# Reasons to like the TTT rule



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

I've been on 4 internat bicycling forums today and everyone is whining about the "Unfairness" and "stupidity" and "BS" etc of the new TTT rules that limit a riders time loss based on his teams placment on the stage. I would like to offer an alternative view.

As someone who wants to see a tight, competitive race for as many days of the tour as possible......I like the rule. 

As someone who wants the GC to be the result of that individual riders performance and his time.....I like the rule. (Yea I know, EE's team wasn't strong enough to drag him back yesterday, but it was Mayo's handling skills that created the problem....I think that if Lance had fallen and Phonak & T Mobile were driving the lead group that Postal would not have been able to make up time....I don't think they would have lost as much but they would have lost time.)

As someone who wants to see a race where there is more than just one main rival that the leader and his team needs to watch, and where more than one's rival teams can "Gang up" to put the leader under pressure........I love the TTT rule.

If the alternative is that Lance (or someone else) Has a 6+ minute lead going into stage 16, and therefor the final few stages are an exercise in seeing not if someone can break out, but rather if the Leader falters.....then I'll take this rule.

Lance worshipers hated last year because the outcome was in doubt so late in the race.......me, I thought it was one of the most interesting ever.

Flame away, but as a fan of not any individual as much as the outcome of competition, I like the rule.

Len

PS. It definatly makes it harder on a strong rider, but in the end....the strongest should still win, it will just be more entertaining.

PSS I didn't say I thought it was fair...I just like it


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

It's one thing to change the rules to make the race tighter, but I don't think it's fair to negate time gains. It doesn't encourage the weak to become strong, which is what you really are looking for when you want a more competitive race.

I don't like time bonuses, either. Two or three years ago they asked the riders in the Vuelta what would make it better, and the riders replied: get rid of time bonuses for winning the stage. So they did. The clock stops when you cross the line, and it doesn't rewind.

The TTT rules largely make the stage meaningless, because it's enough for most teams just to show up and cross the line. Except for Postal, every team got a time bonus today. Every single team!!! The last placed team got a 4 minute bonus! That seems to be a severely biased rule to me, and I don't really see what it accomplished.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*The rule accomplished exactly..........*



mohair_chair said:


> It's one thing to change the rules to make the race tighter, but I don't think it's fair to negate time gains. It doesn't encourage the weak to become strong, which is what you really are looking for when you want a more competitive race.
> 
> I don't like time bonuses, either. Two or three years ago they asked the riders in the Vuelta what would make it better, and the riders replied: get rid of time bonuses for winning the stage. So they did. The clock stops when you cross the line, and it doesn't rewind.
> 
> The TTT rules largely make the stage meaningless, because it's enough for most teams just to show up and cross the line. Except for Postal, every team got a time bonus today. Every single team!!! The last placed team got a 4 minute bonus! That seems to be a severely biased rule to me, and I don't really see what it accomplished.


what it was designed to accomplish.......it allowed for the (highly fun for the fan to watch )TTT without allowing for increases in time gaps between the GC hopefuls.....it kept the race closer than it might have been. This will make the race more fun to watch later in the tour. You may not like it, you may not think it's "Fair" but that's exactly what the organizers wanted and it's exactly what they got.

Look, this race is not "pure" from beginning to end. The way stages are sequenced, the way starts and finishes go to the towns who pay the most, the poitioning of the tough mountain stages, the inclusion, timing and length ot ind TT's, the inclusion or exclusion of uphill TT's are all arbitrary and help some riders and hurt others...what's fair about that? The truth is, anything that keeps the race close make's it more entertaining and potentially more profitible for the organization and the sponsors......and that ain't going to change.

Len


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*I couldn't agree more! w/o new rule this tour is over on stage 4!!!!*

It seems like everybody, in their hope that Lnce crushes everyone, thinks the rule is unfair. If we didn't have the rule this year this tour we be just about over with only Tyler within 1:15 of Lance. Who the hell wants the tour to be over on stage 4?. Many sites are praising the new rule for keeping this tour exciting.

The truth is I converted about 2 hours ago from a new-rule hater to a new-rule liker... otherwise this tour is very anticlimactic. as it stands Ullrich has his work cut out for him - but at least Lance could still have a bad day in the Mtns...

-Nik





Len J said:


> I've been on 4 internat bicycling forums today and everyone is whining about the "Unfairness" and "stupidity" and "BS" etc of the new TTT rules that limit a riders time loss based on his teams placment on the stage. I would like to offer an alternative view.
> 
> As someone who wants to see a tight, competitive race for as many days of the tour as possible......I like the rule.
> 
> ...


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

While I agree that "The Rule" might've prevented the Tour from being over today, I think legislating results is foolish. Yes, the Tour is about the strongest guy, but it's still a team sport and rules that allow teams to not excel across the board are a mistake.

Let me offer you this morality tale - my wife is a horse trainer and she had a very successful 4H team. They cleaned up at every event, because she had a good program and talented students that were dedicated to being good at their chosen sport. Well, the parents of the other kids didn't like it that her kids were winning all the time. Their children's psyches were being damaged. Of course, no one wanted to work harder, they just wanted to win, or at least not to get blown away regularly. So, they started changing the rule - things like advancing successful 12 years until they were competing against 15 year olds (think making a CAT 4 race against CAT 2 simply because they were winning)

When then didn't work, my wife's kids kept winning, they made the rules more ridiculous until they couldn't win, based simply on age, physical ability and experience.

Net result - the other kids didn't get better, they just started collecting ribbons. My wife finally gave up and disbanded the team. Who won?

Making rules (actually handicapping) may make it interesting for you, but it doesn't make it a better race. People and teams come along who dominate, it's a fact of sporting nature. And we should celebrate that dominance, because it demonstrates a group of individuals who are dedicated to being the best.

Truly, why not just make the team that's purported to be the favorite ride heavier bikes, without skinsuits and aerodynamic helmets? The result is the same. 

And you know, if the Tour was put out of reach today, the fans would still watch, Alpe d Huez would still have 1000000 spectators because in a 2000 mile race, it could all change tomorrow.


----------



## AcesFull (Jun 10, 2003)

> Except for Postal, every team got a time bonus today. Every single team!!!


Wrong. No TEAM got any time bonus. The time adjustments do not affect the prestigious team competition. The adjustments were for GC only. Furthermore, riders who were dropped (like Simoni) were not given the GC adjustments.

I especially like the rule given today's conditions. The majority of teams do not have GC ambitions. It's a nice balance between not have a TTT and punishing teams with riders on the margin of GC.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Depends on the goal, doesn't it?*



terry b said:


> While I agree that "The Rule" might've prevented the Tour from being over today, I think legislating results is foolish. Yes, the Tour is about the strongest guy, but it's still a team sport and rules that allow teams to not excel across the board are a mistake.
> 
> Let me offer you this morality tale - my wife is a horse trainer and she haqd a very successful 4H team. They cleaned up at every event, because she had a good program and talented students that were dedicated to being good at their chosen sport. Well, the parents of the other kids didn't like it that her kids were winning all the time. Their children's psyches were being damaged. Of course, no one wanted to work harder, they just wanted to win, or at least not to get blown away regularly. So, they started changing the rule - things like advancing successful 12 years until they were competing against 15 year olds (think making a CAT 4 race against CAT 2 simply because they were winning)
> 
> ...


If your goal is pure competition and the moral enrichment of the world, I couldn't agree with you more! However, that is not the organizers goal. 

You may not like it but the rest of the tour will be more interesting.

And i disagree, I think the closer it is the more people will watch worldwide.....those on Alpe D'huex maybe not, but the sponsors sure will be happier.

Didn't say it was right, just that it makes it more fun to watch.

Len


----------



## biknben (Jan 28, 2004)

I'm going with Len on this one.

While I think LeBlanc is pushing it with the TTT rule, I'm all for it if it leads to a more interesting Tour.

I don't root for one athlete or team (in any sport for that matter). I'm a fan of sport. I want to see the most drama. In other sports, I don't bother to watch until the playoffs. That's when it is most competative and everyone is giving their all. The TDF is the Super Bowl of cycling. I don't want it to be decided before half-time.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

Well, differences in opinions is what makes our world an interesting place.

I think it would be fun to watch regardless of whether the others were gapped by 30 seconds or 3 minutes. It's about the grandeur for me, not the gaps.

The thing that makes this rule especially silly is this - a 3 minute lead doesn't mean jack until Paris. Watching to see if the leader can maintain it isn't interesting to you? Well it is to me. One day like Mayo, and it's over, regardless of how much time they've gained in the TTT.

Too bad though that so many got a free ride. A ride they didn't deserve because they didn't work as hard as Postal to build a complete team. If compelling team mamagers and athletes to be the very best they can is what you call "moral enrichment," then I'm all for it.

No disagreement on the organizers goal, I just think it's shortsighted. But then that's what economics is all about, isn't it.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*I agree with about differences of opinion but I respectfully disagree...*

A ride they didn't deserve because they didn't work as hard as Postal to build a complete team. If compelling team mamagers and athletes to be the very best they can is what you call "moral enrichment," then I'm all for it.>>

Where do you stand on all th non-earned differences between the teams that have NOTHING to do with how well an athlete works or prepares?

Did Iban Mayo's team have 3 of the worlds best equipment manufacturer’s designing the fasted gear for him? No. Do all the teams have the same resources? No. And I think that is just fine. Esk. E. budget may be within a few million of postal but that few million can go a long way to getting Lancer what he needs to win. If you think every result is exactly related to their efforts, I disagree, most results are, but not ALL of them. 

-Nik


----------



## snowman3 (Jul 20, 2002)

Len J said:


> If your goal is pure competition and the moral enrichment of the world, I couldn't agree with you more! However, that is not the organizers goal.
> 
> You may not like it but the rest of the tour will be more interesting.
> 
> ...


Maybe it makes it a little more fun, but not much. When do you want your excitement? Stage 4 or Stage 19? Yep, the tour coudl have been over on stage 4, and it would have been exciting. Now we sit and wait for the exciting stage. We had a little bit of fun today, so overall we'll have a bit more fun if we push the exciting stage to the end.

Maybe next year they could limit the time loss on every stage to 5seconds and have a mtn time trial on stage 19. That way it would all come down to single stage at the end, and be very exciting. Its not really a tour at that point though, just a bunch of mediocre stages leading up to the grand finale. Either way, there has to be a stage where you "win the tour".


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*By this 'logic' if so then...*

All Euro Futbol leagues should spot goals based on budget
ie...Man U would start every game 1-2 goals down
same goes for pro baseball (Insert Yankees where Man U is above)
Formula 1 racing would have staggered starts based on the same
Michael Schumacher starts 30 plus seconds behind

so what all of you are saying is in reality
punish the teams and mfrs who put out the most $$$ to a sport for domestiques, equipment, development etc... and dissuade them from any further investment.
someone used USPS's 3 company example so
let me break it down business style (how the model functions pre rule)
Giro, Trek, Nike invest millions in developing equipment for USPS and LA.
USPS, LA uses equipment to win TdF
Companies use victory to 'sell' new developments to us (consumer)
Company recoups investment, makes profit
we (consumers) get cool new stuff

so with new rule
Investment has greater possibility of marketing failure, bean counters upstairs
shelve project or scale back development to lower risk investment.
less cool stuff for us.

it just seems to help the Tour but in general hurt cycling

and as I stated, you don't 'handicap' the Superbowl, UEFA Cup etc....


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

I think it's about the athletes, not the equipment. T-Mobile has a huge budget, plenty of big names, lots of support and they benefited from this rule hugely. Where were they this morning? The main weakness of Euskaltel's program is that they are constrained to finding Basque riders and Basque riders only, and they did much better than anyone expected. What's CSC's excuse? They spent time in the wind tunnel at MIT and they had equipment MFGRs dropping stuff on them too.

But let's face Fact #1 - if you're going to compete at the top level, then it's all about talent, resources, support and money. If you can't bring it together like some other team, you have to rely on getting a handicap to compete? C'mon, that just diminshes the sport. Socialism didn't work in world history and it shouldn't work in sports.


----------



## RedMenace (Jan 28, 2004)

*Disagree! I call foul! Put this in "Politics Only"!*



terry b said:


> ISocialism didn't work in world history and it shouldn't work in sports.


And besides, socialism gave us Ullrich.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

RedMenace said:


> And besides, socialism gave us Ullrich.


  I think his original name was Heidi Ullrich. Another example of the miracle of the East German sporting factories.


----------



## Miggido (Sep 17, 2002)

*just some quick thoughts......*

As spectators, sitting at home on the couch watching the Tour De France on television, does it matter that WE want to see a "more exciting race?" These guys train their butts off for this race. Some more than others. These guys dedicate a big part of their lives to this race. SOME more than OTHERS. This new TTT rule rewards those who are not well prepared, and punishes those who are. Mechanicals, flats, and crashes are part of the game. Is it Postal's fault that they hammered, stayed upright and out of trouble today? It sure is. Shifting the mountains around and adding uphill TT's to make the race more exciting is one thing, but taking away someone's hard earned seconds, and giving them to someone else is ridiculous. I don't think there's much more to it than that. Just some thoughts.


----------



## Trek_envy (Jun 15, 2004)

*Can you imagine if they did.....*



atpjunkie said:


> All Euro Futbol leagues should spot goals based on budget
> ie...Man U would start every game 1-2 goals down
> same goes for pro baseball (Insert Yankees where Man U is above)
> Formula 1 racing would have staggered starts based on the same
> ...



Cycling fans are at least civillized!!! Imagine a NASCAR or soccer handicap.

Man


----------



## Drone 5200 (Mar 3, 2003)

Lance said it best: It's their race, so they can have whatever rules they want. 

I think this TTT rule is a bad idea at this level of competition. Personally, I like to watch the best excel at what they do. Watching Michael Jordan crush the competition was interesting because he was at a much higher level than what was previously considered "the best". What if the NBA had made a rule that MJ can only have one point for each bucket? What if the PGA had a rule that after Tiger shots 6 birdies every birdie thereafter has to count as a bogie? Dumb. The NBA and the PGA know that sports are primarily driven by "star power." Handicapping the star is bad for the sport. Period. If Armstrong loses by less than the time he didn't get credit for today, is that going to make Americans come back to watch the tour next year. I doubt it. 

Len, you're just wrong if you think that handicapping Postal/Armstrong will make the race better in some way.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*he said "A ride they didn't deserve because they didn't work as hard"*



Trek_envy said:


> Cycling fans are at least civillized!!! Imagine a NASCAR or soccer handicap.
> 
> Man



All I am saying is that not ALL results are a result of hard work - that was the only point that I was addressing. Nowhere did I say that I think there should be controls to level out the playing field completely... besides as I said in my post it is as it should be that there are rich teams and poor teams... besides, I live in new york home of the Yankees who know a little how to spend to get what they want - but if you listen to Terry B he woud say the Yankees got all their championships because All the players work harder or are better prepared than the other teams... simply not true that is aprt of it but mostly becuase Big George spends a budle every year


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Drone 5200 said:


> Len, you're just wrong if you think that handicapping Postal/Armstrong will make the race better in some way.


I didn't say better.....I said more entertaining, more fun to watch.

You think there is a lot of whining now....imagine if Tyler & or Jan end up beating Lance by 20 seconds for the overll GC!!!!

Len


----------



## Hawayyan (Feb 26, 2002)

*Some keep saying...*

what if NASCAR made rules about this and what if NASCAR made rules about that. They do!! The spoilers on the rear of the cars are allowed to be different sizes between makes, because some makes of cars are more aerodynamic than others. So they make rules to bring the cars closer aerodynamically so certain cars just don't drive away from the rest. The only way to get a completely individual result is do away with the TTT, and do away with the time bonuses. What's a time bonus anyway? If you finished the race in say 5hrs 23min 37sec, how do you get a twenty second time bonus to say your overall time is twenty seconds faster than that? Robbie Mckewen was not leading the race yesterday by one second overall. He was some seconds back. Had yellow due to seconds he didn't in reality have.


----------



## HampstenGuy (Jul 7, 2004)

REAL Reasons to like the TTT scoring rules

1. You're a nihilist who delights in tearing down the strong and competent.
2. You're a socialist who abhors the concept that perhaps one rider or one team is SUPERIOR to the others.
3. You're a liberal who believes that competition is basically unfair to the weaker or less prepared teams/riders and thus 
legislation must be enacted to benefit the weak and restrain the strong.

Len stated that he feels the new rules make for a more 'competitive' race. I absolutely disagree because they go AGAINST the very 
concept of competition. They may make the race tighter and may keep the ultimate ending in suspense longer, but they IN NO WAY 
enhance competition.

In a competition the best win, period. In an 'enlightened', socialist, PC world we have rules to bolster the weak to make the 'show' better.

Any way you cut it, it's disgusting and antithetical to the very concept of sport.

If I want an artificial show I'll watch WWE wrestling or NASCAR.

Hawayyan - time bonuses given to stage winners and high placings are an INCENTIVE to compete. They REWARD people for taking risks, performing and putting out the effort to win. The opposite is true of the new TTT scoring which rewards folks for NON-performance.

To illustrate true agenda of the people agitating for the new rules. Can you imagine the hue and cry, wailing, teeth-gnashing and hair-tearing if it had been USPS on the recieving end of a 47 second bonus to Jan and a 12 second bonus to Tyler????? We'd forever hear about how the sixth win was tainted and should be carried with an asterisk beside it. 'Nuff Said.


----------



## Trek_envy (Jun 15, 2004)

*Yes..... But*



Hawayyan said:


> what if NASCAR made rules about this and what if NASCAR made rules about that. They do!! The spoilers on the rear of the cars are allowed to be different sizes between makes, because some makes of cars are more aerodynamic than others. So they make rules to bring the cars closer aerodynamically so certain cars just don't drive away from the rest. The only way to get a completely individual result is do away with the TTT, and do away with the time bonuses. What's a time bonus anyway? If you finished the race in say 5hrs 23min 37sec, how do you get a twenty second time bonus to say your overall time is twenty seconds faster than that? Robbie Mckewen was not leading the race yesterday by one second overall. He was some seconds back. Had yellow due to seconds he didn't in reality have.


The only way to make it an induvidial effort is start the racers 3 minutes apart every day, and not allow drafting. Yeah that might work..... not.

About the bonus. Robbie McEwen had to BEAT the rest of the sprinters for that bonus. The time bonus rule in no way handicaps someone's strength, its a reward for tactics, risk, strength, and guts. And what is a stage win bonus? 20 sec. We're talking about minutes in this case. I can't say that I love the bonuses, but the TTT stop-loss rule really sucks. Put yourself in those shoes. 

I see the TTT rule is more of a compasion bonus. I do want to see the strongest rider win the race. Keeping in mind that the race is 3000 odd km, and that a team is needed to do it. Before I get flamed, yes I am a big Lance fan. I am also a great Ullrich and Hamilton fan. I want to see the rider who did the best job: 1. Picking the team 2. Preparing (training and equip), and most importantly 3. Raced the best race - and like it or not (I personally do), the TTT is part of the individual race. Hamilton made the choice to sit up and wait for his teammate. Would he have done this if he knew that he couldn't lose more than a certain amount of time (I highly doubt it) 

I liked the way USPS dealt with it today. They could have (starting last) ridden just hard enough to win it by 1 second, but they rode it like true competitors, and destroyed the field.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Len J said:


> what it was designed to accomplish.......it allowed for the (highly fun for the fan to watch )TTT without allowing for increases in time gaps between the GC hopefuls.....it kept the race closer than it might have been. This will make the race more fun to watch later in the tour. You may not like it, you may not think it's "Fair" but that's exactly what the organizers wanted and it's exactly what they got.
> 
> Look, this race is not "pure" from beginning to end. The way stages are sequenced, the way starts and finishes go to the towns who pay the most, the poitioning of the tough mountain stages, the inclusion, timing and length ot ind TT's, the inclusion or exclusion of uphill TT's are all arbitrary and help some riders and hurt others...what's fair about that? The truth is, anything that keeps the race close make's it more entertaining and potentially more profitible for the organization and the sponsors......and that ain't going to change.
> 
> Len


I'm not sure a lot of what you hope will come out of this will actually occur. There are no sleeper contenders that suddenly appeared. It's still the same guys contending for GC, only now they have an advantage they didn't earn. What's next? Will the top rider on GC have to carry weights, like in horse racing?

The new rule did not make the TTT anymore entertaining to watch for me. In fact, it lessened the appeal, since I knew that one team--whoever won--was going to get screwed. The only entertaining aspect was to discover who it would be and by how much. I think USPS should have dismounted from their bikes and slowly walked across the line to demonstrate how their actual finish time didn't matter, because they made the mistake of going 47 seconds too fast getting there.

I think if they want to choreograph the GC and ensure certain results, they should design the course with that in mind. I think the Giro and the Vuelta both do it right by including mountain stages the first week. That has a big effect on team strategy because you want to score points, but you can't burn all your matches the first week. The Tour insists on flat stages for at least the first week, to give the sprinters their shot. With rare exceptions (like yesterday), flat stages are boring. If the Tour really wants to spark interest, they should run up a mountain somewhere on stage 4 instead of the idiotic handicapping they're doing this year.


----------



## Hawayyan (Feb 26, 2002)

*I guess I just feel...*

that the time bonuses are not necessary. Do you think that the only reason Robby Mckewen, et al sprint is because of time bonuses? Don't you get the prestiege of winning the stage, and get paid for the intermidiate sprints and stage wins anyway? As soon as the hills start, the previous time bonus guys are ALOT of time back anyway. The guy who rode the fastest from point A to point B should win. What if Lance/Tyler/Jan don't win one single time bonus from here on out, and Jan or Tyler beat Lance by one second. They did not win the race by finishing one second faster, they were in actuality about a minute slower. If you want a PURE win, do away with time bonuses. Least commulative time wins, straight up.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*Hey don't use the word liberal....*

I'm a 'liberal' and I agree the rule is stupid. No offense but corporate 'handicapping' was triple what social handicapping in spending (165 billion$ to 55 billion$) so it isn't just the bleeding hearts trying to balance or unbalance the playing field. Now I'm not trying get a political troll here but facts is facts (intentional bad diction). Just hate the way the far right has demonized the term and that the general public has bought in.


----------



## crashjames (Jan 14, 2003)

*Do away with the TTT altogether, I say*

Unless it's going to be a real stage, why even have the TTT?

This year's Giro was an awesome race, with no TTT. I agree the TTT is an exciting thing to watch, but if the organizers essentially neutralize the results with these rather absurd time tricks, it's kindof pointless to me.

It was bad enough to limit the losses to 2:30. But to then reduce the ACTUAL time differences from 1:15 to :20 (in Phonak's case) is compounded absurdity.


----------



## xcmntgeek (Aug 24, 2002)

OK, so why don't we introduce a handicap system for cycling similar to horse racing? The more you win, the more weights are added to you bike. OR the fewer teammates you're allowed to bring to the race. Or maybe you start behind everybody else. 

OR here's a really good idea- the fastest guy (or team) wins and the weaker ones loose and maybe loose time (OMG, what a travesty). 

Really stupid rule in my opinion.


----------



## AcesFull (Jun 10, 2003)

*The un-American French!*



HampstenGuy said:


> REAL Reasons to like the TTT scoring rules
> 
> 1. You're a nihilist who delights in tearing down the strong and competent.
> 2. You're a socialist who abhors the concept that perhaps one rider or one team is SUPERIOR to the others.
> ...


In other words, the TdF is using the same rationale that Major League Baseball uses for the Great American Pastime to deal with America's Team - the Yankees.


----------



## dawgcatching (Apr 26, 2004)

The TTT is stupid anyway-cycing may be a team effort, but it is still an individual sport. They should replace it with an ITT so we see who the strongest rider is, not the strongest team. Last time I checked, only the race leader wore the malliot jaune, not the leading team.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

Old_school_nik said:


> - but if you listen to Terry B he woud say the Yankees got all their championships because All the players work harder or are better prepared than the other teams... simply not true that is aprt of it but mostly becuase Big George spends a budle every year


The Yankees win because they have the best players. Period. And, they work well together. But even then, I seem to remember them having a spot of trouble in the last World Series? And gee whiz, how about them Lakers? Like Detroit has a bigger payroll and more stars? Detroit embarrassed them because they had the talent, dedication and they worked harder. Big payrolls don't mean squat if the team is unwilling to work. 

George does spend a bundle, and so does USPS, T-Mobile and CSC. Other baseball teams do too. When you get to handicapping teams for pulling together a stong outfit then you diminish the effort they put into being the best.

So, when the Yankees roll into the World Series this year, do we spot the other team a couple of games to make it more "interesting"? Best of seven but the Yanks start out 0-2. Oh yea, that would greatly increase the "drama."

(By the way, I'm a Red Sox fan so don't accuse me of loving the Yanks. They're a very convenient example.)

Socialism my friends, pure and simple.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*By more competitive.........*



HampstenGuy said:


> Len stated that he feels the new rules make for a more 'competitive' race. I absolutely disagree because they go AGAINST the very
> concept of competition. They may make the race tighter and may keep the ultimate ending in suspense longer, but they IN NO WAY
> enhance competition.
> 
> ...


I really am saying it is a better show....it's more fun to watch....it's more entertaining. Period.

Don't read into what I am saying.

I agree that it goes against the very idea of competition.....but you could make the same argument about everyone not using the same equipement, or not having the same course every year.......as much as we love cycling the TDF is not a religious experience, it's entertainment first disguised as an athletic competition........it has been and will be as long as sponsorship dollars are paying for it....that's not socialism, that's capitalism!

The competition part of the TDF is secondary to the entertainmentpart......it's high time we just accepted it and enjoyed the show.

I would love it to be pure competition, I would love it if money wasn't driving it.....but then again, the best athletes wouldn't be attracted to it because there would be no money in it.

As to bolstering the weak..........the organizers are doing whatever they have to do to keep the determination of the winner until later in the race. In this case, it makes for more drama........as I said before they are getting exactly what they want.

The TDF is not sacred...it is profane....accept it and enjoy the show.

Len


----------



## AcesFull (Jun 10, 2003)

*MLB vs the TdF*



terry b said:


> So, when the Yankees roll into the World Series this year, do we spot the other team a couple of games to make it more "interesting"?
> 
> Socialism my friends, pure and simple.


MLB is far more socialist. 

The TdF teams did not benefit from the time adjustment. TdF TEAMS DID NOT GET A TIME BONUS ON THE TEAM STANDINGS. No team was spotted points in your example above. The TTT is primarily a team event and should have minimal impact on GC. The adjustment was for GC ONLY and puts more pressure on the individual and lessens the effort of a dominate team on GC, while keeping its full impact for the team competition.

And how is this less socialist than our national pastime where a FEDERALLY REGULATED MONOPOLY DISTRIBUTES WEALTH AMONG ALL TEAMS???!!

Socialism has triumphed to the point that the vast majority of socialists think they "oppose socialism".


----------



## Dropped (Jan 22, 2003)

It's a stupid rule, and it may cost Lance the Tour.

Look, if team strength doesn't matter, then don't have a team time trial. To have the TTT and say "Well, it only matters a little bit" is stupid. What next -- limit time gaps on mountain stages to make things more fair for sprinters? Even better -- let's limit the gearing on sprinters' bikes so that slower guys can compete in the sprints. Then, everyone will finish the tour with the same exact time. It will be so exciting!

Like it or not, the Tour IS a team sport. A great rider on a weak team will not and cannot win the race. To punish strong teams is just dumb.


----------



## Gus8 (Sep 17, 2002)

*Mayo gains max allowable minute on Cipo at Mt Ventoux!!*

I don't like the handicap rule TTT thing - destroys the purity of timed race. 

Maybe next year, rather than push all the mountain stages back to the last week to keep it close - they could just develop a similar sliding scale for the climbs too... that way somebody like Iban Mayo could only take a minute on Cipo on Mount Ventoux. If they do it right we could have every rider less than a minute down on GC coming into Paris. That would be exciting?

The outcome of cycling races should be determined by the riders, the road, and the clock. Not a bunch of suits doing math after the race... sounds like one step closer to figure skating.

The real shame of it is that for the rest of the tour I'll be trying to do the math to figure out what the "real" GC should look like.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*actually baseball*

is the last 'capitalistic' American Sport. with revenue sharing and salary caps in football and hockey, baseball is the last domain of the haves and have nots. It doesn't always guarantee victory (See Lakers, but B-Ball is a weird mix with caps but 'veteran exemptions' etc..) but it does usually guarantee a shot (Yankees, when did they miss the playoffs last?). Personally Football is better for the fan with this so-called socialism as every city with a team has a shot at the playoffs vs baseball where it's usually the same 4-5 teams with the odd Cinderella or 2. So if the TDF wants to level the field, do it with caps and not by penalizing teams for performing.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

It doesn't matter that the teams were not penalized, and I can read lower case, so you can park the capital letters. You made it clear above, and no one here is decrying the fact that the teams got hurt. They're all talking about the GC.

Cycling is a team sport, where the team (generally) sports a leader. It's the leader's goal to win the Tour, and it's the team's responsibility to see that he does. It's the responsibiliy of the team owners and directors to put together the best possible bunch of riders to achieve the goal of placing the leader as high up as possible. The TTT is simply recognition of those facts. Nothing more. If a given team cannot shine in a team discipline, they don't belong in the Tour. 

As far as MLB being a socialist institution? Who cares. It's beside the point. The point is when you start leveling the playing field for the benefit of the less fortunate, you ruin the sport. At least in my opinion.


----------



## willco99 (Jun 17, 2004)

*It's not about changin the TTT rule...*

Only the NFL has gotten this right...salary cap. The Tour wants to ensure that very rich teams do not have an inherent advantage due to the fact that they can stack the team with high quality riders (Yankees) as Postal can. But the new rule simply makes the TTT a ranking excercise and negates the point of it being a team to team race.
The only way to level the playing field (whether it is good or bad, I'm not taking a position) is to have a cap on Top Team budgets...That will force teams to allocate as wisely as they can. Managers will become very important and an underdog team might have a chance to shock the world (Patriots in 2001) without relying on the favorite to have to crash to do it.
There are positives and negatives to this...discuss.


----------

