Bonuses of the Women's TDU

The title of this post has a double meaning (why wouldn't I play with words where I can?), and so I'll start with the obvious points before getting to the core issue of time bonuses (or lack of!) within the race and discussing what my armchair solution would be.

Firstly, the benefits of having the Santos Women's Tour are plenty. Exposure for the women's NRS which attracts precious little publicity, by way of the stage around the People's Choice Classic circuit right before the Classic and the presence of media and spectators in the city; the opportunity for local riders to race against some of the top teams and riders in the world; and further opportunity for the South Australian Government to showcase areas like Mt Torrens. I approve thoroughly of having the race, and think that the format of the race is almost ideal. Four stages is enough (maybe push it to five starting on the Friday, but that's a short five-day turnaround from Nationals which might not be enough time), and the race is run complementary to the Tour Down Under (road stages Saturday and Monday with no men's race, criteriums at accessible times to watch both the Tour Down Under and Santos Women's Tour). All of this is excellent.

What I would change are only very small issues. I'm not sold on both a tough Stage One AND a time limit. I'm not sure how flexible the UCI would be on this, but it spat twelve riders out of the race on the first stage, potentially eliminating the chances for some criterium specialists to race the criteriums. If a purpose of the organisers is to use the race as a pathway for the NRS riders to compare themselves to the international teams, eliminating them at the first opportunity seems counter-productive to the development of Australian cyclists.

Onto the crux of what had been my issue for 12 months - time bonuses on the finish line. I was superbly critical last January when Valentina Scandolara clipped off of the front to win by six seconds into Murray Bridge. With a strong team, all Scandolara had to do was stay upright in the criteriums, and remain in the front group into Campbelltown (which finished after a long descent off of Checker Hill, with the summit coming 41km into a 71km race. 30 kilometres is enough time to organise a chase!). With the remaining three stages expected to finish in groups instead of individuals or pairs, the race was effectively over on day one. Had there been time bonuses, the General Classification would have still been alive, and Scandolara would have been defending against the sprinting speed of Melissa Hoskins.

I've worked out what would have happened if time bonuses of 10 seconds, 6s and 4s (what many races use) had been awarded on the lines for each stage of the past two years. "Hypo GC Gap" is the hypothetical time gaps had the bonuses been included.

In the 2015 race, had there been time bonuses, Hoskins and Scandolara would have cleared away from the field, but the result would have been reversed, and it would have been reversed in the final sprint, with them both entering the stage level on time. Realistically, Scandolara wouldn't have let Hoskins take all of the Orica-AIS resources on that stage though, and tactically the race would have been different, potentially playing into the hands of Giorgia Bronzini. Instead of a regulation sprint for a stage win, the sprint would have taken on race-defining proportions, which would have added to the drama and interest. Alternatively, Orica-AIS could have avoided the intra-team rivalry and let a breakaway claim a narrow win - itself not a bad result considering the presence of the NRS teams, and certainly an incentive for them to attack and animate the racing.

As three of the four stages in 2016 are completed though, not having time bonuses has kept the race more open. With four riders finishing Stage One together, four riders were locked on time, and still are. The race is coming down to a final-stage count-back, which it wouldn't have done had time bonuses been factored in, as can be seen below. The race for the overall win would almost certainly be Garfoot's, but the race for the podium placings would still be wide open, with five riders within four seconds of each other.

If time bonuses had been counted this year, instead of a four-way count-back for positions, the only possible way for Katrin Garfoot to lose the race lead (if we make the assumption that it will be a bunch sprint with no leading riders being dropped) would be for Shelley Olds to sprint to a win, without Garfoot placing. Given how Stage 2 played out, I'd suggest that such a scenario is unlikely. The threat of time bonuses might have made an impact on Stage Three (five more seconds to Williams would have put her second overall, placing greater impetus in the chase perhaps), and the threat of Williams taking further bonus seconds could have changed how teams defended their podium places from bonus seconds as well as count-backs. For instance, if Lauren Kitchen were to follow Williams' wheel to fourth place behind, say, Edmondson and Wells, she'd find herself off of the podium, instead of second overall!

It's all conjecture and wild speculation, but I still feel that time bonuses are necessary in a race that features two criteriums in a four-stage race. Unless the race parcours is hard enough to create gaps on more than one stage (granted, in 2016, it has been), then the race for GC comes down to one day only, which can take the interest out of the other stages. While the suspense for the riders may be high, the count-back for the public is harder to work out in one's head than time bonuses, and the final result will likely only be announced once official results are in, some time after the final sprint.

So don't get me wrong. I really like the Santos Women's Tour, and if it were to remain as it is, I'd still be very content. Eliminating riders doesn't seem ideal, but time bonuses are certainly something that organisers have control over. Adding them to the race adds another consideration, creates final-stage criterium suspense; and might just change the complexion of the event to something more favourable for spectators. With or without bonuses, I'll still be at Victoria Park watching the sprinters have their day.

Update: With bonuses, after the final stage the top four places would have been identical to the official final results (without bonuses). If anything, I think that this is a good thing - if the race breaks up, the bonuses don't decide the race; if the race stays together, then the bonuses still create intrigue.