The Woes of Wiggins' Wingman

Froome in the 41.5-km time trial of Besançon

Le Tour est finis. Even with three stages left, the competition is over. Today's a leisurely stroll across the countryside and it is impossible to place any attacks; tomorrow is a time-trial stage where the current leader is unbeatable; and Sunday is the final exhibition across the chateaux of the Loire and into Paris. Thus, Bradley Wiggins has already won this Tour de France.

That's not upsetting per se. I like Wiggo and this is the culmination of two years' hard work. What's upsetting is that he was not the best rider. Wiggins' teammate and fellow Briton Chris Froome was. Currently, Froome is second in the general classification, a mere two minutes behind Wiggins. He holds his own in time trials and is an excellent pacer, but he is a far better climber than Wiggins.

At least twice -- last week on the Grand Colombier and today on the Peyresourd -- Froome attacked and clearly distanced his own captain, only to be called back via radio by Team Sky's manager, or perhaps by Wiggins himself. That's not the official version, of course. The official version is that Froome "thought" that Wiggins was following and he had simply started off at a brisker pace than the captain would have wanted. But anyone with even a passing knowledge of pro road cycling knows that to be false. Simply put, Froome had it in him to attack, to go forth, and to win at least one, if not two stages. That is not to say that Wiggins would have been alone and desperate. He would have fought back, he would have chased, he would have battled, and perhaps he would have still won... but I would have wanted to see him earn it, not only against the other 196 riders, but against Froome as well.

Wiggins claims that Froome was simply trying to edge him on

This is an old dilemma. What happens when the wingman is better than the captain? The unwritten laws of competitive justice say that whoever is stronger should prevail, but the dynamics of today's road cycling teams are another story. A team has a captain, usually the most highly decorated rider or whoever has the better chance of winning the general classification in the race at hand. The rest of the team are hired and paid to work for the captain, to help him, and to let him trail them whenever necessary. (In competitive cycling, it is much less tiring to ride on someone's trail than to lead and be trailed: whoever rides ahead takes the brunt of air resistance and whoever's behind does more with less effort). Only when the captain doesn't need them can the support riders pursue personal glory, such as stage wins or climbing heroism. The Italians have a great word for these support riders. They call them "gregari," which literally means "men from the pack."

The woes of wingman Froome don't really show that teams sometimes "pick the wrong captain." It was hard to imagine such a high-level performance from a second-time Tour participant. Instead, the problem is that even when the error is acknowledged, there is nothing that can be done about it. While not as rich as other sportsmen, top pro cyclists get fairly hefty contracts from their teams, and as I explained above contracts are tied to jobs and objectives. Simply put, Froome wasn't hired to win, and some commentators find this idea of team obligations to be fundamentally at odds with the individual nature of cycling.

Perhaps the answer is that cycling is not really an individual sports after all. Former Giro winner Paolo Savoldelli claims that it is in fact a team effort, and that it is becoming more and more so with the passing of time. It's simple physics. It makes a world of difference, measurable in minutes and lactic acid, whether you face the race's key climb alone or on the trail of a teammate. If it's quantifiable, you can put a price on it, and so everyone does. I could claim once more that competitive justice calls for total fairness, or I could lament that money is the root of all evil, but I'll leave those battles for another Bastille Day.

For now I will just insist, as a disgruntled sports fan, that I wanted to see more and better. For the last few stages it has been Nibali vs. Evans vs. Wiggins-and-Froome. Was it really too much to ask to see Nibali vs. Evans vs. Wiggins vs. Froome?

I am 50% sure it would have ended differently and 100% sure it would have been more fun.

(PS: Contador always fixed his own messes. Alberto 2013 and haters gonna hate).

.

.