It's a tough call. A single stage made hard by the terrain is part of cycling. But many would say that the two-stage days in grand tours contributed to cyclists resorting to doping. Rider's whined when they first introduced the Galibier in the Tour. But it was instumental in making the event worth watching. The '88 Giro stage was a fluke and dangerous. I'd think if the organizers could have forsaw the conditions, they would have shortened it. Racing is about publicity, and it's tough to get publicity when there are no fans on the roadside and only a few grainy pics to show.Under ACrookedSky said:...allowed to take place today? Today we have Bruyneel whining that anything that requires more than a 39x25 is not cycling, the Professional Riders Association complaining about two short stages held on the same day, and the UCI setting rules that formalize what is allowed in a GT. Who would wimp out first: the riders, the organizers, or the UCI/ProTour weasels?
Looks like we have an answer: The riders.Under ACrookedSky said:Who would wimp out first: the riders, the organizers, or the UCI/ProTour weasels?
The pass on the Gavia was cold and gray, and during the race, it started snowing. The race continued. This was the day that Andy Hampsten moved into the overall Giro lead (I think) due mostly to the fact that he rode the race, and was just about one of the only guys to finish that day.trihiker said:what happened in the 88 Gavia stage?
