Now that was something else.
In arguably the most thrilling, nail-biting, and intense hour-and-a-half of the entire cycling season, Tom Pidcock recovered from a mid-race puncture to claw back a 40-second deficit on home favourite Victor Koretzky, before bursting past the Frenchman through an impossible gap in the dying seconds to win his second consecutive Olympic mountain bike cross-country gold.
(Ed Sykes/SWpix.com)
After a relatively steady start, the multi-disciplinary British star had begun to stamp his authority on the race by the third lap when, in the company of Koretzky, he suffered an untimely puncture, albeit within metres of the pits.
However, by the time the admittedly dithering British mechanics had swapped out his front wheel, Pidcock was 36 seconds behind, a deficit that grew over the next lap as the 24-year-old regained his composure.
But, instead of one all-out concerted effort to claw his way back to the front, the defending champion remained calm, slowly working his way through the field as Koretzky kept his own composure while being roared on by a raucous home crowd, eager to see a French gold double following Pauline Ferrand-Prévot’s win in Élancourt Hill yesterday.
(Alex Whitehead/SWpix.com)
As 30 seconds ticked down to 15, and then to 10, Pidcock finally bridged across to Koretzky on the penultimate lap, followed by Alan Hatherly, aiming to become Africa’s first Olympic mountain bike medallist.
Never one to bide his time in the wheels, Pidcock immediately drove it on the front, launching a series of accelerations in a bid to dislodge his unmoving French rival.
After these probing moves failed, and with Pidcock aiming to capitalise on his uphill strength, all eyes turned to the final steep climbing section before the swift drop to the line. But as the world waited for the inevitable Pidcock acceleration, it was the cunning Koretzky, in a sensational display of strength and tactics, who instead launched on the sharp rise, opening a small gap to the Ineos man.
Desperately clinging on as they plummeted towards the line, Pidcock clawed his way back again following a small hiccup by the Frenchman, setting up a scintillating sprint for gold.
(Alex Whitehead/SWpix.com)
And then, with the finish line almost in sight as they made their way through the trees on Élancourt Hill’s rare natural section, Pidcock dive bombed Koretzky around a tree, nudging his wheel in front as the pair made contact.
That brief contact was enough to unclip and unsettle the Frenchman, who was forced to watch in agony as Pidcock celebrated across the line mere metres ahead to a chorus of jeers from a home crowd equally devastated by the shocking twist which came at the end of one of cycling’s great thrillers.
A hostile, booing crowd may not have been the soundtrack Pidcock expected to hear as he won his second Olympic gold at the age of 24 – but I doubt he’ll care much.
Add new comment
45 comments
I wasn't on here yesterday, so have just seen that clip of Koretzky's mistake before. The TV coverage was actually pretty poor - both from the host broadcaster (who almost missed Pidcock crossing the line as they showed replays and then other riders) and from the BBC - who switched channels with a break, during which Pidcock suffered his puncture.
Ths BBC have a very bad record of doing that. The run time of the XC races was known in advance and it's not as though the switching of channels was for what I'd call a 'protected service', the news, so there was really no excuse for failing to have a single broadcast covering the entire race when it was clearly going to be one of the events likely to get uninterrupted coverage.
I agree that the host coverage has been spotty too, and it's not even always been a case of watching a home nation competitor over the most relevant action, almost as though the director didn't know what it was important to show at times.
That was just ridiculous, scrabbling around to find the right channel when they switched, seemingly minutes of Hazel Irvine telling us what was going on and what was coming up, finally switched back to find Tom standing in the pits slurping a gel, a key moment in the race completely missed. The multiple split screen interruptions to tell us that we could be watching the horse people winning a medal were also infuriating, no disrespect to them but if that was my bag I would've been watching them already!
If you thought that was bad, their 'live, uninterrupted iPlayer coverage' of the Men's Triathlon just cut away in the last half a lap to show us some rowing instead!
Oh, and am I the only one who finds the BBC's Matt Payne's commentary style... well... painful to listen to? I've always found it really irritating the way he keeps eeeeeextending words, and says things like "coming down the ahrocks" or "the ahBritish rider...". What's with adding 'ah' to the beginning of words. He also says some things so fast that he ends up slurring words.
I don't know what it is about cycling commentators that so many of them have annoying attributes. Ned Boulting and David Millar are the only ones who never annoy me!
Horses for courses, I guess - Boulting and Millar are the only two commentators I find intensely annoying. Not sure what it is but give me CK anyday.
Ric McLaughlin is pretty decent on the mic for Eurosport's coverage of MTB disciplines, but he's no Rob Warner.
Chris Kamara? He'd miss Pidcock's puncture even without the BBC's poor schedule planning! 🤣
He was once told to say Ahhhh, and never stopped.
I'm prepared to give the French fans the benefit of the doubt for booing Pidcock. They'd have seen it on the big screen and, with the added influence of national bias, could be forgiven for thinking it was a dirty move. In reality, Tom was perfectly entitled to take the other route, that's the whole point of having them. Koretzky definitely rode into Pidcock, rather than vice versa, but it wasn't his fault any more than it was Pidcock's. Racing incident, as the say in motor racing.
Had Pidcock launched himself into the French man's wheel with his own, I'd very much be critical of his actions and expect a DQ. But that's not what happened. I suspect most of the booing spectators - at least those who have previous knowledge of the sport - would later accept, albeit begrudgingly, that it was a fair move.
What did disappoint me was the way Pidcock was ushered away from the finishing area without him appearing to speak to his fellow medalists, but I couldn't tell who initiated that.
As for the women's race, I was very happy to see Pauline Ferrand Prevot win the title at her final attempt. Hopefully Evie gets hers before too long.
And I'm glad to see Loana Lecomte on her feet because that was a scary crash to watch. Clearly out cold. Mind you 10/10 for the FCF's understating the seriousness of her injury. I hope their long-term assessment her condition is more cautious.
According to her instagram account, she said she had 'a little concussion' - and will be back for the Worlds in Andorra in a months time.
From what I've heard, a concussion is a concussion, there is no little concussion; Evie was out for 6-7 weeks with concussion....
Absolutely. I've had at least 3 concussion in my life, thankfully well spread apart, and the only difference is the recovery time regarding feeling normal. The effect remains the same regardless and should never be underestimated.
Why don't cyclists use the bike lanes ?
Reason 20240727: Filippo Ganna
I don't think that the tarmac surface of this particular bicycle path is slippier than the main paved surface with granite blocks. But even if the main road was tarmac, it wears much more due to heavy loads from cars and trucks, making it more slippery. I ride mostly on cycle paths and yet all my crashes due to slippery tarmac wereon roads designed for motor traffic, except one case at a paved surface with granite blocks (the worst possible option for bicycles!)
A bigger problem I have faced with cycle paths are that they often have a poorly compacted subbase even for the light weights they are designed they can easily be deformed, giving cyclists a bumpy ride, that can be also dangerous besides just uncomortable.
Much hand-wringing over the dangers of floating bus stops this morning on BBC Breakfast News, wrapped up with an apology for the 'distressing scenes'!
Some footage of a lady with a guide dog, which actually looks like she's pushing the guide dog into the cycle lane. Other footage of near-misses and a collision filmed by 'anti-cycle lane campaigners', where pedestrians just step out without looking. On second look, almost seem set-up (probably not though, but did make me wonder).
17:21 in...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0021lrh/breakfast-29072024
RNIB appear to have adopted a position that bus stop bypasses are just bad. ("Evidence tells us that the current design of bus stop bypasses is dangerous for blind and partially sighted people".) See eg. here. Not sure exactly what evidence - the studies I'm aware of were at least cautiously positive on pedestrian-cyclist interactions at these in the UK (eg. see TfL 2024 review *). The media made the latter sound bad!
Possibly under the influence of the tiny cycle-phobic "National Federation of the Blind of the UK" who have somehow managed to get a lot of noise and support against these.
A variety of designs appear to be uncontroversial in other countries. Of course it may be that - like us with cars - the majority have just steamrollered the interests of others. OTOH I *think* some news might have leaked out if all was as dire as painted by campaigners in the UK.
Of course the current UK-standard "no cycle infra - cyclists actually have to deal with buses pulling in on them" certainly isn't safe.
Given the environments we now expect those with visual impairments or indeed other disabilities to deal with, and the general "don't care" (even where there's now legal duty eg. accessibility) ... perhaps it's not surprising that people don't think changes will be positive for them.
*"... when a pedestrian was at the zebra crossing, it was rare this coincided with a cyclist nearby on the track. Nevertheless, when there was an interaction, a significant proportion of cyclists did not yield to pedestrians at the zebra crossings as they should. Although not statistically significant, these observations align with concerns raised about people cycling not giving way at the bus stop bypass zebra crossings"
I suspect that's more how it works in NL and is down to "expectations". In the UK pedestrians may expect cyclists to stop completely, like cars (hmm...). In NL they don't, but both parties know it's easy for either the cyclist to slow slightly to give space or the pedestrian to wait a couple of seconds while the cyclist passes.
I was surprised that the person in the article didn't appear to notice the raised strips on either side of the cycle lane as they veered in and out of it. But without being told I don't see how would a blind person know where the cycle lane was on the footway. Maybe Grimsby-style announcements are needed?
Main issue I think is our approach to cycle infra (I suspect "non-motor vehicle infra" in general). It's "why not try making some yourself - if you like?" *
Result - very rare, patchy, inconsistent stuff (even within the same "scheme").
How would anybody know?
* Interestingly I discover that actually in NL in one sense the same system applies! Apparently there aren't any direct rules about what should be built. However they have a) a long history of this b) "what works" is well understood and all things road safety are nationally codified, if not mandated c) it's generally uncontroversial d) there are other responsibilities on local governments / highway authorities which effectively mean that if you can't back up what you've done, it's you in court.
Some good points. I do think this is a cultural issue, as one of the comments they read out on the BBC article stated: people need to accept change and not just cross the cycle lane without looking!
The lady who was surprised by an e-scooter rider whizzing past the wrong way on the pavement seemed to blame that on the bike lane. I'm quite sure that e-scooter rider would have done exactly the same regardless of whether there was a bike lane or not!
Well obviously some people can't look...
... but those people world still have to deal with eg. side roads where there is not even an informal crossing.
Ultimately I agree that it is cultural / about social norms. The down side is that the "learning" will involve some "trial and error" - no matter how many awareness campaigns we run. Just like any changes we've made to our roads / road laws. Not consequence free for everyone. I think where this can help us end up (as a part of genuine modal shift to mass cycling) is better however.
I think data from elsewhere will prove the best of these designs ** overall sufficiently safe. I'd say the *concern* of those with visual impairments is reasonable - since:
- this is a new / extra thing to deal with.
- this infra is unfamiliar * to both UK pedestrians and UK cyclists (Witness lots of pedestrians waiting in the cycle path). And if not most of the *cyclists* will also be "new" if the new facilities do what they're supposed to.
- "silent and deadly" cyclists compared to noisier cars - also can be disguised by the noise of an approaching bus.
OTOH cycle paths being narrower than roads and expected speeds being slower it should be much easier and safer to cross a cycle path.
* Actually - not quite novel - as the Ranty Highwayman points out these actually have existed for a long time in the UK in a form where the "bypass" is actually a "service road"! https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2021/10/floating-bus-stops.html
** eg.c the "floating" kind, not the "Copenhagen" type https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/dictionary/copenhagen-style-bus-stop-...
Just the latest in the never ending BBC attacks on cycling.
Chapeau Mr Pidcock. Pretty much my entire office was in the kitchen watching that.
One of the most exciting races I've seen in any discipline, magnificent!
That was a battle royale. What a move through the trees.
To come back after that puncture, not exactly F1 speed pit stop tyre change either!
So much for marginal gains, never understood why they don't practice or plan for stuff like that, still, it didn't matter in the end.
I read elsewhere that he got booed because the crowd thought he'd nudged Koretzky, but that other footage showed that Koretzky actually bounced off the marker logs along the side of the route and that was why Pidcock could get past him.
There is no doubt that Pidcock was ahead and way over to the left by the tape and Koretzky went into him- those who boo-ed were very unsporting. These were two great athletes giving everthing they had for the win, and the winner deserved the Gold! I would have said the same thing had the roles been reversed. Fantastic bike handling by Pidcock.
Reply to wtjs:
Pidcock was speeding ruthlessly into the junction point where the two tracks came together, while he was, apparently, not noticed by the leading Koretzky. Pidcock was clearly accepting the risk of a bad crash here. His action was within the rules, as he was ahead at the junction point, but the entire thing was very high risk and not really pretty. (It seems a bit like overtaking a lorry on the left, leading up to a junction... Maybe.)
It's a pity the race ended like this - after Pidcock's amazing recovery from a puncture (having been super-cool in waiting for the mechanics to finally show up!) and clearly deserving to win this.
Sounds like a bit of post hoc rationalisation on someone's part - there were already people booing much earlier, when Pidcock first caught back up to Koretzky following the mechanical - I don't think there was much more to it than not liking the home rider losing out.
Latest green-washing from an oil company, this time Esso giving away e-bikes
https://www.esso.co.uk/en-gb/onelessdrive?fbclid=IwY2xjawEUaexleHRuA2Flb...
I have asked them what make and model, but no response, and I did say that if it is the one pictured and I win, to throw it in the nearest skip to save me the trouble. Bizarre that they used the shadow of a tennis player.
Pages