Cycling: The term FairPlay plays an important role in every sport. When the established rules and laws reach their limits, the FairPlay concept ensures order and fairness. However, when there is disagreement among athletes, the controversy causes discussion. We last saw this on the ninth stage of the Tour de France: Fabio Aru (Astana) attacked Chris Froome (Sky) while he had a defect. What is your opinion on this topic?
Unwritten laws in cycling
There is probably no other sport with as many unwritten laws as cycling. Even if the scene is fighting for its good reputation in public, cycling is largely a gentleman's sport. Understandable, because the drivers in the peloton depend on each other. Anyone who is unpopular in the field of drivers simply will not be left out. While the pros in football often try to deceive themselves, in cycling they are much more likely to lend a helping hand. This cohesion is important, not only for the professionals. Because the fans of the different drivers and teams usually get along really well. They celebrate - according to the motto "Live the Tour" – much more the sport itself than just the individual drivers.
Fabio Aru attacks Chris Froome with a defect
Cycling, which is already very dangerous and extremely intensive, seems to be dependent on these unwritten laws and the idea of fair play. The outcry is all the greater when individual drivers or teams do not stick to it. Then they not only rebel against their adversaries, but also against the entire scene and their fans. That's what happened on the ninth stage of the Tour de France. Fabio Aru attacked Chris Froome after he raised his right hand due to a defect. The TV clearly showed that Aru was behind Froome and had to see his signal. However, Fabio Aru had a completely different opinion after the race: "Honestly, I didn't see that Chris Froome had any technical problems." The competitors followed behind Aru's attack, but nobody wanted to follow suit. The man in the yellow jersey was able to catch up again and Aru's attack fizzled out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Istbc2rs_pE
Fair play between Jan Ullrich & Lance Armstrong
Jan Ullrich and Lance Armstrong have upheld the concept of fair play in cycling for many years. In several situations, one of the two fell through no fault of their own. After that, we always waited for the competitor. Just remember the reaction when Jan Ullrich fell down an embankment. Lance Armstrong slowed down and waited for his opponent. On another stage, Lance Armstrong fell through a spectator. Here, too, the drivers acted in the sense of fair play and allowed Armstrong to come back. During his race to catch up, he even slipped out of the pedal, but was just able to stay on the bike. When Armstrong was able to catch up, the Texan attacked himself, distancing everyone who had been waiting for him earlier. So FairPlay can also become a boomerang.
Fair play can also be unfair in cycling
No athlete and no fan has anything against fair play. But sometimes the corresponding behavior can also be unfair to other parties involved. All you have to do is put yourself in a simple situation: let's say that Team Astana has already planned an attack in the middle of Mont du Chat before the start of the stage. A few meters before the agreed point, an opponent suffers a defect or falls. Does Team Astana now – according to FairPlay – have to call off the planned project and wait? This would certainly be fair to the opponent, but at the same time extremely unfair to Astana. This example cannot be used in the Aru v. Froome case. But if we look a few kilometers further, we find another example that FairPlay is not just FairPlay.
Should we just wait for the man in yellow?
Richie Porte (BMC) fell on the descent and took Daniel Martin (Quick-Step Floors) down with him. The Irishman was not to blame for his fall. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong moment. The rest of the group drove on at a fast pace and didn't think at all of slowing down Martin and Porte. This is also understandable, because if all the drivers waited for every fall, the race would constantly come to a standstill. But where are the limits? Should the maintenance only be carried out if the man in yellow breaks down or falls? Or simply shouldn't a conscious attack be ridden after such an unfortunate incident?
We want your opinion: Is there a sensible solution?
The problem with the topic is that unwritten laws are unwritten laws. Ultimately, every driver can behave as he wants within the rules. Again and again such an incident will lead to discussions. Therefore we want to know your opinion. Do you maybe even have an elegant solution ready? How do you see the Aru v. Froome case? We look forward to comments directly below the post, on Facebook or Twitter.
Henrik says
Please no new rules! We don't want conditions in cycling like in Formula 1, in which the rules (and jurisdiction) are made by those who have the most money, which is why many fans turn away because things are no longer right for me! In the case of Aru-Froome, the group settled the case, as is usual in cycling. And if not in the current race/leg, then in the next one.
You can't fix every case. The drivers settle this among themselves and do so more fairly than any commission (see Sagan-Cavendish).
Roadrunner says
Wow, Jan Ullrich and Lance Armstrong as an example of FairPlay - great cinema.
Quite apart from the great example, I don't see any special position in cycling. It's the case everywhere that you can move freely within the framework of the applicable rules to your advantage - but you don't have to. The only question then is whether it is in the interest of the legislature or the rules, for example in cycling.
In football, after a player is injured, teams return the ball to the team that kicked the ball wide. There is no rule for this.
In the end it is up to the ethical decision of the individual. Assuming that Aru noticed the defect, you can see that your own decision is followed by the next ethical decision: a lie. Whoever likes that - please do... (If Aru didn't notice anything - then sorry).
As long as the fair play works everything is fine. Where it doesn't work, the jury has to decide. We saw the consequences of this in the 4th stage sprint – dissatisfaction on all sides. If the sprint had been fair, the jury would not have had to intervene.
Waiting when falling? Also a decision of the individual, as always. It just doesn't seem feasible with the route with the serious falls. However, this is due to the previously made decision for a route by the organizer. You could ask about his ethics (see my comment under “First all-clear – Richie Porte probably not injured that badly”).
Incidentally, it is no different in real life – have you already submitted your 2016 tax return?
fair regards
Roadrunner
Baby says
And Frome he shouldn't have waited for Daniel Martin after his fall. He must have heard that Daniel is driving again.
rolfi says
And how do we rate Froome's subsequent check against Aru. Oh says the master, that was accidental, I didn't even see him. If Aru crashes into the crowd and the Sagan standards are applied, Froomer is out of the tour. In our opinion rightly so. In football there is a red card for a revenge lazy.
Greetings from the company cycling group
Helmut H. says
Fairness is good, but waiting after a fall is complete nonsense. After all, that's what paramedics are for!