can ever remember seeing you on the racing board. If I got the impression that you were a fan of bike racing in general and were trying to change it from within, it would be a very different matter. As it is, it feels like you want to impress your principles upon something for which you don't usually care - and that makes it a lot harder for me to take you seriously here.
-
Can you give us the Mr Bunbury Approved List of Things Women Are Allowed to Comment On And Be Taken Seriously then please?
-
The same as for anyone: things they know about and have an interest in, rather than things that just form a convenient front in some imagined battle of the sexes.
-
PC, I have a different point of view. There's no demand from business for female sports because.... spectators are accustomed to watch male-only sports. Things can only
change if some people decide to break out the old habits.
Yep.
I stopped watching the Tour after Prince Contador got caught cheating. It was just once too often, and all the romance, excitement and awe was taken out of watching the thing. After Pantani, Ulrich, all the others, betraying me with their cheating, I'd had enough. If I want to watch humans performing extraordinary feats of endurance using magic drugs, I can do that at work ta very much.
Show me women doing a clean two week grand tour, including mountain stages, time trials, the works, and dammit you'd not get me away from the telly. I'd bloody love that! Imagine the suffering, the determination, the sheer grit required, only it would be women instead of men? What's not to love there? I don't believe for a second that women wouldn't be capable. We're actually better at ultra-endurance events than men, and we can so do pain.
The sponsors are just missing a trick here. The Tour has been a men's event since it started, and yes there've been a few women's Tours that have come and gone. None of them have been as demanding (that I can recall) as the Tour or the Giro. It's a vicious circle of no money, no airtime, no pros, and a harder fight all the way for women. If only there was an organisation with the money and vision to make this happen, it'd be so awesome.
-
Mr B ..I don't intend to get into a multi post personal argument here with you...you do seem to enjoy those don't you, but I am guessing everyone else finds it pretty boring. But I will take one post to remind you that you don't know me personally, therefore cannot comment on my cycling experience, history and knowledge... don't assume I know nothing and have had no experience of racing, throughout my life. I have been riding a bike for a long time, nearly fifty years. Part of the reason I am so interested in women's racing now is due to my early experiences as a young woman, back in the 70's.
As for this being the only time I have commented on the Racing board, again you are wrong...a cursory check would have shown you that. I may not have commented as often as others, but that is still no evidence for your careless assumption that I am using it as a "convenient front" for my views about sexism in racing. I don't have the spare time to post on any board, or any forum that frequently. My rate of posting here just reflects that, nothing more.
-
I've watched women racing off and on since the late '80s. A former Tour de France Feminin podium rider prepared by racing in the same bunches as me. Sometimes women's racing is interesting, aggressive and competitive but most times the racing I've watched has been tactically inept, timid and slow. Things have been getting a bit better recently and about bloody time too.
-
I would agree with you, LWAB. Which is why I am pleased about some of these latest developments...the incipient talent was always there, but it takes more than individual talent and drive to make women's racing as good as it could be.
-
As for this being the only time I have commented on the Racing board, again you are wrong...a cursory check would have shown you that.
Glad to hear it.
You've got a grand total of 71 posts in Freewheeling, and all the times you've posted on the racing board* have been about some aspect of female under-representation. Sorry, but I still feel like I'm being preached at. We're all allowed to have our particular passions but if you want to generate interest in the women's game, reciprocity demands you show some interest in the men's game too, no?
*The ones found before I got bored – and with the exception of one: “No stage over Sleightholme Moor”
-
From now on, Mr B, post stuff like this to me as a PM. Then I can cheerfully ignore it and others don't have to be bored by it.
-
And back on topic. There won't be a womens TdF until there is the will to pay for it. Petition all you like but unless TV is prepared to pay for coverage and sponsors are prepared to pay for the race it isn't going to happen.
-
Yes that's true. But every little helps as they say. http://totalwomenscycling.com/news/cost-of-running-womens-team-12699/ (http://totalwomenscycling.com/news/cost-of-running-womens-team-12699/)
-
Yes, I know there are good arguments for professional women's racing. If we can get the profile of any sort of racing raised then it will increase the viability of a womens circuit that can be sustained by advertising.
-
I wonder if maybe we're barking up the wrong tree. Adding separate races to an event causes some confusion among inexpert spectators (such as a TV audience). In many endurance sports events (marathon running, triathlon for example), the classifications are raced for within a single event, or a small number of events. Even within the TdF and other Grand Tours, we have a race for the overall win, another race for the points jersey, another for climbing, and another for the under-23s. Each of these classifications have their own adherents, but competing in one doesn't necessarily exclude a rider from competing in others. So, could a women's TdF be run within the existing race? Would the inevitable time differences (particularly at the back of the pack) be too large to be accommodated within the existing race structure? Could the race structure be adapted to allow for women participants? At the end of the day, does women's cycle racing have to be completely separated from men's, or might we finesse things so that it's easier for advertisers and sponsors to accept a little more expenditure for a great deal more appeal?
-
Well, I guess that's what the petition was about. There probably isn't enough viewing power out there, so to speak, to generate adequate income for financing loads of separate sporting events for women. So that idea might well be more appealing to sponsors.
-
The only woman currently racing who might be able to finish inside the TdF time cuts is Marianne Vos. The women's GC would depend on who could hang with the men's autobus the longest.
-
From now on, Mr B, post stuff like this to me as a PM. Then I can cheerfully ignore it and others don't have to be bored by it.
Alternatively you could try applying normal standards of behaviour, like not firing off accusations of trolling? Is that so much to ask?
-
From now on, Mr B, post stuff like this to me as a PM. Then I can cheerfully ignore it and others don't have to be bored by it.
Alternatively you could try applying normal standards of behaviour, like not firing off accusations of trolling? Is that so much to ask?
Hmmm. PC posts some sensible, nuanced discussion, then makes a throwaway comment that is, at best, a cheap gag. Jane calls him on it, and some (perhaps slightly tetchy) discussion ensues. Jane engages with other posters, discussing the chief subject of the thread.
You leap in accusing Jane of pushing a feminist agenda, and throwing insults at her: none of the posts you have made so far in this thread have had any significant content other than attacks on her and her viewpoint, you've managed a patronising and supercilious tone, and you certainly haven't deigned to touch on the subject of women's racing.
I know whose posts I think fall below decent standards of behaviour.
-
The only woman currently racing who might be able to finish inside the TdF time cuts is Marianne Vos. The women's GC would depend on who could hang with the men's autobus the longest.
I, too, always thought that, realistically, women might not be physically strong enough to complete the hardest part of the Tour, and, more to the point, might not have the potential to develop that strength. Maybe I am more a prisoner of stereotyping than I thought. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/oct/27/tour-de-france-women (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/oct/27/tour-de-france-women)
-
From now on, Mr B, post stuff like this to me as a PM. Then I can cheerfully ignore it and others don't have to be bored by it.
Alternatively you could try applying normal standards of behaviour, like not firing off accusations of trolling? Is that so much to ask?
Hmmm. PC posts some sensible, nuanced discussion, then makes a throwaway comment that is, at best, a cheap gag. Jane calls him on it, and some (perhaps slightly tetchy) discussion ensues. Jane engages with other posters, discussing the chief subject of the thread.
You leap in accusing Jane of pushing a feminist agenda, and throwing insults at her: none of the posts you have made so far in this thread have had any significant content other than attacks on her and her viewpoint, you've managed a patronising and supercilious tone, and you certainly haven't deigned to touch on the subject of women's racing.
I know whose posts I think fall below decent standards of behaviour.
It's Mr Bunbury's standard practice - if there's a discussion about sexism or feminism or gender inequality, he always pops up to tell the women they're wrong. If it's not trolling, it's some sort of compulsion.
-
The only woman currently racing who might be able to finish inside the TdF time cuts is Marianne Vos. The women's GC would depend on who could hang with the men's autobus the longest.
I, too, always thought that, realistically, women might not be physically strong enough to complete the hardest part of the Tour, and, more to the point, might not have the potential to develop that strength. Maybe I am more a prisoner of stereotyping than I thought. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/oct/27/tour-de-france-women (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/oct/27/tour-de-france-women)
I'm not sure what point you're making with that Jane :-\
That blog talks about women being excluded from boxing and long distance events - both of which I'm sure we all agree they are quite capable of (but not 5 sets of tennis apparently, but that's OT ... )
I don't think anyone's saying women couldn't complete* the Tour. Just that they wouldn't manage the current cut-offs; this isn't important for a women-only race but would scupper TimC's innovative but doomed idea.
Viewers throwing away stereotypes won't make the women as fast as the men - estimates vary but settle around 10% slower on 6hour endurance events.
If I've missed a different point, please explain :)
*Even I have ridden a mountains stage - but hours outside the time limit!
-
jane, I worked on the Tour de France Feminine in 1987. The best women in the world were riding the last 100km or so of several of the men's stages for 2 weeks. Their speeds on the climbs couldn't make the men's cut-offs, despite the shorter distances.
-
Yes... as I said... I know there is a real difference and that does present problems.. I posted the article just to show that some people believe all kinds of things can change, not necessarily that I am persuaded of it, yet, myself. I know a lot of the women riders are fed up royally with the system at the moment...and I guess I am just applauding their efforts, not only as athletes but as campaigners too. And I am just flagging up the issues...Pooley definitely believes there is inherent sexism in the UCI, and that it could do much more to promote women's racing. Nicole Cooke too. Are they just using the issue as "a convenient front" to push their feminist views? At least no one can attempt argue they aren't qualified to have an opinion.
-
The UCI are worse than useless in a variety of ways. It was the UCI that kept progressively restricting the Tour de France Feminin in both length and difficulty through the '80s and early '90s, not ASO.
-
From now on, Mr B, post stuff like this to me as a PM. Then I can cheerfully ignore it and others don't have to be bored by it.
Conversely, if you only want to discuss issues with those you know will agree with you then do that by PM. If you're not prepared to engage with people making perfectly reasonable points about your agenda it may be best avoiding raising them on internet fora.
Fwiw I agree with the points made by LWAB and David which are interrelated; women's racing has historically been technically poor and slow, and hence there is no commercial appetite for it on the same scale as mens'. Things are showing encouraging signs of changing but the horse has to come before the cart.
-
"Pro" (there isn't of course any such category now - the licence says Elite), cycling is a business, pure and simple. Commercial companies put on races, and fund them from advertising and tv rights. Sponsors pay riders based on a balance sheet of advertising exposure versus cost. The days of the maverick enthusiast sponsors have gone, albeit that some enthusiasts like Tinkov will persuade their PR departments and find benefits to back their aspirations.
My personal view is that women's cycling has done pretty well in recent years compared with other women's sports and previous years. The UK circuit race coverage does feature women, and there is good coverage on the track. I think that women's cycling does much better in the media than many other women's sports. How much women's rugby, or hockey etc is out there. Even women's football and cricket get a tiny percentage of the coverage the men's games get. I reckon cycling does well by this measure, but can do things to make it even better.
All this is helped by some very media-friendly riders who understand what being "professional" is Laura Trott, Dani King and Lizzie Armitstead come to mind. They give good, positive interviews. They do TV, quiz shows, Laura Trott with Guy Martin etc. The same is true of the men of course - the media need personalities - think Wiggins and Hoy.
British Cycling have done a great job of making sure that riders can handle the media, and this leads to coverage. The same is happening elsewhere of course, the Netherlands with Vos. Unfortunately France and to some extent Belgium, haven't got the big winner women just now, and this affects media coverage and promotion. It is changing though. With "bankable" personalities and more Elite women (previously a typical field would be very diverse, which could lead to what looked like pretty negative racing); the media will see opportunities and coverage will increase.
Going back to my youth, most people couldn't name a woman cyclist (even Beryl Burton was low-key). Now, I bet 80% of the people in the street could name at least one.
-
The historic issue with competitive women's cycling was the low participation rates leading to imbalanced races that didn't develop riders - whats the point of turning up to get a kicking week on week? And how do you develop tactical nous when you are strong enough to just ride away from the rest of the field?
This is changing as participation increases - and as the racing becomes more of a spectacle, there will be an increase in sponsorship. Probably not much - look how hard it is to put on a top level (Premier Calendar) men's race.
-
From now on, Mr B, post stuff like this to me as a PM. Then I can cheerfully ignore it and others don't have to be bored by it.
Conversely, if you only want to discuss issues with those you know will agree with you then do that by PM. If you're not prepared to engage with people making perfectly reasonable points about your agenda it may be best avoiding raising them on internet fora.
Fwiw I agree with the points made by LWAB and David which are interrelated; women's racing has historically been technically poor and slow, and hence there is no commercial appetite for it on the same scale as men's. Things are showing encouraging signs of changing but the horse has to come before the cart.
Excuse me, Tewdric, where haven't I engaged with people making reasonable points? I posted here precisely because I know there are people here who know a good deal more about the current state of racing than I do and practically everyone has treated the thread with respect, and my comments on it, even if they disagreed with me. When one person made what I considered a cheap and sexist jibe (uncharacteristic, granted, every other post PC made was reasoned and reasonable) I expressed my irritation and opinions as to why the comment was made. Then I get a personal attack from one other person.. I respond once to defend myself, also pointing out that this sort of personal spat is probably of no interest to anyone else and that in future should be kept out of the main thread. That person comes back even after that and I do not respond, because I am perfectly happy to discuss the issues with people, especially those who know more about it than I do... that's how we learn, is it not? Then you come along and open up the whole personal bit again. Even though it is obvious no one else is interested in it, and it has nothing to do with this thread. Pointless, irrelevant, and unjustified. How about opening up a thread, Tewdric and Mr B, all of your own, where you can make these kind of personal comments about whatever "little woman" might be annoying you at any particular time. That's all I intend to say to you as well, on this personal level... and apologies to everyone else.
With regard to the actual point you made... (though, the personal attack almost made me forget that...see how it doesn't help?).. yes, I agree, and I guess the fact that the quality of the women is improving will hopefully one day render these kind of discussions unnecessary. GP, yes, in comparison with other women's sports, cycling has moved forward pretty quickly in the last few years. And DM, also, your points are so, so true.
So maybe it's is just a question of slowly, slowly. I am hoping to set up a new Go Ride Club for local children...maybe that's the generation that will get the same status as the men.
-
I'm not necessarily agreeing with Mr B, merely defending his right to express a valid point.
-
jane, I worked on the Tour de France Feminine in 1987. The best women in the world were riding the last 100km or so of several of the men's stages for 2 weeks. Their speeds on the climbs couldn't make the men's cut-offs, despite the shorter distances.
Knowing what we know about the 'methods' being used in the pro peleton during 80's and 90's and assuming those 'methods' are no longer so prevelant, would the margin of performance be quite so marked today?
-
'80s was pre-EPO. Steroids worked better for women than men (the winning East German swimmers were women). Women take EPO too. I don't think the gap would have reduced.
-
The UCI are worse than useless in a variety of ways. It was the UCI that kept progressively restricting the Tour de France Feminin in both length and difficulty through the '80s and early '90s, not ASO.
Absolutely...the UCI have treated the men pretty badly too, but in different ways.
-
I think the UCI under Cookson is a different animal from what's gone before, and are showing signs of flexibility and open-mindedness. They've already said that they're going to revamp the technical regulations to allow for more innovation, they've explicitly said they wish to encourage women's racing, and I think it's highly likely they'll look at and listen to any serious proposals for some form of women's TdF.
-
That counts as the bare minimum and blatantly obvious things to do. Getting kudos will take more than that.
-
I wonder if physiological differences between men and women get overplayed a little in debates about gender and sport. Sure it may be the case that on average there are differences, but elite sport is about selecting those pretty rare individuals who have the right combination of physiology, mental attitude and experience. I would have thought one of the most significant influences over ability of elite teams is the pool of people from which those teams are drawn. So at least part of the actual current differences between men and women's performance in road cycling may be due to the much smaller number of women who initially participate in competitive cycling at the non-elite level. And that's before you even consider the reduced opportunities for competition experience for women that David Martin mentioned. A case in point in other sports would be the dominance of the nordic and alpine countries in the Winter Olympics. I doubt it has much to do with viking genes, but much more to do with the large numbers of people in those countries participating routinely in those sports.
-
The historic issue with competitive women's cycling was the low participation rates leading to imbalanced races that didn't develop riders - whats the point of turning up to get a kicking week on week? And how do you develop tactical nous when you are strong enough to just ride away from the rest of the field?
This is changing as participation increases - and as the racing becomes more of a spectacle, there will be an increase in sponsorship. Probably not much - look how hard it is to put on a top level (Premier Calendar) men's race.
I was chatting about this with clubmates of both sexes in the pub at the weekend. We've had all those issues down here: whereas in the local men's races there were enough amateurs within travelling distance of the track that an average race would have a few people capable of winning it. In the women's races on the other hand, it was always the same pair who'd ride off the front, because the small size meant that there wasn't anyone else good enough to chase them down.
From everyone else: "Oh no, let's just watch A and B win again"
From A and B: "Oh no not another 2-up TT, we'll never improve our tactics like this"
A and B then got their 1st cat, got excluded from the 234 races and had to travel all round the country to get points. While this is a problem for the men too ("Getting his first cat was the worst thing he ever did"), the reduced field has made it even more of a drag for A and B - though at least they're getting to do more than 2-ups now.
-
...
So at least part of the actual current differences between men and women's performance in road cycling may be due to the much smaller number of women who initially participate in competitive cycling at the non-elite level.
...
Yes of course. But there have been a lot of studies on inherent ability that show a big difference. I think 10% is the commonly quoted figure - I don't have sources to hand, but even if it was only 5% that is huge in elite sport.
The number of participants is a bigger issue in terms of the depth of ability/competitiveness - see Mr B's example of this problem. I don't think anyone would describe those 2-horse races as "as good as" the equivalent mens races. Now obviously this is a vicious circle - get more women competing and the depth will improve. But you can only sell sport on the state it is currently in - spectators and sponsors aren't interested in a sport that will be really good to watch in 10 years time.
-
I think that's why women's racing is better included on the bill at what would have been men-only races, particularly where there are already mixed-ability races. Let the women develop in a bigger pool than currently exists, allow them to gain the racing and tactical skills that will make women-only races more interesting, and encourage the depth that will eventually result in better and bigger races at the newly-improved elite level.
In the meantime, if it's truly not sensible to allow elite women to race at the same time as elite men at major races, at least get women's races on the same bill so that they get exposure.
-
[EDIT: in response to TimC's post, the one immediately before this. My apologies if this is not clear:]
The only way I can see this dragging the best women up is if they race against men of equal ability (i.e. 5-10% slower than the top men). Is that what you're suggesting?
-
The only way I can see this dragging the best women up is if they race against men of equal ability (i.e. 5-10% slower than the top men). Is that what you're suggesting?
Like a fair proportion of the peleton on the climbs?
-
The only way I can see this dragging the best women up is if they race against men of equal ability (i.e. 5-10% slower than the top men). Is that what you're suggesting?
Like a fair proportion of the peleton on the climbs?
Confused. We were talking about promoting womens races (or more specifically TimC's ideas), and now you're making some random point about mens performance on climbs.
What IS your point?
-
The only way I can see this dragging the best women up is if they race against men of equal ability (i.e. 5-10% slower than the top men). Is that what you're suggesting?
Like a fair proportion of the peleton on the climbs?
Confused. We were talking about promoting womens races (or more specifically TimC's ideas), and now you're making some random point about mens performance on climbs.
What IS your point?
My point is that a womens race could be run in conjunction with a mens race in some circumstances. Some seem to be arguing that the difference between elite men and elite women is too big (I may be wrong in my take on their argument) and you made the observation The only way I can see this dragging the best women up is if they race against men of equal ability (i.e. 5-10% slower than the top men). as a question to a previous post. I just noted that most of the pro peleton were that 5-10% slower than the top climbers. Therfore, a womens race running in conjunction with a mens race would have their top finishers finishing in the main bunch on a climb.
-
Ah, OK. Well that wasn't really what my comment was addressing, so this has got a bit confused.(I was replying to TimC's idea). My brain's not upto unpicking the various strands at the moment!
-
Ah, OK. Well that wasn't really what my comment was addressing, so this has got a bit confused.(I was replying to TimC's idea). My brain's not upto unpicking the various strands at the moment!
I know the feeling ;D
-
My point is that a womens race could be run in conjunction with a mens race in some circumstances. Some seem to be arguing that the difference between elite men and elite women is too big (I may be wrong in my take on their argument) and you made the observation The only way I can see this dragging the best women up is if they race against men of equal ability (i.e. 5-10% slower than the top men). as a question to a previous post. I just noted that most of the pro peleton were that 5-10% slower than the top climbers. Therfore, a womens race running in conjunction with a mens race would have their top finishers finishing in the main bunch on a climb.
Ah but they (the men) are not 5-10% slower on the climbs due to lack of ability, they are slower because they are conserving energy, no need to bust a gut up the mountains so they go as slow as they can to just get within the time limit.
-
You could have a women's race combined with a men's, starting later on the same course such the women's race finished a few minutes or so before the men in the same place. Or handicap the start times so they are scheduled to finish at the same time...
Or to be a bit more radical have all tdf teams made up of 9 men and 9 women, so the team classification was dependent on the overall performance.
-
[EDIT: in response to TimC's post, the one immediately before this. My apologies if this is not clear:]
The only way I can see this dragging the best women up is if they race against men of equal ability (i.e. 5-10% slower than the top men). Is that what you're suggesting?
Possibly! It may not be possible or appropriate for elite races, but we already have races that accommodate 1st to 3rd cats, for instance. In those there will be a fairly large spread of ability, and the better 3rd cats will indeed be dragged up by the 1sts. It may well be workable to have, say, 1st cat women in that bunch.
I'm not presenting a finished, thought-through solution, just bunging ideas in the pot for discussion. The main point is that somehow or other things need to be done differently to a) attract more women to the sport and b) give them the races and support they deserve.
-
Not sure what happens now but I rode many races against women in 3/J/W or 3/V/W races in the early '80s. I think that there were not separate categories for women then.
-
Actually, sod the putative women's TdF, the upcoming women's ToB seems to be the most prestigious women's race around just now. And why not? Why shouldn't the ToB be the one everyone looks up to and wants to ride?
BC have just released this teaser video (footage mostly from the Tour series, I think):
http://www.youtube.com/embed/JRc79kVeVWY
-
You could have a women's race combined with a men's, starting later on the same course such the women's race finished a few minutes or so before the men in the same place. Or handicap the start times so they are scheduled to finish at the same time...
Or to be a bit more radical have all tdf teams made up of 9 men and 9 women, so the team classification was dependent on the overall performance.
TdF does TLI :thumbsup:
-
The historic issue with competitive women's cycling was the low participation rates leading to imbalanced races that didn't develop riders - whats the point of turning up to get a kicking week on week? And how do you develop tactical nous when you are strong enough to just ride away from the rest of the field?
This is changing as participation increases - and as the racing becomes more of a spectacle, there will be an increase in sponsorship. Probably not much - look how hard it is to put on a top level (Premier Calendar) men's race.
I was chatting about this with clubmates of both sexes in the pub at the weekend. We've had all those issues down here: whereas in the local men's races there were enough amateurs within travelling distance of the track that an average race would have a few people capable of winning it. In the women's races on the other hand, it was always the same pair who'd ride off the front, because the small size meant that there wasn't anyone else good enough to chase them down.
From everyone else: "Oh no, let's just watch A and B win again"
From A and B: "Oh no not another 2-up TT, we'll never improve our tactics like this"
A and B then got their 1st cat, got excluded from the 234 races and had to travel all round the country to get points. While this is a problem for the men too ("Getting his first cat was the worst thing he ever did"), the reduced field has made it even more of a drag for A and B - though at least they're getting to do more than 2-ups now.
Hopefully the rise in women holding racing licences and women's races reported here will go some way to reducing these problems (what's with the silly picture though)
http://road.cc/content/news/111157-womens-racing-increase-23-cent-rise-female-held-licences-last-year
-
Woman invited to compete in men's grand tour (http://road.cc/content/news/113175-piazza-italy-named-after-alfonsina-strada-only-woman-ride-giro)
Shades of Teethgrinder...
Despite being ruled outside the time limit on the eighth stage after her handlebars snapped – she used part of a broom-handle provided by a bystander to improvise – Colombo convinced the race jury to let her continue, albeit outside the general classification.
-
What a terrific story, Cudzo...I had never heard of this woman...thanks for posting.
-
Lets hope that if the Womens Tour comes about they come up with some decent prizes. This was what Lizzy A and the other podium placers won in a World Cup race. Yup, thats a vacuum cleaner for the win and various household appliances for the runners-up.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bix1ZRzIUAA2cJY.jpg)
-
Lets hope that if the Womens Tour comes about they come up with some decent prizes. This was what Lizzy A and the other podium placers won in a World Cup race. Yup, thats a vacuum cleaner for the win and various household appliances for the runners-up.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bix1ZRzIUAA2cJY.jpg)
No...you must be joshing surely? That can't be true? has to be a joke...splutter, rage, splutter. spit, splutter. Speechless.
Please tell me you are just trying to get the feminists all wound up... I would forgive you, honest. It's a preferable scenario to this being true.
-
Sorry Jane, 100% true, although there was prolly a bit of cash involved. At least I bloody hope there was.
-
Prizes for Tour de France stage winners have included 'their weight in cheese', complete with photos of the winner sitting on the scales. If a major sponsor of the race was an appliance manufacturer or retailer, those prizes make sense.
-
And various livestock and so on. It depends on the sponsor and is an opportunity for product showcasing.
-
Lets hope that if the Womens Tour comes about they come up with some decent prizes. This was what Lizzy A and the other podium placers won in a World Cup race. Yup, thats a vacuum cleaner for the win and various household appliances for the runners-up.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bix1ZRzIUAA2cJY.jpg)
No...you must be joshing surely? That can't be true? has to be a joke...splutter, rage, splutter. spit, splutter. Speechless.
Please tell me you are just trying to get the feminists all wound up... I would forgive you, honest. It's a preferable scenario to this being true.
Unless there's more information than an oddly staged photo on the Internet and one person saying it is true, for my sanity I will choose to believe it's a wind up unless there is more documented proof. As far as sponsorship is concerned, of the legible items one is Phillips one is AEG, so again, no.
Had it been true I feel certain there would have been more adverse publicity surrounding it. Your instinct is almost certainly right, it is a setup of some nature.
-
Surely there would have been more adverse publicity if true.. Ms Armitstead's arrest for attempted murder of race sponsors by strangulation with a hoover tube would surely have merited a couple of lines in the sports news.
I can't find it anywhere...where did you get the photo, Biff?
-
I can't find it anywhere...where did you get the photo, Biff?
Scraped off the bottom of the Internet ;) Google image search doesn't find it either (hosting is via a Twitter image host)
-
https://www.facebook.com/GirlsBikes
(I shan't name he who shared this ... )
A very eye-catching page - lots of 'empowered' female riders - but I'm not convinced the message is quite right :-\
-
As I am a rather unreconstructed second wave feminist, the very term "Girls" raises my hackles when applied to fully grown women. And I am afraid my hackles raised to an extreme high point, on further viewing of this Facebook page ...I don't know who set it up, but it reminds me of those tacky calendars one of my uncles used to have in his car repair workshop...and I don't find it particularly empowering at all...just one more example of how women's achievement anywhere can be reduced to a bit of soft sexual tittilation, which won't inspire or empower the vast majority of my sex in any way whatsoever. Merely remind them that, for many men, their sole purpose is to provide a bit of slightly sexually arousing "eye candy" and not much else. And if someone tells me it's women who have set up the page themselves, that makes no difference at all to my perception of it.
-
I originally came here to post this http://road.cc/content/news/117184-emma-pooley-says-its-nuts-she-gets-more-prize-money-triathlon-hobby-pro-cycling
-
I read that article and originally agreed that it seemed a bit odd. Then I thought about it a bit more. What may be a hobby for Pooley is most definitely professional sport for most of those she competes against. The fact that women's triathlon pays better than women's cycling almost certainly reflects the value that commercial sponsors put on (and the revenue they get from) triathlon as opposed to cycling. And why shouldn't it pay more? There's no rule that says different sports should pay similar prize money! If women's triathlon can generate more dosh than women's cycling, that probably says something about both sports - and it may be similar in men's versions of those sports, at least if you exclude the ProTour, which has perhaps become somewhat detached from the rest of cycling.
-
(So she wins marathons, and gets on triathlon podiums. I ought to dig out the thread about natural running ability correlating with cycling ability. But never mind ... )
I think TimC has it about right., When you look at the commercial "value" in sport, anything can happen. Cricketers are paid better for 20-over games than the 5-day form.
And women earn more for a set of tennis than men. I'm sure we could find more "oddities" ...
-
I confess I know very little about triathlon...so I guess if she is competing against professional triathletes, and if the prize money differentials between professional triathletes of either sex are not great than maybe that isn't quite so unfair as it may seem.
Don't quite know why people make so much out of the five set three set thing in tennis though. On the professional circuit, men play best-of-five-set matches only at four Grand Slam tournaments, Davis Cup, the Olympic Games and best-of-three-set matches at all other tournaments. So, I don't think that can be used as an example of superior rates of pay really.
-
Those are the highest profile, highest status, and highest paying competitions.
-
Triathlon prize money is generally the same for men & women, and in the long distance events that Emma does it's pretty much the same event too - either an all-in start, or enough of a stagger on the start that the faster women swimmers can't distort their own race by drafting on the feet of the faster blokes.
I think her results last year and this were 5th in Ironman Switzerland, 3rd in the Phillipines, and 1st in the Swissman xtreme triathlon (Gotthard, Furka and Grimsel passes on the bike leg, and the last 8km of the marathon averaging 12.5%), against the pro triathletes.
There's no gender divide in triathlon because it's a new sport, starting at a time when it was considered normal for women to compete in sport, and women competed right from the start (almost).
The problem in cycling is that there's a chicken and egg situation - there's minimal sponsorship because there's no brand exposure on races that aren't televised and have minimal press coverage (not because Quickstep think they will sell more flooring sponsoring men rather than women), and the races can't be grown without income to pay for TV bikes etc.
What to do about it is the question.
I'd take the view that the UCI should use the ranking systems - points available on a race derived from the riders taking part, and lump men's & women's teams and events in together, so the Ronde would give more ranking points than Roubaix for example, 'cos it runs a women's event, and if a team runs both men's and women's teams (as Rabobank did), lump the points together when deciding Pro Tour qualification or whatever.
-
Trott positive about womens road racing, but not about TdeF:
"
Trott, 22, came 55th in the inaugural Women’s Tour earlier this month, a professional women’s road race on an unprecedented scale in Britain.
She said: ‘I think it’s a great step. It’s quite smart to say we don’t want it to run alongside the men’s race. I think women’s road race will continue to grow. It’s slowly getting bigger and it’s nice that GB is leading the way.’
Trott also endorses La Course by Le Tour, a one-day stage at the finish of the Tour de France for women road racers but stops short of getting behind the petition by Olympic teammate Emma Pooley and Dutch Olympic road race champion Marianne Vos for a women’s Tour de France.
She says: ‘I’m not so swayed on the whole Tour de France idea. They do have a stage race (La Course) but some women don’t agree with it because it doesn’t go up the classic hills. But I just don’t think it should run along the same course as the men’s because we would never, ever complete 300km. You’d get two riders rolling in after 10 hours.'
‘There’d be deaths,’ Kenny predicts.
‘I just don’t think it would be realistic,’ adds Trott, ‘We ride a tour for five days and at the end of it we’re completely knackered. For three weeks - no chance. I certainly wouldn’t finish, put it that way.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2634180/Jason-Kenny-Laura-Trott-admit-medals-Commonwealth-Games-no-big-deal.html#ixzz32Tydm9BU
"
I dunno about this ... other evidence suggest that - whilst women are typically ~10% slower than men in 'endurance' sports - they start to claw back ground over multi-day events. Results of ultra-runs support this, with quite a few female overall winners.
So a 3-week race should be ok.
And "300km" ?!? I know there are some 1day races of that length, but the Grand Tours rarely get much past 200km. ???
-
‘I just don’t think it would be realistic,’ adds Trott, ‘We ride a tour for five days and at the end of it we’re completely knackered. For three weeks - no chance. I certainly wouldn’t finish, put it that way.’
Yebbut she's a track rider!
-
At the moment women's races are so short that tactics don't play as significant a role as in the men's. Allowing races of 200km would be fine. However the field sizes are currently small and diverse abilities. The Scottish National champs had a field of 14, and I'm pretty sure one of those names was down just to take the race over the minimum needed to hold it.
I would expect a few years of development with colsed circuits such as York to bring people into the sport will lead to bigger and stronger fields. The average Scottish 3&4ths mens race is already at a brutal standard as there are not enough races and too many riders chasing points at that level.
-
I think it's far too early to be talking in terms of a women's Grand Tour event. I have no doubt that, in time, there will be enough elite women riders and enough suitable preparatory races to allow a Grand Tour to happen, but it's a very big step from one 500km 5-day stage race to a Grand Tour.
Allow the average daily distance to go up to 150km, and get a few more 5/6/7 day races, and the foundations will be in place for something a bit more ambitious. It'll take a while yet, but wouldn't it be great if the first women's Grand Tour was in Britain?
-
There have been several high quality women's stage races previously including Tour Feminin in France, Giro Donne in Italy and the Ore-Ida Challenge in the USA. The British event was comparatively unchallenging.
-
Yes, there have. But they mostly don't exist now, and the current generation of riders have never experienced the 15-stage format of the 1990s Tour Féminin. The Women's Challenge (Ore-Ida) was last held in 2002. The Giro Rosa seems not to be happening in 2014, and the Giro Donne as was had reduced to 8 stages by last year - and still subject to the UCI 100km average stage length restriction. While the Women's Tour was a pale shadow of a Grand Tour, it would appear to have some momentum behind it and the enthusiasm for cycle racing in this country bodes well for its future. It may be a bit ambitious to hope that it could become the premier women's stage race, but why not?
-
How can I work the fact that the UK was first with a lady Frances de la Tour into the thread? I can't, oh well.