Hinault Vs. Lemond
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Hinault vs. LeMond: An Application of Game Theory to the 1986 Tour de France Trevor Gillen and Josep Maria Nadal Fernandez Kellstadt Graduate School of Business DePaul University, Chicago Illinois Hinault vs. LeMond: An Application of Game Theory to the 1986 Tour de France Trevor Gillen & Josep M. Nadal Fdez. Abstract: This paper intends to examine the application of game theory analysis to the sport of cycling, specifically the 1986 Tour de France. Given the individualistic yet cohesive nature of the sport of cycling, there is more personal incentive and motivation behind the decisions made by each competitor compared to other, more teamwork oriented sports. The decisions of one cyclist have a profound effect on the other competitors, resulting in a rather complex case of game theory. The following research will observe and apply the principles of game theory to the various choices made by two cyclists, Greg LeMond and Bernard Hinault, throughout the 1986 Tour de France, as well as providing a glimpse into the evolution of the sport of cycling. 2 Hinault vs. LeMond: An Application of Game Theory to the 1986 Tour de France Trevor Gillen & Josep M. Nadal Fdez. One of the most beautiful and moving moments in the history of sports took place in the Tour de France of 1986 when two of the greatest riders of all times, Hinault and Lemond crossed the finish line together in what apparently was seen by the world as a sign of cooperation and friendship beyond their personal rivalry. Yet, a few minutes later this entire dream turned into a nightmare when Hinault without hesitation stated that the Tour had not finished yet and he was still planning on winning despite their previous agreement of letting Lemond win. Was Hinault betraying his teammate by showing his commitment to win his 6th Tour de France? It is arguable whether Hinault’s intentions were legitimate, depending on whether someone is a fan of Hinault or a fan of Lemond. Nevertheless, most experts who were involved in such an epic race with the two determined contenders agree on the fact that this sign of apparent cooperation had nothing to do with cycling tactics but was an example of cycling propaganda, hiding one of the most competitive moments in one on one sporting history. Although people usually think of cycling as an endurance event, full of work and pain, the team director of Lemond and Hinault at that time would rather use another word to express what cycling is all about: a game. “Of course I’ve used the word game; you can suffer as much as you want, if you do the wrong thing at the wrong time, you’ll never win a race. You cannot compensate your stupidity by suffering more. First you must begin to do the right thing at the right moment. That’s the art of cycling” The following will use the basic framework of game theory to analyze how the cyclists play this game and what makes a rider succeed in Le Tour de France according to the principles of the game theory. In this regard, we aim to describe the application of some theories in the art of cycling in general, specifically in the episode of Hinault versus Lemond in the 1986 Tour de France as a factual case that can be evaluated by game theory. 3 Hinault vs. LeMond: An Application of Game Theory to the 1986 Tour de France Trevor Gillen & Josep M. Nadal Fdez. The Tour de France In order to gain a better perspective of game theory and its application to the Tour De France, one must understand the aspects of the race itself. The following will provide a brief overview of the race and its various rules, regulations and formatting. The Tour De France is multi stage bicycle race that has taken place in France since 1903. The race usually takes place in July, with various routes in and around France as well as brief periods of racing in neighboring countries such as Italy, Spain, United Kingdom and Belgium. The race usually covers around 3,500 kilometers or 2,200 miles in total racing. The Tour De France consists of around twenty private not nationally affiliated teams with nine riders in each team. Each team competes in twenty-one stages, each stage lasting one day. There are two days of rest, making the Tour De France a twenty-three day event. The race is also broken up into different classifications. The general classification (the most popular), the points classification (sprinters), the mountains classification (climbers), the young riders classification (26 and under) and the team classification (fastest team). Each of these classifications represents riders with different skill sets that cater to the different stages of the race. Each cycling team has a few members that specialize in each stage or assist other team members. For example the sprinters tend to excel during the flatter stages of the race, while climbers are the superior riders when it comes to the mountain stages. The all rounder is known as one the better all around cyclist who is usually formidable in all aspects of the race. One of the lesser-known members of a cycling team is known as the domestique. The domestique rides for the benefit of their team leader. For example they will ride ahead to create a slipstream or drafting lane to enable their leader to regain the lead. Other responsibilities include warding off attacking teams and retrieving water for their teammates from team vehicles driving nearby. The domestique position will play an instrumental role in describing the application of game theory to cycling. 4 Hinault vs. LeMond: An Application of Game Theory to the 1986 Tour de France Trevor Gillen & Josep M. Nadal Fdez. One may ask how game theory could be applied to a sporting event with such basic and straightforward rules (individuals racing from start to finish). A quote by famed cycling journalist Samuel Abt may describe it best… “You know what they say about cycling, an individual sport practiced by teams” This quote provides an accurate description of the sport of cycling in very few words. While the Tour De France is a competition between different teams, there can only be one winner. It is the name of the rider, not the team that obtains global recognition for their victory at the Tour de France. Individual riders will often face difficult situations when tempted with the option of victory or remaining loyal to one’s team. It is at this moment when game theory is applied to the tactics and decisions made by the cyclists regardless of their team or where their loyalties lie. For example, a domestique rider who specializes in sprinting may be in a position to attack his own team leader who is considered an all rounder on a straight away with the finish line in sight. If the domestique has the sprinting advantage they will face a difficult decision. If the team’s objective is to have the all rounder place first and the domestique finish second and the latter decides to attack, he will win but runs the risk of losing his roster position on the team and will gain a deceptive reputation. This new reputation could ostracize the domestique giving him little chance to work with other riders to repeat his victory. On the other hand the rouleur may provide the domestique with the incentive of a future win. Either way, these decisions are not made lightly. The race is not a simple matter of start to finish, but a combination of cooperation and deception that will lead to the demise and success of each individual rider. We will see an example of this later during the description of the 1986 Tour De France with French native Bernard Hinault and American Greg Lemond. 5 Hinault vs. LeMond: An Application of Game Theory to the 1986 Tour de France Trevor Gillen & Josep M. Nadal Fdez. Who is the badger? Once we have analyzed cycling as a sport and provided the basic correlation with game theory we must provide background on the centerpiece of our analysis, the Tour the France of 1986. The source of our analysis is primarily based on the book Slaying the badger: Greg LeMond, Bernard Hinault, and the greatest Tour de France by Richard Moore and the documentary based on this book also called Slaying the badger, which was directed by John Dower and within the cycle of 30 for 30 ESPN series of documentary films. We may notice that in both cases they use the expression slaying the badger. This expression refers to the fact that in 1986 the main goal of American Greg LeMond, who was still a naive cyclist at the time, was to defeat the fearsome Frenchman, and five-time winner, Bernard Hinault, popularly known as the badger. The question is, why was he called the badger? According to the veteran cycling journalist Francois Thomazeau from Reuters there was a physical resemblance “physically it looks like a badger, lean, little eyes, that nose and the shape of his face”. However, the main reason why people call him the badger has to do with his personality and the reputation that he achieved among the other riders. Sam Abt from International Herald Tribune uses an analogy to describe Hinault’s behavior as a rider “when you corner a badger he will stop to snorting and hooking at you with his claws and this seems to be Bernard Hinault’s personality”. There is no doubt that Hinault was the master of the “peloton”.