What executives and cyclists have in common

These days I'm trying to follow the Tour de France. Every day I stay up late to see what's happened in the race. It's been a chain of disappointments. Would Andy Schleck have attacked the Astana team of Contador and Armstrong today? False hope each day. It's been boring. Don't the GC (general classification) riders have a responsibility to entertain the public? I asked myself. Shouldn't they at least try to make a real race out of it, even if the profile of the stage isn't suited for attacking? Who are the riding for? Who are the stakeholders? Probably, their family and friends prefer them winning the GC in the end, at the cost of dull stages. Maybe the sponsor, too. The general public, however, doesn't really care who wins, they want to see an interesting race. Cycling as a sport probably benefits from brave riders attacking each other every day. Here's the dilemma: for the individual rider taking his responsibility and attacking, serves the cycling community, but at the cost of reduced chances to win in the end and, hence, reduced market value (assuming that sponsors prefer an end win, which I think likely). With million euro contracts, there's a lot at stake, a lot to lose. Cyclists, like businesses and economies, become risk averse. There's little incentive to experiment, to break out and take risks.

In yesterday's NRC newspaper Johan Schaberg observes the same dilemma in business and politics. He quotes a friend of his saying that a business executive speaking out loud for a cause bigger than his company, taking action on which comes at a cost for his shareholders, is very vulnerable. Such a cause can be a change toward low-carbon production, taking a more sustainable course. Schaberg replies that there's a risk in keeping silence, too. A risk for society as a whole, to which the executive himself belongs. On a personal level, the latter risk is likely a lot smaller. Schaberg says that people in high positions, who have been trusted the power to change things for many people, should use that responsibility. Otherwise, they would be little children at the controls of machines way too big.

I agree. And I would like to direct the same call to the top cyclists in the Tour: entertain me and my fellow fans. Attack! Show us a real, daily battle. One can argue that the daily entertainment is made by the many more non-GC riders in the peloton, that it's the design of the stages that has caused the lack of battle for the yellow jersey. I think that's all secondary. I think tour stage wins are highly overrated. It's the yellow jersey that counts. I recognise that my call is hard to answer. Attacking might be nothing more than suicide. As an individual in a flat stage, there's no chance escaping a team of 9 riders chasing you. Like in business: breaking the power of the incumbents requires something extra, something innovative or special circumstances.

Maybe the last week of the Tour will bring the spectacular theatre I've been waiting for. Today's stage, with a man-to-man fight on the last climb, was promising. Maybe, the boring first two weeks will be forgotten, and because of the delay the satisfaction will be even more intense. How would that translate to the world of business executives and politicians? I don't know, yet.