2022 PRO Thread

[C36]

They chose to use a completely unrealistic representation of female cyclists' physiques in a way they'd never do with male cyclists.

FFS… they scanned/pictures the jerseys on a std female plastic mannequin like you find them in shops. They were visible in few TV coverage, I guess at the start of the stages. No conspiracy here.
Fine, it’s was not a good match for the skinny riders body type, lesson learnt and move on… not everything is made with bad intentions.

Edit: to some extend the same happened to man races, yes less visible yet they use the same jersey on a mannequin… taken from stage 10, in yellow Pog appears more muscular in yellow than with std kit…



Supersix evo2 HM - 5.9 stiff-aero version, 5.6kg light specs.

[BdaGhisallo]

They chose to use a completely unrealistic representation of female cyclists' physiques in a way they'd never do with male cyclists.

FFS… they scanned/pictures the jerseys on a std female plastic mannequin like you find them in shops. They were visible in few TV coverage, I guess at the start of the stages. No conspiracy here.
Fine, it’s was not a good match for the skinny riders body type, lesson learnt and move on… not everything is made with bad intentions.

Edit: to some extend the same happened to man races, yes less visible yet they use the same jersey on a mannequin… taken from stage 10, in yellow Pog appears more muscular in yellow than with std kit…



Supersix evo2 HM - 5.9 stiff-aero version, 5.6kg light specs.

OMG! You're right! There's sexism and misogyny everywhere!

As you say, people need to get a grip. This is a storm in a tea cup.


Five years ago it was only a hope that women's cycling would have both its own Tour de France and Paris-Roubaix. That is the reality now and that's what people should be focused on. Progress doesn't happen overnight and women's cycling will continue to grow.

Men's cycling hasn't always been what it is now. Forty years ago, the sport that had been in existence for almost a century was still an under-developed parochial sport where the riders were very poorly remunerated for all of their hard work and sacrifice, and where quite a number of riders were either riding for free or actually paying for a spot on a team, as is said to be the case in the women's peloton. It has come a long way in that time but the transformation wasn't instantaneous just because some may have wished for it.

It will be the same for the women's peloton.

[Karvalo]

They chose to use a completely unrealistic representation of female cyclists' physiques in a way they'd never do with male cyclists.

FFS… they scanned/pictures the jerseys on a std female plastic mannequin like you find them in shops. They were visible in few TV coverage, I guess at the start of the stages. No conspiracy here.

There aren't any mannequins in my shop with boobs that big, and they obviously had others available because they started using them. I don't know why you guys keep using the word conspiracy like it's relevant to anything. As if there has to be a shadowy cabal dedicated to the deliberate undermining of womens' racing at work for there to be a problem, and any lack of care, attention or respect aside from that is absolutely fine.

[Karvalo]

Men's cycling hasn't always been what it is now. Forty years ago, the sport that had been in existence for almost a century was still an under-developed parochial sport where the riders were very poorly remunerated for all of their hard work and sacrifice, and where quite a number of riders were either riding for free or actually paying for a spot on a team, as is said to be the case in the women's peloton. It has come a long way in that time but the transformation wasn't instantaneous just because some may have wished for it.

Right.... because pointing out the easy stuff that can be instantaneously improved like "let's not put massive and unrealistic boobs on a rider's graphic" is the same as demanding that every aspect of female cycling in organisation, exposure and funding be immediately put on a level with the mens sport.

Yes, that makes complete sense.

[tymon_tm]

Its no secret... but the question is, do they WANT to do it. There are lots of riders, in both the men's and women's pelotons, that I think could be better than they are, but they've got to be willing to go all in and be 100% focused with no distractions.

I think that's it. The combination of natural talent and single minded determination to train so unbelievably hard is really rare. In the mens field there are only two or three riders who would be main favourites to win any grand tour regardless of who else turned up. Since the talent pool that feeds into womens pro tour racing is (at the moment) far smaller than the pool that feeds into mens racing it makes sense for those two or three men to be represented in one woman.

I don't think it's fair to assume most women don't want to push themsleves more, or aren't fully dedicated...

I actually find such statements a lot more offending and sexist than a photoshoped model with big boobs

but yes, as BdaGhisallo wrote - a leap won't be made in a day. it's a slow process with lots of mistakes along the road. one thing that evidently has to change, is mens mentality towards women, because it's clear as day many if not most of us aren't capable to see them as equal.

[CrankAddictsRich]

I don't think it's fair to assume most women don't want to push themsleves more, or aren't fully dedicated...

I actually find such statements a lot more offending and sexist than a photoshoped model with big boobs

but yes, as BdaGhisallo wrote - a leap won't be made in a day. it's a slow process with lots of mistakes along the road. one thing that evidently has to change, is mens mentality towards women, because it's clear as day many if not most of us aren't capable to see them as equal.

My original comment definitely came off wrong and didn't fully represent what I meant.... I definitely think there are women that can and will compete with AVV. Not only do the athletes need to have the motivation and the desire to do so, but more importantly they need the oppurtunity to do so from a sponsorship, salary, support, etc, etc standpoint.... ALL of the things need to line up.

I think this race and the reaction from fans, sponsors, everyone involved has far exceeded expectations and things are definitely going in the right direction.

[Lina]

It's a straight up fact that majority of the women's peloton aren't fully dedicated to cycling. But that's mostly because there's hardly any money in women's cycling. So it's a choice of having a day job and cycling on the side or then living on what little cycling brings and maybe benefits. If that improves more of the women can focus fully on cycling.

And when it comes to physical feats women are not equal to men. Humans are sexually dimorphic species and the males are stronger, taller, faster. That doesn't mean we shouldn't treat women as equal to men. But when it comes to sports it's good to remember that men and women are no equal because it does matter in sports. The main reason a lot of womens sports don't get as many views is because mens sports is the premier event. It's the one with the best results. And at the end of the day the amount of money available for athletes depends entirely on how many people you can bring in. In womens cycling right now one of the biggest problems is that there are so few riders that are actually fully dedicated to the sport that the races are rather boring when it's the same half a dozen girls that clean up every race. It's gotten a bit better over the years but there's still ways to come. Cycling is one of the sports where the absolute speed doesn't matter that much for interesting racing so there's hope for women's cycling. It doesn't matter if the average speed of a stage is 35 or 45 km/h if the racing is interesting. There are also sports that massively suffer from women being weaker and slower, football(soccer) and ice-hockey for example. Not many people go watch teenage boys play football or hockey, so it's really hard to get people to watch women's football or hockey when they get handily beaten by the teenage boys no one goes to see, and you can see that in their play. But there are also examples of womens sports where the womens competition draws in almost the same viewers as the mens. Biathlon, XC skiing, tennis, and track and field all bring in plenty of viewers for the womens events, which means there's money for the women. There's no reason why womens cycling can't get itself into the second group of sports where people do watch womens cycling. The numbers are already improving.

[tymon_tm]

It's a straight up fact that majority of the women's peloton aren't fully dedicated to cycling. But that's mostly because there's hardly any money in women's cycling. So it's a choice of having a day job and cycling on the side or then living on what little cycling brings and maybe benefits. If that improves more of the women can focus fully on cycling.

And when it comes to physical feats women are not equal to men. Humans are sexually dimorphic species and the males are stronger, taller, faster. That doesn't mean we shouldn't treat women as equal to men. But when it comes to sports it's good to remember that men and women are no equal because it does matter in sports. The main reason a lot of womens sports don't get as many views is because mens sports is the premier event. It's the one with the best results. And at the end of the day the amount of money available for athletes depends entirely on how many people you can bring in. In womens cycling right now one of the biggest problems is that there are so few riders that are actually fully dedicated to the sport that the races are rather boring when it's the same half a dozen girls that clean up every race. It's gotten a bit better over the years but there's still ways to come. Cycling is one of the sports where the absolute speed doesn't matter that much for interesting racing so there's hope for women's cycling. It doesn't matter if the average speed of a stage is 35 or 45 km/h if the racing is interesting. There are also sports that massively suffer from women being weaker and slower, football(soccer) and ice-hockey for example. Not many people go watch teenage boys play football or hockey, so it's really hard to get people to watch women's football or hockey when they get handily beaten by the teenage boys no one goes to see, and you can see that in their play. But there are also examples of womens sports where the womens competition draws in almost the same viewers as the mens. Biathlon, XC skiing, tennis, and track and field all bring in plenty of viewers for the womens events, which means there's money for the women. There's no reason why womens cycling can't get itself into the second group of sports where people do watch womens cycling. The numbers are already improving.

what a precious rant. of course people differ, but equality isn't about stating "we're the same in every physical aspect", it's about acknowledging any human being has the same rights and should be treated with same respect. saying "women aren't dedicated" is just a slur.

dedication, ambition, those qualities you deprive wome of, aren't gender specific. but you somehow try to paint a false picture where different economical circumstances (which obviously do exist) and differences in raw variables (results, speed, etc) cement these bias of inferior sex.

it's reall sad to read and hear stuff like that, I wish there were some women on this board, or at least mods had guts to take such ancients off.

[Tifosiphil]

It's a straight up fact that majority of the women's peloton aren't fully dedicated to cycling. But that's mostly because there's hardly any money in women's cycling. So it's a choice of having a day job and cycling on the side or then living on what little cycling brings and maybe benefits. If that improves more of the women can focus fully on cycling.

I've got to say there is truth in this, for younger riders the minimum salary of $31k USD may be enough but for more mature riders it isn't. Especially when you compare the top and the bottom of women's cycling. Even Van Vlueten is only rumoured to be on around $250k plus endorsements but that is enough to fully commit to your profession ie. live, save money and have the extra benefits of things like cryo and altitude chambers.

I'm not saying that female cyclist's aren't professional in the way they train, work and race, they perhap work harder than their male counterparts. However, it is a fact that riders at Pro-Conti level I know personally have had to work second jobs over the winter to survive and get the best equipment and opportunities possible for themselves whereas most Pro-Conti male athletes don't have this struggle

[Lina]

It's a straight up fact that majority of the women's peloton aren't fully dedicated to cycling. But that's mostly because there's hardly any money in women's cycling. So it's a choice of having a day job and cycling on the side or then living on what little cycling brings and maybe benefits. If that improves more of the women can focus fully on cycling.

And when it comes to physical feats women are not equal to men. Humans are sexually dimorphic species and the males are stronger, taller, faster. That doesn't mean we shouldn't treat women as equal to men. But when it comes to sports it's good to remember that men and women are no equal because it does matter in sports. The main reason a lot of womens sports don't get as many views is because mens sports is the premier event. It's the one with the best results. And at the end of the day the amount of money available for athletes depends entirely on how many people you can bring in. In womens cycling right now one of the biggest problems is that there are so few riders that are actually fully dedicated to the sport that the races are rather boring when it's the same half a dozen girls that clean up every race. It's gotten a bit better over the years but there's still ways to come. Cycling is one of the sports where the absolute speed doesn't matter that much for interesting racing so there's hope for women's cycling. It doesn't matter if the average speed of a stage is 35 or 45 km/h if the racing is interesting. There are also sports that massively suffer from women being weaker and slower, football(soccer) and ice-hockey for example. Not many people go watch teenage boys play football or hockey, so it's really hard to get people to watch women's football or hockey when they get handily beaten by the teenage boys no one goes to see, and you can see that in their play. But there are also examples of womens sports where the womens competition draws in almost the same viewers as the mens. Biathlon, XC skiing, tennis, and track and field all bring in plenty of viewers for the womens events, which means there's money for the women. There's no reason why womens cycling can't get itself into the second group of sports where people do watch womens cycling. The numbers are already improving.

what a precious rant. of course people differ, but equality isn't about stating "we're the same in every physical aspect", it's about acknowledging any human being has the same rights and should be treated with same respect. saying "women aren't dedicated" is just a slur.

dedication, ambition, those qualities you deprive wome of, aren't gender specific. but you somehow try to paint a false picture where different economical circumstances (which obviously do exist) and differences in raw variables (results, speed, etc) cement these bias of inferior sex.

it's reall sad to read and hear stuff like that, I wish there were some women on this board, or at least mods had guts to take such ancients off.

All you have to do to notice that most of the womens peloton isn't fully dedicated to cycling is to watch a couple of races. It's evident that there are a few women that are leagues above everyone else. And there is a massive lack of domestiques that can actually work for the top women in the peloton, it's a two speed peloton. It's not even the fault of the women that they can't fully dedicate themselves to cycling. You've gotta eat something and live somewhere. There aren't many female cyclists that can achieve that without working a second job. You can have all the dedication in the world but if you have to work a second job it will take away from your training. I treat everyone the same regardless of sex, that doesn't mean you can't acknowledge that many of the women simply do not have the financial ability to fully dedicate themselves to pursuing cycling as a career. Even many men are hardly making ends meet as pro cyclists.

And when it comes to sports women are the inferior sex. There's no question about it and it's actively detrimental to womens sports if you try to claim otherwise or ignore it. Big part of the reason why in many sports women struggle to get viewers is because they're not the fastest and strongest. You can't just ignore these things when you're wondering why womens sports don't have as much viewership and money in them. Hand waving away differences between sexes and then wondering why people don't watch womens sports is useless if not actively detrimental. You've gotta take a look at sports where they've managed to make the womens events succesfull even when there is a blatant difference in performance between the sexes. Those sports do exist, and they've done various things to achieve that. Hell in some sports the womens events have been more interesting in the last couple of years because the mens side has been dominated by one or two guys while there has been competition in the womens side.

[robeambro]

I am not sure that this would indeed be the case, but if AVV actually did the final bike swap (losing time) merely because of the 100g paint weight saving (which would have surely gained her less time than what she lost with the bike swap), then that would be rather silly.. Other commentators say that the 'yellow bike' had issues with the back wheel, I want to believe that to be true..

https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/th ... t-to-ride/

[AJS914]

I'm just curious. Do you think that the very top women riders (AVV, AVdB) have 7 figure net worths? In certain cycling crazy countries, don't they get lots of endorsements? Appearance fees? I thought I read that the top riders ride cyclocross in Belgium because of the heft appearance fees.

Here's something I do know - pro cyclists can get unemployment in certain countries during the winter. (This was 25 years ago in France so I don't know if this still happens.) I new a pro conti rider in France. He made hardly anything but he'd effectively be "laid off" by the team in October and collect French unemployment benefits until spring. He's also work under the table at his family's plumbing business in the winter to make ends meet.

[Karvalo]

I don't think it's fair to assume most women don't want to push themsleves more, or aren't fully dedicated...

I actually find such statements a lot more offending and sexist than a photoshoped model with big boobs

I wasn't just talking about women, I was talking about everyone - and I think the fact that I literally talked about it happening in the mens field too should have made that clear.

[blaugrana]

I'm just curious. Do you think that the very top women riders (AVV, AVdB) have 7 figure net worths? In certain cycling crazy countries, don't they get lots of endorsements? Appearance fees? I thought I read that the top riders ride cyclocross in Belgium because of the heft appearance fees.

Here's something I do know - pro cyclists can get unemployment in certain countries during the winter. (This was 25 years ago in France so I don't know if this still happens.) I new a pro conti rider in France. He made hardly anything but he'd effectively be "laid off" by the team in October and collect French unemployment benefits until spring. He's also work under the table at his family's plumbing business in the winter to make ends meet.

They could, but it's not guaranteed. And if it's just one milion, that doesn't mean very much, it isn't a lot more than a house and some savings in some parts of Europe.

If Van Vleuten is making 250.000€, once you substract taxes and all her expenses, she isn't probably all that rich, especially once you consider that she made a lot less than that until very recently. And cyclocross appearance fees aren't that huge in the grand scheme of things. A couple of years ago Van Aert and Van der Poel were making 10.000€ per race (https://pezcyclingnews.com/racing/cyclo ... s-2020-21/), but they are big stars, and everyone else in the men's field got a lot less (so the women surely even less).

[jasjas]

It's a straight up fact that majority of the women's peloton aren't fully dedicated to cycling. But that's mostly because there's hardly any money in women's cycling. So it's a choice of having a day job and cycling on the side or then living on what little cycling brings and maybe benefits. If that improves more of the women can focus fully on cycling.

And when it comes to physical feats women are not equal to men. Humans are sexually dimorphic species and the males are stronger, taller, faster. That doesn't mean we shouldn't treat women as equal to men. But when it comes to sports it's good to remember that men and women are no equal because it does matter in sports. The main reason a lot of womens sports don't get as many views is because mens sports is the premier event. It's the one with the best results. And at the end of the day the amount of money available for athletes depends entirely on how many people you can bring in. In womens cycling right now one of the biggest problems is that there are so few riders that are actually fully dedicated to the sport that the races are rather boring when it's the same half a dozen girls that clean up every race. It's gotten a bit better over the years but there's still ways to come. Cycling is one of the sports where the absolute speed doesn't matter that much for interesting racing so there's hope for women's cycling. It doesn't matter if the average speed of a stage is 35 or 45 km/h if the racing is interesting. There are also sports that massively suffer from women being weaker and slower, football(soccer) and ice-hockey for example. Not many people go watch teenage boys play football or hockey, so it's really hard to get people to watch women's football or hockey when they get handily beaten by the teenage boys no one goes to see, and you can see that in their play. But there are also examples of womens sports where the womens competition draws in almost the same viewers as the mens. Biathlon, XC skiing, tennis, and track and field all bring in plenty of viewers for the womens events, which means there's money for the women. There's no reason why womens cycling can't get itself into the second group of sports where people do watch womens cycling. The numbers are already improving.

Yet 87k watched England v Germany yesterday, the highest viewing figure ever for a Euro final, male or female, one reason being the lack of violence women bring to the game and that their lack of raw power makes for a more skilful & watchable game, less hoofing the ball and chasing after it...like overgrown toddlers....

There are also vast differences in ability in the mens peloton, do you or anyone else question their dedication? no you don't because they are men & from your POV abover reproach, perhaps men are slightly faster in cycling because they have a very long history of using PEDS?

Women compete against women, therefore comparisons with men are utterly pointless.

As Ty said, its very clear many men do not see women as equals at all... or as i once said to a BC guy "all you want women to do is hold a flag and make the teas"