Armstrong miscalculation?

[Andy Coggan]

"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > The L'Equipe reporter had also interviewed Armstrong:
> >
> > Q: We had the feeling that at the end, you were one of the strongest but also one of the most
> > marked. Could you have done anything?
> >
> > A: Lots of guys were marked. The endgame was very tactical. Everyone was watching for the
> > favorites to jump. It's the nature of the game even if,
in
> > the final analysis, it was negative racing. And when Vinokourov had 200 meters, I knew that it
> > was over especially since Kessler was there.
Telekom
> > is very strong on paper, but it also proved itself on the ground. In the end, I didn't even try
> > to sprint. It doesn't really interest me to
finish
> > second again at this race.
>
> Yeah nevermind finishing 2nd and picking up a few extra bucks for your
teammates. 8th is so much
> better

Roy Stetina was once widely quoted as saying "2nd is no better than 5th" - maybe Armstrong picked up
the general idea from him.

Andy Coggan

 

[Jonathan V.D. S]

Tom Kunich <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[email protected]...
> "Oscar Mannheim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:cY%[email protected]...
> >
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:JJ%[email protected]...
> >
> > > I'm convinced you're correct. In the heat of a moment like that
> you
> > > don't have cagey thoughts, just nice simple one's like, "that
> asshole
> > > isn't going to do me a third time."
> >
> > Come on, give Armstrong a little credit. He just chased the
> strongest
> > riders, he followed every move from Boogerd and Kessler. It's just
> that
> > simple.
>
> That's true and he wasn't about to tow them up to Vinokourov. Lance said that when he saw
> Vinokourov go he knew that there was the win dancing away. Why should he tow two strong guys up
> there just to be put down? That was the smart move for him.

Armstrong lost four seconds to Boogerd in the last half km. If he just did not want to tow the
others, he would have just stayed in Boogerd's wheel, but he was not able to do that. Looks pretty
clear to me that the Cauberg was a bridge too far for Armstrong. His claim that he was in good
enough shape to win just seems silly. It was clear, however, that his chances were very slim when he
refused to do any work at all in the lead group. Whenever he came in front, he started looking at
others, drinking from his bottle, etc. That sort of behaviour doesn't make anyone popular, and I
expected a better sprinter like Rebellin or Di Luca to catch him if he escaped and still outsprint
him, just out of anger because of Armstrong being such an ass.

 

[Oscar Mannheim]

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet news:[email protected]...
> Oscar Mannheim <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
> > > Did you see Boogerd trying to win? If he had been he would have followed Vinokourov.
>
> > Boogerd did go after Vinokourov (didn't you see the race?). The problem
was
> > that Boogerd was alone, Vinokourov benefited from being part of the strongest team for the day,
> > Telekom.
>
> No he didn't see the race (nor did I). Don't forget that on the west side of the pond, there is
> not live coverage of most races (excepting grand tours on OLN cable, which started only a few
> years ago; they'll show an hour of Amstel on Thursday.) But hey, that never stops Koach K.

If that's the truth, then it probably means that Kunich followed the race on cyclingnews live report
which says: "Vinokourov gets a gap, and suddenly Boogerd launches himself from the rear to the front
and goes after Vino. Armstrong once again marks the move and sets off in pursuit. Vinokourov is
holding his gap and hammering downhill." and then I don't understand why Kunich is saying that
Boogerd didn't follow Vinokourov.........

 

[Rik Van Diesel]

"James P Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> See previous post by Robert Chung. I don't think Lance is the kind of guy that would compromise
> his chances for victory. I also don't think he would ride himself into the ground for 260 km just
> to see Boogerd lose. After Lance is no longer a Tour contender (which might not ever happen), I'd
> like to see him dedicate a season chasing classics. I could see him doing well in RvV potentially.
> Lemond did 'em.

James, I think lance is exactly the guy that would compromise his chance at victory in this race if
it could help him in the tour. I believe the race was open to for him to sell if the opportunity was
right ( I don't believe he did this year). I do 100% believe he did 01. I think he knew he was going
to lose to Dekker, but Dekker wasn't a 100% sure, so he told him you win, but when the tour comes
your guys will help us on the front. I think Lance is exactly the kind of guy who would sell his
teammates out for the tour and his chance at glory (actually I think they already know, so it isn't
selling out and if your are on the tour team it means less work in July). I think he is exactly the
guy who doesn't have a 100% confidence in his team this year and races are for sale. I think if he
could have made a deal with one of the teams he would have. I think he is the kind of guy who would
hold a grudge toward Rabobank, and I think he does. I also know that if you are presented with a
situation were Vino wins, or Booger it is no choice. I also think he is the kind of guy who list
palmares page 59th place at Tour of Flanders, and pack finish at Paris-Nice (why because he only
does 10 races a year) and sometime his tactics could be questioned, and he could have just made a
tactical error, or wasn't strong enough. I could be wrong, I hope I am wrong about the race selling,
but I think that this is cycling and I have heard this from too many people for it not to be true.
Everyone on this list whines about drugs, at least I can understand drugs. Win at all cost I can
deal with. What I don't understand and don't care for are the politics of bike racing. The race
fixing, and race selling. That is the **** that bugs me. The hey 3x prize money **** that pros do in
order to win. The let us win this, and we will help you next week (goes with win at all cost I
guess). I know it is the heritage of bike racing, but it is does give bike racing a slimy feeling.

RVD

 

[Rik Van Diesel]

"James P Spooner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> See previous post by Robert Chung. I don't think Lance is the kind of guy that would compromise
> his chances for victory. I also don't think he would ride himself into the ground for 260 km just
> to see Boogerd lose. After Lance is no longer a Tour contender (which might not ever happen), I'd
> like to see him dedicate a season chasing classics. I could see him doing well in RvV potentially.
> Lemond did 'em.
>
> James P. Spooner
>
>

Or ignore what I wrote and read from cyclingnews the booger quote.

Boogerd was angry at himself, but also at Lance Armstrong, who was in the leading group too and
closely marking Boogerd. "I got the impression Lance didn't really want me personally to lose, but
the Rabobank team. I don't know why. Ask him. I don't want any quarrels."

RVD

 

[Robert Chung]

"Rik Van Diesel" <[email protected]> wrote
> I think lance is exactly the guy that would compromise his chance at victory in this race if it
> could help him in the tour. [...] Everyone on this list whines about drugs, at least I can
> understand drugs. Win at all cost I can deal with. What I don't understand and don't care for are
> the politics of bike racing. The race fixing, and race selling. That is the **** that bugs me. The
> hey 3x prize money **** that pros do in order to win. The let us win this, and we will help you
> next week (goes with win at all cost I guess). I know it is the heritage of bike racing, but it is
> does give bike racing a slimy feeling.

Good lord, this is what I like the most. It's n-person game theory in action, with time perdurance
on agreements, temporary coalitions, side payments, reneging on bargains, bluffs, calls,
unenforceable contracts,

more interesting than who was doping. This is what makes bike racing much, much better than sports
where there are only two teams on the field at a time.

 

[Steve Blankensh]

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rik Van Diesel" <[email protected]> wrote
> > I think lance is exactly the guy that would compromise his chance at victory in this race if it
> > could help him in the tour. [...] Everyone on this list whines about drugs, at least I can
> > understand drugs. Win at all cost I can deal with. What I don't understand and don't care for
> > are the politics of bike racing. The race fixing, and race selling. That is the **** that bugs
> > me. The hey 3x prize money **** that pros do in order to win. The let us win this, and we will
> > help you next week (goes with win at all cost I guess). I know it is the heritage of bike
> > racing, but it is does give bike racing a slimy feeling.
>
> Good lord, this is what I like the most. It's n-person game theory in action, with time perdurance
> on agreements, temporary coalitions, side payments, reneging on bargains, bluffs, calls,
> unenforceable contracts,

> more interesting than who was doping. This is what makes bike racing much, much better than sports
> where there are only two teams on the field at a time.

Agreed. Much prefer complex events with rich, nuanced, very human outcomes. Or we could just have
TT's all the time. Zzzzzz......

 

[Tom Schulenburg]

"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Yeah nevermind finishing 2nd and picking up a few extra bucks for your
teammates. 8th is so much
> better
>
> Dave
>

Armstrong picks up more money for his teammates during the month of July than most teams
get all year.

-T

 

[Kyle Legate]

Steve Blankenship wrote:
>
> But that's bike racing. It happens. And it doesn't diminish Vinokourov's win at all; he made the
> perfect move given the circumstances and it paid off. That's why I love one-day races; no matter
> who's the strongest, you just never know.
>
Vinokourov's win was magnificent. He now has confidence that he can win one days as well as stage
races. I hope he capitalizes on this confidence many more times.

 

[Kendall]

I liked Vinokourov's Dekkerish move. He stole the race.

Ken

"Steve Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Boyd Speerschneider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > news:[email protected]:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > I have to agree with you. Can you imagine how Armstrong's teammates feel after working their
> > > > butt off all day to put him into position
to
> > > > win, then not only does he play the "anybody but Boogerd" game, but then doesn't even
> > > > contest the final sprint?
> > > >
> > > > Of course, we're assuming that Armstrong was deliberately racing negatively...it could be
> > > > that he thought Vinokourov would come back
> > > > w/o anyway, and he was doing his best to avoid a three-peat.
> > > >
> > > > Andy Coggan
> > >
> > > Maybe Armstrong was just cooked?
> >
> > Which is what I asked at the outset.
> >
> > > Or maybe he was just feigning to be cooked so the others would chase?
> >
> > Which is why I titled the thread "Armstrong miscalculation?" (since his ploy, if it were one,
> > didn't work).
> >
> > Andy Coggan
>
> Yup, a momentary lapse for both LA and Boogerd; but it also speaks to the caginess of Vinokourov's
> move, knowing they would be marking each other heavily. Which makes sense, knowing the LA/Rabo
> history at Amstel. Vinokourov also said he had to do it since he wouldn't have had a chance
if
> he'd gotten to the Cauberg in the same bunch with those guys. The right move at the right time -
> gotta love it. Bit of Zoetemelk in there, don't you think?
>
> SB

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Yeah nevermind finishing 2nd and picking up a few extra bucks for
your teammates. 8th is so much
> better

Yeah, there's nothing that motivates a guy more than taking a chance of getting hurt in a small race
instead of peaking at the right time and winning a big one.

 

[Tom Kunich]

Err, don't you recognize sarcasm when you read it?

"Steve Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Rik Van Diesel" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > I think lance is exactly the guy that would compromise his
chance at
> > > victory in this race if it could help him in the tour. [...] Everyone on this list whines
> > > about drugs, at least I can understand drugs. Win at all cost I
can
> > > deal with. What I don't understand and don't care for are the
politics
> > > of bike racing. The race fixing, and race selling. That is the
****
> > > that bugs me. The hey 3x prize money **** that pros do in order
to
> > > win. The let us win this, and we will help you next week (goes
with
> > > win at all cost I guess). I know it is the heritage of bike
racing,
> > > but it is does give bike racing a slimy feeling.
> >
> > Good lord, this is what I like the most. It's n-person game theory
in
> > action, with time perdurance on agreements, temporary coalitions,
side
> > payments, reneging on bargains, bluffs, calls, unenforceable
contracts,

great. Much
> > more interesting than who was doping. This is what makes bike
racing much,
> > much better than sports where there are only two teams on the
field at a
> > time.
>
> Agreed. Much prefer complex events with rich, nuanced, very human
outcomes.
> Or we could just have TT's all the time. Zzzzzz......

 

[Tom Kunich]

Maybe it was the quote of Boogerd's: "I was the strongest but I didn't win. I really hate this
feeling. I gambled on waiting, but my sprint was too late." Or maybe it was the posting somewhere
here during the race that said that Vinokourov went and the other's just looked back and forth at
each other.

Oh, but hey, you saw it on TV so Michael must be full of ****.

"Oscar Mannheim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Benjamin Weiner" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet news:[email protected]...
> > Oscar Mannheim <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
> > > > Did you see Boogerd trying to win? If he had been he would
have
> > > > followed Vinokourov.
> >
> > > Boogerd did go after Vinokourov (didn't you see the race?). The
problem
> was
> > > that Boogerd was alone, Vinokourov benefited from being part of
the
> > > strongest team for the day, Telekom.
> >
> > No he didn't see the race (nor did I). Don't forget that on the west side of the pond, there is
> > not live coverage of most races (excepting grand tours on OLN cable, which started only a few
years
> > ago; they'll show an hour of Amstel on Thursday.) But hey, that never stops Koach K.
>
> If that's the truth, then it probably means that Kunich followed the
race on
> cyclingnews live report which says: "Vinokourov gets a gap, and
suddenly
> Boogerd launches himself from the rear to the front and goes after
Vino.
> Armstrong once again marks the move and sets off in pursuit.
Vinokourov is
> holding his gap and hammering downhill." and then I don't understand
why
> Kunich is saying that Boogerd didn't follow Vinokourov.........

 

[Tom Kunich]

message news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:23:36 GMT, "Oscar Mannheim" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:JJ%[email protected]...
> >> I'm convinced you're correct. In the heat of a moment like that
you
> >> don't have cagey thoughts, just nice simple one's like, "that
asshole
> >> isn't going to do me a third time."
>
> Boogerd beat Armstrong _once_ in Amstel Gold - the other time Dekker beat Armstrong, even though
> Dekker did most of the work.

I was talking about Rabobank.

> >Come on, give Armstrong a little credit. He just chased the
strongest
> >riders, he followed every move from Boogerd and Kessler. It's just
that
> >simple.
>
> Armstrong rode a very passive race for certain. I don't know what he was hoping for as he knew
> that Boogerd could beat him in an uphill sprint. Armstrong was following and chasing but he never
> attacked. Perhaps the fact that A-G came a week earlier means that Armstrong was not in top form.
> Let's see what he does in L-B-L.

Armstong knew that the race wasn't hard enough for long enough to be selective enough for him. He
rode at the front with the best guys. Why should he contend a sprint he couldn't win?

 

[Steve Blankensh]

Do you, o' wise one? ;-)

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Err, don't you recognize sarcasm when you read it?
>
> "Steve Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Rik Van Diesel" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > I think lance is exactly the guy that would compromise his
> chance at
> > > > victory in this race if it could help him in the tour. [...] Everyone on this list whines
> > > > about drugs, at least I can understand drugs. Win at all cost I
> can
> > > > deal with. What I don't understand and don't care for are the
> politics
> > > > of bike racing. The race fixing, and race selling. That is the
> ****
> > > > that bugs me. The hey 3x prize money **** that pros do in order
> to
> > > > win. The let us win this, and we will help you next week (goes
> with
> > > > win at all cost I guess). I know it is the heritage of bike
> racing,
> > > > but it is does give bike racing a slimy feeling.
> > >
> > > Good lord, this is what I like the most. It's n-person game theory
> in
> > > action, with time perdurance on agreements, temporary coalitions,
> side
> > > payments, reneging on bargains, bluffs, calls, unenforceable
> contracts,

> great. Much
> > > more interesting than who was doping. This is what makes bike
> racing much,
> > > much better than sports where there are only two teams on the
> field at a
> > > time.
> >
> > Agreed. Much prefer complex events with rich, nuanced, very human
> outcomes.
> > Or we could just have TT's all the time. Zzzzzz......
> >
> >
>

 

[Peter Vesel]

What's the record for one person posting consecutive posts to one thread?

Peter

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Err, don't you recognize sarcasm when you read it?
>
> "Steve Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Rik Van Diesel" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > I think lance is exactly the guy that would compromise his
> chance at
> > > > victory in this race if it could help him in the tour. [...] Everyone on this list whines
> > > > about drugs, at least I can understand drugs. Win at all cost I
> can
> > > > deal with. What I don't understand and don't care for are the
> politics
> > > > of bike racing. The race fixing, and race selling. That is the
> ****
> > > > that bugs me. The hey 3x prize money **** that pros do in order
> to
> > > > win. The let us win this, and we will help you next week (goes
> with
> > > > win at all cost I guess). I know it is the heritage of bike
> racing,
> > > > but it is does give bike racing a slimy feeling.
> > >
> > > Good lord, this is what I like the most. It's n-person game theory
> in
> > > action, with time perdurance on agreements, temporary coalitions,
> side
> > > payments, reneging on bargains, bluffs, calls, unenforceable
> contracts,

> great. Much
> > > more interesting than who was doping. This is what makes bike
> racing much,
> > > much better than sports where there are only two teams on the
> field at a
> > > time.
> >
> > Agreed. Much prefer complex events with rich, nuanced, very human
> outcomes.
> > Or we could just have TT's all the time. Zzzzzz......
> >
> >
>