Joop Zoetemelk was a hard man, a tough nut to crack. He specialized in getting second place, a talent he developed under the doctrine of Eddy Merckx and mastered via the harsh tutelage of Bernard Hinault. It’s very seductive to lean back in our armchairs and draw the conclusion that our sport’s Eternal Seconds, as they’re called, are the weaker men than their rivals. The sport is filled with this familiar story; a rider comes up and is hailed as perhaps the next great rider, only to have synchronized their career with a more dominant rider.
Poulidor, who started with Anquetil and finished with Merckx. Zoetemelk, who started with Merckx and finished with Hinault. Then EPO entered the peloton and the balances were set off for a bit as riders who shouldn’t have been at the top were popping in for table scraps before Ullrich took the helm by getting on the podium in the Tour more often than any champion before him had won the Tour. Like Chimera and Bellerophon, every great hero needs a villain and it seems these riders are always there to stand up and fight year after year, against all odds.
In keeping with the Chimera and Bellerophon metaphor, I’m not so sure it is the victor who is the hero and the loser the villain. In my ski racing days, I was at the top of my game – I even had one season where I was undefeated throughout. That season was, without hesitation, my least rewarding season; winning became a question of margin – I even won one time trial where I started last and caught up to each of my teammates in serial and paced them to the next teammate such that we all finished in a big line of eight skiers.
The most rewarding season was the year where I struggled to fight back after losing motivation (due to the previous season’s excess) and still managed to win the key events. But the real fun wasn’t so much in the winning or losing, but in the bond it built between me and my principal rival; we both fought to the point of blacking out and neither of us ever – even for a minute – relented.
Extrapolating from that small-world experience to what it takes to become a Pro Cyclist capable of wining the Tour de France, it gives some insight into the mentality of the athletes who play out these battles that figure so prominently in our interpretation of our sport. To that end, I wonder if the champions don’t have the psychologically easier side of the coin. After all, they suffer almost the same amount, endure almost the same pressures and endure almost the same amount of discipline and sacrifice in pursuit of their goals. But one has the reward of victory and one the indignity of loss.
To come back year after year as victor seems almost like a picnic in comparison to the brutality of coming back year after year only to lose once again – then to resolve to return undeterred. In this sense, the loser who refused to quit endurs the suffering and sacrifice without the glory that comes with winning. Without them and their unrelenting optimism, the story would be less bright, less colorful. Which is the hero in our story?
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
@Marcus
...and his second places and podiums at La Fleche before he won it. I think it takes more than a win to change it - Ullrich won lots, so did Pou-pou, so did Zoetemelk as @Gianni said - including the Tour - but I think the difference is more in the style and attacking (or lack-there-of) style of riding.
Cuddles fundamentally changed the way he races and I think that's why he's out of the club now. He's an attacker now and does what it takes to win a race. He used to sit in and wait for others to tow him to the finish - look at the difference between 2007 and 2011; Sastre was up the road riding away with the race and he was too timid to tow the Schlecks and Valvecap up to the finish and close the gap. In 2011, he was in the same position and said, "right, this is what it takes to win; I'll tow them up and do it myself." That's brilliant racing.
The passive tactics and getting beat year after year without changing the style of racing is what really cements the reputation. Sweetmilk won the Tour, but only because everyone else didn't show up at the finish and his second place tactics landed him in first.
@gaswepass
I don't even know what you're talking about, but that doesn't sound like The V and it doesn't sound like its worth my time to make a badge for!
@Deakus
Schelckles is definitely a candidate. We'll have to see if he gets better - though he showed promise with his 2011 attack over the Galibier; the only thing that separated that from a brilliant move was the ITT two days later. If he's have pulled it off, it would have been a Merckxian accomplishment.
In that light, I'm on the fence - but he needs to get his shit together. Though racing with a broken hip is up there.
@Duane
Indeed. Very well put!! Bugno falls into that as well.
@frank
I'm going to qualify my statement about Bugno - he had an Indurain complex, but it never extended beyond the Tour. If it wasn't the Tour, he was a killer - even beating a stronger, faster, Apostle Museeuw.
@ErikdR
Brilliant stuff, mate. Brilliant. Isn't '74 the year Hinault ditched off the road in the Midi-Libre? That emphasizes the point in my opinion. Even if I'm wrong, which I've gotten so used to that it doesn't even impact my opinions anymore!
@Ron
Forget the video. Get a book, dude. Merckx, Half Man, Half Machine is a good place to start.
Hamilton's book on the Secret Race is another. Pharmy's book Its Not About the Bike is another. Dopers, for sure, but the sacrifice and the work comes through nicely in both those books nevertheless.
@bluesky
@bluesky
*ppppsssst!* Your period key is sticking!
@frank
You are confused but don't let that stop you. Hinault is talking about Zoetmelk's crash. You are confusing Hinault's crash in the 1977 Dauphiné maybe with Roger Rivière's crash recounted in The Rider?
@Souleur
Great stuff. I think the difference is that the right kind of rider who gets second somehow gets classified as a fighter not a loser - its the fighting spirit that defines the quality of the winner, right? And that can only happen when there is a worthy battle.
Its like the Schleck-haters saying he was a soft cock for losing the Tour to Cadel. I'd say he was an awesome competitor that year with his big attack to the Galibier and his fighting spirit is what made Cadel's win all the better. Same goes for his loss in 2010 against Conti - remember that had it not been for the dropped chain he'd have tied - and he attacked relentlessly up the Tourmalet on the last day and was beating Conti in the ITT until the wind picked up and his shit-ass TT position turned into a reverse sail.
I'm convinced, though, that in 2010 he'd have lost even without the chain - Conti was a fighter more than Schleck and had they been tied he'd have found a way to win nevertheless.
@Nate
Indeed - I realized it was Joop's crash but had forgotten it was '77 when Hinault crashed. It would have been poetic if both were '74, though - yeah?
I say we re-write history. Or re-right it, as it were.