By George!!! WooHoo!!
- Thread starter Rudy
- Start date
The big difference between you and me is that I prefer to live in the land of facts, instead of telling other people they are "stupid" or have no idea what they are talking about.mitosis said:You have just proved youself to be stupid.. Not that there is a problem with that but with your understanding of bike racing it might just be enough to send you off to write another frenzied post.
...You are a slow learner but there is hope for you.
All of your pompous arrogance did absolutely nothing to hide your hypocrisy. I think today's stage was PERFECT for "hypocrite identification" purposes. It's like a gift of irony or something...
boootiful, absolutely bootiful watching hypocrites trying to backpedal their way out of the web of their own lies they spun just a day ago:
"it's... it's ... I am not a crook... it's different... somehow the two are different... I am not sure how... one is flat stage another is not... or something... evans was going for GC... no wait, Pereiro is pretty high on GC... maybe pereiro wanted to save Landis from being passed by Evans... no, that doesn't make sense either....
well... you must be stupid if you don't understand what I mean, but the two are completely different. That's it. This is my explanation - I am not a hypocrite, you are just stooopid! But you are learning (a little patronizing to make "stoopid" me feel better about myself, thanks!)"...
I am paraphrasing, of course!
sunman said:
Yeah, fair point.
Just to make it clear. I am pleased whenever any domestique scores a stage win because their opportunities are limited. I could not be more pleased for GH (except maybe for GH himself) to win a stage. He has worked tirelessly for Armstrong over the years and fully deserves some credit (and the cash LA throws his way). But I have already made this point. I did say that I thought (when things quieten down) that GH, IMO, would not be completely happy with the way in which he won it. I'll ask him if I see him.
Some of his wheel sucking was demanded by Bruyneel and therefore could not be blamed on him but once he was given the go ahead to try for the stage win he happily allowed himself to be dragged along.
What LA's one-eyed supporters (at the expense of logic), in their rush to criticise Pereiro today, is that he worked his ring off to contribute to the breakaway that resulted in his win. This is not just my opinion, read this: http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/tour05/?id=results/tour0516
"With 30km to go in the tiny village of Nay, the four front riders were all together, but Zandio hadn't been working to protect his Illes Balears team leader Mancebo's place on GC. Pereiro felt no such compunction, as he and Evans hammered all out. The Phonak man didn't see fit to protect his teammate Landis's 7th place on GC, so the Davitamon-Lotto rider moved up into that position as Pau approached.
With 20km to race, the last climb of the day was the small Cat. 4 Côte de Pardiès-Piétat in the lovely green hills overlooking the beautiful capital of the Bearn area. Up the 2.6km, 5.2 % bump, Evans rode all out to move up on GC. Although it is the Aussie's first Tour de France on the road, he was a standout rider in the Tour de France VTT ten years ago, as well as a former maglia rosa in the Giro d'Italia. Pereiro was going pull for pull with Evans on the run-in to Pau, with the chasers at 2'00 and the hard charging groupe maillot jaune less than 4'00 back. Finally, Pereiro stopped working under orders from team director John Lelangue with around 5 km to go, leaving Evans to do everything."
The bold is my doing. There is a not so subtle difference between Pereiro's riding in stage 16 and Hincapie's in stage 15 that some posters cannot, or refuse, to see.
WRT Lim - I think he never sleeps.
Crankster said:
Pompous, arrogant. If I recall, you have used those terms about me before. Even tho' its not accurate it hasn't caused deep wounds or sent me into a frenzy. Seems like you don't mind doing a bit of name calling yourself.
NOw here's a couple of facts that you have chosen to ignore:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/tour05/?id=results/tour0516
"With 30km to go in the tiny village of Nay, the four front riders were all together, but Zandio hadn't been working to protect his Illes Balears team leader Mancebo's place on GC. Pereiro felt no such compunction, as he and Evans hammered all out. The Phonak man didn't see fit to protect his teammate Landis's 7th place on GC, so the Davitamon-Lotto rider moved up into that position as Pau approached.
With 20km to race, the last climb of the day was the small Cat. 4 Côte de Pardiès-Piétat in the lovely green hills overlooking the beautiful capital of the Bearn area. Up the 2.6km, 5.2 % bump, Evans rode all out to move up on GC. Although it is the Aussie's first Tour de France on the road, he was a standout rider in the Tour de France VTT ten years ago, as well as a former maglia rosa in the Giro d'Italia. Pereiro was going pull for pull with Evans on the run-in to Pau, with the chasers at 2'00 and the hard charging groupe maillot jaune less than 4'00 back. Finally, Pereiro stopped working under orders from team director John Lelangue with around 5 km to go, leaving Evans to do everything."
But like they say, never let facts get in the way of a good story.
Perreiro is backtracking on his prior accusations against Hincapie. Procycling reports:
"Oscar Pereiro was also a bitter man on Sunday but victory yesterday seems to have mellowed the Spaniard somewhat and he revised some of his previous comments of St Lary Soulan stage winner George Hincapie. “More than the defeat, what really upset me was how my performance was criticised in the media,” Pereiro told AS. “It was said that I rode like a ‘juvenil’ and I don’t think it was like that at all. I couldn’t shake Hincapie on the climb and I knew over the last 3km that I wasn’t going to win. But yesterday I showed that I can ride intelligently, I’ve shut a few people up.” He also had some warmer words for Hincapie. “The other day there were some misunderstandings… but things were taken out of context. It’s difficult to win at the Tour and George did what he needed to. What upset me was that I didn’t expect him to be so strong.”
In other words, Perreiro bet he could shake Hincapie, and he wasn't able to. Therefore, he lost the stage. But his riding was somewhat juvenil.
"Oscar Pereiro was also a bitter man on Sunday but victory yesterday seems to have mellowed the Spaniard somewhat and he revised some of his previous comments of St Lary Soulan stage winner George Hincapie. “More than the defeat, what really upset me was how my performance was criticised in the media,” Pereiro told AS. “It was said that I rode like a ‘juvenil’ and I don’t think it was like that at all. I couldn’t shake Hincapie on the climb and I knew over the last 3km that I wasn’t going to win. But yesterday I showed that I can ride intelligently, I’ve shut a few people up.” He also had some warmer words for Hincapie. “The other day there were some misunderstandings… but things were taken out of context. It’s difficult to win at the Tour and George did what he needed to. What upset me was that I didn’t expect him to be so strong.”
In other words, Perreiro bet he could shake Hincapie, and he wasn't able to. Therefore, he lost the stage. But his riding was somewhat juvenil.
As happy as I was to see Hincapie win, I can understand why Perreiro was upset. I think anyone who goes that hard for that long and then is beaten by someone else, at the last minute, would be mad. If something like that doesn't **** you off, why the hell are you competing? If you say; "Oh well, I lost. Time for a lay-down." then you're not a competitor and you will not win.
When you find yourself in a hole - stop digging.mitosis said:
On Monday the consensus of Hincapie bashers was that while it's completely understandable that he should not have worked one bit in the breakaway (the whole point of getting into a breakaway was to slow things down so it comes back to peloton, or perhaps to drop back to help LA on the climb), once Pereiro and Hincapie were in final kms, Hincapie should have pulled, instead of letting Pereiro work by himself and then outsprinting him for the win.
Now you seem to flip-flop, reverse your position from two days ago and argue that now "sitting on another rider and making them work in the final 5 km" is a perfectly acceptable strategy by Hincapie (or by Pereiro 2 days later), but that Hincapie should have pulled early in the breakaway, the way Pereiro did, which makes Pereiro sitting in the last 5 or 6km "fair game"?! Which one is it?!
That just defies any logic and completely reverses the complaints about Hincapie aired on Monday - both by posters here and by Pereiro.
Pereiro did EXACTLY what he (and others) critisized Hincapie doing to Pereiro 48 hours before - he did zero work in the final 5 km, sitting on Evans, knowing very well that by doing so he is fresh for a sprint while Evans, while perhaps being a stronger man that day, will have nothing left.
How you can be so hard on Hincapie and at the same time justify it for Pereiro by reversing your position 180 degrees 48 hours later is mind-boggling, and hypocrisy at it's highest level.
It clearly reveals your own bias, more than anything else.
If Pereiro argued that Hincapie should have worked in the final 5km, or ease up at the finish to let "the strongest man" take the stage victory, then perhaps Pereiro himself should have either pulled in the final 5km yesterday (instead of wheel-sucking on Evans), or let "the strongest man" Evans take the stage victory. You just can't have it both ways, and this is why Pereiro is backpedalling in his statements, and this is why we see none of the Hincapie bashers coming out anymore - everyone pretends they didn't say anything, while you are trying to spin it and argue that up is down and down is up.
My own position is that nobody is entitled to anything. The most "deserving" man to win theory is ****. It's a race, not a beauty contest. You use your muscles and your brain to figure out how to win a race. Pereiro knew what he needed to do - either drop Hincapie, or force him to lead out, and he didn't do either. He has nobody to blame but himself, if he really wanted a stage victory over gained time in GC. Similarly Evans clearly sacrificed his chances at stage victory to gain time in GC - I do not hear him complaining about it today.
If anything, wheelsucking while on flat roads blazing at 50km/h gives you a much bigger advantage than climbing at 15 km/h surrounded by a wall of crowd that shields you from any wind whatsoever. In former case the work done is primarily against wind resistance, in the latter it's primarily against gravity. Either way, wheelsucking is a big part of the cycling strategy. I am very glad that those who loudly complained about "wheelsucking" by Hincapie got their lesson in irony yesterday.
You're wrong.
OP's stage win was different to GH's win.
GH got away very early in a break and stayed in that break and did not contribute to the break, as the break progressed.
GH may well have been abiding by team orders but even when he was granted the freedom to race his own race, by his employer, he refused to do his pull on the front until it came down to a final sprint.
OP's stage win yesterday, was materially different.
I have already pointed out to you the mileage and time gaps on the Aubisque
and Solour that OP had to bridge by himself.
The bottom line is that OP's win was honourable.
OP's stage win was different to GH's win.
GH got away very early in a break and stayed in that break and did not contribute to the break, as the break progressed.
GH may well have been abiding by team orders but even when he was granted the freedom to race his own race, by his employer, he refused to do his pull on the front until it came down to a final sprint.
OP's stage win yesterday, was materially different.
I have already pointed out to you the mileage and time gaps on the Aubisque
and Solour that OP had to bridge by himself.
The bottom line is that OP's win was honourable.
Musette,musette said:
Even though it is straight from Pereiro's mouth, there is simply way too much logic and truthfulness in this post to filter into some of the thick skulls around this forum. Don't you realize that the people on this forum know more about what is happening at the Tour than those who are actually racing in it?
musette said:
You really are some piece of work :
Below is what procycling published today relating to Oscar Pereiro and his win on stage 16.
I have copied it across and here is the link, just in case some wafflers here think I have pliagiarised the contents and falsely ascribed content to Procycling (which is what Ironside/Musette has done, above).
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=1465
Forty-eight hours ago, after George Hincapie jumped out of Oscar Periero’s slipstream to take victory in the second of three stages in the Pyrenees, the Spanish rider reflected ruefully that “the strongest man doesn’t always win at the Tour.”
What Periero of course meant, and would later state more directly, was that Hincapie had robbed him.
Stitched him up like a great Spanish kipper. “I think I was the moral victor of the stage. At least no one can take that away from me,” said the 27-year-old Galician.
Today Pereiro could savour the real thing at the end of his 115km raid over the Col de Marie Blanque and the Col d’Ausbique.
This time there was no Hincapie, no one to reap the fruits of his hard labour.
There was just that sporting justice which was lacking on Sunday, and which just occasionally says that the strongest man does win.
Today that man was Oscar Pereiro.
“Today I settled a score,” said the Phonak climber in his post-race press conference. “I think everyone knows that I wasn’t too happy about Hincapie winning the other day.
I have nothing against him personally. I just know what a stage victory in the Tour is worth, and I know that what he did wasn’t very fair.”
Perieiro’s victory, Phonak’s first in the Tour de France, lifted him to 15th in the overall standings tonight, almost 16 minutes behind race leader Lance Armstrong. Ironically, it was the Spaniard’s lowly position on GC that allowed him to slip away unmarked on the Marie Blanque today.
“I came to the Tour hoping to finish high up on GC,” he confirmed. “I soon realised that that would be difficult because there is a great field here. I then asked Santiago [Botero] and Floyd [Landis] if I could try to get into some breaks. They gave me a free role, which was great for me.
“Everyone says that the Spanish are doing a bad tour,” Pereiro continued. “Everyone is still obsessed with Indurain and comparing us to him. People need to forget and concentrate on the new generation. It’s easy to criticise but before people do that they should look at the general level of peloton.”
Pereiro concluded by revealing that, while he would reward himself with a new car for today’s win, Phonak boss John Lelangue might already be ruing a pact he made with Pereiro at the start of the Tour. “I got my hair cut too short at the start of the Tour. To be honest, it didn’t look great, but John said that he would get his shaved just as short if I won a stage…”
Lim: I think you may want to retract those accusations of plagiarism. While cyclingnews did report what you just quoted, it also reported Musette's excerpt:limerickman said:
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=1466
Pereiro, apparently, is ambivalent about Hincapie's tactics depending on what time of day it is or who he is addressing. Maybe he's two different people, which would explain how he could be so strong on successive days . . .
rejobako said:Lim: I think you may want to retract those accusations of plagiarism. While cyclingnews did report what you just quoted, it also reported Musette's excerpt:
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=1466
Pereiro, apparently, is ambivalent about Hincapie's tactics depending on what time of day it is or who he is addressing. Maybe he's two different people, which would explain how he could be so strong on successive days . . .
Thanks for the "headsup", but our cheerleading friend did plagiarise the Procycling article :
If you access the link you supplied, you will see that Ironside copied and pasted only a section of the OP article dated 20/7/2005 :
She left out this bit :
Oscar Pereiro was also a bitter man on Sunday but victory yesterday seems to have mellowed the Spaniard somewhat and he revised some of his previous comments of St Lary Soulan stage winner George Hincapie.
“More than the ............
Ironside "forgot" to include this in her latest PR waffle post.
Procycling clearly stated that OP mellowed his view of GH's tactics on stage 16.
Here is the original article in which OP expressed his views about GH's tactics.
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=1465
By leaving out the entire content of the article (plagiarism), a different context can be drawn from a quotation - which was what Ironside wanted to convey.
This was exactly the sort of tactics that she used on another website forum for JU fans.
plagiarism means something entirely different - passing off others ideas as your own:limerickman said:
Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
Etymology: plagiary
transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
The source was acknowledged. Full reposts of entire content are protected by copyright anyways. You can quote a small portion and attribute the source or a link to everyone who wants to read the rest.
I believe this exact statement was in Musette's post. Would you like to check it again?limerickman said:
Crankster said:
.......and leave out the content and bits that convey a different idea.
Bit like your failure to fully account for OP's riding on the Col D'Aubisque and Col du Solour yesterday.
Scotty_Dog said:I believe this exact statement was in Musette's post. Would you like to check it again?
I incorrectly posted and underlined the opening lines of the article (20/7/05) and not the original 19/07/05 at procycling :
My message 73 should have this :
Forty-eight hours ago, after George Hincapie jumped out of Oscar Periero’s slipstream to take victory in the second of three stages in the Pyrenees, the Spanish rider reflected ruefully that “the strongest man doesn’t always win at the Tour.”
What Periero of course meant, and would later state more directly, was that Hincapie had robbed him.
What did he leave out of the article? He posted it in its entirety.limerickman said:
You, on the other hand, are definitely guilty of false attribution. Here's your quote:
Below is what procycling published today relating to Oscar Pereiro and his win on stage 16.
I have copied it across and here is the link, just in case some wafflers here think I have pliagiarised the contents and falsely ascribed content to Procycling (which is what Ironside/Musette has done, above).
First, what you quoted wasn't the only thing published today in cyclingnews relating to Oscar Pereiro. The article quoted by musette was also published. That's falsehood #1.
Second, you you claim Musette "plagiarized" content (I think you mean take it out of context), which was not done. Musette's post set out procyclingnews reporting of the subject, in that article, in its entirety. That's falsehood #2.
Third, you suggest content was "falsely ascribed" to procyclingnews, which is not the case. What was quoted was in the link, word for word. That's falsehood #3.
What seems painfully obvious is that you believe Musette just "made the whole thing up" and you, having seen the other article, decided to try to embarrass Musette.
What's interesting is that when your own mistake is pointed out to you, you falsely suggest there was something omitted from the article about context (which isn't what you alleged in the first place), and now in your latest post attempt to change the subject.
A simple "gee, I'm sorry, I didn't see the other article" would have been sufficient. Instead, you allow the debate about "honorable conduct" to extend to your own actions.
Maybe so, but the fact remains that the language you just quoted is not in the procyclingnews article to which I linked earlier. Here it is again:limerickman said:
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=1466
If the language you have underlined above was included in a previously published version of the article, it seems quite unfair to suggest that Musette should necessarily have read it. What Musette did was quote the entire content of an article published in procyclingnews today relating to Pereiro. Nothing was "quoted out of context", or "plagiarized" or "falsely ascribed".
But I do appreciate you clarifying your meaning.
Similar threads
- caffetrieste
- Road Cycling
- Tom Kunich
- Road Cycling
