Consider another reason why nobody needed to wait for Mayo:
-- His time loss to the LA/JU/TH group was increased after his crash. If Eusaktel had better responded, the gap (if there were one) upon the finish would not have been so large.
-More crucially, Euskatel had a *significiantly weaker* rouleur team/TTT/ITT team than, say, USPS. If it had been LA who fell at the time Mayo did and nobody waited for LA, USPS could have more readily paced LA back to the peloton by TTT. LA could have done a better job pacing himself back to the peloton because he is better on flats/ITT than Mayo.
So whose fault is it that the team was insufficient to pace the leader back? Obviously, Euskatel's. The team is not designed to be as strong in these kinds of situations and that's why it paid! 🙂
-- Euskatel should have reiterated to Menchov the need for him to help Euskatel because he would also lose considerable time. Menchov should have been more helpful.
-- I wouldn't be surprised if USPS had planned using the cobbles to rid themselves of somebody of potential GC thread to LA (possibly Heras or Mayo). The cobbles can be utilized a bit like the wind under certain conditions -- to blow apart the peloton.
Also, Bruyneel is strategic enough to know that, even if it were one of the better TTT teams (like Phonak, relative to Euskatel) that were caught off the main group of the peloton, having that team have to essentially TTT back to the peloton would damage that team's chances in the TTT the next day.
This is a similar strategy to what Bruyneel used in the stage prior to the ITT for the Vuelta 03.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2003/vuelta03/?id=results/stage12
Among the riders caught outside the first part of the peloton were Aitor González and Dario Frigo lost 1'09 in the GC. Right before Stage 12, the GC read as follows:
1 Isidro Nozal (Spa) O.N.C.E.-Eroski 37.12.40
2 Igor Gonzalez De Galdeano (Spa) O.N.C.E.-Eroski 1.48
3 Manuel Beltran (Spa) US Postal-Berry Floor 3.03
**4 Dario Frigo (Ita) Fassa Bortolo 3.05**
**5 Roberto Heras (Spa) US Postal-Berry Floor 3.28**
6 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) iBanesto.com 3.40
7 Alejandro Valverde (Spa) Kelme-Costa Blanca 3.57
**8 Aitor Gonzalez (Spa) Fassa Bortolo 4.00**
9 Michael Rasmussen (Den) Rabobank 4.04
10 Unai Osa (Spa) iBanesto.com 4.14
Here were the relevant standings after Stage 12::
1 Isidro Nozal (Spa) O.N.C.E.-Eroski 40.54.29
2 Igor Gonzalez De Galdeano (Spa) O.N.C.E.-Eroski 1.48
3 Manuel Beltran (Spa) US Postal-Berry Floor 3.03
**4 Roberto Heras (Spa) US Postal-Berry Floor 3.28**
5 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) iBanesto.com 3.40
6 Michael Rasmussen (Den) Rabobank 4.04
**7 Dario Frigo (Ita) Fassa Bortolo 4.14**
8 Alejandro Valverde (Spa) Kelme-Costa Blanca 5.06
**9 Aitor Gonzalez (Spa) Fassa Bortolo 5.09**
In each case, USPS could have had a strategy of seeing who would be lost when the peloton split, and then taking advantage if there were significant GC contenders in the back part of the peloton/after it.
What happens after the ITT? The GC is as follows:
Isidro Nozal (Spa) O.N.C.E.-Eroski 41.56.32
2 Igor Gonzalez De Galdeano (Spa) O.N.C.E.-Eroski 3.03
**3 Roberto Heras (Spa) US Postal-Berry Floor 5.13**
4 Manuel Beltran (Spa) US Postal-Berry Floor 5.39
5 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) iBanesto.com 7.12
6 Alejandro Valverde (Spa) Kelme-Costa Blanca 7.50
7 Michael Rasmussen (Den) Rabobank 8.44
8 Luis Perez (Spa) Cofidis, Le Crédit par Téléphone 8.49
**9 Dario Frigo (Ita) Fassa Bortolo 8.50**
10 Unai Osa (Spa) iBanesto.com 10.10
**11 Aitor Gonzalez (Spa) Fassa Bortolo 10.57**
Frigo and A Gonzalez have effectively been eliminated as GC contenders.