Luz Ardiden remarks

Ilan Vardi

I had a few observations about that stage that I did not find in today's L'Equipe:

1. Sylvain Chavanel gained one minute on the Armstrong group in the descent of the Tourmalet. This
was the same amount that Moreau got back on the descent, but Vinkourov made up about 20 seconds
more. However, since Chavanel had zero help on the descent, plus was in a breakaway for many
hours, this means that he is up there among the best descenders.

2. Armstrong lost about 25 seconds in his crash. This crash might give the UCI some second thoughts
about the special helmet dispensation for mountain top finishes. Recall that helmets are rated
for falls at rest.

3. Armstrong's 2001 gesture waiting for Ullrich proved to be a good investment. I don't think this
is purely calculated. Good sportsmanship leads to fairer competition. On the other hand, I found
Armstrong's gesture towards Chavanel fairly artificial. He did it because of the bad press he got
with Jalabert in 2001.

4. It seems to me that Ullrich ended up being the loser in the crash. From his previous performances
on climbs this year, it appears that he can make one big acceleration per climb, e.g., the fact
that he did not make a second attack on the Tourmalet. Before the crash, Ullrich had accelerated
and was going at full speed, and it seems to me that it would have been very hard for Armstrong
to attack him from that point on.

5. Did Ullrich make a mistake on the top part of the Tourmalet? Zubeldia was able to make up a 30
second gap on the second part of the climb (after La Mongie), and he is not as good a climber as
Ullrich, as was proved in all the other stages. Therefore, one can imagine that Ullrich could
have gone harder on that part, at least attacked Armstrong again. However, see point 3, that is,
the explanation that Ullrich had already done his big effort on the climb, and that Zubeldia also
made a similar effort.

6. From the times given on French TV (which are not always accurate), it seems that Ullrich got back
13 seconds on Armstrong in the last few kilometers. In fact, it seems that the gap was constant
at about 17 seconds right after Armstrong's attack, then quickly went up to about 53 seconds as
Ullrich had a psychological crisis trying to figure out what to do, that is, he kept looking back
for help. Then finally came down fairly significantly once Ullrich took charge again.

7. If Ullrich wins back some time in the final ITT, but not enough to win, Armstrong's final winning
margin might exactly be his team time trial advantage over Bianchi.

-ilan

Daniel Connelly

Ilan Vardi wrote:
> 4. It seems to me that Ullrich ended up being the loser in the crash. From his previous
> performances on climbs this year, it appears that he can make one big acceleration per climb,
> e.g., the fact that he did not make a second attack on the Tourmalet. Before the crash, Ullrich
> had accelerated and was going at full speed, and it seems to me that it would have been very
> hard for Armstrong to attack him from that point on.

Had Ullrich already reaccelerated when Mayo attacked, or did Mayo essentially follow through on his
bridging speed, catching the waiting riders off guard?

If the latter, that was really poor form. I will cut Mayo some slack for what he did at the
finish, but if he took advantage of the other riders maintaining a sub-sustainable speed, that's
clearly wrong.

And if Mayo did, certainly Armstrong should have at least paused to give the others a chance to
get going.

Or was there an interval there?

> 5. Did Ullrich make a mistake on the top part of the Tourmalet? Zubeldia was able to make up a 30
> second gap on the second part of the climb (after La Mongie), and he is not as good a climber
> as Ullrich, as was proved in all the other stages. Therefore, one can imagine that Ullrich
> could have gone harder on that part, at least attacked Armstrong again. However, see point 3,
> that is, the explanation that Ullrich had already done his big effort on the climb, and that
> Zubeldia also made a similar effort.

Ferrari reports Tuormalet was climbed at 1700 m/hr, while Luz Ardeden was climbed at 1745 m/hr
(IIRC). See cyclingnews diaries for accurate numbers.

>
> 6. From the times given on French TV (which are not always accurate), it seems that Ullrich got
> back 13 seconds on Armstrong in the last few kilometers. In fact, it seems that the gap was
> constant at about 17 seconds right after Armstrong's attack, then quickly went up to about 53
> seconds as Ullrich had a psychological crisis trying to figure out what to do, that is, he kept
> looking back for help. Then finally came down fairly significantly once Ullrich took charge
> again.

This makes sense -- Ullrich would have recovered a bit during his "crisis".

> 7. If Ullrich wins back some time in the final ITT, but not enough to win, Armstrong's final
> winning margin might exactly be his team time trial advantage over Bianchi.

That would be interesting.

Kbh

> 4. It seems to me that Ullrich ended up being the loser in the crash. From his previous
> performances on climbs this year, it appears that he can make one big acceleration per climb,
> e.g., the fact that he did not make a second attack on the Tourmalet. Before the crash, Ullrich
> had accelerated and was going at full speed, and it seems to me that it would have been very
> hard for Armstrong to attack him from that
point
> on.

Those who mention that Ullrich's momentum must have been interrupted by having to slow down for
Armstrong fail to mention that Armstrong's momentum must have been hampered a bit when he hit
the pavement.

Carl Sundquist

"Daniel Connelly" <djconnel@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:xRcTa.6069$E11.3618@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>
> >
> > 6. From the times given on French TV (which are not always accurate), it
seems
> > that Ullrich got back 13 seconds on Armstrong in the last few
kilometers.
> > In fact, it seems that the gap was constant at about 17 seconds right after Armstrong's
> > attack, then quickly went up to about 53 seconds as Ullrich had a psychological crisis trying
> > to figure out what to do, that is, he kept looking back for help. Then finally came down
> > fairly significantly once Ullrich took charge again.
>
> This makes sense -- Ullrich would have recovered a bit during his "crisis".
>

I find this confusing, however I didn't see the video either. Did Ullrich &
co. stop to wait for Lance and Mayo, or just slow down and barely keep moving forward? From most
descriptions, it seems like they stopped. If they did stop, personal experience tells me that
lactic acid would pool in their legs while they were standing there, making it harder to get
going again back to the preceding pace.

Also who amongst them received pushes from the crowd to get going again?

Warren

In article <6c8faec2.0307220728.aa399f1@posting.google.com>, Ilan Vardi
<ilan@tonyaharding.org> wrote:

> On the other hand, I found Armstrong's gesture towards Chavanel fairly artificial. He did it
> because of the bad press he got with Jalabert in 2001.

It looked to me like Chavanel was saying something to Lance as he approached. It seemed appropriate
to respond in some way. Since Lance was racing at a very high intensity at the time a verbal
response may not have been easily done nor heard over the ambient noise.

> 4. It seems to me that Ullrich ended up being the loser in the crash. From his previous
> performances on climbs this year, it appears that he can make one big acceleration per climb,
> e.g., the fact that he did not make a second attack on the Tourmalet.

Ullrich was just testing the waters. He realized there was no point in trying again because
Armstrong showed he was not as bad as in previous days.

> Before the crash, Ullrich had accelerated and was going at full speed, and it seems to me that
> it would have been very hard for Armstrong to attack him from that point on.

Ullrich said he welcomed the chance to catch his breath after chasing down Armstrong. Ullrich
doesn't ride at full speed the whole way up the climb and he could well have been slowing down right
before the crash because he had just caught back on to Mayo.

> 6. From the times given on French TV (which are not always accurate), it seems that Ullrich got
> back 13 seconds on Armstrong in the last few kilometers. In fact, it seems that the gap was
> constant at about 17 seconds right after Armstrong's attack, then quickly went up to about 53
> seconds as Ullrich had a psychological crisis trying to figure out what to do, that is, he kept
> looking back for help. Then finally came down fairly significantly once Ullrich took charge
> again.

He's done this same thing before in response to one of Lance's attacks on a finishing climb.

> 7. If Ullrich wins back some time in the final ITT, but not enough to win, Armstrong's final
> winning margin might exactly be his team time trial advantage over Bianchi.

Then credit to USPS for acknowledging the importance of having a good team to support their GC
contender. Other companies are not prevented from following the same approach for selecting
their riders.

-WG

David Ryan

Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> "Daniel Connelly" <djconnel@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:xRcTa.6069$E11.3618@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > >
> > > 6. From the times given on French TV (which are not always accurate), it
> seems
> > > that Ullrich got back 13 seconds on Armstrong in the last few
> kilometers.
> > > In fact, it seems that the gap was constant at about 17 seconds right after Armstrong's
> > > attack, then quickly went up to about 53 seconds as Ullrich had a psychological crisis
> > > trying to figure out what to do, that is, he kept looking back for help. Then finally came
> > > down fairly significantly once Ullrich took charge again.
> >
> > This makes sense -- Ullrich would have recovered a bit during his "crisis".
> >
>
> I find this confusing, however I didn't see the video either. Did Ullrich &
> co. stop to wait for Lance and Mayo, or just slow down and barely keep moving forward? From most
> descriptions, it seems like they stopped. If they did stop, personal experience tells me that
> lactic acid would pool in their legs while they were standing there, making it harder to get
> going again back to the preceding pace.
>
> Also who amongst them received pushes from the crowd to get going again?

They did not "stop".

Anonymous

Ilan Vardi wrote:

> I had a few observations about that stage that I did not find in today's L'Equipe:
>
> 1. Sylvain Chavanel gained one minute on the Armstrong group in the descent of the Tourmalet. This
> was the same amount that Moreau got back on the descent, but Vinkourov made up about 20 seconds
> more. However, since Chavanel had zero help on the descent, plus was in a breakaway for many
> hours, this means that he is up there among the best descenders.

Also I'm not sure that the Armstrong/Ullrich group descended at their best speed and at the bottom
they slowed down to give their helmets to the team cars while most of the chase group still had
their helmets on when they caught the Armstrong/Ullrich group on the base of the last climb (eg
Plaza leading out the initial part of the climb). Vinokourov didn't look to good on the early part
of the descent as Bottero had to keep slowing down for him.

> 2. Armstrong lost about 25 seconds in his crash. This crash might give the UCI some second
> thoughts about the special helmet dispensation for mountain top finishes. Recall that helmets
> are rated for falls at rest.

I'm surprised the fact that neither Armstrong or Mayo had their helmets on when they fell has not
become the source of another helmet thread.

Nick Burns

"Ilan Vardi" <ilan@tonyaharding.org> wrote in message
news:6c8faec2.0307220728.aa399f1@posting.google.com...
> I had a few observations about that stage that I did not find in today's L'Equipe:

<snip>

>
> 3. Armstrong's 2001 gesture waiting for Ullrich proved to be a good investment. I don't think this
> is purely calculated. Good sportsmanship leads to fairer competition. On the other hand, I
> found Armstrong's gesture towards Chavanel fairly artificial. He did it because of the bad
> press he got with Jalabert in 2001.

Probably so.

> 4. It seems to me that Ullrich ended up being the loser in the crash. From his previous
> performances on climbs this year, it appears that he can make one big acceleration per climb,
> e.g., the fact that he did not make a second attack on the Tourmalet. Before the crash, Ullrich
> had accelerated and was going at full speed, and it seems to me that it would have been very
> hard for Armstrong to attack him from that
point
> on.

I agree 100%. He just takes loinger to get up to speed. It is not like he literally can only get up
to speed once (only one acceleration as you say) but he takes a lot longer to find his top speed.
This is masked in TTs. I noticed that once Lance passed him after the crash that he did not even
stand. He simply did his usual wind up that takes a few minutes and that was enough time for Lacen
to get about a minute gap. The gap closed slightly by the end of the stage. The public perceives
that the crash hurt Lance, but the adrenaline combined with having competitors wait was no doubt the
combinaiton of events that handed Lance the stage and the time gained.

>
> 5. Did Ullrich make a mistake on the top part of the Tourmalet? Zubeldia was able to make up a 30
> second gap on the second part of the climb (after La Mongie), and he is not as good a climber
> as Ullrich, as was proved in all the other stages. Therefore, one can imagine that Ullrich
> could have gone harder on that part, at least attacked Armstrong again. However, see point 3,
> that is, the explanation that Ullrich had already done his big effort on the climb, and that
> Zubeldia also made a similar effort.
>
> 6. From the times given on French TV (which are not always accurate), it
seems
> that Ullrich got back 13 seconds on Armstrong in the last few
kilometers.
> In fact, it seems that the gap was constant at about 17 seconds right after Armstrong's attack,
> then quickly went up to about 53 seconds as Ullrich had a psychological crisis trying to figure
> out what to do, that is, he kept looking back for help. Then finally came down fairly
> significantly once Ullrich took charge again.

Exactly. The biggest loser from the crash was Ullrich.

> 7. If Ullrich wins back some time in the final ITT, but not enough to win, Armstrong's final
> winning margin might exactly be his team time trial advantage over Bianchi.
>
> -ilan

Kurgan Gringion

"Ilan Vardi" <ilan@tonyaharding.org> wrote in message
news:6c8faec2.0307220728.aa399f1@posting.google.com...
>
> 2. Armstrong lost about 25 seconds in his crash. This crash might give the UCI some second
> thoughts about the special helmet dispensation for mountain top finishes. Recall that helmets
> are rated for falls at rest.

Can you recall an injury in an uphill crash on a big mountain climb that could have been prevented
by use of a helmet?

I can't.

I've put this query to several other people (anti helmet) and they can't come up with an
answer either.

Nick Burns

"KBH" <kbh9@hollasch.com> wrote in message news:9mdTa.120401$H17.37177@sccrnsc02...
>
> > 4. It seems to me that Ullrich ended up being the loser in the crash. From his previous
> > performances on climbs this year, it appears that
he
> > can make one big acceleration per climb, e.g., the fact that he did not make a second attack
> > on the Tourmalet. Before the crash, Ullrich had accelerated and was going at full speed, and
> > it seems to me that it would have been very hard for Armstrong to attack him from that
> point
> > on.
>
> Those who mention that Ullrich's momentum must have been interrupted by having to slow down for
> Armstrong fail to mention that Armstrong's
momentum
> must have been hampered a bit when he hit the pavement.

Not true. It is obvious. The point though, is that people waited for Lance. Lance did not wait for
the others to get back up to speed. Actually. that is about the lowest scumbag move I can think of
to attack from a small group that just got through waiting for you. Also, sometimes falling down
like that causes a very powerful adrenal response. This is not to say he cheated or that the fall
alone was an advantage. The scare from falling is what does
it. So, taken all together; the adrenal response from the fall and the disruption to competition
adds up to a net advantage.

Robert Chung

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:vhqo67bhi98i18@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Daniel Connelly" <djconnel@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:xRcTa.6069$E11.3618@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > >
> > > 6. From the times given on French TV (which are not always accurate),
it
> seems
> > > that Ullrich got back 13 seconds on Armstrong in the last few
> kilometers.
> > > In fact, it seems that the gap was constant at about 17 seconds
right
> > > after Armstrong's attack, then quickly went up to about 53 seconds
as
> > > Ullrich had a psychological crisis trying to figure out what to do, that is, he kept
> > > looking back for help. Then finally came down
fairly
> > > significantly once Ullrich took charge again.
> >
> > This makes sense -- Ullrich would have recovered a bit during his "crisis".
> >
>
> I find this confusing, however I didn't see the video either. Did Ullrich
&
> co. stop to wait for Lance and Mayo, or just slow down and barely keep moving forward? From most
> descriptions, it seems like they stopped. If
they
> did stop, personal experience tells me that lactic acid would pool in
their
> legs while they were standing there, making it harder to get going again back to the
> preceding pace.
>
> Also who amongst them received pushes from the crowd to get going again?

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bobmaher-F85460.16095721072003%40news.it.northwestern.edu

Nick Burns

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:vhqo67bhi98i18@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Daniel Connelly" <djconnel@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:xRcTa.6069$E11.3618@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > >
> > > 6. From the times given on French TV (which are not always accurate),
it
> seems
> > > that Ullrich got back 13 seconds on Armstrong in the last few
> kilometers.
> > > In fact, it seems that the gap was constant at about 17 seconds
right
> > > after Armstrong's attack, then quickly went up to about 53 seconds
as
> > > Ullrich had a psychological crisis trying to figure out what to do, that is, he kept
> > > looking back for help. Then finally came down
fairly
> > > significantly once Ullrich took charge again.
> >
> > This makes sense -- Ullrich would have recovered a bit during his "crisis".
> >
>
> I find this confusing, however I didn't see the video either. Did Ullrich
&
> co. stop to wait for Lance and Mayo, or just slow down and barely keep moving forward? From most
> descriptions, it seems like they stopped.

They did not stop, but IMO they slowed enough to cause problems similar to what you descibe when
stopping. I personally have a hard time doing an all out effort and then slowing like that. It
takes me several minutes to get back up to speed. If the circumstanes are the same for everyone
then it does obviously not cause gaps. For Ullrich it was as if his pace was affected by an
additional descent.
>
>If they did stop, personal experience tells me that lactic acid would pool in
their
> legs while they were standing there, making it harder to get going again back to the
> preceding pace.
>
> Also who amongst them received pushes from the crowd to get going again?

Lance did and possible Mayo too. None of the others did because they were going about 10 or 12 KPH.

Steve Blankensh

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:vhqo67bhi98i18@corp.supernews.com...

> I find this confusing, however I didn't see the video either. Did Ullrich
&
> co. stop to wait for Lance and Mayo, or just slow down and barely keep moving forward? From most
> descriptions, it seems like they stopped. If
they
> did stop, personal experience tells me that lactic acid would pool in
their
> legs while they were standing there, making it harder to get going again back to the
> preceding pace.
>
> Also who amongst them received pushes from the crowd to get going again?
>

No stoppage; at first Ulrich kept it ticking over pretty good, while looking back regularly to see
if LA & Mayo were getting up quickly. He did ease up when the two fallers didn't come back as soon
as expected (prob. due to LA's 2nd near-fall). At that point, Zubeldia started to come through and
lift the tempo, and that's when Hamilton went to the front and started gesticulating for the group
to wait. The only ones who stopped and got pushes were Armstrong and Mayo. Once they reintegrated a
few seconds later, it settled down for a brief bit and then Mayo went again, with Armstrong
following and then countering to win.

Basically, it was just an instant replay of the previous attack/counter by Mayo & Armstrong that had
been interrupted by the fall. Ulrich had been gapped a bit the first time but was closing it down;
the fact that he hadn't yet is why he had room to avoid the crash. The second time around, he didn't
respond and almost immediately started looking around behind him. While the fall interlude made it
more dramatic, it was the standard routine of climbers jumping hard repeatedly while the rest keep
it more steady and try to pull them back. They had about 10km of climbing to go still, so everyone
had plenty of time to settle in and do whatever they could.

Kurgan Gringion

Zeno

Nick Burns wrote:
> "KBH" <kbh9@hollasch.com> wrote in message news:9mdTa.120401$H17.37177@sccrnsc02...
>
>>>4. It seems to me that Ullrich ended up being the loser in the crash. From his previous
>>> performances on climbs this year, it appears that
>>
> he
>
>>> can make one big acceleration per climb, e.g., the fact that he did not make a second attack
>>> on the Tourmalet. Before the crash, Ullrich had accelerated and was going at full speed, and
>>> it seems to me that it would have been very hard for Armstrong to attack him from that
>>
>>point
>>
>>> on.
>>
>>Those who mention that Ullrich's momentum must have been interrupted by having to slow down for
>>Armstrong fail to mention that Armstrong's
>
> momentum
>
>>must have been hampered a bit when he hit the pavement.
>
>
> Not true. It is obvious. The point though, is that people waited for Lance. Lance did not wait for
> the others to get back up to speed. Actually. that is about the lowest scumbag move I can think of
> to attack from a small group that just got through waiting for you.

I have watched this segment at least four times (Thank you Tivo) and Lance did not blow by the group
when he caught up. After rejoining he sat on for at least a minute and the group was riding at the
same cadence. There was no sign of disorganization.

Chechu was making a steady pace at the front when Mayo jumped and Armstrong went after him and then
dropped him. Armstrong did not initiate the move -- Mayo did.

Check your facts before calling somebody a "scumbag," scumbag.

zeno

Tom Schulenburg

Precious Pup

Ilan Vardi wrote:
>

> .... I found Armstrong's gesture towards Chavanel fairly artificial.

I find your claim to have the slightest clue fairly artificial. Are you still at Psychic Network?
What did you want LA to do -- stop and give Chavanel a blow job?

Tom Schulenburg

"Nick Burns" <chris@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GeeTa.93$%v5.87@news.randori.com...
>
> Not true. It is obvious. The point though, is that people waited for
Lance.
> Lance did not wait for the others to get back up to speed.

Yes he did

Actually. that is
> about the lowest scumbag move I can think of to attack from a small group that just got through
> waiting for you. Also, sometimes falling down like that causes a very powerful adrenal response.
> This is not to say he
cheated
> or that the fall alone was an advantage.

Lance did not attack first, he countered. If you didn't see it on TV, go to WWW.Letour.com and check
out the daily clips. Mayo attacked and Lance held his wheel before attacking

> The scare from falling is what does
> it. So, taken all together; the adrenal response from the fall and the disruption to competition
> adds up to a net advantage.
>

Then I guess we're going to see more riders use this tactic? Yeah right.

-T

Precious Pup

Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> "Daniel Connelly" <djconnel@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:xRcTa.6069$E11.3618@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > >
> > > 6. From the times given on French TV (which are not always accurate), it
> seems
> > > that Ullrich got back 13 seconds on Armstrong in the last few
> kilometers.
> > > In fact, it seems that the gap was constant at about 17 seconds right after Armstrong's
> > > attack, then quickly went up to about 53 seconds as Ullrich had a psychological crisis
> > > trying to figure out what to do, that is, he kept looking back for help. Then finally came
> > > down fairly significantly once Ullrich took charge again.
> >
> > This makes sense -- Ullrich would have recovered a bit during his "crisis".
> >
>
> I find this confusing, however I didn't see the video either. Did Ullrich &
> co. stop to wait for Lance and Mayo, or just slow down and barely keep moving forward? From most
> descriptions, it seems like they stopped. If they did stop, personal experience tells me that
> lactic acid would pool in their legs while they were standing there, making it harder to get
> going again back to the preceding pace.

For my take they soft-pedaled.

> Also who amongst them received pushes from the crowd to get going again?

Lance got a push for sure.

Nick Burns

"zeno" <zeno303@cyberonic.com> wrote in message news:3F1D7711.5030204@cyberonic.com...
>
>
> Nick Burns wrote:
> > "KBH" <kbh9@hollasch.com> wrote in message news:9mdTa.120401$H17.37177@sccrnsc02...
> >
> >>>4. It seems to me that Ullrich ended up being the loser in the crash. From his previous
> >>> performances on climbs this year, it appears that
> >>
> > he
> >
> >>> can make one big acceleration per climb, e.g., the fact that he did not make a second attack
> >>> on the Tourmalet. Before the crash, Ullrich had accelerated and was going at full speed, and
> >>> it seems to me that it would have been very hard for Armstrong to attack him from that
> >>
> >>point
> >>
> >>> on.
> >>
> >>Those who mention that Ullrich's momentum must have been interrupted by having to slow down for
> >>Armstrong fail to mention that Armstrong's
> >
> > momentum
> >
> >>must have been hampered a bit when he hit the pavement.
> >
> >
> > Not true. It is obvious. The point though, is that people waited for
Lance.
> > Lance did not wait for the others to get back up to speed. Actually.
that is
> > about the lowest scumbag move I can think of to attack from a small
group
> > that just got through waiting for you.
>
> I have watched this segment at least four times (Thank you Tivo) and Lance did not blow by the
> group when he caught up. After rejoining he sat on for at least a minute and the group was riding
> at the same cadence. There was no sign of disorganization.
>
> Chechu was making a steady pace at the front when Mayo jumped and Armstrong went after him and
> then dropped him. Armstrong did not initiate the move -- Mayo did.
>
> Check your facts before calling somebody a "scumbag," scumbag.
>
> zeno