Rethinking Noakes

Having watched Mara Abbott's heartbreaking fourth-place finish in the women's cycling road race at the Rio Olympics, I'm rethinking Noakes' hypothesis regarding second place and lower finishers--that, in those cases, "physiology does not determine who wins. Rather somewhere in the final section of the race, the brains of the second, and lower placed finishers accept their respective finishing positions and no longer choose to challenge for a higher finish." Abbott had a 39-second lead, coming off the hills, after passing the Vista Chinesa, with about 4 miles to the finish but being chased by a three-person pack. The latter three were taking turns leading and, thus, had the advantage over Abbott. With about 200 meters left to the finish, they caught up with Abbott and sprinted to the finish for gold, silver, and bronze. Abbott did not respond to their move. Or, Abbott could not respond. With the finish line clearly in sight and Olympic gold at stake, does it make sense that she "accepted" not being first? At a post-race interview, Abbott said she gave it her all and left nothing on the course. From what I could see, I agree. In Abbott's case, at least, she didn't "choose" to not challenge for first. She couldn't challenge. The women's finish was very similar to the men's yesterday, where the solo rider at the front was similarly caught and passed by a small chase pack, not too far from the finish. So, in cycling, more than running, it could be more a matter of racing strategy, i.e., breaking from the pack and riding solo in front is risky, unless the lead is big enough. Cycling is not my sport; so, I'm just speculating here. Abbott was really impressive in the interview. Really classy.