Back At It...

Quick update for those who've asked about my well-being: I returned the other day from a week spent with the family and a substantial chunk of the shop ride crew at Cuttyhunk, an amazing little island in the Elizabeths chain between Cape Cod and the mainland. We rented most of the houses in this little compound, and focused on doing nothing but having fun for a week. There wasn't a lot to do there, which meant we were very busy. Ten adults, nine kids, and not enough hours in the day. It's possible that a couple hundred bloody marys were drunk, along with over a dozen cases of beer. It's also possible that a couple dozen ginormous stripers (that's a fish, not a mis-spelling of 'strippers') were caught with the assistance of Seahawk Charters captain Duane Lynch, and that bikes were ridden primarily for the purpose of obtaining ice cream. It could be that this entry is being written by the undisputed Spoons champion of the island. And we may have had a feast every night thanks to the well-developed but not well-known culinary capabilities of the shop ride crew. It may have been that the kids watched less than 3 hours TV, thanks to the fact there was nothing to do and they were so busy doing it and not being bored. And it may be that it was the best vacation I have ever had.

I'm a little bit fuzzy about it because I'm still in the midst of a post-vacation buzz, which may be stemming from the daily dopamine overdose, or then it could be the vodka. Pictures of big fish to follow...

---------------------------------------------------------

After a week spent in blessed ignorance of TdF news, I returned to find out that there'd been some headbutting, some Farrarwhining, some Cavgloating, and a number of other things going on at the Tour. What a weird turn of events, that Renshaw would get thrown out for his antics...

The most recent controversy involves the earth-shaking question, did Contador know that Schleck had dropped his chain on Port de Bales? More importantly, does it matter?

My take on this, as in many social matters, is that there are written and unwritten rules. Much of the outrage over the slowdown on Stage 2, the attacks on the cobbles of Roubaix, and Renshaw/Cav's antics, exists only because many of us are as aware of the unwritten rules as the written ones.

Unwritten rules are no less binding than the written ones; and the unwritten rules are the ones that govern our behavior most of the time.

In the real world, most people are aware of the unwritten rule that you don't walk up to a cop and start taunting him, nor does one act like an ass in front of a cop. Either behavior serves as an invitation for trouble. Yet some people, completely unaware of the existence of the rule, become completely outraged when the cop reacts to the taunting, or the brandishing of a prison cocktail on the front lines of a heated protest. The rest of us know what's coming because it's the rules; do we have to spell it out for you?

In cycling, I think we've detected several unwritten rules, the observance (or breach) of which caused consternation. In Stage 2, the rule was that when the peloton has had enough on an ultimately meaningless stage of a grand tour - such as 80-100 riders going down pretty hard - that most of the riders don't mind calling it a day. On the cobbles, the rule we detected was that riders expect to have breakdowns, and it's just part of the race there and not something that the leaders would slow for. In bunch sprints, we saw a few unwritten rules in play. As Julian Dean demonstrated, one can lean in or nibble away at another rider's line. As Mark Renshaw demonstrated, one cannot headbutt, or openly and intentionally steal another rider's line or force him into the barriers.

Most of the controversy over these events comes from people who look at the rule book, consider that a race is going on, and can't comprehend why in the hell anybody would ease up in a race, or take any action that is not immediately advantageous. Cancellara could have added minutes to his lead, and knocked maybe 20 riders out of the Tour on the second stage - why didn't he do so? If he was merciful then, why didn't he show mercy when GC contenders were flatting and crashing on Stage 3? And what's wrong with Renshaw running Farrar into the barriers - it's racing, right, and if you don't like contact you shouldn't be in the bunch sprint! There's nothing in the rules about it...

Unwritten rules can be pretty maddening if you don't have a sense of the overall unwritten regulatory scheme. What a lot of the armchair critics miss is the larger unwritten rule of the Tour. That rule is pretty simple, and pretty humane. It's a three week race; beat your competitors fair and square but remember you have to live with them eight hours a day for three weeks, and that what you do today will be remembered for the rest of your career.

Understand that fact, and you understand why the peloton will neutralize itself on a tough day. On yesterday's stage over the Tourmalet, for instance, it probably seemed pretty strange that the peloton basically soft pedaled. That is, until you consider that only the strongest riders remained in the pack following furious attacks over the first three cols. Not a rider in that tiny peloton wanted to ride hard and knock their supporting cast out of the race on the time limits. Nor did any of the GC contenders want to attempt a breakaway, knowing that even a diminished peloton could easily reel them in on the 40km flat leading to the finish. So the peloton neutralized itself. Where is the outrage? There isn't outrage because for the most part, the unwritten rule lines up well with tactical common sense. But what if it was a mountain top finish, and the leaders neutralized themselves because they were worn out from the earlier work (just look at Vino's face yesterday...) and dying for a rest day, prior to a big showdown Thursday on the other side of the Tourmalet?

Understanding l'affaire Contador requires balancing the written and unwritten rules, and tactical common sense. The expectation of the written rules is that it's a race, and Contador can attack when he wants, including in a feed zone, during a nature break, or out of the midst of the bunch sprint if he's strong enough (something Cancellara has done with his amazing 3k and 1k moves). So nothing in the written rules prohibits it. There is also an expectation that a rider will take advantage of a competitor's weakness; this tactical consideration counsels toward attacking a broken down opponent. But the unwritten rule of taking on competitors straight up, fair and square, counsels strongly against attacking a competitor who has a mechanical.

Let's look at the timeline. First, Schleck attacked out of the contenders group. Vino went with him, always game for an attack, sometimes even in support of teammates. Schleck was 15 or 20 yards up the road before Contador reacted. When he spun out, Schleck reached for a taller gear, to put a bit more of a hurt on Contador and the leaders. Contador had taken two or three standing pedal strokes at this point, and had started tapping out a cadence, but was nowhere near Schleck. At this point, Schleck's chain came off, and he had a couple dead pedal strokes, coming to a near stop. Vino road past Schleck, and obviously saw or heard the chain derail; he looked back at Contador to get guidance, perhaps expecting to see Contador's hand come up in a 'slow down' gesture. When he looked back, however, Contador began pedaling harder, throwing the bike a bit, in a strong attack. Contador was around 15 yards back when he started going all out.

Contador later said he had no idea that Schleck dropped his chain; that doesn't really hold water because it's just not believable that he (1) wouldn't see Schleck's problem from 15 yards back and closing; (2) didn't hear any grinding; (3) didn't notice Schleck grinding to a halt and staring at his chainring. The bottom line is that Contador knew Schleck dropped the chain and attacked hard. I'd have more respect for him if he just said he was being cutthroat and we should get over it; the fact that he is making excuses means he knows that it was a bit shoddy to attack just then.

Was Contador's attack the right thing to do? You make the calls. You know the rules. You tell me what you think but explain why you are going to apply a particular rule here versus the others.

Me? I'll go with the French crowds who are booing Contador and stick with the unwritten rules. They're the ones I tend to rely on more often to govern my own behavior and as a lawyer, I tend to appreciate people who aspire to behavior better than the mere written rules require.