Charly Gaul: The Angel of the Mountains

With this year’s Tour de France less than a week away and one of the favorites being Andy Schleck from Luxembourg, I am reminded of Charly Gaul (Pronounced Gowl.) a former TDF winner from that same country.

Luxembourg is a tiny land-locked nation bordered by France, Germany, and Belgium; just under 1,000 square miles (2,586 sq. km.) with a population of 500,000 people.

Charly Gaul is still regarded as one of the greatest climbers of all time, his frail innocent look, and his ability to go up mountains with apparent ease earned him the title, “l’Angelo della Montagna.” (The Angel of the Mountains.)

He won the Tour de France in 1958, and the Giro d’Italia twice in 1956, and again in 1959.

He was also an accomplished time-trialist winning all three time-trials in the 1958 TDF beating one of the greatest ever against the clock, Jacques Anquetil.

His other Tour de France successes were 3^rdplace in 1955 and 1961; he also won the TDF King of the Mountains Jersey 1955 and 1956. And as well as winning the Giro d’Italia twice Gaul was 3^rd in that race in 1958 and 1960. He won the Giro King of the mountains in 1956 and 1959.

Charly Gaul’s climbing secret was no secret at all really; he rode a very low gear and pedaled at an extremely high cadence.

He would simply decimate the opposition by his relentless pace, infrequently climbing out of the saddle he would do so with an air of apparent ease.

Another great rider of that time, Raphaël Géminiani once said Charly Gaul was, "A murderous climber, always the same sustained rhythm, a little machine with a lower gear than the rest, turning his legs at a speed that would break your heart, tick tock, tick tock, tick tock."

He was especially good during cold, wet weather. In the heat he would often suffer and sometimes lose out to lesser climbers.

With his boyish good looks and “Giant killer” style, Gaul was loved by fans of cycle racing, but by his fellow riders, not so much. For a man who had the nick name “Angel” it seems he possibly had certain demons.  

He spoke to very few people, and never seemed happy; even his own team members said he would not discuss team tactics with them or share his prize money.

When he retired in 1962 he became a recluse, living alone in a cabin in a forest.

Gaul  emerged from isolation in 1983 when he was honored on the 25^th Anniversary of his Tour de France win.

Many were surprised to see him as a shadow of his former self, a some-what curious figure with scruffy beard and a large paunch.

Charly Gaul died in 2005 of a lung infection two days before his 73^rd birthday. VeloNews said: "Gaul raced in a different era, and his like will never be seen again."

                         

Chain Gang

After a long hard pull at the front, Mary moved over and let the guys come through. She couldn’t help but notice how much these regular Wednesday evening rides with the local chain gang had really improved her stamina and speed.

The picture is from a Fathers’ Day card I received last week; the caption is mine; I couldn’t resist.

                        

Pro Cycling and Helmets

With the tragic death of Belgian professional cyclist Wouter Weylandt (Left.) in this year’s Giro d’Italia.

Then just last week Columbian rider Juan Maurcio Soler was left with serious head injuries after a crash in the Tour of Switzerland.

I am wondering just how much protection does a cycling helmet really give?

The helmet rule for professional cyclists was brought by the UCI in 2003 following the death of Andrei Kivlev during the Paris-Nice race.

Since then deaths of professional cyclists while racing have doubled, so where is the protection that helmets are supposed to give a rider?

According to these figures, in the decade that was the 1950s, 8 pro riders were killed while racing. In the ten years that followed, the 1960s, 4 lost their lives; another 4 during the 1970s, and 5 in the 1980s. 3 died in pro races in the 1990s.

However, in the first decade of the New Millennium, the 2000s, 10 professional cyclists died during completion. Two have died already in this decade when we are only half way through the second year. What happened? Helmets were made mandatory in 2003 to protect riders.

Two of the riders, Brett Malin (2003) and Bob Breedlove (2005) died while riding in the Race Across America (RAAM) and were struck by motor vehicles, not by a fall usually associated with racing. But eliminating these two from the list still leaves 8, double the number that died each decade in the preceding 40 years.  

I never really considered Professional Cycle Racing to be a particularly dangerous sport, but close to one death a year is not acceptable. Isn’t it about time the UCI and the professional cyclists themselves started to look into the effectiveness of helmets?

The UCI is quick to enact regulation for every other aspect of the sport, why not do something really useful and set some safety standards for bicycle helmets that would benefit us all.

It seems to me that there is too much emphasis on the part of manufacturers in designing something that looks cool rather than do what it is supposed to do, and that is protect a rider in the event he or she should hit their head.

I see two main problems; the outer shell is weak so it splits open on impact, and the polystyrene foam is too dense, it doesn’t absorb the impact. After all it is the helmet that is supposed to get crushed in a crash, not the rider’s skull.

Maybe this is part way to finding the answer.  

                         

Be careful who you harass

I sometimes check out other bike blogs, and I came across this story on one called “A Girl and Her Bike.” The subtitle is, “Adventures in biking in DC.” For the benefit of overseas readers, that is Washington DC, the Nation’s Capitol.

This particular girl, I know only as K.C. was riding her bike home one evening last February. She was stopped at a red light waiting to make a left turn, and was first in line in the left turn lane.

A car pulled up behind her at a high rate of speed and stopped very close, the driver was acting aggressively towards her, but she decided to ignore it because after all the light was red and he could go nowhere.

Then she felt a bump against her rear wheel, nothing too hard, but the people in the car were laughing hysterically; apparently they thought it was a huge joke to harass a girl on a bike. Again K.C. ignored it, but when the light turned green and she started to pull away, she felt an even harder bump.

This is when our girl on a bike decided enough was enough. I should mention at this point that K.C. is a police officer, and although off duty at the time, she pulled her badge from her bag and ordered the driver to stop.

She heard the driver exclaim, “Oh Shit,” and he took off at a high rate of speed with tires squealing. K.C. decided to give chase and was catching up when the car was stopped at the next light. She noticed the reverse lights come on as the car started to reverse towards her. She surmised the driver was looking for an escape route down an alley.

However, the car was held up by more traffic and K.C. again caught up, showed her badge, ordering the driver to stop. Once more the driver sped off, this time narrowly missing the female officer. By now she had a license plate number and a description of the car. She had her radio out of her bag and was calling for back up.

Back up came within minutes, and checked that K.C. was okay; a short while after she heard the car had been stopped by another police cruiser. She made her way to the scene of the arrest and was able to identify the driver.

The car smelled strongly of marijuana, which would explain the driver’s hurry to get away. No evidence of drugs, apart from the smell was found in the car; obviously dumped before it was pulled over.

The driver was charged at the scene with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (his vehicle), Assault on a Police Officer, Fleeing and Eluding, and Reckless Driving. His vehicle was impounded.

K.C. was surprised to learn the next day that the United States Attorney's Office had agreed to not only prosecute those charges, but also made it two counts of Assault with a Deadly Weapon instead of just one. Furthermore they decided to hold him instead of releasing him. So, he has been hanging out in DC Jail since last February.

About a week ago K.C. was called to the Attorney General’s office to go over her testimony, when she learned that the defendant, while in jail, had called his girl friend asking if she would hide his gun and drugs for him. All calls from jail are monitored and recorded; a search warrant was obtained, and a gun was found.

The driver pled guilty to felony possession of a firearm, felony fleeing and misdemeanor assault on a police officer. K.C. was a little disappointed that the vehicular assault charges were dropped, as she pointed out, you can’t use your car to bully cyclists.

She also had the cold realization that on this particular night all she had to stop this car was a badge, but because she was off duty she had no weapon to back it up. Fortunately the driver didn’t have his weapon either, or the outcome could have been very different.

You can read K.C’s first hand version of the story here.

                         

Freedom

The New York Times reports this morning that the FBI is has been given wider powers to spy on people in the fight against terrorism.

A little more freedom is sacrificed in the cause of everyone’s safety.

As terrible as 9/11 was when 3,000 people lost their lives, over ten times that number die on our roads in traffic accidents every year.

This means well over 300,000 people have lost their lives on US highways in the 10 years following 9/11. Where is the outrage? If these numbers were war casualties, members of our armed services there would be outrage.

Actually road deaths went down in 2010 to 32,788, the lowest figures since 1949, and while this can be viewed as good news, it still translates close to 90 people will die today, another 90 tomorrow, 630 per week, and so on. Again where is the outrage?

Cars are being made ever safer for the people inside that vehicle, but not for others who get hit by one; especially if that person is on foot or on a bicycle. Even in my little compact car if I am T-boned by an SUV my chances of survival are slim.

On the subject of losing a little of our freedom in the name of safety, how about losing the freedom to drive like an idiot.

I think I can safely say that most fatal road deaths are caused by driver error, not the machine itself or the road it is on. Impatience, speed, aggressive driving, and distracted driving are the primary cause of most car crashes.

In the UK, where people have a lot less freedom than in the US, new road safety laws are in force, where the police can levy on-the-spot fines for aggressive driving, tailgating, etc. What a great deterrent; a police officer stops you, asks for your credit or debit card, and charges you between $130 and $160 on the spot.

How about a more comprehensive driving test to start with, followed by the worst traffic offenders losing the privilege to drive. If someone dies as a result of someone else’s poor driving, there should be some serious consequences; all too often it is seen simply as an accident.

It really is an outrage that a minority are allowed the freedom to drive in a careless and dangerous manner, when the result is someone else losing their ultimate freedom, their life.