The Eternal Seconds: Heroes or Villians?

Zoetemelk; not a killer, but always classy.

Joop Zoetemelk was a hard man, a tough nut to crack. He specialized in getting second place, a talent he developed under the doctrine of Eddy Merckx and mastered via the harsh tutelage of Bernard Hinault. It’s very seductive to lean back in our armchairs and draw the conclusion that our sport’s Eternal Seconds, as they’re called, are the weaker men than their rivals. The sport is filled with this familiar story; a rider comes up and is hailed as perhaps the next great rider, only to have synchronized their career with a more dominant rider.

Poulidor, who started with Anquetil and finished with Merckx. Zoetemelk, who started with Merckx and finished with Hinault. Then EPO entered the peloton and the balances were set off for a bit as riders who shouldn’t have been at the top were popping in for table scraps before Ullrich took the helm by getting on the podium in the Tour more often than any champion before him had won the Tour. Like Chimera and Bellerophon, every great hero needs a villain and it seems these riders are always there to stand up and fight year after year, against all odds.

In keeping with the Chimera and Bellerophon metaphor, I’m not so sure it is the victor who is the hero and the loser the villain. In my ski racing days, I was at the top of my game – I even had one season where I was undefeated throughout. That season was, without hesitation, my least rewarding season; winning became a question of margin – I even won one time trial where I started last and caught up to each of my teammates in serial and paced them to the next teammate such that we all finished in a big line of eight skiers.

The most rewarding season was the year where I struggled to fight back after losing motivation (due to the previous season’s excess) and still managed to win the key events. But the real fun wasn’t so much in the winning or losing, but in the bond it built between me and my principal rival; we both fought to the point of blacking out and neither of us ever – even for a minute – relented.

Extrapolating from that small-world experience to what it takes to become a Pro Cyclist capable of wining the Tour de France, it gives some insight into the mentality of the athletes who play out these battles that figure so prominently in our interpretation of our sport. To that end, I wonder if the champions don’t have the psychologically easier side of the coin. After all, they suffer almost the same amount, endure almost the same pressures and endure almost the same amount of discipline and sacrifice in pursuit of their goals. But one has the reward of victory and one the indignity of loss.

To come back year after year as victor seems almost like a picnic in comparison to the brutality of coming back year after year only to lose once again – then to resolve to return undeterred. In this sense, the loser who refused to quit endurs the suffering and sacrifice without the glory that comes with winning. Without them and their unrelenting optimism, the story would be less bright, less colorful. Which is the hero in our story?

frank

The founder of Velominati and curator of The Rules, Frank was born in the Dutch colonies of Minnesota. His boundless physical talents are carefully canceled out by his equally boundless enthusiasm for drinking. Coffee, beer, wine, if it’s in a container, he will enjoy it, a lot of it. He currently lives in Seattle. He loves riding in the rain and scheduling visits with the Man with the Hammer just to be reminded of the privilege it is to feel completely depleted. He holds down a technology job the description of which no-one really understands and his interests outside of Cycling and drinking are Cycling and drinking. As devoted aesthete, the only thing more important to him than riding a bike well is looking good doing it. Frank is co-author along with the other Keepers of the Cog of the popular book, The Rules, The Way of the Cycling Disciple and also writes a monthly column for the magazine, Cyclist. He is also currently working on the first follow-up to The Rules, tentatively entitled The Hardmen. Email him directly at rouleur@velominati.com.

Next Book Reviews: Racing Through the Dark, The Secret Race »

Previous « Velominati Super Prestige: Giro di Lombardia 2012

View Comments

frank says:

Sep 27 2012 at 3:23 pm

@Marcus

It is interesting that membership of the Eternal Second Club seems to be automatically revoked upon attaining one win (in the particular event). Imagine if Cuddles didn't succeed in the 2011 Tour? That would have given him 3 second places at the Tour and probably (in the eyes of many) an unfulfilled career.

Now, with his Tour win, it seems like the rest of his palmares suddenly looks better too. He is a Tour winner, world champ, classic winner, etc. If he wasnt to have won the Tour, he might have been a Tour contender who fluked the rainbows, etc.

Not to mention his four second places and one third place at the Dauphine...

...and his second places and podiums at La Fleche before he won it. I think it takes more than a win to change it - Ullrich won lots, so did Pou-pou, so did Zoetemelk as @Gianni said - including the Tour - but I think the difference is more in the style and attacking (or lack-there-of) style of riding.

Cuddles fundamentally changed the way he races and I think that's why he's out of the club now. He's an attacker now and does what it takes to win a race. He used to sit in and wait for others to tow him to the finish - look at the difference between 2007 and 2011; Sastre was up the road riding away with the race and he was too timid to tow the Schlecks and Valvecap up to the finish and close the gap. In 2011, he was in the same position and said, "right, this is what it takes to win; I'll tow them up and do it myself." That's brilliant racing.

The passive tactics and getting beat year after year without changing the style of racing is what really cements the reputation. Sweetmilk won the Tour, but only because everyone else didn't show up at the finish and his second place tactics landed him in first.
frank says:

Sep 27 2012 at 3:26 pm

@gaswepass

@moondance

Nicely done. Perhaps this is why we tend to root for the underdogs? I am too familiar with this, being a lifelong Cubs fan (hey, this is our century).

Frank, isn't there a special Rule V merit badge for cubs fans? Thats a demographic that knows how to suffer. Perhaps only exceeded by the pre-baltimore ravens Cleveland Browns fans ( to sit there in the lakefront stadium in the snow half-dressed and half drunk in the middle of a snowstorm watching em lose again...).

I don't even know what you're talking about, but that doesn't sound like The V and it doesn't sound like its worth my time to make a badge for!

@Deakus

@moondance

Nicely done. Perhaps this is why we tend to root for the underdogs? I am too familiar with this, being a lifelong Cubs fan (hey, this is our century). We have a guy at work who has no connection whatsoever to New York, yet is a Yankee fan. We constantly rag on him for it. It is too easy to like a perpetual winner. Sometimes there is a hatred towards the big powers. As there was with Merckx, Hinault, even Pharmstrong (among myriad reasons).

I believe that continuing to strive when you know you will usually be bettered is indeed heroic. Because one time, just one day, it will be your day....

Interesting point, so does this mean a certain A.Schleck is in the running to be an eternal second..or..because he technically won because Bertie was stuffing his face with dodgy steaks does he count as a one time winner and therefore not able to become an eternal second...he looks like a prime candidate in the modern race, possessing dubious descending and timetrialling skills could just be the weaknesses that earn him that position...I wonder how he would have done in this years Vuelta?

Schelckles is definitely a candidate. We'll have to see if he gets better - though he showed promise with his 2011 attack over the Galibier; the only thing that separated that from a brilliant move was the ITT two days later. If he's have pulled it off, it would have been a Merckxian accomplishment.

In that light, I'm on the fence - but he needs to get his shit together. Though racing with a broken hip is up there.
frank says:

Sep 27 2012 at 3:27 pm

@Duane

@ChrisO

Their curse is not to have been born at the same time as someone better, their curse is that they believed it.

I could re-read this all day long, it is so spot-on insightful. You made my day.

Indeed. Very well put!! Bugno falls into that as well.
frank says:

Sep 27 2012 at 3:30 pm

@frank

I'm going to qualify my statement about Bugno - he had an Indurain complex, but it never extended beyond the Tour. If it wasn't the Tour, he was a killer - even beating a stronger, faster, Apostle Museeuw.
frank says:

Sep 27 2012 at 3:33 pm

@ErikdR

Mart Smeets: "So, we had Joop as the winner, for the first time. "The eternal second...", one could say..."

Bernhard Hinault: "Don't say that; you shouldn't say that: People should realize that in the same year that Joop had his accident - it was in the Midi Libre - he had been winning just about every race he entered - ahead of Merckx; ahead of everybody. He was flying!

After that crash, he had lost, in my opinion, 25% of his potential. For me, Joop is a great champion. How can he not be? Like no-one else, he has done battle with Merckx, with me, Bernhard Hinault, and with so many others..."

Unquote. Couldn't agree more with the words of the Badger: "Pour moi, Joop, c'est un grand champion...".

Brilliant stuff, mate. Brilliant. Isn't '74 the year Hinault ditched off the road in the Midi-Libre? That emphasizes the point in my opinion. Even if I'm wrong, which I've gotten so used to that it doesn't even impact my opinions anymore!
frank says:

Sep 27 2012 at 3:36 pm

@Ron

ChrisO - Strong work there, pal. Very nice and that's thoughtful analysis of it.

ErikR - That's incredible to read those words from Hinault. Respect for Zoop, respect for the Badger!

Hey, does anyone have a good interview/article/video clip where a talented PRO is discussing the level of commitment, effort, energy and focus it takes, year after year, to do what they do? Yeah, this is touched upon in a lot of pieces, but I'd love to read/see something where a rider addresses just how much will power it takes to get to that level and stay there.

Forget the video. Get a book, dude. Merckx, Half Man, Half Machine is a good place to start.

Hamilton's book on the Secret Race is another. Pharmy's book Its Not About the Bike is another. Dopers, for sure, but the sacrifice and the work comes through nicely in both those books nevertheless.
frank says:

Sep 27 2012 at 3:39 pm

@bluesky

good guys coming second ? ......... no one really remembers their names i guess ........... id rather have complete anonymity than world wide derision .......... just sayin ..........

@bluesky

oh ............ and i canny make the scottish cogal coz im working !!!! ......... ive cycled most of the route and it is pretty amazing.....just watch the busy sections....they can be ...well.... scary !!! ............. njoy the amber reward ... u will have earned it ..............

*ppppsssst!* Your period key is sticking!
Nate says:

Sep 27 2012 at 3:41 pm

@frank

@ErikdR

Mart Smeets: "So, we had Joop as the winner, for the first time. "The eternal second...", one could say..."

Bernhard Hinault: "Don't say that; you shouldn't say that: People should realize that in the same year that Joop had his accident - it was in the Midi Libre - he had been winning just about every race he entered - ahead of Merckx; ahead of everybody. He was flying!

After that crash, he had lost, in my opinion, 25% of his potential. For me, Joop is a great champion. How can he not be? Like no-one else, he has done battle with Merckx, with me, Bernhard Hinault, and with so many others..."

Unquote. Couldn't agree more with the words of the Badger: "Pour moi, Joop, c'est un grand champion...".

Brilliant stuff, mate. Brilliant. Isn't '74 the year Hinault ditched off the road in the Midi-Libre? That emphasizes the point in my opinion. Even if I'm wrong, which I've gotten so used to that it doesn't even impact my opinions anymore!

You are confused but don't let that stop you. Hinault is talking about Zoetmelk's crash. You are confusing Hinault's crash in the 1977 DauphinÃ© maybe with Roger RiviÃ¨re's crash recounted in The Rider?
frank says:

Sep 27 2012 at 3:44 pm

@Souleur

yet another good work Frank

As I read, and thought, initially the gut response is to say that we indeed only remember the winners, the triumphant, the victors; therefore to answer the question...they are the heros. But I thought...

And have to say, that there are some of the most memorable rides for second and even without podiums, that speak to me, like Johnny Hoogerlands ride last July, it was a phenomenal performance...and respectable.

Then I bounce back, and have to remind myself, that there is a reason we keep time, keep score, because someone wins, some lose..and that is our sport.

So, I thought some more, which is dangerouse my wife tells me. And I suppose there are more than just categories we would recognize as simply 'winners' and 'losers', there are real winners that we respect, recognize and ride like it..ala Eddy, and winners that are total douches, perhaps they don't even deserve a win, and are mocked and boooooed all the way to the line...ala cuntoder.

Losers I suppose would split much the same, there are some eternal seconds that I totally stinkin respect, in fact, love, some in fact would place my beloved Pantani here had he not won the Giro and Tour, as his career was often playing second or less, but he had style, he rode his own way and did so unapologetically...sorry for those who hate him..this is why. But also I loved the underdog Julio Perez, who rode for Panaria and did well in the Giro in the late 90"²s, and early 2000"²s, but never won the prom. He flew, and had many more bad days than good, like me, maybe that why I liked him so much. And there are losers I hate, who give up, who make excuses, who simply can do better..ala Schlecks IMHO.

so, whose heros and villians, I suppose...yes, they all are

I love and hate them all, winners, losers, hero's, villians

Great stuff. I think the difference is that the right kind of rider who gets second somehow gets classified as a fighter not a loser - its the fighting spirit that defines the quality of the winner, right? And that can only happen when there is a worthy battle.

Its like the Schleck-haters saying he was a soft cock for losing the Tour to Cadel. I'd say he was an awesome competitor that year with his big attack to the Galibier and his fighting spirit is what made Cadel's win all the better. Same goes for his loss in 2010 against Conti - remember that had it not been for the dropped chain he'd have tied - and he attacked relentlessly up the Tourmalet on the last day and was beating Conti in the ITT until the wind picked up and his shit-ass TT position turned into a reverse sail.

I'm convinced, though, that in 2010 he'd have lost even without the chain - Conti was a fighter more than Schleck and had they been tied he'd have found a way to win nevertheless.
frank says:

Sep 27 2012 at 4:29 pm

@Nate

Indeed - I realized it was Joop's crash but had forgotten it was '77 when Hinault crashed. It would have been poetic if both were '74, though - yeah?

I say we re-write history. Or re-right it, as it were.