Sunday’s women’s road race at the 2024 Paris Olympics ended in stunning fashion, with the USA’s Kristen Faulkner soloing to a surprise victory ahead of the big favourites. Faulkner had ridden a strong and clever race, getting in the right moves and riding to her strengths, but the moment of her decisive attack has since generated plenty of discussion.
When Faulkner surged, with just over 3 km to go, Lotte Kopecky and Marianne Vos barely reacted. Within seconds it was over, Faulkner opening a predictable gap, and riding to glory.
Watching from afar it seemed like Vos and Kopecky had thrown away their chance of gold by not chasing Faulkner. But was it that simple? Was there more to the story?
Before we get there, let’s set the scene a little.
The setup
Faulkner’s race-winning move came from a group of four that, until mere moments earlier, had been two groups of two.
Vos and Blanka Vas had been leading the race after getting away on the streets of Paris with 22 km remaining. They had a lead of 40 seconds with just 15 km remaining.
The other group of two was Faulkner and Kopecky. Kopecky had a sub-optimal lead-in to the final kilometres, getting caught behind a crash (with a bunch of other favourites) with 48 km to go. The reigning world champ (and big pre-race favourite) had to chase alone on the lumpy Parisian circuit, eventually making it back to the elite lead group (containing Faulkner, Vos, and Vas) with 42 km to race.
Later, with Vos and Vas up the road, Faulkner surged from the remnants of her group on the final ascent of the Montmartre climb, around 10 km to go. Only Kopecky was able to follow, the American and the Belgian setting off in pursuit of the two leaders.
At times it looked like they’d make it across easily; at others it seemed as if they were racing for bronze. Eventually, with 3.4 km to go, Faulkner and Kopecky joined the two leaders, all four out front having spent considerable energy to be there.
The attack
As soon as Faulkner and Kopecky reached the front, an attack from Faulkner seemed imminent. With Vos, Kopecky, and Vas all being better sprinters, coming to the line in a group of four virtually locked Faulkner into fourth place, outside the medals. She knew she had to get away on her own, and so too, you’d hope, did her three rivals.
And yet, when Faulkner attacked – mere moments after the lead group became four – the response was minimal.
Vas put in a brief but concerted chase, but when the Hungarian swung off with 3.1 km to go, she, Kopecky and Vos all looked around at one another, each willing the others to take up the chase. Within seconds the race was over. Faulkner was on her own, and on her way to victory by just shy of a minute.
Even in the moment, letting Faulkner go seemed like an obvious mistake. But it’s easy to judge such moments from afar, when you’re safely removed from the stress and exertion of the race, and from the split-second thinking that’s required while under duress. So let’s take a step back and work through what happened in that moment and why.
Why didn’t they chase?
As noted, Vas did chase initially – she reacted instantly when Faulkner made her move, forcing Vos and Kopecky to scramble onto her wheel. Indeed, Vas seemingly gave it her all but ultimately wasn’t able to close the gap. When she sat up, she needed Kopecky and Vos to help reel in Faulkner. And so, if any riders should bear responsibility for not chasing Faulkner, that responsibility should fall to Kopecky and Vos.
Why didn’t Kopecky go? Based on her post-race comments, she was worried about dragging Vos with her and being beaten in the sprint, as she was at Omloop Het Nieuwsblad earlier in the season. “On paper she [Vos] is the fastest and then you start to think, of course,” Kopecky said. Kopecky went on to admit that she and Vos had probably focused too much on each other in that decisive moment, rather than the gold medal that was slipping away.
And it didn’t take long for Kopecky to realise she was racing for silver. “With Faulkner out front, I knew we wouldn‘t catch her, so then I immediately started to think about a medal,” she said. It’s a slightly odd admission after not even trying to chase.
And what about Vos? Was she worried about Kopecky in a sprint? In the Dutchwoman’s analysis, fatigue played a greater role than fear. “I was in a good situation with Vas in front, but I didn’t have much left,” Vos said. “The other two then came closer and closer. When they closed in and Faulkner went, I didn’t have the legs to react [to Faulkner’s initial surge] and then react again [when Vas stopped chasing].
“It was a gamble, but in the end I just didn’t have the legs anymore.”
The fact that Vos describes not chasing as a “gamble” suggests she had the option but chose not to – she wasn’t so tired that she physically couldn’t chase.
And that seems to be the heart of the issue. Both Kopecky and Vos were unwilling to burn whatever matches they had left, lest it hamper their chances of winning gold in the final sprint. And yet, saving their legs for a gold-medal sprint wasn’t going to help if that medal had already disappeared up the road.
Vos seemed to acknowledge afterwards that she could have taken a different tack. “There are always moments that you can do differently, but I’m completely exhausted in any case.”
What to make of it
So did Vos and Kopecky make a mistake by not trying to chase Faulkner immediately? In the moment it certainly appeared so; now that the dust has settled, that still seems the best explanation.
If we accept that view, it just goes to show that even the world champion (Kopecky), and even the greatest of all time (Vos), can make mistakes under duress in high-stakes situations, when a split-second decision can be the difference between Olympic glory and disappointment.
You can see how it happened though. In those fateful few seconds after Vas sat up, as they recovered from Faulkner and Vas’s surges, and as they tried to assess what remained of their energy reserves, Kopecky and Vos both pondered the impact of dragging the other to the line. That brief moment of hesitation and consideration – mere seconds in a race lasting four hours – was all it took for the race to be over.
Of course, none of this should take away from Kristen Faulkner’s sublime ride. She was impressively strong throughout, she made the moves that mattered, and then, in the most decisive moment, she rode to her strengths, playing her two biggest rivals off against one other, and capitalised on their indecision.
Not bad for a rider who wasn’t even supposed to be in the race.
Did we do a good job with this story?