One thing about our great sport that has always kind of bothered me, is that a rider who doesn't win the race, is sometimes called the fastest. This, more often than not, happens when a rider who sets the fastest lap time of the race, doesn't win, usually due to a crash or bike problem. The winning rider, is then criticized for not being as fast, even though they won the race. While I can understand the sentiment behind the claims, I can't help but feel as though this was something concocted by someone looking for a way to feel good about losing a race.
The reason I think that this is so ridiculous, is that a race has both a beginning and an end. The beginning, in the sport of motocross, is usually the dropping of the starting gate, while the end, is the waving of the checkered flag. The goal of the race, is to be the fastest to reach the checkered flag, not to have the fastest time in one segment of the race.
When you watch a sprint race at a competition like the Olympics, such as the 100 meter dash, you don't see them call the runner with the fastest 25 meter segment the fastest runner. So, assuming we're talking about a 20 lap Supercross class main event, does it not seem a little foolish to call a rider who may have put down the fastest lap, but not won the race, the fastest?
I guess it's a small bone to pick with what is probably a fairly small amount of people, but it's something that always puzzled me. In my eyes, the guy who crosses the finish line first was the fastest. They run the full duration of the race for a reason!