Did Ullrich wait for Lance on Luz Ardiden?

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by Ted B
These two events are hardly equivocal...

Ullrich took a fall in the final TT because he was willing to take chances to pursue the win. Likewise, the blocking of riders is a competitive tactic voluntarily initiated by riders themselves. On the other hand, Lance was taken down by unfortunate interference from a non-participant. By not attacking, Ullrich and the other riders merely chose to neutralize the influence of outside interference on the outcome of the race.

If other riders choose to take measures such as not to let similar incidents (e.g. non-participant interference) influence the outcome of the entire event, I'm all for it.

You make a good point here about neutralizing the effect of outside interference. However, that is something which is subject also to interpretation, and this is all done on the fly. It's hard to make this kind of snap judgment in a race. Look at what we are doing now, many months later--debating this to figure out what really happened.

I watched this many, many times on OLN when it happened. They kept playing it over and over. I saw Lance riding too close to the spectators and taking the fall. He admits that it was his fault for riding too close. Perhaps the fatigue was setting in and he was losing just a little bit of focus on this hazard. It's hard to say. I'd say that it hadn't happened recently enough in his past to be viewed as much of a concern. It's like if you are driving down a highway, and you don't hit any potholes for a long time, and then you slam into one at high speed. Quickly, you adjust your driving style. Similarly, when this happened to Lance, he was immediately in readjustment mode for the remainder of the Tour de France with respect to spectator interference, and I doubt that with that incident having been behind him say in the race before the Tour de France that he would have gone too close there.

But this is tough to call, and the riders are reacting to something they mostly didn't even see themselves. But if you consider that Lance's fall was mostly his own fault, and I think it was for riding too close, then this is not to be viewed as outside interference. It is an unforced error. And then you can directly compare it with the situation of team blocking, wondering why they will take advantage of a deliberately trapped rider instead of one who falls off of his bike mostly because of his own fault.

The fall after that, where Lance is going into maximum cranking mode to get back in the race and attack from behind, I think that he was simply generating much more torque than usual, and perhaps because of his urgency, was not pedalling quite as beautifully as usual. I think he put too much lateral stress on the clipless pedals and forced the binding loose. So he was clearly stumbling there, one thing after another. But then he came back tremendously and showed his true form.

I don't think Ullrich would have won even if it were obvious that he were attacking when Lance went down. I can't really tell if he was waiting or not. I don't think it would have eliminated Lance if Jan had more energy to burn at this point. It looked as if Jan did not wait, but I was wondering at the time whether Jan had much energy to attack at this point too. It doesn't seem that Jan did judging by the outcome when Lance overtook him to put a more comfortable gap between them for the final time trial.

Also, when you do what if's, you have to consider that the downed rider might react differently if he knows someone has attacked him when he goes down. I bet Lance would have come back even stronger had that been the case. It's like when he won that Tour de France stage after his teammate, the olympic champion Fabio Casatelli, died in the 1995 Tour de France. He felt like he was on a mission, and he "felt no pain" as he accelerated away from all of the competition, burying them on a mountain climb. He experienced an out of body experience in this episode, my theory being that his brain chemicals (endorphins) were in overdrive. He felt like he was riding for a greater purpose--to do honor to his downed comrade. As you may know, endorphins are 1000 times as powerful as morphine, ounce per ounce. You don't want to get Lance into this mode. He wasn't there on this 2003 race, after the crashes, but he might have been if all would have attacked while he was down. And then, look out... It may have ended with a wider, not narrower gap.

 

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by limerickman
You need to read my discussion with Beastt on this issue on page 1 of this thread.

If you take the time to read my message at 23/02/04 at 1.45pm
- you will that my analysis.
Ullrich waited for Armstrong.
TH had NOTHING to do with the peloton slowing for LA.

The revisionism here is startling - read the analysis of the 1min
43 second time gap between Armstrong falling and TH "gestures"
to slow the peloton.

I read it then, and I read it again. On my screen, it shows 945 pm, but I'm sure you are talking about the same post. The display is probably due to time changes between us.

At any rate, you might want to read the post I just did for Ted B. I explain how I interpreted this situation. And what you are saying, that Jan didn't accelerate and therefore was waiting, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I remember watching the Tour that day and wondering when Jan would ever come alive. I don't think he had much to spare to attack. I don't think he would have attacked if Lance had not gone down. So to say that because he didn't attack when Lance did go down is not equivalent to saying that he waited. He wouldn't have attacked anyway. He simply didn't feel that he had enough energy to attack at that time. But of course, this is my interpretation. One thing about Jan is that he wears a poker face. It is tough to read his fatigue level by looking at his face, and I am sure that he wants it to be that way. But when you consider the way he was riding that day, then what I am saying makes a lot of sense.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by gntlmn
I read it then, and I read it again. On my screen, it shows 945 pm, but I'm sure you are talking about the same post. The display is probably due to time changes between us.

At any rate, you might want to read the post I just did for Ted B. I explain how I interpreted this situation. And what you are saying, that Jan didn't accelerate and therefore was waiting, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I remember watching the Tour that day and wondering when Jan would ever come alive. I don't think he had much to spare to attack. I don't think he would have attacked if Lance had not gone down. So to say that because he didn't attack when Lance did go down is not equivalent to saying that he waited. He wouldn't have attacked anyway. He simply didn't feel that he had enough energy to attack at that time. But of course, this is my interpretation. One thing about Jan is that he wears a poker face. It is tough to read his fatigue level by looking at his face, and I am sure that he wants it to be that way. But when you consider the way he was riding that day, then what I am saying makes a lot of sense.

In cycling terms, if one does not accelerate away when an opponent has a mishap, he/she is said to have waited.

It doesn't mean that they physically stop riding or that they get off their bikes : it simply means that they do not take advantage
of an opponents mishap.
This is what "waiting" means.
Jan Ullrich did not accelerate away when LA.
In fact if you look at the tape and I have it on realtime - as it happened on Eurosport - Ullrich tempo does actually slow slightly
too (Sean kelly comments to the affect as well).

TH certainly did not have to tell JU not to accelerate because
JU did not accelerate away for the 1min 43secs in which it took TH
to reach JU's group.

Whether JU had the energy to accelerate away or not is unknown.

 

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by limerickman


Whether JU had the energy to accelerate away or not is unknown.

One point I was making was that Jan did not appear to have much reserves that day. I kept feeling that he was hoping not to exhaust himself too much on that climb because he had a good chance to win the final time trial, given that he was time trialing very well. In support of this point, I further mentioned that he was not able to respond to Lance's attack after Lance's crash, and considering that Jan did not accelerate away when Lance went down, it cannot be blamed on using up his reserves during an attack. As you say, he did not attack. He didn't attack then, nor did he counterattack when Lance caught up to him and passed him by. Jan was simply a beaten man in the mountains that day. I suspect that if he had attacked when Lance was down, the gap between Lance and Jan would have been even greater at the finish line that day because Jan may then have cracked and Lance may have tapped into that magic reserve that he did when he won the stage in 1995 after Fabio's death.

You see, I think the other riders fear Lance because they know what he can do when pushed against the wall. This results in overly gentlemanly behavior toward him during the Tour; they are afraid he will go into that other-worldly mode that he sometimes enters. This holding back then results in less dramatic stages. This is what I am complaining about on this post.

 

[Ted B]

Originally posted by gntlmn
I watched this many, many times on OLN when it happened. They kept playing it over and over. I saw Lance riding too close to the spectators and taking the fall. He admits that it was his fault for riding too close.

He was only being gracious in saying so. In actuality, it is the riders that have full rights to the roadways, not the spectators. Lance's wheels never left the roadway and both he and Mayo had a clear path. The incident happened because a spectator carelessly flung a musette into the field of play. Lance and Mayo aren't the only riders in TDF history to be knocked off their bikes due to the careless act of a spectator.

It is a longstanding tradition of the TDF not to seize upon a fellow rider's misfortune. It isn't about being intimidated by Lance. If you recall, Lance waited for Ullrich to recover from a crash in a previous TDF. Furthermore, beating an opponent after granting them the opportunity to recover and stand toe-to-toe with you solidifies the win and removes all potential conjecture that would surely creep up about the validity thereof otherwise.

 

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by Ted B
He was only being gracious in saying so. In actuality, it is the riders that have full rights to the roadways, not the spectators. Lance's wheels never left the roadway and both he and Mayo had a clear path. The incident happened because a spectator carelessly flung a musette into the field of play. Lance and Mayo aren't the only riders in TDF history to be knocked off their bikes due to the careless act of a spectator.

It is a longstanding tradition of the TDF not to seize upon a fellow rider's misfortune. It isn't about being intimidated by Lance. If you recall, Lance waited for Ullrich to recover from a crash in a previous TDF. Furthermore, beating an opponent after granting them the opportunity to recover and stand toe-to-toe with you solidifies the win and removes all potential conjecture that would surely creep up about the validity thereof otherwise.

I have the right to walk across the street when the walk signal is on, but this doesn't mean that the cars will notice me. If I never look, I am sure to be killed eventually by a driver who is technically at fault, but the accident will have been preventable. To say that the riders have the full rights to the roadways is technically correct, but if you rely on that, eventually you will fall. You might fall even if you are overly cautious in this regard, but the odds decline if you are constantly on the lookout for overzealous or careless fans. Let's face it, rules or not, the fans aren't going away. So there is a gray area here. Outside interference can often be minimized by rider behavior.

What I am saying is that the act of granting opponents chances to recover is an act of etiquette which may tend to mollify the competition instead of bringing out the best in them. I recall one time watching Greg Lemond on a gentler area of a mountain climb years ago, and he reached for his water bottle. As he brought it up to his mouth, the rider behind him saw his opportunity and attacked. I was amazed at Greg's response. It was as if he had anticipated it. He counterattacked, without hesitation dropping the water bottle, and the attack was unsuccessful. This too is an example of a rider taking advantage of another rider's "equipment" break, but this is considered acceptable.

It's funny how we have grown accustomed to various etiquettes of waiting for this and shunning attacks for that. The logic really is not clear. But then again, it's like Lance once said. He said something like a bike race is a very personal event. It's much like a duel with daggers, the winner stabbing the other in the heart.

And in such an event, which would be a fight for some kind of honor in the old days, how you win is probably more important than winning. It's about honor. And what better stage is this to be played out than on the stage of the Tour de France, where the world is tuned in more than for any other event in the world. Clearly, it's about honor.

 

[Ted B]

Originally posted by gntlmn
What I am saying is that the act of granting opponents chances to recover is an act of etiquette which may tend to mollify the competition instead of bringing out the best in them. I recall one time watching Greg Lemond on a gentler area of a mountain climb years ago, and he reached for his water bottle. As he brought it up to his mouth, the rider behind him saw his opportunity and attacked. I was amazed at Greg's response. It was as if he had anticipated it.

Attacking at a feeding point or while another rider is doing something else is a classic tactical move. Unlike suffering a puncture or being knocked over by a spectator, grabbing a feed bottle is a voluntary action. Lemond was well aware of this (as is any experienced rider). This practice has nothing to do with taking advantage of misfortune (e.g. equipment failure), and the two are not the same. When Greg Lemond punctured during a hilly stage of the '90 TDF, he was vocally upset that Chiapucci attacked, and rightfully so.

And as for 'gray area', there is no gray area between who is entitled to use of the roadways during the Tour. Yes, it doesn't change the fact that it is virtually impossible to stop a determined spectator from charging in and doing something stupid (a la punching Eddy Merckx), but it no way does that make it the rider's fault. Such an incident falls into the 'external interference' category, and as you've witnessed, riders generally prefer not to allow outside interference influence the outcome of their game.

 

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by Ted B
Attacking at a feeding point or while another rider is doing something else is a classic tactical move. Unlike suffering a puncture or being knocked over by a spectator, grabbing a feed bottle is a voluntary action. Lemond was well aware of this (as is any experienced rider). This practice has nothing to do with taking advantage of misfortune (e.g. equipment failure), and the two are not the same. When Greg Lemond punctured during a hilly stage of the '90 TDF, he was vocally upset that Chiapucci attacked, and rightfully so.

And as for 'gray area', there is no gray area between who is entitled to use of the roadways during the Tour. Yes, it doesn't change the fact that it is virtually impossible to stop a determined spectator from charging in and doing something stupid (a la punching Eddy Merckx), but it no way does that make it the rider's fault. Such an incident falls into the 'external interference' category, and as you've witnessed, riders generally prefer not to allow outside interference influence the outcome of their game.

By gray area, I wasn't referring to who was entitled to use of the roadways. That is clear and incontestible. What I was referring to as a gray area is in the concept of outside interference. This is indeed a gray area. If you are dizzy because you are exhausted and fall off your bike or into a ditch, is this outside interference? This is not intentional, but it happens occasionally nonetheless. Now if you happen to get dizzy closer to the middle of the road and recover, there was no outside interference. You are back in the game. But if you happen to get dizzy right on the border of a ditch and then fall in, is this outside interference? Clearly your swerving action might be the same in both cases, but you have recovered in the first place and not in the second. Therefore, you have a gray area. The ditch has a right to be there. You know there are ditches on the side of the road, but you choose to ride close to the ditch, inviting trouble. Is this outside interference or is it rider error? I am inclined to believe it is rider error. And in this case, I don't know how the viewing audience would judge an attack by competitors. The verdict is at best capricious, as I am pointing out.

Is it outside interference when you always ride right up against the crowd when you could easily avoid them even though it is not where it ought to be? It seems that this is an analogous situation to the ditch. Furthermore, if you always ride in the most dangerous areas of the peloton, as Tyler has often done, does this mean that you have had some kind of outside interference when the crash inevitably eventually comes? There is a gray area. To be too cautious all the time slows you down, but to be totally cavalier about the risks is rather reckless. You are asking for trouble. Why should the audience be so forgiving in some cases but not in others? Clearly, they see this as black and white, the matter of etiquette, when in fact, it is not the case.

A classic tactical move is only accepted because it has somehow become traditional. It has no more rational place than many, many other situations that arise during a typical Tour de France.

Yeah, I remember that time when Lemond had that flat tire, but why don't they subtract time then for flats during a time trial? Or add times to the other competitors when they don't get one, keeping track of all the net riding time? So this is another gray area, flat tires. And how you get a flat is also something to consider. Riding in certain areas of the road will, as you know, be far more likely to result in flats than if you ride in other areas. So is this outside interference or accidental equipment failure? Well, yes and no. It's a gray area. Did Lance torque too much laterally after he fell from the spectator, thereby causing him to spill a second time? Probably, but this is a gray area.

The riders do the best they can, for the most part, to have a fair and uncontested outcome. As you say, they don't want controversial victory. They want clear cut victory. But what I am saying is that there is a whole lot more gray area than they want to admit. They grant concessions in some cases which have a tradition of being acceptable concessions, but ignore other equally deserving situations simply because they are not traditional.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by gntlmn
One point I was making was that Jan did not appear to have much reserves that day. I kept feeling that he was hoping not to exhaust himself too much on that climb because he had a good chance to win the final time trial, given that he was time trialing very well. In support of this point, I further mentioned that he was not able to respond to Lance's attack after Lance's crash, and considering that Jan did not accelerate away when Lance went down, it cannot be blamed on using up his reserves during an attack. As you say, he did not attack. He didn't attack then, nor did he counterattack when Lance caught up to him and passed him by. Jan was simply a beaten man in the mountains that day. I suspect that if he had attacked when Lance was down, the gap between Lance and Jan would have been even greater at the finish line that day because Jan may then have cracked and Lance may have tapped into that magic reserve that he did when he won the stage in 1995 after Fabio's death.

You see, I think the other riders fear Lance because they know what he can do when pushed against the wall. This results in overly gentlemanly behavior toward him during the Tour; they are afraid he will go into that other-worldly mode that he sometimes enters. This holding back then results in less dramatic stages. This is what I am complaining about on this post.

I'm afraid that I don't see it that way.

Lance Armstrong got away from Ullrich and started chasing Chavanel with 6 kilometres to go.
(I've just rewatched the video - taped from Eurosport as it happened).
I will give you the benefit of the commentary :
"Armstrong is now passing Chavanel - the gap is 1min 25 secs
back to Jan Ullrich/Mayo group".
Armstrong passes under the 4km flag : "what are the time checks
Sean (Kelly) ?" commentator says.
Kelly "Race radio is saying that Ullrich is 1min 20 secs".
Armstrong go by the 1km banner : Sean kelly "The time gap is now 50 seconds back to the Ullrich group. ULLRICH LOOKS TO
HAVE GAINED A SECOND WIND (my capitals)"
So Ullrich was actually starting to gain time as the climb progressed.
"The climb in the last kilometre is still steep - the climb continues
past the finish line, so Armstrong has to try to keep going to the line".
Armstrong passes the line.
"Ullrich isn't getting any help for the Euskatel boys, he needs to fight for the time bonus".
Ullrich passes the line.
"Jan Ullrich is 45 seconds down on LA's time on the road but there will be time bonus of 20 secs to LA for coming first and
Ullrich would have picked up abonus for coming third or fourth".

So the gap - on the road went from 1min 20 secs - back to 45 secs within 6 kms between LA and JU.
This does not suggest that JU was tired - he actually pulled time
back on LA on the road.

I do accept you point about the riders being intimidated by LA.
If that fall had happened and Merckx or Hinault or Kelly were in the exact position where Ullrich was as it happened that day - they would have ridden through LA and his bike (that is what Ullrich should have done).
No questions - Armstrong was blocking the course - he should have been punched or boxed out of the way.
He was an obstacle.
He caused Ullrich to have to swerve - Armstrong brought Mayo down as well.
He should have been throttled by both or either of them.
Instead the timidly went on about their business.

Also, LA should have been made to go back to where he cheated on the route when he deliberately went off course when Beloki crashed.
LA swerved off the road and went down a slight incline.
The commissaires should have ordered Armstrong to go back to the spot where he left the course and remount his bike and
start cycling from that spot.
But as usual he was allowed to get away with it.

 

[Ted B]

Originally posted by gntlmn
What I was referring to as a gray area is in the concept of outside interference. This is indeed a gray area.

It's obvious that both the riders and officials alike employ common sense and relatively sound judgment to reduce the influence of crashes, punctures, and other incidents on the outcome of a three-week physical contest that is challenging enough without such incidents. Fortunately, they don't dwell on painting technicalities with such a broad brush such as to make it all seem ambiguous. Neither do I, so there is no need for me to debate over increasingly insignificant minutiae.

It doesn't seem very gray to me and apparently neither to the riders or officials as well. If you feel differently we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Ted B]

Originally posted by limerickman
Also, LA should have been made to go back to where he cheated on the route when he deliberately went off course when Beloki crashed.
LA swerved off the road and went down a slight incline.
The commissaires should have ordered Armstrong to go back to the spot where he left the course and remount his bike and
start cycling from that spot.
But as usual he was allowed to get away with it.

After reviewing the video, anyone can see that Armstrong took the only safe path, and did it on reflexes alone. He almost plowed into a Gendarme that was on the scene. He gained nothing by taking the path through the field and if anything, he risked damaging his bike (which isn't exactly a mountain bike).

Since he obviously gained nothing by taking the path of avoidance, there is nothing to be 'equalized' by penalizing him. Had it happened to anyone else, the result would have been the same.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Ted B
After reviewing the video, anyone can see that Armstrong took the only safe path, and did it on reflexes alone. He almost plowed into a Gendarme that was on the scene. He gained nothing by taking the path through the field and if anything, he risked damaging his bike (which isn't exactly a mountain bike).

Since he obviously gained nothing by taking the path of avoidance, there is nothing to be 'equalized' by penalizing him. Had it happened to anyone else, the result would have been the same.

Have you competed in cycling ?

You will know that the rules state that you must cycle the FULL route of the course.
Cycling down an embankment and re-entering the course doesn't constitute cycling the FULL route.

No one is questioning the fact that he avoided Beloki.
But he was required to re-enter the course at the point from where he left the course.
That is the rule of cycling.

 

[Ted B]

Originally posted by limerickman
You will know that the rules state that you must cycle the FULL route of the course.

This rule is written specifically to ensure that no one cheats. Anyone can see this was not an incidence of cheating.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Ted B
This rule is written specifically to ensure that no one cheats. Anyone can see this was not an incidence of cheating.

And how can any of us be certain that LA did not want to capitalise on Beloki's crash ?

The fact is that LA left the course - regardless of his intentions
whether to cheat or whether to avoid Beloki.

The rules are clear - a cyclist must complete the full course.

LA - regardless of the reasons why he left the course - did not cycle the full course of the TDF in 2003.
Thus he infringed the rules of cycling.

 

[Ted B]

Originally posted by limerickman
And how can any of us be certain that LA did not want to capitalise on Beloki's crash ?

Yes, he certainly stood to capitalize by avoiding the extra 100 meters or so of a downhill stretch of smooth asphalt in favor of a shortcut through a very attractive looking cornfield, despite the fact that such a crafty move did not earn him any time advantage or advancement of placement in the stage. Very clever I'd say.

Originally posted by limerickman
LA - regardless of the reasons why he left the course - did not cycle the full course of the TDF in 2003.
Thus he infringed the rules of cycling.

Agreed. You should immediately prepare a letter of discovery to the officiating team and undoubtedly they will see the wisdom of your logic. Realizing how they've been scammed, they will certainly strip LA of his fifth victory.

Meanwhile, I'll go find something better to do...

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Ted B
Yes, he certainly stood to capitalize by avoiding the extra 100 meters or so of a downhill stretch of smooth asphalt in favor of a shortcut through a very attractive looking cornfield, despite the fact that such a crafty move did not earn him any advancement in placement in the stage. Very clever I'd say.

Originally posted by limerickman
LA - regardless of the reasons why he left the course - did not cycle the full course of the TDF in 2003.
Thus he infringed the rules of cycling.

Agreed. You should immediately prepare a letter of discovery to the officiating team and undoubtedly they will see the wisdom of your logic. Realizing how they've been scammed, they will certainly strip LA of his fifth victory.

Meanwhile, I'll go find something better to do...

I'm simply pointing this out to you.
I know if it came down to someone leaving the course - and because of it, it deprived LA of the TDF title - we would never
hear the end of it.

Probably better to agree to disagree on this subject.

 

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by limerickman
And how can any of us be certain that LA did not want to capitalise on Beloki's crash ?

The fact is that LA left the course - regardless of his intentions
whether to cheat or whether to avoid Beloki.

The rules are clear - a cyclist must complete the full course.

LA - regardless of the reasons why he left the course - did not cycle the full course of the TDF in 2003.
Thus he infringed the rules of cycling.

I think there is an exception to this rule, as I recall the commentary at the time. The emphasis is on rider safety. Clearly, Lance had no choice to but to ride down that hill instead of running over Beloki. He was in imminent danger. This is without question. Did he gain a time advantage by lumbering over that rough area and reentering the race there? No. He would have been at roughly the same spot if Beloki had not crashed. But I don't think this is the major issue. The point is the safety of the riders. Downhill crashes are particularly punishing. It's a good thing Lance had cyclocross experience. I was sure he was going to crash or get a flat through the rough area, or warp a rim, which he may even have done but not enough to stop.

 

[hemplands]

IMHO LA cut a corner and paid the price with his fall. He does it in all stages, on the road or a time trial to take the shortest line.

In Lorient ITT 2002 he hugged the barriers all the way down the finishing strait. I know I was stood just past the finish and he came so close to the barriers like Sonic the Hedgehog, there was that woosh. If I put my arm out I would probably have lost it but he'd have been on the ground he was that close.

He should by now have the nous to steer a little further away from the road edges.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by gntlmn
I think there is an exception to this rule, as I recall the commentary at the time. The emphasis is on rider safety. Clearly, Lance had no choice to but to ride down that hill instead of running over Beloki. He was in imminent danger. This is without question. Did he gain a time advantage by lumbering over that rough area and reentering the race there? No. He would have been at roughly the same spot if Beloki had not crashed. But I don't think this is the major issue. The point is the safety of the riders. Downhill crashes are particularly punishing. It's a good thing Lance had cyclocross experience. I was sure he was going to crash or get a flat through the rough area, or warp a rim, which he may even have done but not enough to stop.

Let's agree to respect each others views on this.

 

[gntlmn]

Originally posted by limerickman
I'm afraid that I don't see it that way.

Lance Armstrong got away from Ullrich and started chasing Chavanel with 6 kilometres to go.
(I've just rewatched the video - taped from Eurosport as it happened).
I will give you the benefit of the commentary :
"Armstrong is now passing Chavanel - the gap is 1min 25 secs
back to Jan Ullrich/Mayo group".
Armstrong passes under the 4km flag : "what are the time checks
Sean (Kelly) ?" commentator says.
Kelly "Race radio is saying that Ullrich is 1min 20 secs".
Armstrong go by the 1km banner : Sean kelly "The time gap is now 50 seconds back to the Ullrich group. ULLRICH LOOKS TO
HAVE GAINED A SECOND WIND (my capitals)"
So Ullrich was actually starting to gain time as the climb progressed.
"The climb in the last kilometre is still steep - the climb continues
past the finish line, so Armstrong has to try to keep going to the line".
Armstrong passes the line.
"Ullrich isn't getting any help for the Euskatel boys, he needs to fight for the time bonus".
Ullrich passes the line.
"Jan Ullrich is 45 seconds down on LA's time on the road but there will be time bonus of 20 secs to LA for coming first and
Ullrich would have picked up abonus for coming third or fourth".

So the gap - on the road went from 1min 20 secs - back to 45 secs within 6 kms between LA and JU.
This does not suggest that JU was tired - he actually pulled time
back on LA on the road.

I do accept you point about the riders being intimidated by LA.
If that fall had happened and Merckx or Hinault or Kelly were in the exact position where Ullrich was as it happened that day - they would have ridden through LA and his bike (that is what Ullrich should have done).
No questions - Armstrong was blocking the course - he should have been punched or boxed out of the way.
He was an obstacle.
He caused Ullrich to have to swerve - Armstrong brought Mayo down as well.
He should have been throttled by both or either of them.
Instead the timidly went on about their business.

Also, LA should have been made to go back to where he cheated on the route when he deliberately went off course when Beloki crashed.
LA swerved off the road and went down a slight incline.
The commissaires should have ordered Armstrong to go back to the spot where he left the course and remount his bike and
start cycling from that spot.
But as usual he was allowed to get away with it.

It seems that you have unwittingly proven my point. First you say that Lance was about 1: 45 down on Ullrich after he crashed, Ullrich increasing his lead not by attacking but by maintaining his tempo. Then Lance attacks, and crashes again. Now how far is he back, 2 minutes? So he attacks again. He then gains 2 minutes that he was back plus the 1:20 you mention above for a total of 3:20 on Jan Ullrich from the crash to point where Jan begins to make a desperate attempt to recover. Clearly, his team is probably screaming in his ear YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE THE TOUR. GET MOVING. NOW, NOW, NOW. FINAL TIME TRIAL WILL BE TOO LATE. But what does he recover out of the 3:20? A measly 35 seconds. That's nothing to brag about considering Lance's attack began 2 minutes further down the hill from where Ullrich was.

As for throttling Lance when he went down when they easily could swerve (and did) to avoid him, the swerving is indeed an act of sportsmanship which I greatly admire, even though it is actually also an act of self preservation (it's risky to throttle someone in the thick of a pack of ascending riders). This is different than the question of whether someone should take advantage of the race. Advocating violence in the race as you suggest is not a good sign, especially if you are as you say, a cycling coach. I'd say that is not to be condoned.