Pooley's Petition for a Women's TdF

[jane]

Yes that's true.  But every little helps as they say.  http://totalwomenscycling.com/news/cost-of-running-womens-team-12699/

[David Martin]

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.

[TimC]

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?

[jane]

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.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

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.

[Karla]

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?

[jsabine]

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.

[jane]

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

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

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.

[mattc]

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

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!}

[LittleWheelsandBig]

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.

[jane]

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. 
   

[LittleWheelsandBig]

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.

[Tewdric]

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.

[giropaul]

"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.

[David Martin]

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.

[jane]

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. 

[Tewdric]

I'm not necessarily agreeing with Mr B, merely defending his right to express a valid point.

[fuzzy]

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?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

'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.

[jane]

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. 

[TimC]

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.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

That counts as the bare minimum and blatantly obvious things to do. Getting kudos will take more than that.

[red marley]

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.

[Karla]

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.