Was it too much argy-bargy, or biased judges? Tour de France organizers stripped Thor Hushovd and Mark Cavendish of points as punishment for contact between them at the sprint finish of Stage 3. They claimed Hushovd left his line, which is dangerous to fellow riders at the high racing speeds. Organizers said that Cavendish “forced his way in,” also a potentially unsafe move. The Manxman can be seen using his head to touch Hushovd, keeping a distance between their bikes. Both cyclists lost the points they earned earlier in the stage at the intermediate sprint.
While punishments for dangerous behavior are important for the safety of the peloton, it appears that the imposition of these penalties may not be fair. Cavendish, riding for HTC-Highroad, seems to get punished quite a bit. It may be argued that this is the case because he is particularly aggressive, or that as a frequent winner, he is more often in the mix at the feisty sprint finishes. However, other sprinters seem to avoid punishment, despite being caught on camera making questionable moves, or even the same moves.
Cavendish has complained about competitors breaking the rules to no avail, most recently at the Giro d’Italia in May. But he is not the only cyclist to suggest riders get away with shady strategies. At the Tour of Romandy, Mikael Cherel of Ag2r Mondiale shouted down Astana’s Alexandre Vinokourov, accusing the Kazak of blocking his line. Vinokourov received no punishment.
Are race organizers biased against Cavendish because of his nationality? Team? Stardom? Big mouth? Or are they imposing fair punishments based on the rules of play?
Rough play is a hallmark of bunch sprints, and Paul Sherwin refers to the touchy back-and-forth among the sprinters as “argy-bargy.” It is common enough that imposition of penalties and relegation of wins or points by the organizers appears highly subjective, if not arbitrary. Assuming race organizers believe they are following objective rules, they also have a duty to the appearance of fairness. They should use video and other technology to dissect their decisions and provide evidence of objectivity.
While we hold our breath for that, we also dream of a statistical analysis from a neutral party. Economists aren’t just for the economy anymore. Let them employ objective examination of the judgments by race organizers to determine if those judgments are fair or if bias appears present and where. (See also post: Scorecasting)
To this observer, today looked like argy-bargy. Nothing more.
Watch for yourself:
Watch for yourself:
No comments:
Post a Comment