There are some great videos coming from Specialized-lululemon - here are some as a New Year treat!
More below the jump - and as always, links to other fun things in the comments.... including to Chloe Hosking's comments on Pat McQuaid!
EDIT! And now the team has a website - http://velociosports.com/ which will be well worth bookmarking, it's already a lot of fun!
Here's Evie Stevie getting a bike fit - and a saddle named after her!
and Ally Stacher, with some fun bio about the rider (& lots of guns)
and Katie Colclough:
and here are some video interviews from Pedal, starting with Ina-Yoko Teutenberg:
and Clara Hughes, who has a great laugh!
Amber Neben
and team boss Kristy Scrymgeour
Enjoy!
0 recs | 151 comments
Not a video, but this made me grin today
Chloe Hosking wins the first race of the year, and celebrates by speaking her mind about the UCI!
Sarah Connolly - January 1, 2012
Hmm.
Well, let’s suppose you have the power right now to institute a minimum wage requirement for all UCI licensed women’s teams. Do you do it? Let’s see what one of the few people who’ve set up a women’s team with a minimum salary has to say about the matter. Here’s Gerard Vroomen on the point.
“If you make the minimum wage the same for women as it is for the WorldTour or Pro Conti, there would be no women’s teams left. It simply wouldn’t be viable at all, the disconnect between the exposure and the payroll would be completely out of whack. It’s already difficult – rightfully or wrongfully – to justify a women’s team for many organizations now. Doubling, trebling or tenfolding the payroll is not going to help the sport, it would kill it.”
The point holds whether the minimum salary is the same as the men’s or even far underneath it. A Pro Conti neo pro is guaranteed a salary of 23,000 Euros. Let’s start there. Do you require the best women, i.e., those on UCI licensed women’s teams, to be paid at least 23,000 Euros? If you do, right now, you’ll kill the sport, or at least severely damage it.
Is that not what Pat McQuaid really said when he said the women’s side of the sport has not “progressed” sufficiently for a minimum salary requirement? That’s the way I took his remark. The sponsorship of women’s elite racing has not progressed sufficiently to warrant a minimum-salary licensing requirement. But, no, in a fit of pique, many prominent women racers took him to be saying rather that the quality of their racing has not progressed sufficiently for a minimum salary. Hence, the intemperate and unwise remark of Chloe Hoskins. Is it really something to grin about?
Someone ask Chloe Hoskins, and all the other women racers who’ve publicly advocated for a minimum salaray, “Who do you expect will pay for your minimum salaries?”
Le Sprinteur - January 1, 2012
This argument has been used in all industries regarding both sex and race.
It simply amazes me that history must continue to repeat itself, as if nothing ever happened previously that has already demonstrated how flawed it is.
Ryan_Liles - January 2, 2012
+ 1
Sarah Connolly - January 2, 2012
Wait a minute
I suppose we want a minimum wage to have a real effect, and not just have one for show. Are there reasons to believe that there will be no unintended, and negative, outcomes from a minimum wage reform to add to the positive outcomes? If the team’s budgets can’t easily be increased, then the teams will have to hire fewer riders and staff members, or try to cut costs somewhere else (like Garmin wanted to do, race less). What exactly will happen in the foreseeable future that makes it a flawed argument?
TheFigurehead - January 2, 2012
Well, this is why a two-tier team system would work so well
It would enable small teams to develop, but also provide a proper wage for the best riders. How can it be worse than what’s happening now? From that SMH article:
and
‘’So many of my peers and other women … drop out, because there’s no career structure, there’s no salary structure,‘’ Spratt said. ’’It’s a little bit unfair – I think about the juniors, my male counterparts who are [now] on hundreds of thousands of euros and they can make a living out of cycling, whereas for us, there are limited opportunities.’’
Sarah Connolly - January 2, 2012
A minimum wage only for teams that can afford it
Isn’t something I would call a minimum wage. And no, it’s probably not worse. But not nessarily better either.
TheFigurehead - January 2, 2012
Every Mens WT team can afford it.
Every single one; and it should simply be mandatory.
Ryan_Liles - January 2, 2012
And that's because?
Well, perhaps the wage is set sufficiently low so that the teams can afford it. That would be a minimum wage that they have just for show.
TheFigurehead - January 2, 2012
It is not set that way for any of the men
Why would this seem like a reasonable solution for women?
Ryan_Liles - January 2, 2012
Cool, you know how UCI set the minimum wage
I tried to find the information, but couldn’t find any. Perhaps my google fu-is low. Anyway, I had this cynical idea that UCI look at the team’s finances and from them set the wage, perhaps with a little bit of input from the team managers. But OK, I was wrong, so please do tell me.
TheFigurehead - January 2, 2012
I don't know how it's set.
But team finances seem very variable, shall we say, at present, yet the minimum wage doesn’t seem to be adjusted accordingly?
One (beneficial?) effect I think the minimum wage has in the men’s sport is at least to limit the differential to a certain extent between the top riders & the teammates on whom they depend, which seems to be me a good thing. If a team’s in difficulties they can’t just try & keep a top rider by cutting further & further the rest of the team’s pay.
civetta - January 2, 2012
PART 2 ROAD RACES – UCI
Google Search: ‘uci minimum salary’
Time – 0.26 seconds.
Ryan_Liles - January 2, 2012
But how do they arrive at those numbers
was his question, wrapped in vile sarcasm.
tedvdw - January 3, 2012
Try again, please
TheFigurehead - January 3, 2012
It would clarify pro/amateur status for one thing
And of course access to races would be decided by status.
Jens - January 2, 2012
It's kind of crazy that at the moment, teams like Batavus & Sengers can be at the same level as Specialized & Rabo & AA etc
and it would make the job to races like the Giro Donne, who have to offer spots to all UCI-registered teams, much easier
(plus national teams should be at the lower status, automatically – mad that eg Scotland has a higher status than a good non-UCI team…)
Sarah Connolly - January 2, 2012
(and hasn't the "change would have terrible consequences" argument been used about every kind of min. wage debate?
It was certainly used before the UK min. wage came in, and oddly, they never materialised)
Sarah Connolly - January 2, 2012
Yes, and sometimes it's true and sometimes it's not
Women’s cycling is quite possibly a more fragile and inflexible sector than the British labour market.
TheFigurehead - January 2, 2012
I guess we're never going to persuade each other
I don’t see that a min. wage will destroy women’s cycling, and I guess I just don’t understand the people who oppose it. Yes, small teams might fold – but it’s not as though that doesn’t happen without a min. wage.
Sarah Connolly - January 2, 2012
I don't know if it will destroy women's cycling
But from Ryan’s comments, I do get the feeling that nothing bad what so ever could happen. And that’s quite a wild assumption.
TheFigurehead - January 2, 2012
'Bad'!?
You mean like women’s teams having a life cycle of about 2 years is good?
Or, do you mean keeping women’s athletes in such low regard that it is perfectly acceptable to have the President of the world cycling body publicly disparage that segment of the sport is totally cool?
Maybe you simply believe women’s cycling is just something these ladies do until they find a husband and get married; so it’s OK the way things are?
Things are ‘far’ from OK as they are right now; and keeping it this way is not really a viable option.
Ryan_Liles - January 2, 2012
What does that have to do with what I wrote?
We’re still talking about a minimum wage, right?
TheFigurehead - January 2, 2012
Yes but
the current British minimum wage is £6.08 an hour, which assuming a 37 hour working week over a 52 week year (not exactly the working pattern of pro riders, admittedly) equates to the grand sum of £11 697.92 a year. I’m not sure that’s quite what we’re aspiring to here… even if it is more than a lot of women riders currently get paid.
civetta - January 2, 2012
It's not a special kind of argument.
It’s a straightforward utilitarian argument. Should we or should we not do X? If we do X, what will be its consequences? If the consequences are worse than another alternative, then we should not do X. This sort of argument is utilized in virtually every sphere of human conduct. You can’t dismiss it as a fallacious form of argument. The question is whether given the alternatives, imposing a minimum salary will in fact have worse consequences than other alternatives.
Le Sprinteur - January 2, 2012
No, it will not have worse consequences.
This has been shown in mountains of data and scholarly reports for the last 60-ish years in almost every industry.
Women’s cycling is not so special that is lives outside, or in some alternative existence.
The exact same results will occure there also.
Ryan_Liles - January 2, 2012
Who cares
about “every industry” over the last 60 years. You’re trying to apply some economic data about national economies to one particular case here and now. What reason, in particular, do you have for thinking imposing a salary minimum in women’s bicycle racing right here and now will not have very adverse consequences for women’s bicycle racing? I want the particular facts about women’s cycling now that would lead someone to think that it would be good, fine, acceptable to do so here an now. I don’t care what happened in British or French industries 60 years ago.
Le Sprinteur - January 3, 2012
He's not trying to "apply data"
He is merely pointing out that the “give them a fair wage and the world will go to hell in a handbasket” has been a standard rhetorical response to these kind of demands of sexual and racial equality for a long time and the results of that equality have rarely or ever been as dramatic as the threats have made them out to be. Not surprisingly.
Jens - January 3, 2012
But was it a relevant point?
It definitely wasn’t much of an answer as a first reply, it was more like big stupid hyperbole. Pretty much like the idea that women’s cycling will go under if a minimum wage is set, regardless of at what amount.
TheFigurehead - January 3, 2012
I think it is a relevant point
that there is cause to be skeptical about the type of argument in light of how we know it has been used in the past.
Jens - January 3, 2012
Cause to be skeptical, yes
But that’s not the same thing as trying to shut it down altogether. A particular type of argument can be, and is in this case, very broad and not even wanting to see where it leads before crying foul is just lazy.
TheFigurehead - January 3, 2012
I don't understand this.
Are you saying there is cause to be skeptical about simple utilitarian reasoning, i.e., this type of argument, because it has been used in the past to argue for racist or sexist conclusions? That’s odd. The form of reasoning is perfectly legitimate, and we use it all the time, both in our everyday lives and in broader social and political debate. The question is whether this particular argument is good or bad. If in the past racists or sexists used a utilitarian form of argument against progressive reforms, but the negative consequences did not in fact bear out, then their utilitarian arguments were bad at the time they made them. The only question here is whether this argument is good or bad, right here and now.
1. The UCI should institute a minimum salary requirement for UCI registered women’s teams if, and only if, that would be best for women’s racing.
2. It is not the case that instituting a minimum salary requirement would be best for women’s racing (here and now).
-—————-3. So, it is not the case the UCI should institute a minimum salary requirement (here and now).
Nothing Ryan_Liles has said shows how this argument fails. I presume he agrees with (1). Nothing he’s said tells against (2). While others, others inside the sport and sympathetic with women’s racing, think that such a requirement would reduce sponsorship money significantly, greatly, or drastically, and hence such a requirement should not be demanded by the UCI, Ryan_Liles complicates the issue by supposing that it would not be the current sponsors of women’s racing who will fund the minimum salary, but rather the men’s pro teams, who will be required by the UCI to fund a women’s team and give them minimum salaries.
So, you a the source of confusion in this discussion, here and out there, if you will. If you discount the possibility that the UCI will require men’s teams to fund women’s teams, then you’d probably agree with Gerard Vroomen, that requiring min. salaries, paid solely by the sponsors of women’s teams, would have bad consequences for women’s racing. On the other hand, if you already believe that men’s teams should fund women’s teams and give them minimum salaries, then you will easily claim in a variety of contexts that, Yes, the women should be paid minimum salaries.
So, the more pointed question I’d pose to Ryan is this. Given it ain’t gonna happen that the UCI requires men’s teams to fund women’s teams, do you think the UCI should institute a minimum salary requirement?
Le Sprinteur - January 3, 2012
So... many ...words
I don’t get half of it honestly. However I think 2. in the supposedly straightforward logical argument is the problem. Mainly because it’s effing impossible to predict outcomes, especially without having a detailed proposal of the actual full package of new rules to make a thorough analysis from. Offhanded, often in the shape of “straight-talking, simple truths”, claims of the expected outcome is where you can unjustly dismiss any change from the status quo.
Anyways, I’m starting to suspect I forgot the obvious.
Jens - January 3, 2012
The form of reasoning simple.
It’s individual claims may not be so easy to assess, precisely because it can be difficult to predict the consequences of policies or programs or actions that have never been put in place before. But it’s simply wrong that “it’s effing impossible to predict outcomes”. We do it a lot, and sometimes we’re pretty good at it.
Le Sprinteur - January 5, 2012
Don’t be using Gamin as a good example.
That is just Bull Shit at the highest level.
Ryan_Liles - January 2, 2012
+ many, Garmin didn't go under because of the minimum wage!
Especially considering the Cervélo riders were all paid, and the team was halved in size when they went Garmin. It was about bad management and not caring about the team – and mistakes the management made about assuming they could get sponsors for the whole thing.
I’ve seen that Garmin cost €400k to run – and Laura Weislo said that that’s much less than just the hospitality budget of the men’s team!
Sarah Connolly - January 2, 2012
(and given that the min. wages they were paying were something like €15k and €22k,
I just laugh at the idea that the, what, max. €220k was what caused the team to go under!)
Sarah Connolly - January 2, 2012
For fucks sake, I didn't say they went under because of the minimum wage
TheFigurehead - January 2, 2012
That's quite a perk. A hospitality budget.
I thought pro riders weren’t supposed to have sex during the racing season. I wonder if the girls have a minimum wage or not.
Le Sprinteur - January 2, 2012
Good example? I used it as a bad example
And you didn’t even bother to answer my question
TheFigurehead - January 2, 2012
In regards to your question -
Since every industrialized nation has, and/or is still, dealing with this over the last hundred years you can go and study up on some history.
My apologies for sounding a bit rude, but it is 2012 and this debate was resolved a long time ago.
There’s just no need to go and re-hash it.
Ryan_Liles - January 2, 2012
The history of minimum wages?
The history of the debate surrounding minimum wages? It’s not really apparent to me (becuase not every industrialized country have minimum wages, though I’m sure there have been debates about getting one).
Still, it’s extremely difficult, perhaps even impossible, to become an economist and at the same time not study the minimum wage issue in one way or the other. And I can tell your that the person who claims that the topic is resolved must be out of their fucking mind. Especially if they vaguely point to “history”.
TheFigurehead - January 2, 2012
I'm absolutely certain a minimum wage would wipe out a number of teams initially.
Going to a two tier system with Division 1 Pro teams with a minimum wage and Div 2 /amateur teams only a few of todays “Professional” teams would survive, others would have to disband or work as division 2 teams. And it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.
Jens - January 2, 2012
I don't think so.
I’d bet womens teams would merge with WT teams that must have them if the UCI would start requiring this as a WT Team requirment.
The Div 2 Teams would then become more regionally focused; which is exactly what the UCI is trying to structure anyway.
Ryan_Liles - January 2, 2012
There is a big number of "professional"teams today
I really doubt that many of them could manage min wages (alone or merged) in the current womens racing economy. There needs to be a significant influx of sponsorship (and mediaexposure) for the number to be what it is today.
Jens - January 2, 2012
Frankly, I do not see the UCI placing much effort in . . . .
. . . improving revenue streams to races, teams, or riders.
Male & Female.
I doubt this will improve without serious changes; which I believe can only come if/when all the pro cyclists push for it to happen.
Ryan_Liles - January 2, 2012
agreed
My thinking on a minimum wage is that a demand like that from the UCI would have to be accompanied by a commitment from them to work actively to help increase the revenue stream to teams.
Jens - January 2, 2012
Which is largely how it is anyway
The Alps are a massive barrier in women’s racing. There are only a few teams which race both north and south nowadays, who are the ones I reckon actually pay a salary.
Monty. - January 2, 2012
Minimum wage
I had some discussion with Kristy Scrymgeour about the minimum wage while I was at the lulu camp. Basically her view is similar to this – that for some of the teams, it just isn’t going to be possible. At the same time, it should be a goal for the sport.
Kristy believes its really important for the team managers to push the sponsors to pay the women enough to support themselves. Because they can’t keep racing if they don’t get at least a minimal salary. Kristy herself raced, hmm, I think she said six years at the elite level, and she said it was hard, because she’s from Aus. and was living in Europe to race, and she really needed the teams to pay so she could cover the costs of living and racing.
So, Kristy views it as a goal the sport needs to have – that is, the women’s teams need to push the sponsors to give the women at least minimal salaries so they stay in the sport and the overall level of experience and fitness goes up.
For the lulu team, she kept the salary levels the same as they were with Highroad. Which, they’re definitely not high. Amber Neben’s comment was that she loves racing, but she expects to work until she’s like 90, because she’s certainly not making anything to put away for the future as a bike racer.
Jen See - January 2, 2012
I agree with a lot of that.
Without getting into a lengthy argument with Dennis or Sarah or Ryan on the principle of minimum wages, for me the issue’s not so much whether there should be a minimum wage (there should) but whether a minimum wage could be usefully implemented right now (I doubt it). If that’s the case, the question then becomes (yet again) how do we move the sport on to a point where a minimum wage becomes viable? Because if nothing else, Chloe Hoskings absolutely has a point when she says there’s a chicken & egg problem of McQuaid saying (at least implicitly) the standards of the sport make it unworthy of a minimum wage when without a secure income for the riders it’s hard for the sport to move forward. I think the ball’s in the UCI’s court but they seem very reluctant to do anything more than stick a pin in it.
civetta - January 2, 2012
The thing is though
The whole “pro” team thing is not a nature given thing. The sport could very well function on an amateur level like so many other sports with riders riding in smaller races for local clubs and a national team that is selected and travels for the bigger races. Athletes depending on private sponsors and national feds/olympic committees for funding.
But in cycling there is the ambition to run commercial teams that serve as marketing vehicles for equipment producers and brands. Teamowners with that ambition should as a very minimum be required to pay their employees so I’m not so concerned with the timing. If they can’t afford to pay employees they should be in the business (or perhaps more correctly, they shouldn’t operate under the banner of being a business if they can’t)
Jens - January 2, 2012
Men's racing went through the very same phase.
Women’s racing now has grown to the point it needs to also.
Ryan_Liles - January 2, 2012
Is it possible, though, to even come up with an example of a 'pure' amateur sport anymore?
At least at that kind of level?
A lot of sport, especially (though not exclusively) women’s sport exists in a kind of semi-pro hinterland. Personal sponsors & national feds (or proxies for them, like the British lottery or the Italian prison service) is how much of the sport survives at present, so I’m not sure I see the difference? In any case, the apparent lack of interest (although who knows what was going on in private) BC seems to have shown in the fate of its top riders recently doesn’t exactly give me hope that the national feds would be any better at taking this on than the so-called “pro” teams. You’d get stuff like the American women cross riders having to pay to ride in the worlds all over again, I fear.
One thing that might work, though, would be if teams were required to publish financial info, not necessarily individual wages (or the lack of them) but what the team budget was, what proportion of it went on what etc.
civetta - January 3, 2012
The difference as I see it
As you say most “amateur” athletes get by on private sponsorships (and fed/oly. money). In cycling a lot of those funds are siphoned up by a plethora of teams that refer to themselves as “professional”. With some of those funds freed up there is probably room for a lot more athletes to make a living through personal sponsorships, and those are more likely to be performance based (money going to riders X,Y,Z due to their promising results rather than to team T that pays expenses for the random local riders they happen to have under contract ).
As for national feds, many of them already have a well functioning system for this. I see them as much more likely to handle things “professionally” than most of the present teams if the need should arise. There would at least be a much higher level of accountability .
Anyway I mostly mentioned the alternative system to illustrate that the current model of organization isn’t necessarily the way things have to be, it’s not written in stone.
Jens - January 3, 2012
That argument
has not been used in all industries regarding both sex and race. It’s an argument about women’s bicycle racing here and now, and whether the sponsors of the sport can afford the UCI mandating minimum salary requirements here and now. The argument purports that mandating a minimum salary right now in women’s cycling would have drastically negative consequences. It doesn’t say anything about industries 100 years ago.
Further, asserting that the argument is flawed is not the same thing as showing that it’s flawed. If it is truly flawed, I’d be grateful if you could show me that it is, so I don’t go on believing something that is false.
Is Gerard Vroomen right or wrong when he says that minimum salaries would “kill” the sport?
If you had the power, would you institute a minimum salary requirement or not? And, if you would, who do you think should pay for the additional costs of funding a women’s bicycle team?
Le Sprinteur - January 2, 2012
Just look at the implamentation of this on the men's side.
The UCI mandates a minimum salary for male cyclists at the highest level.
This has now been in place for many years.
Nobody, absolutely nobody, questioned ‘if’ these few male racers who are fortunate enough to have a contract with a WT, or Pro-Conti Team are either deserving of this; or if the additional financial burden would be too great for the sport.
Yet, once women start asking for the same basic level of financial support there comes out all these bullshit fallacies; which sadly are the exact same as have been used to refuse equality for women and minorities for over the last century.
I don’t think these women are asking too much to be given the respect of a minimum salary requirement for teams that should be considered the highest level of the sport.
This is already done for the men, and they are simply asking for the same treatment.
Ryan_Liles - January 2, 2012
Sigh.
Once again, where is the fallacy? You’ve said nothing that undermines the argument I’ve suggested. You’ve not answered any of my questions, which I take are fairly important questions on the issue. I don’t even know how to respond—politely.
Le Sprinteur - January 2, 2012
I'm not going to answer all your questions.
I’m not really interested in getting bogged down in a lot of the argument about how to argue.
But I will answer the last three:
1. Is Gerard Vroomen right or wrong when he says that minimum salaries would “kill” the sport? A: I think that he is wrong in the literal sense, but probably right in the broader sense. As has already been acknowledged in other posts, it would change the way women’s cycling exists right now, parts of that change would be quite dramatic. Some teams would fold, others may consolidate, some would continue largely unaffected. So yes, in my opinion, if the goal is to not change the structure of women’s racing so that it can support a minimum wage then it’d be best to leave it as is and flail about wringing our collective hands.
2. If you had the power, would you institute a minimum salary requirement or not? A: You’re goddamn right I would, and I’d do it in a reckless and fast fashion (in keeping with UCI traditional methods of operation). Because the truth is that whatever the minimum is at first doesn’t fucking matter. What matters is that there is a minimum. Because once that’s settled we can get on with the more important business of making sure the sport can support the fucking minimum. So let’s just set the minimum at at an arbitrary 7,500 or whatever and go there.
3. And, if you would, who do you think should pay for the additional costs of funding a women’s bicycle team? A: Anyone who wants to take on the responsibility of running a team. A professional team is a business. Sure, it’s not a get rich quick scheme for anybody, but it’s a business. There are all sorts of great requirements to set one up. You’ve got to handle taxes, travel issues, licensing and registration for your team and riders, bases of operations and cool shit like that. I don’t care if adding 300,000 to your costs is onerous (25 riders by the 7500 used as an example above, then rounded way up to not quite double to account for additional HR costs etc.). Most importantly, what this achieves is a shift in the whole conversation. It’s no longer focused on if we should have a minimum (which is actually a distraction from the real issue), instead it now has to focus on how the sport has to adapt to support the minimum (which is the real issue). See, owning and operating a business is a privilege, not a right. You want to run a business in this industry? These are the costs. Raise the cash and put the guarantees in place or don’t get the licence. It won’t kill women’s cycling, it will change it and change almost always involves some hurt. But cycling’s all about overcoming the pain and achieving anyway.
Disclaimer: Above answers are my opinions only. I’m too lazy to go get an economics degree and argue whether capitalism or democracy work or whatever.
Lastly, I still think that Pat McQuaid’s a dick and I’m ok with saying so.
omnevelnihil - January 3, 2012
Awesome
tedvdw - January 3, 2012
Jens - January 3, 2012
+1
Ryan_Liles - January 3, 2012
Dude.
That was just… yeah. Awesome stuff right there.
Jen See - January 3, 2012
I agree with a lot of what you say.
Heh. Arguing about how to argue. That’s my profession.
Just establish a minimum wage however low and get on with the business of doing what is needed to bring more money into the sport. And, you don’t go where Ryan_Liles goes, in saying that men’s pro teams should be required to support women’s teams and then pay them a minimum wage. I’m good on that.
But, none of the women publicly calling for a minimum salary, I suspect, are going to be much impressed with your minimum salary of 7,500 (Euros?). They want a living wage. That’s the real bone of contention, isn’t it? Demanding sponsors pay 7,500 Euros may not “kill” the sport, but what about demanding a living minimum wage for each and every rider on a UCI registered women’s team? Are you so willing to be “reckless” in demanding that, if you were to have the power? What consequences would it have on the sport? Would there be any sport left?
Le Sprinteur - January 3, 2012
Of course the ladies would be pissed off
(and they’d be right to be). Hell I’m a decent enough person that I’d be embarrassed at introducing such a low minimum (and I didn’t nominate a currency because I wasn’t aiming for a realistic figure, but Euros is fine by me).
But I think introducing a deliberately low minimum to start with is good for several reasons:
1. Teams who are already paying more than this look fucking awesome for being ahead of the curve (good on them!) and can be pointed to as proof that the money can be found to run a team in adherence to the minimum.
2. It makes the transition (even marginally) easier for teams trying to take the leap to meet the minimum while the sport goes through its shift.
3. For the many riders who ride for room and board or less, 7,500 is a fuckload more than they get now (that’s a metric fuckload – this is cycling after all). And I think the women are intelligent enough to see the introduction of a minimum (even an insultingly low one) as a positive first step.
4. This is the part I should have added above, which is that the introduction should also include a path to a minimum living wage (let’s say 23,000). So in Year 1 it’s 7,500 then in Year 2 it’s 11,000 in Year 3 it’s 14,000 etc. The point here being that by mapping the path to the mid-term goal it’s easier for teams, sponsors and riders to know the requirements and expectations and do their part to fulfill them.
It’s almost impossible to address your last few questions without being dragged back into the quagmire you and Ryan found yourselves in, but I’ll give it a go.
In the modern expression of capitalism time is frequently valued in monetary terms, particularly as it is a finite resource in a person’s life. So when a person is asked to commit large percentages of their time in order to participate in a team there comes a point when it is reasonable and fair for them to expect compensation for it. There are terms in our society for people who are not compensated fairly for the work that they do on behalf of an employer. They’re ugly terms like slave, indentured servant or exploited labourer.
The point of introducing a mandatory minimum is to enshrine the principle so that the workers involved (i.e. riders) have some guarantees and protections (i.e. security) and to continue to progress towards true equality.
Any sport or business that is “killed”, “destroyed” or “no longer exists” as the result of acting in a principled manner is no loss in my view.
omnevelnihil - January 3, 2012
+ many to the last part
Jens - January 4, 2012
+ many more
Sarah Connolly - January 4, 2012
Boo on the last part!
“And to continue to progress towards true equality.”? What is that, exactly? I think your proposal of instituting a low minimum requirement is a good practical approach for getting the most possible from the sponsors of women’s racing (here and now), and as the economic conditions permit, it can be slowly raised until the minimum salary is a living wage. But the aim is true equality? Men being paid as much as women? What if there would just never be the same level of sponsor interest in women’s cycling? Who pays? Now I’m thinking you maybe just a more subtle, pragmatic Ryan_Liles.
The very last remark, I just don’t understand. Let’s the say the UCI, in order to promote equality in the men’s and women’s sport, institutes the same minimum wage requirements as the men’s World Tour teams. Most of the sponsors of women’s cycling leave the sport. They’re acting in a principled manner, no? There’s no loss here, in your view?
Le Sprinteur - January 5, 2012
Ok, it's late but I'll do my best.
Q. What is that [to continue to progress towards true equality], exactly? A. I would characterise true equality as equal pay for equal work. So yes, the ultimate goal would be for the minimum wage requirements for women’s teams to be in line with those for the men.
Q. What if there would just never be the same level of sponsor interest in women’s cycling? Who pays? A. This is precisely what I mean when I say that the sport itself needs to focus on changing in order to support the implementation and growth of such a minimum wage. I find your determination to cling to sponsorship as the only way of drawing money into the sport interesting in and of itself.
An aside: I think you’re really trying to twist the knife on Ryan a bit much. Just my 2 cents on that one.
(Pre-emptive) Q. What changes would I put in place to achieve the above? A. Forgive me, but I thought it was safe to assume you’d follow up with this. Firstly I think if the UCI did have the vision and balls to lay out a process for implementing a minimum wage it’d be a lot easier for all involved. Dealing with the known is much better than the unknown. If teams know that their costs are going to increase, they also know they need more funding. Similarly if sponsors are aware that commitments will need to be bigger they can budget for it and prepare for it. I also think it wouldn’t be too hard to convince a sponsor that they can garner a lot of goodwill by being one of the first in the sport to help women really turn pro and make a living. But that’s just the traditional, sponsored side of things.
I’m not going to pretend that I can predict the future but I do think that in the next ten years we’re going to see some very big disruption in media technologies. As an example, there are some very interesting companies working on broadcasting live events on a pay-per-view model via facebook and so on. Things like this will give teams the opportunity to find additional revenue sources through special live events and interactions. And that’s not counting the myriad ideas about fan memberships and so on. There are and will continue to be more ways for teams to make money. Those who are best at adapting to these changes will survive.
It’s possible that I didn’t make my original statement in a way that made sense to you, so I’ll firstly try to re-phrase it before elaborating on that.
Let’s say all women’s teams are sponsored by the sale of blood diamonds from Africa. The UCI makes it a requirement that money from blood diamonds not be allowed in the sport. Most of the sponsors of women’s cycling leave. There’s no loss in my view?
No.
Removing unprincipled sponsors and teams from the sport who would willingly exploit and deny their employees the basic right to be paid for their work is not a loss in my view. Rather, requiring that teams (and by extension, sponsors) treat their employees fairly in principle, with a stepped plan to real parity is an important step in the process of making the sport itself better and more principled.
In summary: If the sport’s committed to making the change, then I believe it will find a way to survive. But for those who are afraid of the challenges change will bring, it’s easier to cry wolf and say the sport will die if we change it.
omnevelnihil - January 5, 2012
Hmmph. Well. Let's see.
1. Equal pay for equal work? So, ultimately, Bronzini or whoever, should be paid as much as Cavendish, since they are both top sprinters. If Bronzini could sprint against Cavendish, Farrar, Griepel, etc., in men’s races, then she should receive the same pay as they do. But she can’t. Really, I don’t even know what it means to say they are performing equal work. They’re never in the same races!
2. I didn’t ask your pre-emptive question because the answer seems pretty obvious. The UCI makes an initial, low minimum wage a requirement for all registered teams, to at least “enshrine” the principle that women need to be paid more, as you helpfully suggest. Note, however, that this will require something like a Pro Tour format, where entry into the best races is allowed only for those registered teams paying at least the low minimum wage. This may well be at least one of the reasons the dick said that the women’s sport has not sufficiently “progressed” to warrant a minimum wage requirement. The UCI cannot at this point impose such a structure on the women’s side of the sport. In fact, as I write this, I’m thinking this is something McQuaid did have in mind, since his reply to the Women of Copenhagen involved an appeal to the recent UCI efforts to establish a World Cup calender for the women. He might think this is a first step towards a Pro Tour-like structure, which would give the UCI the power to aim for minimum wage requirements.
3. “Any sport or business that is "killed", "destroyed" or "no longer exists" as the result of acting in a principled manner is no loss in my view.” This is a blunder, and, frankly, I’m surprised to see you defend it. PWDB or W can lead to such, believe me, I know. And, your response to my challenge of this remark is just impolitely snide. “It’s possible that I didn’t make my original statement in a way that made sense to you, so I’ll firstly try to re-phrase it before elaborating on that.” Perhaps it would make sense to Nicolas Roche. I’ve come to understand that English is not his natural language.
So, anyway, here’s the reply. “Let’s say all women’s teams are sponsored by the sale of blood diamonds from Africa. The UCI makes it a requirement that money from blood diamonds not be allowed in the sport. Most of the sponsors of women’s cycling leave. There’s no loss in my view? No.”
scratching chin Hmm. Well. I agree. If women’s teams were funded with ill-begotten gains, it would be acceptable if they did not exist. But they are not. So are you surprised I did not read your remark in this way?
Le Sprinteur - January 6, 2012
Well I did say that it was late (and it is again)
1. We are discussing a minimum wage. Not whether or not Bronzini should be paid as much as Cav or anyone else. In fact, I don’t know of a situation in which a minimum also places a reciprocal limit on maximum earnings.
2. You say, “The UCI cannot at this point impose such a structure on the women’s side of the sport.” Can you tell me why it can’t? And I don’t think McQuaid is thinking in terms of progressing towards instituting a minimum wage. If he were, it’d be far easier to take control of the debate by saying as much. Furthermore, if he is taking this action but not operating with transparency then this will not help teams or riders to prepare for whatever the coming changes are.
3. You say my opinion is a blunder, but you don’t say why or how. So I’m not sure what you mean. Also, I don’t know what PWDB or W mean.
I do sincerely apologise for having seemed snide. That was not my intent. My emphasis was intended to be on the way I phrased my original comment, not on your understanding.
4. No women’s teams aren’t funded by criminal activity, that’s true. But if I’m reading all of your comments correctly (and I may not be), you don’t believe women’s cycling should institute a minimum until it can be proven that it can afford it. I, on the other hand, believe that most teams will not be sufficiently motivated to provide a minimum wage until it is a requirement of operating a team.
omnevelnihil - January 6, 2012
Oh, and I forgot to say
on point 4. that I think the difference is that I value the moral imperative over the fiscal one, believing that the fiscal issues can be resolved if decisive action is taken in something like the approach I’ve suggested (or perhaps another, better way).
omnevelnihil - January 6, 2012
No, indeed,
I’m with you on the low minimum wage requirement. It seems to me the best way to test just how much the sponsors of women’s racing can afford. And I think many in the sport would be willing to risk bad consequences for “enshrining” the low minimum salary requirement, as you suggest, even if does not establish a living wage. (Fiscal matters are not entirely separate from moral matters, in my view.)
Le Sprinteur - January 6, 2012
PWDB =
posting while drinking beer
Le Sprinteur - January 6, 2012
Thanks!
It was driving me batty. For some reason I kept thinking “People With…” and then I could only come up with ‘databases’ or ‘double basses’ as options. I hadn’t even been drinking beer… ;)
omnevelnihil - January 7, 2012
Yes, PWDB.
Is there any other way to post? Anyway, I enjoyed your replies and challenges. I did not take this discussion to be merely a dialectical one. I’m genuinely interested in these issues. I’m close to finishing a fan post that touches on some of these issues and would be happy to read any replies or challenges you might make to it.
Le Sprinteur - January 8, 2012
I enjoyed it too
Again, sorry for the confusion I caused with some of my replies (especially any hint of insult). I’m glad you’re going to do a post on it.
It’ll be interesting to see where that conversation leads. Maybe you want to take a run at the top UCI job?
omnevelnihil - January 8, 2012
Some of these arguments are tough to ignore.
Uphill - January 4, 2012
dayum.
That’s twice. Yes, this is wise right here.
Jen See - January 4, 2012
australia's got 9 of the 10 deadliest arguments in the world.
ant1 - January 4, 2012
ha ha, well-played :D
Jen See - January 4, 2012
Quite obviously
Omne has given up thinking of beer and this has freed up Einstein-like volumes of brain-capacity. Those 97% of his brain that were otherwise occupied are now free to explore other topics with scary results.
Jens - January 4, 2012
It's actually been 11 days
since I last had a beer. I’d be worried your argument held merit if it weren’t for the multiple bottles of wine I’ve had in the last week.
omnevelnihil - January 4, 2012
in vino veritas
ant1 - January 4, 2012
Intemperate & unwise?
She, Bronzini, others, they’re damn angry. & rightly so. They’re driven sportspeople trying to be the best they can & they’re limited by lack of resources & frustrated by lack of recognition & quite often open hostility & mockery. Whether I agree exactly with what she’s said or not, we can’t expect people under those circumstances to always behave like good little girls & accept the disregard that’s handed to them like a pat on the head.
It’s noticeable, for instance, that her remarks got picked up by mainstream non-cycling news sites. So now the wider world knows there’s an issue. How often does that happen when a woman rider opens her mouth?
civetta - January 2, 2012
Indeed.
First off, it’s highly uncharitable to read McQuaid in Copenhagen as claiming that the quality of the racing of the women has not progressed sufficiently to warrant minimum salaries. I didn’t understand him to say that. I read him as saying that sponsorship support has not progressed sufficiently to warrant minimum salaries. I.e., demanding a sponsor pay minimum wage cannot be made or else it will drastically harm the sport, since its level of sponsorship at this time is not sufficient.
The women in Copenhagen who replied quickly to McQuaid, as well as Chloe Hoskins, did so in a fit of pique, intemperance, born of hearing again and again that women’s racing is boring, etc. Their intemperance led them to mistake him for saying that and lashed out. Yes, intemperance.
Unwise? Well, without evidence of some real positive benefit to calling the leader of an institution you are a member of a dick, I’d demur to not doing so, lest it simply antagonize him, as it might many, many human beings. If Hoskins’ remark was calculated to bring non-cycling media attention to the issue, then maybe it was not unwise. But I’d suppose that whatever positive attention the issue may have gotten is cancelled out by the negative reaction of non-cycling fan to a woman they’ve never heard of calling the top official of a sport a dick. Most will simply take it to be . . . intemperate and unwise. So, unwise, yes.
Le Sprinteur - January 2, 2012
God
I can’t believe I’m defending McQuaid. Oh well.
Le Sprinteur - January 2, 2012
Well, this not so much maybe
with an Australian audience at least. We kind of like it when our sportspeople stick it to the establishment.
omnevelnihil - January 3, 2012
Sorry, i don't see anything intemperate in the Bronzini/Vos/Teute responses
Please can you add a reference to what you mean,because everything I saw was well-argued and made a lot of sense
Sarah Connolly - January 3, 2012
mmhhh. . . intemperate, immoderate.
Something said or done from an overly strong or inappropriate emotional reaction in the moment. Something that upon further cool and calm reflection, we wish we had not done or said when we were highly charged. Being governed in what we do solely by emotional responses, and not by judgments about what is best or good or true.
Whoever wrote the Velonews article on the issue today was essentially claiming that Hosking was intemperate.
“Following her win, the Australian sprinter’s feelings got away from her, when she called the president of the UCI, Pat McQuaid, "a dick."”
Le Sprinteur - January 3, 2012
Seriously, provide references to back yourself up re Vos, Bronzini, Teutenberg etc
Because I just don’t get it from what they said as overly emotional, it’s logical to me. Unless, of course, you haven’t actually read what they said….
Sarah Connolly - January 4, 2012
I think
Sprinteur glanced over the title on your post and was still talking about Hosking.
tedvdw - January 4, 2012
I believe
I’ve given my take it on it twice above. Don’t know there’s much more I can say.
Le Sprinteur - January 5, 2012
And a longer article with comments from other Aussie women
In the Sydney Morning Herald
Sarah Connolly - January 1, 2012
The salary thing sucks
but at the same time lots of races are stopping and teams shutting down because they can’t get the sponsorship. I don’t think there are many people getting rich off the back of the girls who ride for nothing. Fanini, for example, makes his living from a car dealership, the last time I saw a photo of Rochelle Gilmore’s Honda (‘cos she’s a team manager too), it was a 54 number plate, and I wonder when was the last time that the Wyman’s woke up and had their house to themselves.
Having said that, it looks like there will be loads of teams registering with the UCI this year, so now would be a good time to rewrite the rule book a little and introduce 2 categories of teams, one with a minimum wage and one not, and give priority in race entries to the former. And get rid of that silly minimum average age rule.
But what really hacks me off is the fact that lots of the press are willing to give lots of space to stuff like this but they can’t be bothered to cover the actual racing.
Monty. - January 1, 2012
Yeah, the 2 category thing is the way forward
Lower category with the same Conti rules, higher band with min. wages & none of the Conti age restrictions.
(And to be fair to the SMH, they cover the women’s racing too, better than most other news places)
Sarah Connolly - January 1, 2012
SMH are great
it’s just irritating to hear other people wade in on stuff like this when they give no hint normally that they are following the actual racing.
Monty. - January 1, 2012
I felt like that about the Lizzie Armitstead-Nicole Cooke stuff
but, polemica, it’s always more fun to write about!
Sarah Connolly - January 1, 2012
Help?? 54 number plate means????
R Mc - January 1, 2012
In the UK the last two digits of a number plate represent the year the car was first registered
well it changes twice a year, e.g. from the start of this sequence 51 was issued from Sep 01 through to Feb 02, 02 from March 02 to Aug 02 etc. So a 54 plate means the car is six or seven years old. Unusual for a car from a sponsor unless maybe she asked for an older but pricier model in place of the compact they wanted to give her.
Monty. - January 1, 2012
thx
R Mc - January 2, 2012
Is this an Australian thing
Rochelle Gilonore posted a picture of her Bike Exchange team after their last race, and they all have their names branded on their shorts. Are we going to see this in Europe or is there a UCI rule against it somewhere.
Monty. - January 1, 2012
don't think there is a rule against that. Rather, I think the space is a good spot for a sponsor.
Uphill - January 1, 2012
Do Sky still have the riders' names on their shirts?
I like things like that, that make it easier to ID riders (and I really like the way Cooke looks kinda uncomfortable in that photo!)
Sarah Connolly - January 1, 2012
Strangely
I was thinking earlier how relaxed and comfortable Nicole was looking in the photos I’ve seen recently. I wonder which line Jens will take when he’s working out the VDS prices.
Monty. - January 1, 2012
I think she looks happy, but it's not her kind of posing, is it?
She looks like she’s laughing at herself felling ridiculous
Sarah Connolly - January 1, 2012
Meh
I say sandbagging
Monty. - January 1, 2012
Another nice video
Emma Johansson’s 2011 memories, from her end-of-year blog
And Ash Moolman’s New Year blog, with photos of her happy times in 2011
And an interview with former paracyclist Monique van der Vorst on how she’s been finding training with Rabobank
Sarah Connolly - January 1, 2012
A tiny little insight into the Garmin-Cervélo team debacle
In an article about Alexis Rhodes signing to Greenedge
That’s interesting – seems they weren’t told the team was in trouble, just that it was definitely going, which isn’t what JV was saying at the time…
Sarah Connolly - January 1, 2012
Triple meh
“folding” might be her own phrase, her re-interpretation; no indication when that text was sent; what Vaughters says (to the general public) and what Vaughters does aren’t necessarily the same.
tedvdw - January 1, 2012
Hmmm . . .
salient details:
2 year contract.
text message . . . ahem . . . a text message, not a phone call . . . informing that said contract will be broken.
thus, your last line is the relevant one, although it could be emended to . . . Vaughters has a sleaze quotient that could approach Lefevere’s or Savio’s given time.
R Mc - January 1, 2012
Isn't it fairly well established by now
that for all his very good qualities as a manager JV has some properly poor communication skills concerning riders in the more unpleasant aspects of manager-employee relations?
I would go as far as saying the man is in dire need of a HR dept. to handle the aspects he clearly is incapable of handling himself. There is no shame in admitting there are areas where you lack skills/need help. If he had been in a serious industry he would have been on the losing side of any number of expensive labor lawsuits by now, I’m guessing.
Jens - January 1, 2012
Lefevere is historically dick-ish, but I’ve never considered him as sleazy.
Ryan_Liles - January 2, 2012
Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch.
Matxin didn’t come to mind as it should have.
R Mc - January 2, 2012
And speaking of Chloe Hosking
Here’s her latest blog, from the Velocio facebook page (I hope we get a team website, too – HTC’s was lovely) – and Clara Hughes’ latest blog, which talks about Chloe, as well as commuting by snowmobile and problems with grouse!
Sarah Connolly - January 1, 2012
(Chloe crashing into a kangaroo is a great story
but I’m surprised, as it’s Aus, that she wasn’t then bitten by 11 venomous beasts!)
Sarah Connolly - January 1, 2012
All our venomous beasts know better
than to fuck with kangaroos. Those things are properly dangerous.
omnevelnihil - January 1, 2012
Ah, so it's like the kangaroo has claimed the victim as it's *victim*
and anyone adding anything else is just asking for a stomping?
Hey, omne, do you have magpie problems too? I can never read about Aussie magpies without thinking of this!
Sarah Connolly - January 2, 2012
Sorry Sarah, I didn't even make it halfway down that page.
Too Long, Didn’t Read.
I did get hit in the head by a magpie back in spring which just made me burst out laughing. Poor bastard didn’t stand a chance, trying to defend its territory AND being attracted by my helmet at the same time.
omnevelnihil - January 3, 2012
Jens Zemke has the perfect accent for a DS
You don’t want to make him angry
Monty. - January 1, 2012
Carlee Taylor blog
http://carleetaylor.com.au/#/summer-update/
Sarah Connolly - January 1, 2012
Keeping up the Aussie theme
here’s an interview with Jo Hogan
Monty. - January 1, 2012
I keep saying it, great outfit.
OMG! How cute is Evie. (no that is not a question, that is a statement) #evestruck #smittenw/evie
For the new year I’d like to claim my WVDS team name… lululemonheads (the candy will follow just wait)
My goal for the year is to go on a training ride with some of the team, or just Evelyn. (forget all that state championship stuff)
sminer - January 1, 2012
Just for you
Some more Evie videos!
Sarah Connolly - January 1, 2012
This one's not quite the attack of the 50 foot woman
but there is a massive poster of Liz Hatch out there somewhere. Do we have any chance of scrounging one of those as a VDS prize?
Monty. - January 1, 2012
You shouldn't feed my obsessions
sminer - January 4, 2012
I'm just trying to be helpful!
(bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!)
Sarah Connolly - January 4, 2012
For Evie fans
Check out her picture on her rider page! So much fun!
Sarah Connolly - January 2, 2012
I'm in love with
Ally Stacher.
Le Sprinteur - January 1, 2012
How do you feel about Pearl Jam?
If you’re going to be in love with Ally Stacher, you’ll need to be a Pearl Jam fan :)
Jen See - January 2, 2012
Yikes.
Am I detecting a wicked double entendre? Pearl Jam is one of my favorite bands. Guns, hunting, Pearl Jam, bike racing. What more could a guy want in a . . . woman. Uh oh. Maybe I’m a closet pearl jam fan after all.
Le Sprinteur - January 2, 2012
Heh, no.
I was talking about the band, only.
Jen See - January 3, 2012
Specialized-lululemon now has a website!
Everyone bookmark http://velociosports.com/ – it’s got blogs from riders, lovely fun pictures, and Kristy Scrymgeour has been responsible for the best team websites going!
Sarah Connolly - January 2, 2012
I posted it in the fanpost too, but Chloe Hosking is expected to apologise
From the Guardian (big national UK newspaper)
I know some people didn’t like her using the word “dick”, but it certainly has got attention for the issue…
Sarah Connolly - January 2, 2012
Jen interviews Evie Stevens for Bicycling mag!
http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/after-setbacks-evelyn-stevens-looks-ready-best-season-yet?page=0,1
Yay!
Sarah Connolly - January 2, 2012
Interviews always talk about her job in the bank
but I’ve never ever heard her say anything to suggest that she actually enjoyed it or misses anything about that life.
Monty. - January 2, 2012
The old job
She said she doesn’t miss it, she’s happy to be racing bikes, for sure. Not in the story, but in the interview, she talked a bit about the transition too – that she used to live a pretty sedentary existence and now she’s racing bikes and travelling all the time. She said she really used this off-season to take a break and check-out for a short while. That, the transition hasn’t entirely been seamless. I think where it was most obvious that she is glad to be where she is, is when she talks about the Olympics and how she’s always been fascinated by them and wanted to go there somehow, maybe by getting a job related to it. Now, she’s really fired up that she can go as an athlete.
In the interview I did with her here at the Cafe, she talked about daydreaming about being outside when she was sitting in conference rooms. So, I don’t get the impression that she’s wishing she was still working in finance.
Jen See - January 2, 2012
I love the fact
that in almost every photo of her she has a big, stupid, “isn’t life great” grin on her face. I can’t ever remember seeing her do a suffer face.
Monty. - January 2, 2012
She has crazy happy energy, yeah.
Very funny interview. I wanted to get her on video, but time ran short, unfortunately.
Jen See - January 2, 2012
Oh, and great interview
and I love the “keep off” sign in the background of the photo.
Monty. - January 2, 2012
Ha ha, yeah
I didn’t shoot that one, but it’s super cute. Since it’s winter, no one was really around to complain about the girls climbing the tower :)
Jen See - January 2, 2012
Hey Sarah!
Thanks for all the effort you put in getting us male chauvinist pigs interested in women’s cycling!
I promise I’ll try hard tofollow it this year.
broerie - January 2, 2012
Thankyou!
If there’s anything we can do to make it easier to follow etc, or would be fun to know about, let me know!
Sarah Connolly - January 3, 2012
Fans of women's cycling: here's an interesting story
Topsport Vlaanderen have signed Edith Vanden Brande for 2012. Edith may be unknown in the world of professional cycling, she is the big star of the female european Gran Fondo scene. In the last three years she was without any doubt the best woman in the mountain Gran Fondo’s. Willj may think I’m fast… well: Edith was 45 minutes faster than me in this years Marmotte. She beat me in every Gran Fono I rode this year. She’s an absolute beast! I have tons of respect for her.
After dozens of wins finally a women’s road team has offered her a contract. The transition to the ‘road’ may be hard though. After all most Gran Fondo’s are longer than 150 km (up to 260 km), whereas most women’s road races are no longer than 120 km. She’ll need to adapt to that.
Keep an eye out for her in 2012. I hope she does really well and she gets to ride lots of mountainous races. (here’s her blog)
broerie - January 2, 2012
(her boyfriend is one of the 5 best Belgian Gran Fondo racers)
broerie - January 2, 2012
Is she faster than him?
tedvdw - January 2, 2012
no
broerie - January 3, 2012
http://edithvandenbrande.blogspot.com/
tedvdw - January 2, 2012
I know I'm cross-posting, but it's video related
Stage 2 Jayco Bay Crits – men & women’s highlights
Stage 3 Jayco Bay Crits – men & women’s highlights
If people are interested, I can put a post-race with links to vids & results & the like
Sarah Connolly - January 3, 2012
Go for it
I want to know why no-one signed up this rider
Monty. - January 3, 2012
Pooley?
Jens - January 3, 2012
I don't believe it
you always seem so happy posting.
tedvdw - January 3, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Podium Cafe to post a comment.