Tuesday, April 11, 2006
A Last Word on Roubaix
Jean-Marie Leblanc’s word may not be the last word on the race, but they are the race organizer’s last words on his final Paris-Roubaix. Noting that the affair of the train crossing and the subsequent disqualifications of Leif Hoste, Vladimir Gusev, and Peter Van Petegem, had completely overshadowed the victory of Fabian Cancellara, Leblanc stated (via the Radsport-news.com interview), “more has been talked about the disqualification in the finish than over Cancellara.”
Seems somewhat surprising since the controversy seems so incredibly overblown. First of all, it is a pretty crystal clear rule: don’t cross the train tracks when the barriers are down. Even a Cat. VII rider knows that one. Second of all, the “justification” given is that Cancellara’s victory was assured, so the transgressors did not affect the race outcome. If so, then why the need to go around the barriers? If the gap over the pursuing Boonen were the issue, then I’d agree the first three should have been given the advantage, the same as if the train had impeded a breakaway. But even more fundamentally, racing is racing – and riders have to take what comes. And if a train interferes with the best laid plans, then deal with it.
But back to Cancellara. Significantly he is credited by almost all the other riders with being the best rider on the day. Not strongest as is the want after a Classic, but the BEST. Which he was. Leblanc in fact was almost gushing: “It was a beautiful win by a young rider, who reminded me of Boonen last year. He is a young man, who we already knew was a good rouleur, who relishes the risks, and who is an elegant rider. He represents the new generation of cycling.”
It is interesting that Leblanc speaks of generations, since his term as head of the Societe du Tour de France spans several cycling generations. He first directed the Tour in 1989, witnessing Lemond’s remarkable win. This year he’ll crown the successor to Armstrong’s record seven wins before heading off the scene. The race has changed from an very odd American riding peering out of Oakley Pilots atop a down-tube shifted steel bike – complete with clips and straps and an odd aerodynamic bar extension – to another dominating American gliding seemingly effortlessly atop an STI- and clipless pedal equipped carbon fiber bike, with another specially designed TT machine.
More than the bikes have changed – the focus has also changed. Lemond brought a near singular focus on the Tour which Armstrong perfected, but other riders similarly concentrated on a single race. Van Petegem on Flanders. Bartoli on Liege. Zabel on San Remo. Ballerini on Roubaix.
And now the focus has been on Boonen, and his incredible run over the past twelve months. But Leblanc’s praise also serves as a reminder that as great as Boonen’s ride has been – and as even greater his future promise is – he is only one of a new generation. Rider like Cancellara, Alejandro Valverde, and Damino Cunego, to mention only a few, will be the riders who stamp their own character on future races. Boonen and quick Step’s dominance may have served to obscure the quality of the competition, but to underestimate the other young guns of the peloton is to do them, and Boonen, and indeed, the current state of pro cycling, and extreme disservice.
Seems somewhat surprising since the controversy seems so incredibly overblown. First of all, it is a pretty crystal clear rule: don’t cross the train tracks when the barriers are down. Even a Cat. VII rider knows that one. Second of all, the “justification” given is that Cancellara’s victory was assured, so the transgressors did not affect the race outcome. If so, then why the need to go around the barriers? If the gap over the pursuing Boonen were the issue, then I’d agree the first three should have been given the advantage, the same as if the train had impeded a breakaway. But even more fundamentally, racing is racing – and riders have to take what comes. And if a train interferes with the best laid plans, then deal with it.
But back to Cancellara. Significantly he is credited by almost all the other riders with being the best rider on the day. Not strongest as is the want after a Classic, but the BEST. Which he was. Leblanc in fact was almost gushing: “It was a beautiful win by a young rider, who reminded me of Boonen last year. He is a young man, who we already knew was a good rouleur, who relishes the risks, and who is an elegant rider. He represents the new generation of cycling.”
It is interesting that Leblanc speaks of generations, since his term as head of the Societe du Tour de France spans several cycling generations. He first directed the Tour in 1989, witnessing Lemond’s remarkable win. This year he’ll crown the successor to Armstrong’s record seven wins before heading off the scene. The race has changed from an very odd American riding peering out of Oakley Pilots atop a down-tube shifted steel bike – complete with clips and straps and an odd aerodynamic bar extension – to another dominating American gliding seemingly effortlessly atop an STI- and clipless pedal equipped carbon fiber bike, with another specially designed TT machine.
More than the bikes have changed – the focus has also changed. Lemond brought a near singular focus on the Tour which Armstrong perfected, but other riders similarly concentrated on a single race. Van Petegem on Flanders. Bartoli on Liege. Zabel on San Remo. Ballerini on Roubaix.
And now the focus has been on Boonen, and his incredible run over the past twelve months. But Leblanc’s praise also serves as a reminder that as great as Boonen’s ride has been – and as even greater his future promise is – he is only one of a new generation. Rider like Cancellara, Alejandro Valverde, and Damino Cunego, to mention only a few, will be the riders who stamp their own character on future races. Boonen and quick Step’s dominance may have served to obscure the quality of the competition, but to underestimate the other young guns of the peloton is to do them, and Boonen, and indeed, the current state of pro cycling, and extreme disservice.
