Got Luck?

Cadel Evans is riding into pique form at the Criterium du Dauphine this week, as the Tour de France is looming. After two second-place finishes at the Tour, the Australian is again aiming to win this July. Despite his career successes as world champion and in other races, Evans has been called “The Bridesmaid” for coming close, but not close enough for a Grand Tour win. Why hasn’t he won? Is it bad luck?

The Evans conundrum raises a broader question of why cyclists win and why they lose. It is a dynamic puzzle that starts with the athletes themselves. Physique, age, training, and experience all play a part, of course. State of mind and mental toughness are fuzzier factors. Mark Cavendish and Lance Armstrong have both reported being successfully driven by anger at times. Yet wouldn’t being called a bridesmaid make Evans pretty darn mad? How about coming in second?

The role of the team is clearly important—the operations, management, scheduling. Members of Team Sky say it’s everything, but then again, Contador won his second Tour title when the Astana team was in such a mess that riders were not getting paid on time. Even more crucial are the strategy and composition of the team, and this is especially true for general classification contenders like Evans. They need teammates who have the capacity to shepherd them through the race and the commitment of the team to use resources for that purpose. Cadel supposedly had a better team with BMC last year, with teammates like George Hincapie and smart operations led by manager Jim Ochowicz, but following a crash and injury, his final standing at the Tour was 26^th place.

The equipment manufacturers would also argue that their gear sets the riders up for more wins, and race routes compliment different riders. There may be a thousand variables that determine a win or a loss. But what about luck?

Some say that riders make their own luck. That is why winners normally ride at the front of the peloton, to minimize the chance of running into crashes. Yet surely, some of it cannot be avoided. Some of it is just plain chance. Weather, crowds, a key teammate’s injury, a dog in the road, a dirty lettuce leaf in last night’s dinner, a split second hesitation for any reason, and it’s all over.

In the US Road Race Championships last week, veteran George Hincapie lost to up-and-comer Matthew Busche by the width of a tire. Was that because George is 37 years old? Was it because Radioshack drove harder than BMC? Or along that course, was it just a bit of good luck for Matt, or a bit of bad luck for Big George?

It would be fascinating to have a crystal ball to see what really is bad luck and what is the responsibility of the rider, team, or other factor. What really happened to Armstrong at the 2010 Tour de France? Romantics may wish to see his performance as a string of bad luck that finally caught up to a long-lucky guy. Yet his age weakened him, perhaps enough to let the bad luck catch up. What happened to George at the championships last week? Why is Cadel Evans ever the bridesmaid and never the bride? Is it on him, or is it luck?

Until we get that crystal ball, it will be a mystery—that dynamic puzzle of factors that come together to determine success or failure, first place or second. But that won’t stop us from wondering and encouraging Evans to keep trying.