S
T
trg
Guest
"steve" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> Bad form, I think.
>
> steve
> --
> "Local firemen improvised."
> Benny Hill
Discovery was actually trying to slow down the peloton to give Horner a
better chance.
[email protected]...
> Bad form, I think.
>
> steve
> --
> "Local firemen improvised."
> Benny Hill
Discovery was actually trying to slow down the peloton to give Horner a
better chance.
S
steve
Guest
On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
<[email protected]> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> Discovery was actually trying to slow down the peloton to give Horner a
> better chance.
How do you figure that?
--
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill
<[email protected]> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> Discovery was actually trying to slow down the peloton to give Horner a
> better chance.
How do you figure that?
--
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill
M
matabala
Guest
"steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
> <[email protected]> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
>> Discovery was actually trying to slow down the peloton to give Horner a
>> better chance.
>
> How do you figure that?
>
he was watching, where as you apparently weren't
news:[email protected]...
> On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
> <[email protected]> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
>> Discovery was actually trying to slow down the peloton to give Horner a
>> better chance.
>
> How do you figure that?
>
he was watching, where as you apparently weren't
T
trg
Guest
"steve" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
> <[email protected]> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
>> Discovery was actually trying to slow down the peloton to give Horner a
>> better chance.
>
> How do you figure that?
I could say that it was by a complex formula taking into account the average
speed of the peloton cross indexed with the particular Discovery rider in
front at the time, compared with similar measurements taken in similar
conditions where there wasn't an American vying for the stage win, all
plotted on a chart that would make Robert Chung cry in envy.
But in fact, it's what Armstrong said just after the stage.
[email protected]...
> On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
> <[email protected]> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
>> Discovery was actually trying to slow down the peloton to give Horner a
>> better chance.
>
> How do you figure that?
I could say that it was by a complex formula taking into account the average
speed of the peloton cross indexed with the particular Discovery rider in
front at the time, compared with similar measurements taken in similar
conditions where there wasn't an American vying for the stage win, all
plotted on a chart that would make Robert Chung cry in envy.
But in fact, it's what Armstrong said just after the stage.
T
trg
Guest
"matabala" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
>
> "steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
>> <[email protected]> blindly formulated
>> the following incoherence:
>>
>>> Discovery was actually trying to slow down the peloton to give Horner a
>>> better chance.
>>
>> How do you figure that?
>>
> he was watching, where as you apparently weren't
That too.
[email protected]...
>
> "steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
>> <[email protected]> blindly formulated
>> the following incoherence:
>>
>>> Discovery was actually trying to slow down the peloton to give Horner a
>>> better chance.
>>
>> How do you figure that?
>>
> he was watching, where as you apparently weren't
That too.
S
steve
Guest
On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "actable" <[email protected]>
blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> >> Discovery was actually trying to slow down the peloton to give Horner a
> >> better chance.
> >
> > How do you figure that?
> >
> he was watching, where as you apparently weren't
Yes, I was watching (though I didn't stick for the Lance interview someone
else here mentioned). Either way, that explanation makes no sense. If
another team wanted a higher pace to get their sprinter into position, they
would have come to the front regardless as they had no reason to save their
legs at that point. Clearly they felt DC was moving fast enough to get them
into position, and they were probably quite pleased with the assistance.
Without DC on the front, the pace would have been no faster if not slower.
Most likely the finish would have degenerated into a flurry of unsupported
attacks...no worse for Horner and likely better than DC keeping the peloton
within jumping distance. Furthermore, each kilo that DC sits on the front
riding tempo saves the sprinters teams legs that bit more for a leadout if
not a last minute chase. And a few slim seconds was the difference in the
end.
Id say the most likely explanation is that Lance had no desire to see Horner
take the stage.
steve
--
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill
blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> >> Discovery was actually trying to slow down the peloton to give Horner a
> >> better chance.
> >
> > How do you figure that?
> >
> he was watching, where as you apparently weren't
Yes, I was watching (though I didn't stick for the Lance interview someone
else here mentioned). Either way, that explanation makes no sense. If
another team wanted a higher pace to get their sprinter into position, they
would have come to the front regardless as they had no reason to save their
legs at that point. Clearly they felt DC was moving fast enough to get them
into position, and they were probably quite pleased with the assistance.
Without DC on the front, the pace would have been no faster if not slower.
Most likely the finish would have degenerated into a flurry of unsupported
attacks...no worse for Horner and likely better than DC keeping the peloton
within jumping distance. Furthermore, each kilo that DC sits on the front
riding tempo saves the sprinters teams legs that bit more for a leadout if
not a last minute chase. And a few slim seconds was the difference in the
end.
Id say the most likely explanation is that Lance had no desire to see Horner
take the stage.
steve
--
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill
S
steve
Guest
On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
<[email protected]> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> I could say that it was by a complex formula taking into account the
> average
> speed of the peloton cross indexed with the particular Discovery rider in
> front at the time, compared with similar measurements taken in similar
> conditions where there wasn't an American vying for the stage win, all
> plotted on a chart that would make Robert Chung cry in envy.
>
> But in fact, it's what Armstrong said just after the stage.
Please see my other response in this thread.
Also: I recall a stage last year when Lance, Landis, Ullrich, and Kloden
were off the front over the top of a climb some 5 or 6 K from the finish.
Lance told Landis (according to Floyd) "If you want to win, attack and go
like hell." Well, of course, the boys in Pink chased him down and Lance
took the sprint. Duh. If Lance really wanted to see Landis win, he would
have attacked himself. Frankly, I think it's always all about Lance for
Lance. When it's his own ass on the line, his tactics are perfect. But when
it's another guy...
steve
--
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill
<[email protected]> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> I could say that it was by a complex formula taking into account the
> average
> speed of the peloton cross indexed with the particular Discovery rider in
> front at the time, compared with similar measurements taken in similar
> conditions where there wasn't an American vying for the stage win, all
> plotted on a chart that would make Robert Chung cry in envy.
>
> But in fact, it's what Armstrong said just after the stage.
Please see my other response in this thread.
Also: I recall a stage last year when Lance, Landis, Ullrich, and Kloden
were off the front over the top of a climb some 5 or 6 K from the finish.
Lance told Landis (according to Floyd) "If you want to win, attack and go
like hell." Well, of course, the boys in Pink chased him down and Lance
took the sprint. Duh. If Lance really wanted to see Landis win, he would
have attacked himself. Frankly, I think it's always all about Lance for
Lance. When it's his own ass on the line, his tactics are perfect. But when
it's another guy...
steve
--
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill
T
trg
Guest
"steve" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "actable" <[email protected]>
> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
>> >> Discovery was actually trying to slow down the peloton to give Horner
>> >> a
>> >> better chance.
>> >
>> > How do you figure that?
>> >
>> he was watching, where as you apparently weren't
>
> Yes, I was watching (though I didn't stick for the Lance interview someone
> else here mentioned). Either way, that explanation makes no sense. If
> another team wanted a higher pace to get their sprinter into position,
> they
> would have come to the front regardless as they had no reason to save
> their
> legs at that point. Clearly they felt DC was moving fast enough to get
> them
> into position, and they were probably quite pleased with the assistance.
>
> Without DC on the front, the pace would have been no faster if not slower.
> Most likely the finish would have degenerated into a flurry of unsupported
> attacks...no worse for Horner and likely better than DC keeping the
> peloton
> within jumping distance. Furthermore, each kilo that DC sits on the front
> riding tempo saves the sprinters teams legs that bit more for a leadout if
> not a last minute chase. And a few slim seconds was the difference in the
> end.
>
> Id say the most likely explanation is that Lance had no desire to see
> Horner
> take the stage.
>
You may have been watching grasshopper, but you didn't see. Liquigas
(Backstedt) and to a lesser degree Gerolsteiner (Forster and Wrolich) and
FdJ (Cooke and Eisel) did indeed take over from Discovery in the final kms..
As for the other sprinter teams, DVLotto, with McEwen, the dominant sprinter
on the road would be the most likely to lead out the sprint- except for the
fact that the team had buried themselves to bring back the break. Credit
Agricole (Hushvold) and Cofidis (O'Grady) weren't anxious to help McEwen win
a stage and get closer in the points race so they didn't help to bring in
Chavanel and Horner.
You're "most likely explanation" conflicts with what Armstrong said and what
actually happened.
[email protected]...
> On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "actable" <[email protected]>
> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
>> >> Discovery was actually trying to slow down the peloton to give Horner
>> >> a
>> >> better chance.
>> >
>> > How do you figure that?
>> >
>> he was watching, where as you apparently weren't
>
> Yes, I was watching (though I didn't stick for the Lance interview someone
> else here mentioned). Either way, that explanation makes no sense. If
> another team wanted a higher pace to get their sprinter into position,
> they
> would have come to the front regardless as they had no reason to save
> their
> legs at that point. Clearly they felt DC was moving fast enough to get
> them
> into position, and they were probably quite pleased with the assistance.
>
> Without DC on the front, the pace would have been no faster if not slower.
> Most likely the finish would have degenerated into a flurry of unsupported
> attacks...no worse for Horner and likely better than DC keeping the
> peloton
> within jumping distance. Furthermore, each kilo that DC sits on the front
> riding tempo saves the sprinters teams legs that bit more for a leadout if
> not a last minute chase. And a few slim seconds was the difference in the
> end.
>
> Id say the most likely explanation is that Lance had no desire to see
> Horner
> take the stage.
>
You may have been watching grasshopper, but you didn't see. Liquigas
(Backstedt) and to a lesser degree Gerolsteiner (Forster and Wrolich) and
FdJ (Cooke and Eisel) did indeed take over from Discovery in the final kms..
As for the other sprinter teams, DVLotto, with McEwen, the dominant sprinter
on the road would be the most likely to lead out the sprint- except for the
fact that the team had buried themselves to bring back the break. Credit
Agricole (Hushvold) and Cofidis (O'Grady) weren't anxious to help McEwen win
a stage and get closer in the points race so they didn't help to bring in
Chavanel and Horner.
You're "most likely explanation" conflicts with what Armstrong said and what
actually happened.
D
David Ferguson
Guest
This might just be one of those times when you have to take our word
for it.
Setting the pace at a steady but not gaining level is a benefit to
Horner. If DSC just pulls out of the way the sprint teams start
jockeying and reeling.
This why, with DSC up front, they don't start hammering as soon and
Horner has a slightly better chance of being too far ahead when they
do.
But Horner and Chavanel made damn sure it didn't matter.
for it.
Setting the pace at a steady but not gaining level is a benefit to
Horner. If DSC just pulls out of the way the sprint teams start
jockeying and reeling.
This why, with DSC up front, they don't start hammering as soon and
Horner has a slightly better chance of being too far ahead when they
do.
But Horner and Chavanel made damn sure it didn't matter.
S
steve
Guest
On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
<[email protected]> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> You may have been watching grasshopper, but you didn't see. Liquigas
> (Backstedt) and to a lesser degree Gerolsteiner (Forster and Wrolich) and
> FdJ (Cooke and Eisel) did indeed take over from Discovery in the final
> kms..
Which makes my point. They would have had to chase earlier had DC not done
so for them.
> As for the other sprinter teams, DVLotto, with McEwen, the dominant
> sprinter
> on the road would be the most likely to lead out the sprint- except for
> the
> fact that the team had buried themselves to bring back the break. Credit
> Agricole (Hushvold) and Cofidis (O'Grady) weren't anxious to help McEwen
> win
> a stage and get closer in the points race so they didn't help to bring in
> Chavanel and Horner.
Again...makes my point. DC helped them by keeping it close so they could
close it down in the very end.
> You're "most likely explanation" conflicts with what Armstrong said and
> what
> actually happened.
What Armstrong said sounds like ********, and that's my point. And what
actually happened cant contradict me since the hypothetical I base it on (DC
not riding tempo) didnt happen. But even if Im wrong about the flurry of
attacks (and, sure, I could be...we'll never know, of course) and instead it
would have been an organized chase from 10-12 K out, it's a minpor point and
Im still right that DC helped the sprinters teams by keeping it close
without requiring them to expend effort. Nothing like sitting in for 10K of
recovery to get a tired team motivated to lead it out.
steve
--
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill
<[email protected]> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> You may have been watching grasshopper, but you didn't see. Liquigas
> (Backstedt) and to a lesser degree Gerolsteiner (Forster and Wrolich) and
> FdJ (Cooke and Eisel) did indeed take over from Discovery in the final
> kms..
Which makes my point. They would have had to chase earlier had DC not done
so for them.
> As for the other sprinter teams, DVLotto, with McEwen, the dominant
> sprinter
> on the road would be the most likely to lead out the sprint- except for
> the
> fact that the team had buried themselves to bring back the break. Credit
> Agricole (Hushvold) and Cofidis (O'Grady) weren't anxious to help McEwen
> win
> a stage and get closer in the points race so they didn't help to bring in
> Chavanel and Horner.
Again...makes my point. DC helped them by keeping it close so they could
close it down in the very end.
> You're "most likely explanation" conflicts with what Armstrong said and
> what
> actually happened.
What Armstrong said sounds like ********, and that's my point. And what
actually happened cant contradict me since the hypothetical I base it on (DC
not riding tempo) didnt happen. But even if Im wrong about the flurry of
attacks (and, sure, I could be...we'll never know, of course) and instead it
would have been an organized chase from 10-12 K out, it's a minpor point and
Im still right that DC helped the sprinters teams by keeping it close
without requiring them to expend effort. Nothing like sitting in for 10K of
recovery to get a tired team motivated to lead it out.
steve
--
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill
T
trg
Guest
"steve" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
> <[email protected]> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
>> You may have been watching grasshopper, but you didn't see. Liquigas
>> (Backstedt) and to a lesser degree Gerolsteiner (Forster and Wrolich) and
>> FdJ (Cooke and Eisel) did indeed take over from Discovery in the final
>> kms..
>
> Which makes my point. They would have had to chase earlier had DC not
> done
> so for them.
>
>> As for the other sprinter teams, DVLotto, with McEwen, the dominant
>> sprinter
>> on the road would be the most likely to lead out the sprint- except for
>> the
>> fact that the team had buried themselves to bring back the break. Credit
>> Agricole (Hushvold) and Cofidis (O'Grady) weren't anxious to help McEwen
>> win
>> a stage and get closer in the points race so they didn't help to bring in
>> Chavanel and Horner.
>
> Again...makes my point. DC helped them by keeping it close so they could
> close it down in the very end.
>
>> You're "most likely explanation" conflicts with what Armstrong said and
>> what
>> actually happened.
>
> What Armstrong said sounds like ********, and that's my point. And what
> actually happened cant contradict me since the hypothetical I base it on
> (DC
> not riding tempo) didnt happen. But even if Im wrong about the flurry of
> attacks (and, sure, I could be...we'll never know, of course) and instead
> it
> would have been an organized chase from 10-12 K out, it's a minpor point
> and
> Im still right that DC helped the sprinters teams by keeping it close
> without requiring them to expend effort. Nothing like sitting in for 10K
> of
> recovery to get a tired team motivated to lead it out.
>
> steve
Why would you say "we'll never know if there were a flurry of attacks"? I
told you that's what happened. Are you saying I'm making this stuff up? For
that matter, why would Armstrong make up **** when interviewed right after
the stage?
Teams that want a sprint finish don't want to reel in a breakaway with 10km
still to go as you suggest since that would provoque attacks from fresher,
more dangerous riders. The best scenario is to have a break up the road that
will be caught just before the line. But at 5 km to go, the sprint teams saw
that the duo wouldn't be caught at the pace DSC was going, so moved to the
front.
Up until Horner and Chavanel broke away (at 10 km) from the others,
Discovery was riding at a good pace. When it was just Horner and Chavanel in
the lead, they eased up and the gap from the duo to the peloton started to
grow, proving my point and Armstrong's statement that DSC was indeed
sandbagging it.
Upon seeing that Discovery's tempo wouldn't be enough to catch the break
(and as I noted, the gap between the duo and the peloton was actually
growing), they (Liquigas first and then the others) moved in front and upped
the pace to make sure the duo would be caught at the line. Classic tactics.
Armstrong said that Discovery tried to ride a slower tempo for Horner, but
it wasn't enough to make a difference. The fact that Discovery's maneuver
didn't succeed doesn't invalidate the fact that that's what they did.
There were also a few hundred meters where T-Mobile was on the front.
Jalabert, said that maybe T-Mobile had forgotten that they left Zabal at
home
The only thing I could think of was that they thought that they
could bring back the break early enough for Vino to power away in the final
kms like he almost did in the stage where Mengin slid out, but gave up the
effort when they saw they were too close to the line for such a move to
succeed.
[email protected]...
> On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
> <[email protected]> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
>> You may have been watching grasshopper, but you didn't see. Liquigas
>> (Backstedt) and to a lesser degree Gerolsteiner (Forster and Wrolich) and
>> FdJ (Cooke and Eisel) did indeed take over from Discovery in the final
>> kms..
>
> Which makes my point. They would have had to chase earlier had DC not
> done
> so for them.
>
>> As for the other sprinter teams, DVLotto, with McEwen, the dominant
>> sprinter
>> on the road would be the most likely to lead out the sprint- except for
>> the
>> fact that the team had buried themselves to bring back the break. Credit
>> Agricole (Hushvold) and Cofidis (O'Grady) weren't anxious to help McEwen
>> win
>> a stage and get closer in the points race so they didn't help to bring in
>> Chavanel and Horner.
>
> Again...makes my point. DC helped them by keeping it close so they could
> close it down in the very end.
>
>> You're "most likely explanation" conflicts with what Armstrong said and
>> what
>> actually happened.
>
> What Armstrong said sounds like ********, and that's my point. And what
> actually happened cant contradict me since the hypothetical I base it on
> (DC
> not riding tempo) didnt happen. But even if Im wrong about the flurry of
> attacks (and, sure, I could be...we'll never know, of course) and instead
> it
> would have been an organized chase from 10-12 K out, it's a minpor point
> and
> Im still right that DC helped the sprinters teams by keeping it close
> without requiring them to expend effort. Nothing like sitting in for 10K
> of
> recovery to get a tired team motivated to lead it out.
>
> steve
Why would you say "we'll never know if there were a flurry of attacks"? I
told you that's what happened. Are you saying I'm making this stuff up? For
that matter, why would Armstrong make up **** when interviewed right after
the stage?
Teams that want a sprint finish don't want to reel in a breakaway with 10km
still to go as you suggest since that would provoque attacks from fresher,
more dangerous riders. The best scenario is to have a break up the road that
will be caught just before the line. But at 5 km to go, the sprint teams saw
that the duo wouldn't be caught at the pace DSC was going, so moved to the
front.
Up until Horner and Chavanel broke away (at 10 km) from the others,
Discovery was riding at a good pace. When it was just Horner and Chavanel in
the lead, they eased up and the gap from the duo to the peloton started to
grow, proving my point and Armstrong's statement that DSC was indeed
sandbagging it.
Upon seeing that Discovery's tempo wouldn't be enough to catch the break
(and as I noted, the gap between the duo and the peloton was actually
growing), they (Liquigas first and then the others) moved in front and upped
the pace to make sure the duo would be caught at the line. Classic tactics.
Armstrong said that Discovery tried to ride a slower tempo for Horner, but
it wasn't enough to make a difference. The fact that Discovery's maneuver
didn't succeed doesn't invalidate the fact that that's what they did.
There were also a few hundred meters where T-Mobile was on the front.
Jalabert, said that maybe T-Mobile had forgotten that they left Zabal at
home
The only thing I could think of was that they thought that theycould bring back the break early enough for Vino to power away in the final
kms like he almost did in the stage where Mengin slid out, but gave up the
effort when they saw they were too close to the line for such a move to
succeed.
C
Callistus Valerius
Guest
It was reported on yesterday's stage that when Horner and Chavanel were
caught, some said the two were arguing and carrying on, like two old women.
Horner flapping his elbows, and Chavanel hurling insults at Horner. Neither
one of these two will ever be given another chance, after that display.
Although the concensus was, that Chavanel was way out of bounds, and Horner
did the right thing by pulling the plug on the whole operation. Hinault
says, he's had enough of Chavanel's antics to last a lifetime, and the
search for the next great French rider continues.
caught, some said the two were arguing and carrying on, like two old women.
Horner flapping his elbows, and Chavanel hurling insults at Horner. Neither
one of these two will ever be given another chance, after that display.
Although the concensus was, that Chavanel was way out of bounds, and Horner
did the right thing by pulling the plug on the whole operation. Hinault
says, he's had enough of Chavanel's antics to last a lifetime, and the
search for the next great French rider continues.
S
steve
Guest
On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
<[email protected]> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> Why would you say "we'll never know if there were a flurry of attacks"? I
> told you that's what happened. Are you saying I'm making this stuff up?
> For
> that matter, why would Armstrong make up **** when interviewed right after
>
> the stage?
I meant (and I think I said) that we would never know if there *would have
been* a flurry had DC not chased. That was my original conjecture, but
since they *did* chase, we will never know. And, again, minor point.
Why would Lance make it up? He might if his real intentions were not so
honorable.
> Teams that want a sprint finish don't want to reel in a breakaway with
> 10km
> still to go as you suggest since that would provoque attacks from fresher,
>
> more dangerous riders. The best scenario is to have a break up the road
> that
> will be caught just before the line.
I agree to the extent that they can safely make that calculation. Quite
often they do reel in the break well beyond 5K and then keep the pace up to
discourage the would be attackers. But again it seems you make my point for
me. If they are reluctant to organize at 10K, why should DC hold the pack
close with tempo?
> But at 5 km to go, the sprint teams
> saw
> that the duo wouldn't be caught at the pace DSC was going, so moved to the
>
> front.
Uh huh...but what would have happened had DC not pulled? That's the issue.
> Up until Horner and Chavanel broke away (at 10 km) from the others,
> Discovery was riding at a good pace. When it was just Horner and Chavanel
> in
> the lead, they eased up and the gap from the duo to the peloton started to
>
> grow, proving my point and Armstrong's statement that DSC was indeed
> sandbagging it.
If that's true then indeed I missed it or didnt recall. My impression (and
I didnt record the coverage so it's all from memory) was that the small gap
was approximately holding or narrowing back to the main field while DC was
on the front. But I suggest that DC shouldnt have even been "sandbagging"
(if that was in fact what they were doing), because the alternative was
likely to be more to Horners advantage. With lots of tired teams and a
modest pace, as I said, the likely scenario inside 10K and in the absence of
organized chase is opportunistic attacks, and that scenario favors the break
as those attacks are less effective than organized resistence. Without DC
on the front and with few pure sprinters left and no obvious team
responsible for bringing it back, it's likely several teams would be looking
at one another for someone to take up the chase. Is that not better than DC
riding tempo?
> There were also a few hundred meters where T-Mobile was on the front.
> Jalabert, said that maybe T-Mobile had forgotten that they left Zabal at
> home The only thing I could think of was that they thought that they
> could bring back the break early enough for Vino to power away in the
> final
> kms like he almost did in the stage where Mengin slid out, but gave up the
>
> effort when they saw they were too close to the line for such a move to
> succeed.
That was a puzzling move.
steve
--
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill
<[email protected]> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> Why would you say "we'll never know if there were a flurry of attacks"? I
> told you that's what happened. Are you saying I'm making this stuff up?
> For
> that matter, why would Armstrong make up **** when interviewed right after
>
> the stage?
I meant (and I think I said) that we would never know if there *would have
been* a flurry had DC not chased. That was my original conjecture, but
since they *did* chase, we will never know. And, again, minor point.
Why would Lance make it up? He might if his real intentions were not so
honorable.
> Teams that want a sprint finish don't want to reel in a breakaway with
> 10km
> still to go as you suggest since that would provoque attacks from fresher,
>
> more dangerous riders. The best scenario is to have a break up the road
> that
> will be caught just before the line.
I agree to the extent that they can safely make that calculation. Quite
often they do reel in the break well beyond 5K and then keep the pace up to
discourage the would be attackers. But again it seems you make my point for
me. If they are reluctant to organize at 10K, why should DC hold the pack
close with tempo?
> But at 5 km to go, the sprint teams
> saw
> that the duo wouldn't be caught at the pace DSC was going, so moved to the
>
> front.
Uh huh...but what would have happened had DC not pulled? That's the issue.
> Up until Horner and Chavanel broke away (at 10 km) from the others,
> Discovery was riding at a good pace. When it was just Horner and Chavanel
> in
> the lead, they eased up and the gap from the duo to the peloton started to
>
> grow, proving my point and Armstrong's statement that DSC was indeed
> sandbagging it.
If that's true then indeed I missed it or didnt recall. My impression (and
I didnt record the coverage so it's all from memory) was that the small gap
was approximately holding or narrowing back to the main field while DC was
on the front. But I suggest that DC shouldnt have even been "sandbagging"
(if that was in fact what they were doing), because the alternative was
likely to be more to Horners advantage. With lots of tired teams and a
modest pace, as I said, the likely scenario inside 10K and in the absence of
organized chase is opportunistic attacks, and that scenario favors the break
as those attacks are less effective than organized resistence. Without DC
on the front and with few pure sprinters left and no obvious team
responsible for bringing it back, it's likely several teams would be looking
at one another for someone to take up the chase. Is that not better than DC
riding tempo?
> There were also a few hundred meters where T-Mobile was on the front.
> Jalabert, said that maybe T-Mobile had forgotten that they left Zabal at
> home
The only thing I could think of was that they thought that they> could bring back the break early enough for Vino to power away in the
> final
> kms like he almost did in the stage where Mengin slid out, but gave up the
>
> effort when they saw they were too close to the line for such a move to
> succeed.
That was a puzzling move.
steve
--
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill
T
trg
Guest
"steve" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
> <[email protected]> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
>> Why would you say "we'll never know if there were a flurry of attacks"? I
>> told you that's what happened. Are you saying I'm making this stuff up?
>> For
>> that matter, why would Armstrong make up **** when interviewed right
>> after
>>
>> the stage?
>
> I meant (and I think I said) that we would never know if there *would have
> been* a flurry had DC not chased. That was my original conjecture, but
> since they *did* chase, we will never know. And, again, minor point.
>
> Why would Lance make it up? He might if his real intentions were not so
> honorable.
>
>> Teams that want a sprint finish don't want to reel in a breakaway with
>> 10km
>> still to go as you suggest since that would provoque attacks from
>> fresher,
>>
>> more dangerous riders. The best scenario is to have a break up the road
>> that
>> will be caught just before the line.
>
> I agree to the extent that they can safely make that calculation. Quite
> often they do reel in the break well beyond 5K and then keep the pace up
> to
> discourage the would be attackers. But again it seems you make my point
> for
> me. If they are reluctant to organize at 10K, why should DC hold the pack
> close with tempo?
>
>> But at 5 km to go, the sprint teams
>> saw
>> that the duo wouldn't be caught at the pace DSC was going, so moved to
>> the
>>
>> front.
>
> Uh huh...but what would have happened had DC not pulled? That's the
> issue.
>
>> Up until Horner and Chavanel broke away (at 10 km) from the others,
>> Discovery was riding at a good pace. When it was just Horner and Chavanel
>> in
>> the lead, they eased up and the gap from the duo to the peloton started
>> to
>>
>> grow, proving my point and Armstrong's statement that DSC was indeed
>> sandbagging it.
>
> If that's true then indeed I missed it or didnt recall. My impression
> (and
> I didnt record the coverage so it's all from memory) was that the small
> gap
> was approximately holding or narrowing back to the main field while DC was
> on the front. But I suggest that DC shouldnt have even been "sandbagging"
> (if that was in fact what they were doing), because the alternative was
> likely to be more to Horners advantage. With lots of tired teams and a
> modest pace, as I said, the likely scenario inside 10K and in the absence
> of
> organized chase is opportunistic attacks, and that scenario favors the
> break
> as those attacks are less effective than organized resistence. Without DC
> on the front and with few pure sprinters left and no obvious team
> responsible for bringing it back, it's likely several teams would be
> looking
> at one another for someone to take up the chase. Is that not better than
> DC
> riding tempo?
>
>
>> There were also a few hundred meters where T-Mobile was on the front.
>> Jalabert, said that maybe T-Mobile had forgotten that they left Zabel at
>> home The only thing I could think of was that they thought that they
>> could bring back the break early enough for Vino to power away in the
>> final
>> kms like he almost did in the stage where Mengin slid out, but gave up
>> the
>>
>> effort when they saw they were too close to the line for such a move to
>> succeed.
>
> That was a puzzling move.
Here's the cyclingnews play by play (I won't cut and paste. I don't think
Jeff appreciates that, so you'll have to follow the link). Note that at 10
km before the duo broke out, the gap was 15 seconds and DSC was reported as
keeping the pace high. That's when Horner was reported to have caught up to
Chavanel who had jumped at 11 km. At about 6 km the gap was up to 25 seconds
and Liquigas came to the front.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/tour05/?id=live/tour0513
You say that Discovery shouldn't have been in the front at all if they
wanted to help Horner. In fact, as usual, they were riding as a team in
front to maintain a high enough pace to keep Lance out of trouble. That was
their primary goal. When they saw a chance to help Horner, they slowed it
down. Not so much as to drop off the front, but enough to let the gap grow.
This is a common tactic to give a break a better chance of succeeding. It's
a delicate task, riding slow enough to let the guys ahead make up some time,
but not so slow that someone else takes up the chase. And it worked for 4 km
or so, enough to grow the lead up to over 25 seconds or so. Then the
sprinters saw that things were getting out of hand and took over. At that
point, Armstrong stayed up front and out of trouble, with Hincapie to
protect him while the rest of DSC dropped back, pretty standard.
As to tiring the sprinter teams out, other than Lotto who were too cooked to
get to the front, the sprinter teams hadn't done any work all day. They
weren't tired, especially compared to the breakaway. And in fact, Discovery
only came to the front towards the end (15 km to go when the Lotto boys fell
apart) to keep Lance out of trouble, since it was Lotto doing the heavy
lifting pretty much all day. Had DSC not come to the front with 15km to go,
as you suggested would be their tactic if they really wanted to help Horner,
there was no way that that extra 9 kms in front would have tired the
sprinter teams out. And remember, at 15 km, Horner was just one of many in
the break. It wasn't until he was away from the others and had a much better
chance of victory that DCS backed off the gas a bit.
I have no idea what "less than honorable motives" could be behind
Armstgrong's statement. Could you please elaborate?
[email protected]...
> On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
> <[email protected]> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
>> Why would you say "we'll never know if there were a flurry of attacks"? I
>> told you that's what happened. Are you saying I'm making this stuff up?
>> For
>> that matter, why would Armstrong make up **** when interviewed right
>> after
>>
>> the stage?
>
> I meant (and I think I said) that we would never know if there *would have
> been* a flurry had DC not chased. That was my original conjecture, but
> since they *did* chase, we will never know. And, again, minor point.
>
> Why would Lance make it up? He might if his real intentions were not so
> honorable.
>
>> Teams that want a sprint finish don't want to reel in a breakaway with
>> 10km
>> still to go as you suggest since that would provoque attacks from
>> fresher,
>>
>> more dangerous riders. The best scenario is to have a break up the road
>> that
>> will be caught just before the line.
>
> I agree to the extent that they can safely make that calculation. Quite
> often they do reel in the break well beyond 5K and then keep the pace up
> to
> discourage the would be attackers. But again it seems you make my point
> for
> me. If they are reluctant to organize at 10K, why should DC hold the pack
> close with tempo?
>
>> But at 5 km to go, the sprint teams
>> saw
>> that the duo wouldn't be caught at the pace DSC was going, so moved to
>> the
>>
>> front.
>
> Uh huh...but what would have happened had DC not pulled? That's the
> issue.
>
>> Up until Horner and Chavanel broke away (at 10 km) from the others,
>> Discovery was riding at a good pace. When it was just Horner and Chavanel
>> in
>> the lead, they eased up and the gap from the duo to the peloton started
>> to
>>
>> grow, proving my point and Armstrong's statement that DSC was indeed
>> sandbagging it.
>
> If that's true then indeed I missed it or didnt recall. My impression
> (and
> I didnt record the coverage so it's all from memory) was that the small
> gap
> was approximately holding or narrowing back to the main field while DC was
> on the front. But I suggest that DC shouldnt have even been "sandbagging"
> (if that was in fact what they were doing), because the alternative was
> likely to be more to Horners advantage. With lots of tired teams and a
> modest pace, as I said, the likely scenario inside 10K and in the absence
> of
> organized chase is opportunistic attacks, and that scenario favors the
> break
> as those attacks are less effective than organized resistence. Without DC
> on the front and with few pure sprinters left and no obvious team
> responsible for bringing it back, it's likely several teams would be
> looking
> at one another for someone to take up the chase. Is that not better than
> DC
> riding tempo?
>
>
>> There were also a few hundred meters where T-Mobile was on the front.
>> Jalabert, said that maybe T-Mobile had forgotten that they left Zabel at
>> home
The only thing I could think of was that they thought that they>> could bring back the break early enough for Vino to power away in the
>> final
>> kms like he almost did in the stage where Mengin slid out, but gave up
>> the
>>
>> effort when they saw they were too close to the line for such a move to
>> succeed.
>
> That was a puzzling move.
Here's the cyclingnews play by play (I won't cut and paste. I don't think
Jeff appreciates that, so you'll have to follow the link). Note that at 10
km before the duo broke out, the gap was 15 seconds and DSC was reported as
keeping the pace high. That's when Horner was reported to have caught up to
Chavanel who had jumped at 11 km. At about 6 km the gap was up to 25 seconds
and Liquigas came to the front.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/tour05/?id=live/tour0513
You say that Discovery shouldn't have been in the front at all if they
wanted to help Horner. In fact, as usual, they were riding as a team in
front to maintain a high enough pace to keep Lance out of trouble. That was
their primary goal. When they saw a chance to help Horner, they slowed it
down. Not so much as to drop off the front, but enough to let the gap grow.
This is a common tactic to give a break a better chance of succeeding. It's
a delicate task, riding slow enough to let the guys ahead make up some time,
but not so slow that someone else takes up the chase. And it worked for 4 km
or so, enough to grow the lead up to over 25 seconds or so. Then the
sprinters saw that things were getting out of hand and took over. At that
point, Armstrong stayed up front and out of trouble, with Hincapie to
protect him while the rest of DSC dropped back, pretty standard.
As to tiring the sprinter teams out, other than Lotto who were too cooked to
get to the front, the sprinter teams hadn't done any work all day. They
weren't tired, especially compared to the breakaway. And in fact, Discovery
only came to the front towards the end (15 km to go when the Lotto boys fell
apart) to keep Lance out of trouble, since it was Lotto doing the heavy
lifting pretty much all day. Had DSC not come to the front with 15km to go,
as you suggested would be their tactic if they really wanted to help Horner,
there was no way that that extra 9 kms in front would have tired the
sprinter teams out. And remember, at 15 km, Horner was just one of many in
the break. It wasn't until he was away from the others and had a much better
chance of victory that DCS backed off the gas a bit.
I have no idea what "less than honorable motives" could be behind
Armstgrong's statement. Could you please elaborate?
S
steve
Guest
On 16-Jul-2005, smacked up and reeling, "trg"
<[email protected]> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> As to tiring the sprinter teams out, other than Lotto who were too cooked
> to
> get to the front, the sprinter teams hadn't done any work all day. They
> weren't tired, especially compared to the breakaway.
I think all of the teams are tired from the brutal pace over this first two
weeks. Of course the breakaway is more cooked, but also more motivated.
> Lotto doing the heavy
> lifting pretty much all day. Had DSC not come to the front with 15km to
> go,
> as you suggested would be their tactic if they really wanted to help
> Horner,
> there was no way that that extra 9 kms in front would have tired the
> sprinter teams out.
Tired/not-tired is not an all or nothing proposition. They would certainly
have less energy at the end if they did the chasing rather than DC. The
question, of course, is would they have taken up the chase in a timely
manner, or would the break have had the opportunity to extend while the
teams looked around for someone else to do the work. Races are sometimes
won in a break because no one wants to be the team/person to chase, even
though a chase would be easily successful. That's part of the beauty of
cycling...the spontaneous alliances and ever shifting motivations and
responsibilities.
> And remember, at 15 km, Horner was just one of many in
> the break. It wasn't until he was away from the others and had a much
> better
> chance of victory that DCS backed off the gas a bit.
Yes, but DC had no reason (other than keeping an orderly peloton) to chase
*anyone* in the break. With Horner in the bunch... a very capable pro and
in his element... they could have considered his chance well before it
became a one man and then a two man race.
> I have no idea what "less than honorable motives" could be behind
> Armstgrong's statement. Could you please elaborate?
Well, I wont go so far as to say he cant abide another American in the
spotlight, but I think he gives less consideration to others than someone in
his position might or even should. He's made his statement in the TdF many
times and quite obviously has nothing to prove. He can afford to be
magnanimous, but generally isnt, IMO. Of course, the press must anger
someone like Lance when he doesnt contest a sprint and the press speculates
that he, in fact, didnt do the honorable thing and was simply beaten..or
whatever controversy they like to dream up...but a bigger man (i.e. smaller
ego) wouldnt respond/react to such nonesense. Lance takes that **** to
heart like a spoiled child.
On top of that Ive always felt that Lance is one of those people who isnt
terribly comfortable in his own skin. I recall after winning the Tour
Dupont the first time (after a second place...or was it two consecutive
seconds) he was asked what was the difference this time. His answer was
something like "I just got tired of coming in second." Uh huh. How about
an honest assessment...Im stronger than I was...the course suited me
better...I made fewer tactical errors...the competition didnt show on a
crucial stage...my team support was better...something instead of just
meaningless tough talk.
So when something like this (or the Floyd Landis story I told earlier in the
thread) happens, I question Lance's motives and judgement. He may not
consciously say "Im going to spoil the other guys chance" but his actions
may betray exactly that desire lurking beneath the surface.
steve
__
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill
<[email protected]> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> As to tiring the sprinter teams out, other than Lotto who were too cooked
> to
> get to the front, the sprinter teams hadn't done any work all day. They
> weren't tired, especially compared to the breakaway.
I think all of the teams are tired from the brutal pace over this first two
weeks. Of course the breakaway is more cooked, but also more motivated.
> Lotto doing the heavy
> lifting pretty much all day. Had DSC not come to the front with 15km to
> go,
> as you suggested would be their tactic if they really wanted to help
> Horner,
> there was no way that that extra 9 kms in front would have tired the
> sprinter teams out.
Tired/not-tired is not an all or nothing proposition. They would certainly
have less energy at the end if they did the chasing rather than DC. The
question, of course, is would they have taken up the chase in a timely
manner, or would the break have had the opportunity to extend while the
teams looked around for someone else to do the work. Races are sometimes
won in a break because no one wants to be the team/person to chase, even
though a chase would be easily successful. That's part of the beauty of
cycling...the spontaneous alliances and ever shifting motivations and
responsibilities.
> And remember, at 15 km, Horner was just one of many in
> the break. It wasn't until he was away from the others and had a much
> better
> chance of victory that DCS backed off the gas a bit.
Yes, but DC had no reason (other than keeping an orderly peloton) to chase
*anyone* in the break. With Horner in the bunch... a very capable pro and
in his element... they could have considered his chance well before it
became a one man and then a two man race.
> I have no idea what "less than honorable motives" could be behind
> Armstgrong's statement. Could you please elaborate?
Well, I wont go so far as to say he cant abide another American in the
spotlight, but I think he gives less consideration to others than someone in
his position might or even should. He's made his statement in the TdF many
times and quite obviously has nothing to prove. He can afford to be
magnanimous, but generally isnt, IMO. Of course, the press must anger
someone like Lance when he doesnt contest a sprint and the press speculates
that he, in fact, didnt do the honorable thing and was simply beaten..or
whatever controversy they like to dream up...but a bigger man (i.e. smaller
ego) wouldnt respond/react to such nonesense. Lance takes that **** to
heart like a spoiled child.
On top of that Ive always felt that Lance is one of those people who isnt
terribly comfortable in his own skin. I recall after winning the Tour
Dupont the first time (after a second place...or was it two consecutive
seconds) he was asked what was the difference this time. His answer was
something like "I just got tired of coming in second." Uh huh. How about
an honest assessment...Im stronger than I was...the course suited me
better...I made fewer tactical errors...the competition didnt show on a
crucial stage...my team support was better...something instead of just
meaningless tough talk.
So when something like this (or the Floyd Landis story I told earlier in the
thread) happens, I question Lance's motives and judgement. He may not
consciously say "Im going to spoil the other guys chance" but his actions
may betray exactly that desire lurking beneath the surface.
steve
__
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill
Similar threads
