The spectacular epilogue of the Paris-Nice it cannot be archived without a reflection on what happened over the weekend: before Roglic's comeback to the finish line on the Swiss nobody Mader, then the day after his falls and the subsequent attacks by rivals in the standings, which led to the final defeat. Two closely related events? It's clear that they can have different interpretations.We tried to relive it all with Giuseppe Saronni, calling him into question both as a former rider and as a team manager to delve deeper into the events from multiple points of view.
Let's start from Saturday and Roglic's overtaking of Mader 30 meters from the finish line: did he do well?
It's difficult to give a straight answer: a rider when he is in a race always wants to winIf he sees his prey, he grabs it, it's in his nature. But it's also true that if you're number 1 in the world, if you're coming off two consecutive wins and you're at the top of the rankings, you also think about looking for some friends along the wayIn the world of cycling there is also this sort of "live and let live". I understand that Roglic, as an athlete, is always driven to seek victory, but "political correctness" would also like that, in certain situations, we can think about it a little more, because Those who win a lot are a bit annoying.
But let's look at the other side of the coin: Roglic is a professional paid by a team that rightly always demands the best results and therefore must exploit every opportunity...
It's an obvious reasoning, but It's part of those reflections that are made when you're cold.When you're racing you don't do the accountant's calculations, it's clear that you have duties depending on the team, the sponsor, but in those moments only the rider counts, his instinct, his prideHe had already won two stages, could he give up? Maybe yes, but I don't feel like saying he made a mistake.
Thinking as a team manager, how should he have behaved?
In these situations the team manager, but also and above all the sporting director can do very littleThese are situations that are experienced in the moment, as mentioned, everything there is entrusted to the instinct of the rider. It's clear that a victory is always welcome, but you don't stand there suggesting what to do, in those moments the rider is alone with himself.
Do you have the feeling that we made them pay a bit the next day?
I'm telling the truth, some voices reached my ears, but to avoid any misunderstanding I want to be clear: I don't believe in fair play in racing and I never believed in it, neither when I was racing nor as a managerThere are times when you expect, but when the match gets to the heart of the matter it's an open battle, fair play makes no sense, I don't understand itIf I have to wait for my opponent then we all wait: as soon as one falls, we stop and then what kind of race is it? Then if there really was an agreement against Roglic we will probably never knowHe certainly dominated and, as mentioned, those who win too much don't have many friends in the group. Let's say that what happened the day before sharpened the competitive spirit.
Drawing a parallel with the Tirreno-Adriatico and the epilogue of Castelfidardo, would Pogacar have reached Van Der Poel if he could?
I didn't hear it, I preferred to leave it alone, but I don't think he was thinking of going to get the DutchmanHe was more concerned with the general classification, with gaining on Van Aert. Maybe if he had seen him a kilometer earlier, realizing that Van Der Poel was out of contention, his instinct would have been to go after him, because that's the rider's nature. He didn't expect VDP to give up, I'm sure he kicked himself after the race for the missed opportunity…
