MagillaGorilla said:Other sports likewise assign sponsors to these extra-curricular
competitions as well. However, they are smart enough to call them what
they are - statistics. No athlete shows up to tournaments or Superbowls
or a World Series with the intent to mold their entire game of play
strategy to win STATISTICS at the expense of losing the overall win.Riders like Robbie McEwen win statistics, not races. What Robbie McEwen
does in the Tour de France is akin to a running back gaining the most
yards in a game despite his team losing.
Robbie McEwen is not winning statistics at the expense
of losing the overall win. I'm fairly sure McEwen has no
chance at the overall Tour win. Nor does anyone else
on his team, usually.
Cycling is a team sport that is also an individual sport.
That is one reason why its strategies are different from
either baseball or (for ex) distance running. Cycling
is also one of the few team sports where the courses
change from event to event - football fields are more
or less the same apart from wind and altitude; baseball
fields have minor differences in the outfield; soccer pitches
vary in size but they don't put hills in the middle, and so on.
In fact I can't think of another team sport that uses varied
courses, though surely someone will come up with one
(Relay XC skiing doesn't count).
McEwen can't win the Tour and Basso has little shot at
winning many of the major classics. Imagine if baseball
stadia differed so much that which player performed well
depended so strongly on the venue.
The structural issues caused by cycling race courses being
in all sorts of different places are a major reason that pro
cycling has the screwed-up governing structure that it does,
with promoters, the UCI, teams and sponsors all trying to
satisfy their own interests. It's not just the usual UCI
incompetence.
Ben