TTT in the 1989 tour

[Benjamin Werner]

Just by curiosity, I checked the TTT result of 89. Fignon's team (Super U) won it, and Lemond's team
was 53'' back, to be compared with the 43'' USPS got over Ullrich's Bianchi.

It is another similarity between 89 and 03 that Lemond and Ullrich, as come-back kids are in a
weaker team. Of course, this does not say anything magical about the final ITT.

Cheers,

Benjamin

[Keith]

On 22 Jul 2003 11:28:04 +0200, Benjamin Werner <werner@estephe.inria.fr> wrote:

>
>Just by curiosity, I checked the TTT result of 89. Fignon's team (Super U) won it, and Lemond's
>team was 53'' back, to be compared with the 43'' USPS got over Ullrich's Bianchi.

The similarities don't end there:

1. Lemond wins the first ITT (stage 5/73km) - +56" over Fignon (2003 - Gaillac)
2. Fignon beats Lemond in Superbagneres +12" for Fignon
3. Lemond beats Fignon in ITT #2 + 47" over Fignon (2003 - Gaillac)
4. Lemond beats Fignon in Briancon - +13" over Fignon
5. Fignon beats Lemond at Alpe d'Huez - +1'19" for Fignon (2003 - Luz Ardiden)
6. Fignon beats Lemond at Villard - +24"
7. Paris ITT.

>
>It is another similarity between 89 and 03 that Lemond and Ullrich, as come-back kids are in a
>weaker team. Of course, this does not say anything magical about the final ITT.

>
>Cheers,
>
>
>
>Benjamin

[David Ryan]

Benjamin Werner wrote:
>
> Just by curiosity, I checked the TTT result of 89. Fignon's team (Super U) won it, and Lemond's
> team was 53'' back, to be compared with the 43'' USPS got over Ullrich's Bianchi.
>
> It is another similarity between 89 and 03 that Lemond and Ullrich, as come-back kids are in a
> weaker team. Of course, this does not say anything magical about the final ITT.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Benjamin

Except that Ullrich can't pull out any fancy aero equipment to gain a decisive advantage.

[Keith]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:30:07 GMT, David Ryan <bikerpackman@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Benjamin Werner wrote:
>>
>> Just by curiosity, I checked the TTT result of 89. Fignon's team (Super U) won it, and Lemond's
>> team was 53'' back, to be compared with the 43'' USPS got over Ullrich's Bianchi.
>>
>> It is another similarity between 89 and 03 that Lemond and Ullrich, as come-back kids are in a
>> weaker team. Of course, this does not say anything magical about the final ITT.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Benjamin
>
>Except that Ullrich can't pull out any fancy aero equipment to gain a decisive advantage.

Not that made any difference three days ago.

[rhopkins]

True, but Armstrong had a substandard performance during the last part of the race, brought on
partially (if not completely) by not properly preparing during the warm up (e.g., warm up in a cool
room like Ullrich) and becoming severely dehydrated (though I doubt the reports of how much in the
way of fluids he lost. Had he taken on more fluids the time gaps may (and most likely) would have
been much smaller. If it is not particularly hot during the last ITT, then Ullrich cannot count on
Armstrong suffering in the heat again.

If both men enter the ITT in reasonably good form and both perform relatively well, I suspect that
the ITT is a toss up; but even if you assumed that Ullrich's chances are 70:30 (which I think past
history, which is all we have, would show this is very generous for Ullrich) and if you parse out
the 67 seconds in 10 seconds increments and ask yourself what are the chances that Ullrich will win
by 10 seconds or less, 20 seconds or less, etc. and you build a probabilty curve, you will find that
there is probably less than a 20% chance he could actually win by 67seconds or more (assuming LA
rides well - which we will not know until that day). Given that in this particular example we have
assumed he would win 70% of the time, that means he probability of beating LA by 67 seconds is a
paultry 14%. In other words, the probability is that 86% of the time LA will either win or will
retain enough of a lead to win the TDF. Ullrich's chances drop considerable if you assume parity in
the abilities (at parity Ullrich's probabilty of winning the TDF drop to 10%); however assuming that
Ullrich would win every time out of the gate, only improves his chances by 20% in this example. For
Ullrich to have a substantial probability (keep in mind this is simply attempting to provide a
probability assessment as to the final outcome - remarkable things can and do happen, but the
probability that they do is uncommon, that is why many of us become embroiled in the drama) of
winning you have to assume that he would beat LA 100% of the time and that 50% of the time (assuming
both men ride well) he could take 67 seconds out of Armstrong. History does not support those
generous assumptions.

If either man rides poorly than the other will likely win the Tour. I stand by my prediction:
Armstrong has to have an average to poor day in the saddle to loose, if he is on, Ullrich may simply
close the gap.

Which may be more tragic then loosing the last ITT.

Rick

[Nick Burns]

<rhopkins@loainc.com> wrote in message news:ENeTa.165$2i4.118@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> True, but Armstrong had a substandard performance during the last part of the race, brought on
> partially (if not completely) by not properly
preparing
> during the warm up (e.g., warm up in a cool room like Ullrich) and
becoming
> severely dehydrated (though I doubt the reports of how much in the way of fluids he lost. Had he
> taken on more fluids the time gaps may (and most likely) would have been much smaller. If it is
> not particularly hot
during
> the last ITT, then Ullrich cannot count on Armstrong suffering in the heat again.
>
> If both men enter the ITT in reasonably good form and both perform relatively well, I suspect that
> the ITT is a toss up; but even if you assumed that Ullrich's chances are 70:30 (which I think past
> history,
which
> is all we have, would show this is very generous for Ullrich) and

if you
> parse out the 67 seconds in 10 seconds increments and ask yourself what
are
> the chances that Ullrich will win by 10 seconds or less, 20 seconds or
less,
> etc. and you build a probabilty curve, you will find that there is
probably
> less than a 20% chance he could actually win by 67seconds or more
(assuming
> LA rides well - which we will not know until that day).

Exactly right. We will see that Ullrich lost on the slopes of Luz Ardiden. LA will ride wil more
confidence having the 67 seconds in hand. The stress of having Ullrich only 15 seconds behind may
have contributed to a bad TT. lacne needed that win for so many reasons. I was expecting that kind
of performance on the 8th stage. It is not normal for Lance to wait that long. It sure made for a
graet Tour though.

Given that in this
> particular example we have assumed he would win 70% of the time, that
means
> he probability of beating LA by 67 seconds is a paultry 14%. In other words, the probability is
> that 86% of the time LA will either win or will retain enough of a lead to win the TDF. Ullrich's
> chances drop
considerable
> if you assume parity in the abilities (at parity Ullrich's probabilty of winning the TDF drop to
> 10%); however assuming that Ullrich would win
every
> time out of the gate, only improves his chances by 20% in this example.
For
> Ullrich to have a substantial probability (keep in mind this is simply attempting to provide a
> probability assessment as to the final outcome - remarkable things can and do happen, but the
> probability that they do is uncommon, that is why many of us become embroiled in the drama) of
> winning you have to assume that he would beat LA 100% of the time and that 50% of the time
> (assuming both men ride well) he could take 67 seconds out of Armstrong. History does not support
> those generous assumptions.
>
> If either man rides poorly than the other will likely win the Tour. I
stand
> by my prediction: Armstrong has to have an average to poor day in the
saddle
> to loose, if he is on, Ullrich may simply close the gap.
>
> Which may be more tragic then loosing the last ITT.
>
> Rick

[Stewart Fleming]

Does Ullrich need 67 seconds or 68? The tie-break rules are complex, remember. Let's say he takes
back 67 seconds. Who wins the Tour?

[Willowbeauty]

Lance at the moment, it goes down to 1000ths of a second based on ITT only, not the TTT buit of
course there is one TT left so it could change

"Stewart Fleming" <drmofe@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3F1DA4AB.40101@yahoo.com...
> Does Ullrich need 67 seconds or 68? The tie-break rules are complex, remember. Let's say he takes
> back 67 seconds. Who wins the Tour?