Thank you for adding insight into the reasons for
going to the National Team formula. It appears
that there is little contradiction between what
you wrote and what I wrote.
>1929 was especially bad as Desgranges
>had built up Charles Pélissier as the supposed heir apparent to Tour
>domination and he sputtered badly (finishing 28th). In fact the
>best-placed Frenchman was Magne in 7th place, among the very worst
>results for French riders ever.
>If you limit yourself to looking at the French press this might appear
>to be true, but the results point to the contrary, as do Italian and
>Dutch reports that I have read.
As you pointed out, to Desgrange, it mattered
what the French were thinking. That was his
>The winning time gap in 1929 of the
>first over the second was close to 45 minutes. In 1930, the gap was 14 minutes.
Do you really believe that a race with a 45-minute gap between first and second is more interesting to watch than one where the second-placed rider still stands a chance of an upset victory?
Steven, I get the feeling that you are trying to prove that I am an idiot. Wouldn't it be nicer if you'd just put your considerable knowledge to use, and write a few good articles for Bicycle Quarterly? -- Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly 140 Lakeside Ave #C Seattle WA 98122 http://www.bikequarterly.com