AEG said to add women’s TT to Solvang with payout based on number of men bested
by steph- on Apr 3, 2011 2:02 AM EDT
Email
Print
This was dropped on us this afternoon while we were watching the men's crit at Redlands. It sounded too silly to be true...and yet here is the Velonews story about AEG and their proposed TT.
The story states - "The race is said to be running in conjunction with the stage-six time trial in the men’s UCI 2.HC stage race on May 20. According to one team manager who asked not to be named because of involvement with the event, riders will be rewarded on the basis of how many of their male competitors they best in the 24km test."
Personally...I am quite offended that AEG would propose a gimmick instead of supporting good, competitive racing for women. AEG made a pledge to have a women's Tour of California. We have no stage race for the women. We have instead a TT proposal where women are to win money if they beat the men. Give me coverage of the Women Prestige Cycling Series...not this side show.
I know of one women's DS that loves the idea. A number of us hate the concept. Was curious how the Cafe members feel about this proposed event.
Here's the story link - AEG said to add women’s TT to Solvang with payout based on number of men bested
61 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
For me, it makes me feel sad that my first thought
when I saw it on twitter was “oh well, at least it’s a women’s race”… I dunno, it’s one of those things which seems so stupid, it’s like a late April Fool’s Day joke. The implications are crazy, the idea that women only earn $ if they beat men…
Hate it. Absolutely hate it.
It dumbs down cycling.
I picked Riccardo Ricco for my 2011 VDS team, and submitted said team well before the submission deadline. I fully understand the error of my ways, and plead with the VDS Gods to allow me to resubmit my team.
i'm fine with it
as long as the dudes get paid based on who beats cancellara’s time.
but seriously, it’s bullshit.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Not so excusable from the point of view of the racers or current women's cycling fans. BUT:
As a kid, the only tennis match I’d ever heard of, or cared about, or heard argued about, was Billie Jean King vs. Bobby Riggs. I won’t say it made me into a huge tennis fan, but at least I knew that sport existed, and I thought it was totally cool that “the woman” had beaten “the man.”
I therefore find this sort of cool in two ways. First, it’s easy to forget that it does mean something to a lot of girls (by which I mean female children) to hear that women and men are somewhere in the same universe, in terms of physical prowess. That’s not actually something we’re born knowing, and it’s something that a lot of us are not raised knowing. Humans are actually one of the less physically sexually dimorphic species—men and women are fairly similar in side and ability compared to, say, male and female gorillas, turkeys, lions.
Cycling’s wheel use and weight / power tradeoff make it probably the best sport to make that point. The potential payoff for women’s cycling is the number of girls who realize that if they stick with biking, they really will be competing at a “near par” level with guys, physically. That’s not going to happen in most other sports. Think of it as a passive form of recruitment for girls who have a huge competitive streak. I like that.
And for the men’s cycling fans? Some of the riders who would normally be at the back may suddenly become supermotivated. Others might show their support for the women by strategically slowing the pace. That could all be entertaining in its own right. A bit of a sideshow, but my baser self is sort of charmed by that aspect, too.
Maybe that’s all sociology and practicality, not pure racing. But the prize money is about the sociology and the practical future of the sport. It’s also probably a lot cheaper to hold the race this way—it’s a way to have a women’s race for very little extra in terms of publicity, course control, etc. If that means more money into the women’s prizes, then great. It’s not like they’re forcing the women to do a bunch sprint with the guys, after all.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
But, it's not the same
BJK was responding to a situation, it was about her proving something she was saying. This is a race saying riders will only get paid if they beat men. It won’t even be the best riders, because which European-based pros are going to fly to the USA just to ride this one race, which is a sideshow? Sure, I expect the teams based out there to give some of the men a spanking – Kristen Armstrong, for instance – but what’ll it prove? Say a load of women who ride for free on the USA domestic circuit don’t beat the boys, or beat only a few, it can be used to say “haha, girls can’t race”
Now, if it was a standalone race, say pitting Emma Pooley against eg Fränk Schleck, that would be different. Or, say, pitting the USA domestic women’s teams who ride the early season against the men’s teams out there – but to say they won’t give any prize money otherwise, when they know they’re not getting the best riders, feels so mean-spirited
by Sarah Connolly on Apr 3, 2011 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Riggs wasn't exactly the top guy at the top of his game either.
And any race is, on some level, an invitation to race, not a command. Riggs was the one putting out the challenge, and talking trash, as I remember.
I don’t think anyone has ever expected women to even begin to compete head-to-head in any other sport discipline. Except marathons, and there, they actually do compete head to head, and it all does work. So I see no real downside. There will be more coverage, and maybe more money.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
Oh, and the LEVEL of the money is a separate issue.
They should set it up so that beating guys means a bonus / extra cash, not the other way around.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
The trouble is
when you say “I don’t think anyone has ever expected women to even begin to compete head-to-head in any other sport discipline”, I see that argument used to dismiss women’s sport in general & women’s cycling in particular all the time in forums other than this.
I’ll spare you but I could easily show you comments where the women’s RvV is dismissed elsewhere purely on the comparative speeds of the two races. You know the arguments, the “why should I watch cat 3 racing” one or the “no one wants to watch sport that isn’t the best” one or even the “why should there be a separate category for women at all” one. These arguments are so prevalent that it’s often almost impossible to have any discussion about women’s sport without someone immediately trotting them out, no matter how irrelevant they really are. I think this plays right into them, myself.
The Riggs v Billie Jean King was a one-off, an exhibition, not a serious sporting contest for which she was supposed to grateful.
If I were a rider, I’d be getting a bit of the old tendonitis that week.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
+1
The thing is too, all the "no one wants to watch sport that isn’t the best" stuff is all BS too in the end. In Sweden there is a long tradition of CX skiing and it is a big TV sport. Men and women have WorldCups, Worlds etc. at the same time and both women and men are televised. What gets most attention depends on where Sweden has the best chances. If we have a male star, that gets the buzz. Right now we have two charismatic and winning women and they get about as much attention as the successful men. I don’t think that many even reflect on the fact that the women ride slower? The races are just as exciting.
I don’t have numbers but I would guess from anecdotal evidence/general feeling that men’s races have somewhat higher ratings all things being equal. But , a women’s race with a gold-candidate gets more viewers than a men’s race with poorer winning chances for Sweden.
Just to add. I'm going to use myself as the example
Did I become a fan of women’s cycling because of my heartfelt belief in the equality between the sexes? No. I became a fan because I’m a cycling fan, I’m a swede, there were two highly successful swedish riders and so that caught my attention. The competition is basically the same so why wouldn’t it?
Maybe that's more true in countries without title 9...
where women’s collegiate sports get almost no fans. I guess I’m spoiled by how well women’s college basketball (for example) does at some schools. Nobody says, “the women are shorter than men, so it’s boring.” Some don’t enjoy the passing game, some do. But we’re past the era of “it’s not serious competition.”
"dumped for Greipel?!"
You use the word sideshow
and that’s what it boils down to. It’s not a meaningful competition, it’s not a fair competition and it’s not a competition any women have ever asked for. What they ask for in every tweet and blog is that their hard work and dedication get at least a little bit of the attention it deserves. Women race other women and that is what an organizer should display if they had any serious intentions.
This is like saying you are doing good things for nature and wildlife by having dancing bears in a circus.
+1
Nothing to add.
"It's really who can just push the biggest gear the fastest and the hardest, and I want to be that guy" - GHH
Again... Triathlons. Marathons.
Women are rated against women, but also, in some sense, racing against men, and in the same event. And there’s certainly a mental effect (or used to be, maybe most runners have gotten over it?) of the “beaten by a girl / beating a boy” dynamic.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
In any of the events you mention
are the women’s prizemoney dependent on how they performed in comparison with the men?
Yeah
That part, that part irks. It’s almost like they’re saying, well, we’ll pay you if you beat some men, but we don’t really expect to have to. Weak sauce.
Oh, I think they'd have to pay out something.
At the Redlands prologue, which was the same course for both the men and women (at least, the same map is linked for both), Neben’s time beat at least 89 of the men (possibly 92—CN didn’t go to hundredths), and 75 of the women (out of 113 racing) beat at least one of the men.
I yearn for the cobbles--Edvald Boasson Hagen
Yeah, probably
Problem is if the AEG somehow thinks this will prove anything in regards to parity I feel fairly certain we will get a barrage of tweets and comments on how the men weren’t really trying or how they were saving themselves for domestique duty the next day.
Perhaps this thing should go both ways if the women’s pay is dependent on competing against men? What if all the men that get beaten by a woman are considered Hors Delay and are not allowed to take the start on the stage 7 to Mount Baldy?
gut reaction?
It a stupid idea.
Anyone who has every thought a working Photojournalist has a glam job needs to rethink...
by Christopher See on Apr 3, 2011 12:29 PM EDT reply actions
Offensive, unfair, and demeaning.
Value of women riders needs to be measured against comparable competition. This is effectively saying, “come on girls, chase the boys and we might take you seriously if you catch a few.”
If I were women’s teams, I’d boycott this. Seriously. As it is, I’m inclined not to watch the ToC at all, in any capacity, if this goes forward.
You're talking about a sport where women normally are paid insultingly low prize money.
And we’ve already discussed how women end up doing shoots where people may try to push a T&A photo angle on them, or else give them no coverage.
You sure that paying women for beating guys—paying them for their racing—is one of the more demeaning ways to get more attention for the sport, and more money into it?
I’m not buying. At least this way, every woman who’s fast on the bike will be getting money, not the one who’s willing to bare most, or has the most to bare.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
Fine, I'll agree on that
But it is just tremendously annoying that one of the few players with actual capacity to do something constructive comes up with this circus-bullshit. Every year, people have pleaded with AEG to put on some version of a parallel women’s race and at most they have held a crit. But this kind of nonsense they have the time and money to come up with?
Circus
Is the prefect word. It feels like someone had the brilliant idea of “If we make it gimmicky enough, we can make money at it.” It’s making the Women’s race a sideshow and creating a forced competition that makes no sense and serves no purpose.
I’d have preferred a crit to this. At least crits are fun to watch and the competition is real.
"It's really who can just push the biggest gear the fastest and the hardest, and I want to be that guy" - GHH
as bad as the economy still is,
I’m impressed when anyone comes up with creative ways to do anything new. Demand at foodbanks isn’t dropping any. My county just estimated we have more than 1700 homeless kids. Banks are still going under. If someone wants to work a gimmick to drive interest, in the hopes that a small percentage of the yahoo contingent will get hooked on women’s racing, or at least buy some food and a hat from the sponsor’s tents, I really can live with that.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
But why is it either/or?
I mean, it’s not like they’re saying it’s either the CyclePassion calendars or ride in Cali – they’re saying no pay unless you beat a man, when I can’t think of any other sport that would say that.
To me this is just one of the things I don’t like, but it’s not like we only have to be annoyed about one thing at a time!
by Sarah Connolly on Apr 5, 2011 3:42 AM EDT up reply actions
(re CyclePassion I know there are a range of opinions on it
I’m just using it as an example, and I know that’s an open-eyed choice riders make – I should probably have said something along the lines of the rider who turns up for what seems like a basic shot, and all of a sudden they’re asked to bend over their bike, unzip their shirt a bit more, all that crap)
by Sarah Connolly on Apr 5, 2011 3:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Are they? (The link never worked for me, BTW.)
I was under the possibly mistaken impression that they were supplementing the money for women who beat men. But again, the women so often do seem to be racing for $50. I guess I’d need to know if this creates a chance at real money for more women, or not. If it is a race that would not otherwise be run, it’s not like offering the option takes some other race out of the calendar. The women’s calendar is hardly jam-packed. It’s one more optional option.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
I think it's one thing for women as individuals...
…to make choices about how they want to supplement their income so that they can race bikes. Some have day jobs, some pose for cheesecake calendars, etc. Upsides and downsides to many of those choices,* but still the choices are available separately from the fact of racing one’s bike. It’s another thing altogether when *racing your bike but still the choices are available separately from the fact of racing one’s bike. It’s another thing altogether when racing your bike entails participating in this kind of bullshit.
to be clear, I’m not suggesting for one second that having better funding for being a bike racer, and thus eliminating or reducing the need for supplementing income, and the often unhappy compromises that come with that, wouldn’t be vastly preferable. But that’s a separate issue.
wow that got mangled.
Try again:
It’s one thing for women as individuals o make choices about how they want to supplement their income so that they can race bikes. Some have day jobs, some pose for cheesecake calendars, etc. Upsides and downsides to many of those choices, but still the choices are available separately from the fact of racing one’s bike. It’s another thing altogether when racing your bike entails participating in this kind of bullshit.
The qualification at the end wasn’t messed up.
I'm all for it if...
the base prize money for the female winner is $100,000 with $50,000 added for each man beaten. And every woman in the race also gets 50k for every man they beat. Any men who DNF are included in the calculations. You would see the absolute best field of women TTers ever!
Otherwise just run a women’s TT in conjunction with the men’s. For doing that the organisers would be thanked and lauded for little work on their part rather than slagged for an ill conceived idea.
sigh So near yet so far!
by Creeping Tortoise on Apr 4, 2011 6:59 PM EDT reply actions
Maybe we are over-sensitive?
Kristen Armstrong:
love the system! As a time trialist it fires me up to see how many men I can “girl”.
Ina Yoko Teutenberg:
bummer I am not fast enough on those bikes ;-). Nice course&huge crowd last time they had tt in Solvang. Will be blast.
Well, I'd expect Armstrong to be getting an appearance fee whatever
and Ina T most likely won’t be there, so it won’t make a difference to her.
I’d give a lot to hear Lizzie Armitstead’s perspective, mind you!
by Sarah Connolly on Apr 5, 2011 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
...and this is what we are hearing....
huge pressure from the sponsors….always comes down to the business side of sport.
Bike companies...
…determined to alienate half of their potential customers.
What a bunch of pathetic. fucking. clowns.
I've got ovaries, and it's not alienating me.
Maybe there’s some other half of the human race you’re speaking for. Maybe even one you belong to. But, “I’m pissed, so everyone else who thinks right is obviously also pissed” doesn’t really work.
We cut off the peloton in a stage race based on a percentage of the winning time. Is it “fair” for sprinters to be required to get over mountains based on the time of climbers? After all, they’re totally different sorts of riders. All SORTS of things in racing are arbitrary, and dependent on someone else whom you’re not really competing against directly except in name.
It’s a one-off, a quirky thing. Bit strange, but hardly something that threatens to become “the way women’s racing is done.”
"dumped for Greipel?!"
I think it will be very hard for women riders to oppose this.
Which is why fans need to.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
I just reread
the original article and it suggests that there’s a fixed pot, and unless I’m reading it wrong, it suggests the “purse” will be worked out by no. of men beaten…
So, in conjunction with Jim Miller of USA Cycling’s tweets, who implies that there’s no way of paying women standard prize $ unless they win because Tour of Cali is running at a loss, it makes me think it actually might be more annoying than I first thought…. if it’s a fixed pot, that means the more women beat men, the less $ the women get per prize….
I really, REALLY hope I am just being über-cynical here…. Plus, I’m telling myself to bear in mind that the tour of Cali hasn’t actually said there’s any truth in this yet…. (although Jim Miller’s “if it runs like this, there’s be 20 mins of USA TV coverage of the women’s ITT” also hasn’t been confirmed…
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Celebrate the Giro d'Italia at Podium Cafe!
Check our Giro Section for race updates, on-the-scene reports, and other hijinx.
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
