Armstrong upstaged by his teammate?
- Thread starter hilljunkie
- Start date
I beg to differ that, this year, the Tour de Georgia was not an important race for Discovery. It is the first year with DC as sponsor, and the team wins had been only two before TdG (Devolder at Three Days of De Panne, and Hincapie at K-B-K). They needed a bit confidence booster.
Evidence (my preferred approach on all things) of relative importance of Georgia to DC this year (only relative to last year, and obviously not important relative to Tour de France):
-- From DC PR guy on LA website, we know DC was at the TdG event and LA's team wanted to have a good showing for many individuals at its sponsor who were attending their first event involving the DC team:
"Following the stage, the team joined nearly 100 sponsors and friends for a casual event capper at a local Alpharetta restaurant. Johan, Eki, Lance and Tom all spoke to the assembled crowd. A few laughs were had and lots of applause all around to a job well done by the entire team - riders and staff."
http://www.thepaceline.com/members/dano_item.aspx?cid=1039
-- Team doubt before Devolder's De Panne win did not completely eliminate the sense that DC did not have a lot of wins so far. From Graham Watson:
"But what of the Discovery Channel team, I hear you ask? I was delighted with George Hincapie's superb win in Kuurne-Brusseks-Kuurne, way back on February 27th, but little has happened since then. Illness put Hincapie and Max van Heeswijk out of Milan-San Remo - as it did Armstrong in Paris-Nice. But the team just hasn't fired anyway, despite other talents like Roger Hammond and Leif Hoste to thrust into the spotlight. However, I think the little vain [sic] of doubt the team is now experiencing could not have come at a better time, for they will be even more aggressive when it comes to the Belgian races later this week and in early-April - they have to get results, it is as simple as that!"
http://www.grahamwatson.com/news/grahamsnotes22.html
-- Also, LA had just announced his retirement after the TdF at the pre-Georgia press conference. DC sponsor must have been slightly concerned about what things would mean for the team, when LA left. Having an up-and-comer, young Danielson perform well and having that be an American cyclist was important in terms of sponsor relations and not causing the sponsor undue concern about the program's ability to be winning after LA retires.
I really feel like I understand how Bruyneel thinks sometimes.
Evidence (my preferred approach on all things) of relative importance of Georgia to DC this year (only relative to last year, and obviously not important relative to Tour de France):
-- From DC PR guy on LA website, we know DC was at the TdG event and LA's team wanted to have a good showing for many individuals at its sponsor who were attending their first event involving the DC team:
"Following the stage, the team joined nearly 100 sponsors and friends for a casual event capper at a local Alpharetta restaurant. Johan, Eki, Lance and Tom all spoke to the assembled crowd. A few laughs were had and lots of applause all around to a job well done by the entire team - riders and staff."
http://www.thepaceline.com/members/dano_item.aspx?cid=1039
-- Team doubt before Devolder's De Panne win did not completely eliminate the sense that DC did not have a lot of wins so far. From Graham Watson:
"But what of the Discovery Channel team, I hear you ask? I was delighted with George Hincapie's superb win in Kuurne-Brusseks-Kuurne, way back on February 27th, but little has happened since then. Illness put Hincapie and Max van Heeswijk out of Milan-San Remo - as it did Armstrong in Paris-Nice. But the team just hasn't fired anyway, despite other talents like Roger Hammond and Leif Hoste to thrust into the spotlight. However, I think the little vain [sic] of doubt the team is now experiencing could not have come at a better time, for they will be even more aggressive when it comes to the Belgian races later this week and in early-April - they have to get results, it is as simple as that!"
http://www.grahamwatson.com/news/grahamsnotes22.html
-- Also, LA had just announced his retirement after the TdF at the pre-Georgia press conference. DC sponsor must have been slightly concerned about what things would mean for the team, when LA left. Having an up-and-comer, young Danielson perform well and having that be an American cyclist was important in terms of sponsor relations and not causing the sponsor undue concern about the program's ability to be winning after LA retires.
I really feel like I understand how Bruyneel thinks sometimes.
Sorry to break up the fun here - but I think you're all getting slightly heated about an event which is not remotely near the standards of a 2.1 European race, never mind a grand tour.
Yep, I live in Gainesville. I ride a lot of that route frequently (not Brasstown). Hogpen isn't as steep as Brasstown, but it's nearly as bad..it's LONG. It's Category One which is enough. It's the descent off of Hogpen that looks scary though, and getting back up the other way wouldn't be a breeze either.tehpr3chr said:
There were quite a few people on Hogpen when I drove through, quite a few people everywhere actually, but most people wanted to see the climbs I think.
limerickman said:
I think the excitement is about whether Lance is in form and whether Landis/Danielson are any good.
tcklyde said:This is true, but hey, cut us yanks some slack. This is about the extent of what we've got on this side of the Atlantic!
hey I have no problem with people speculating but some here do appear to think that LA's poor form in April, might be the same in July.
I don't think you'll see LA not go full bore in July, regardless of his current form !
As usual, other posters are not focusing on the question -- which I was addressing -- which is whether the Tour de Georgia win was important to Discovery. Pleeeease try to focus, people. For the reasons I stated, the win was important and LA wanted Danielson to win (at least after LA did such a poor ITT).
I for one, think it was. After being there, and then seeing the OLN coverage of the race, I think Lance could have one it if he had chosen too. Lance didn't look NEARLY as strained as Landis when they came by me..not that Landis looked that bad. Lance looked to me like he was pacing.musette said:
If you watch the coverage of the last part of the race, Lance just walked away from Landis, and made it look quite easy. Easy enough that I think he could have walked by everyone else on the mountain also...perhaps not.
In any event, I think there may have been more torch passing going on than anyone admitted to later. If for no orther reason, that would be an important moment for discovery...to see if he stood up to the challenge.
Strategically, going to Danielson was a good decision by Bruyneel. That's because, to win GC, the person that DC supported had to not only win against Landis, but also win against Leipheimer to win the GC (not just the stage). Given that LA had done much worse than Danielson in the ITT, Danielson's chances were simply better, both against Landis and against Leipheimer.
Yep, I agree totally.... I just think LA could have pulled it off based on how he appeared during stage 5. Granted he was much further behind, he just looked plenty strong to me. I'm sure they considered several factors before going with Danielson, that being one of them, but I think "passing the torch" was also a part of it.musette said:
If I were Bruyneel, I would have gone with Danielson. Here's why:
Reason #1: DC was gunning to win the overall, not only to win the Stage. Given that, Danielson had to gain less time on three key rivals than LA in order to win GC. This shows Bruyneel and DC's ambition, which has always served the team well.
LA, even though he is not in top form, probably had a better chance, before the stage, to win the stage. He is much more experienced than Danielson and probably could have beat Leipheimer and Landis. However, Bruyneel was not thinking of just the stage. He wanted that, but he also wanted the GC win. To do that, he had to slightly reduce his chances of winning the stage, as Danielson is less of a proven 'sure win', given his more limited record and less demonstrated strong abilities to react well under pressure. Bruyneel chose to go with that because he wanted to MAXIMIZE HIS CHANCES OF WINNING THE GC. AMBITION. What DS would have said to LA in 1998 that he should try and win the Tour and focus on that?
One who has sufficient ambition and who is smart enough to make the perfect strategic plan, which began the day before with Chechu's long breakaway. Obviously, that Stage 4 plan had three beneficial outcomes: (1) the obvious one of forcing Phonak to chase and wearing Phonak down, (2) increasing the chances Landis would be dropped (which did not materialize), and (3) putting in place an "insurance policy" of at least taking King of the Mountains jersey overall, in case DC did not win the overall GC.
As discussed above, the below were GC standings after Stage 4 and before the Queen stage:
1 Floyd Landis (USA) Phonak Hearing Systems 16.47.29...
3 Bobby Julich (USA) Team CSC 0.28
5 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Gerolsteiner 0.50
6 Tom Danielson (USA) Discovery Channel 1.00...
9 Lance Armstrong (USA) Discovery Channel 1.42
10 José Azevedo (Por) Discovery Channel 1.53
Danielson had to do three things to win the GC (not the stage): beat Landis by at least 1'01, Leipheimer by at least 11" and Julich by at least 0.33".
LA had to beat each of those people by 42" more than Danielson had to. So, LA had to beat, for example, Leipheimer by at least 53". If I were Bruyneel, I would have been most worried about beating Leipheimer, rather than Landis and Julich.
Reason #2: If DC does not win stage or GC, then LA is not "humiliated" with having tried. In such case, LA gets the kudos of having tried to set up Danielson for the win and it was just Danielson who didn't come through. This was, if applicable, only a very minor reason for choosing Danielson.
Reason #3: LA had just announced retirement. If Bruyneel could pull off a Danielson GC win, it would signal that DC has the ability to nurture new talent and alleviate what must be fairly significant concerns DC had about what would happen after LA retirement.
Reason #4: Set up motivation of Danielson to work for Salvodelli in the Giro. If Danielson has gotten the benefit of major riders' teamwork and working for him, he will be extra motivated to help Salvodelli in the mountains -- an area where that man clearly needs help. There will only be J McCartney and Danielson in the mid-to-high mountains. True, both are at least good climbers (or better), but that's not the usual posse of climbers for a DC Grand Tour leader.
Reason #1: DC was gunning to win the overall, not only to win the Stage. Given that, Danielson had to gain less time on three key rivals than LA in order to win GC. This shows Bruyneel and DC's ambition, which has always served the team well.
LA, even though he is not in top form, probably had a better chance, before the stage, to win the stage. He is much more experienced than Danielson and probably could have beat Leipheimer and Landis. However, Bruyneel was not thinking of just the stage. He wanted that, but he also wanted the GC win. To do that, he had to slightly reduce his chances of winning the stage, as Danielson is less of a proven 'sure win', given his more limited record and less demonstrated strong abilities to react well under pressure. Bruyneel chose to go with that because he wanted to MAXIMIZE HIS CHANCES OF WINNING THE GC. AMBITION. What DS would have said to LA in 1998 that he should try and win the Tour and focus on that?
One who has sufficient ambition and who is smart enough to make the perfect strategic plan, which began the day before with Chechu's long breakaway. Obviously, that Stage 4 plan had three beneficial outcomes: (1) the obvious one of forcing Phonak to chase and wearing Phonak down, (2) increasing the chances Landis would be dropped (which did not materialize), and (3) putting in place an "insurance policy" of at least taking King of the Mountains jersey overall, in case DC did not win the overall GC.
As discussed above, the below were GC standings after Stage 4 and before the Queen stage:
1 Floyd Landis (USA) Phonak Hearing Systems 16.47.29...
3 Bobby Julich (USA) Team CSC 0.28
5 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Gerolsteiner 0.50
6 Tom Danielson (USA) Discovery Channel 1.00...
9 Lance Armstrong (USA) Discovery Channel 1.42
10 José Azevedo (Por) Discovery Channel 1.53
Danielson had to do three things to win the GC (not the stage): beat Landis by at least 1'01, Leipheimer by at least 11" and Julich by at least 0.33".
LA had to beat each of those people by 42" more than Danielson had to. So, LA had to beat, for example, Leipheimer by at least 53". If I were Bruyneel, I would have been most worried about beating Leipheimer, rather than Landis and Julich.
Reason #2: If DC does not win stage or GC, then LA is not "humiliated" with having tried. In such case, LA gets the kudos of having tried to set up Danielson for the win and it was just Danielson who didn't come through. This was, if applicable, only a very minor reason for choosing Danielson.
Reason #3: LA had just announced retirement. If Bruyneel could pull off a Danielson GC win, it would signal that DC has the ability to nurture new talent and alleviate what must be fairly significant concerns DC had about what would happen after LA retirement.
Reason #4: Set up motivation of Danielson to work for Salvodelli in the Giro. If Danielson has gotten the benefit of major riders' teamwork and working for him, he will be extra motivated to help Salvodelli in the mountains -- an area where that man clearly needs help. There will only be J McCartney and Danielson in the mid-to-high mountains. True, both are at least good climbers (or better), but that's not the usual posse of climbers for a DC Grand Tour leader.
Similar threads
