Floyd was good today (TdF SPOILER)

David J Bush said:

Floyd Landis regained almost all of the time he lost in yesterday's
stage 16, and won stage 17 in spectacular fashion. He is now in
3rd place, about 30 seconds behind the leader. What a display of
courage! What great theater! I can hardly wait for Saturday's time
trials.

Just so you know, the idea of putting "TdF Spoiler" in the Subject field is
to WARN people who don't want to know what happened to not read the post.
It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

Bill "glad I watched it live" S.

Spoiler or not, it's nice to see the guy come back after everyone had
all but written him off after yesterday's stage. Must feel extremely
satisfying to Landis.

Quoted message said:

Spoiler or not, it's nice to see the guy come back after everyone had
all but written him off after yesterday's stage. Must feel extremely
satisfying to Landis.

Absolutely. I need to watch the early part replay to see how he opened it
up like that. BIG can of whoop-ass.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:37:24 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

|David J Bush wrote:
|> Floyd Landis regained almost all of the time he lost in yesterday's
|> stage 16, and won stage 17 in spectacular fashion. He is now in
|> 3rd place, about 30 seconds behind the leader. What a display of
|> courage! What great theater! I can hardly wait for Saturday's time
|> trials.
|
|Just so you know, the idea of putting "TdF Spoiler" in the Subject field is
|to WARN people who don't want to know what happened to not read the post.
|It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

Absolutely. The purpose is to warn. Did I do something wrong?

David J Bush said:

Bill Sornson said:

David J Bush said:

Floyd Landis regained almost all of the time he lost in yesterday's
stage 16, and won stage 17 in spectacular fashion. He is now in
3rd place, about 30 seconds behind the leader. What a display of
courage! What great theater! I can hardly wait for Saturday's time
trials.

Just so you know, the idea of putting "TdF Spoiler" in the Subject
field is to WARN people who don't want to know what happened to not
read the post. It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

Absolutely. The purpose is to warn. Did I do something wrong?

You gave away (or at least hinted at) what happened BEFORE you put the
"Spoiler" disclaimer.

No big deal (to me, anyway). Just maybe in the future don't say what the
result was in the Subject field.

For example, Subject: "WARNING! Don't read if you don't want to know what
happened today in the TdF!"

And then in the "body" talk about Floyd kicking major butt...

Bill S.

Bill Sornson wrote:
:: David J Bush wrote:
::: On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:37:24 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
::: wrote:
:::
:::: David J Bush wrote:
::::: Floyd Landis regained almost all of the time he lost in
::::: yesterday's stage 16, and won stage 17 in spectacular fashion. He
::::: is now in 3rd place, about 30 seconds behind the leader. What a
::::: display of courage! What great theater! I can hardly wait for
::::: Saturday's time trials.
::::
:::: Just so you know, the idea of putting "TdF Spoiler" in the Subject
:::: field is to WARN people who don't want to know what happened to not
:::: read the post. It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp.
:::
::: Absolutely. The purpose is to warn. Did I do something wrong?
::
:: You gave away (or at least hinted at) what happened BEFORE you put
:: the "Spoiler" disclaimer.
::
:: No big deal (to me, anyway). Just maybe in the future don't say
:: what the result was in the Subject field.
::
:: For example, Subject: "WARNING! Don't read if you don't want to
:: know what happened today in the TdF!"

In this case this subject might have been better: "TdF: Floyd (Spoiler)"

That way we at least know it was about TdF and Floyd and that there is some
spoiling info given.

"David J Bush" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Absolutely. The purpose is to warn. Did I do something wrong?

Subject: Vader is Luke's Father (spoiler)

Personally, if I don't want to be spoiled I don't go into relevant groups,
but we should all try to respect other people's phobias.

And yeah, I'm really looking forward to the rest of the TdF now.

RichC

Rich Clark said:

"David J Bush" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Absolutely. The purpose is to warn. Did I do something wrong?

Quoted message said:

Subject: Vader is Luke's Father (spoiler)

LOL (Good thing I'm not into that [censored]; ain't rented the DVDs yet!)

Quoted message said:

Personally, if I don't want to be spoiled I don't go into relevant
groups, but we should all try to respect other people's phobias.

Yeah, you don't listen to a sports talk radio station if you recorded the
game!

Quoted message said:

And yeah, I'm really looking forward to the rest of the TdF now.

Ditto.

Bill Sornson said:

I need to watch the early part replay to see how he opened it
up like that. BIG can of whoop-ass.

It might be illustrative to see the power Floyd was putting out on
the climbs:

Col des Saisies (6.4%): 395 watts in 36:55.
Col des Aravis (7.1%): 371 watts in 16:49.
Col de la Colombiere (5.8%): 392 watts in 27:45.
Cote de Chatillion-sur-Cluses (4.9%): 374 watts in 11:07.
Col de Joux-Plane (8.5%): 372 watts in 37:34.

When Floyd attacked hard on the Col des Saisies, it must have looked
like a suicide attack to the rest of the field. Yet he maintained
that level of effort on all the subsequent climbs. If the other GC
contenders had gone with him, they ran the risk of blowing up and
losing big chunks of time.
--
terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://udctours.com

Terry Morse said:

Bill Sornson said:

I need to watch the early part replay to see how he opened it
up like that. BIG can of whoop-ass.

It might be illustrative to see the power Floyd was putting out on
the climbs:

Col des Saisies (6.4%): 395 watts in 36:55.
Col des Aravis (7.1%): 371 watts in 16:49.
Col de la Colombiere (5.8%): 392 watts in 27:45.
Cote de Chatillion-sur-Cluses (4.9%): 374 watts in 11:07.
Col de Joux-Plane (8.5%): 372 watts in 37:34.

When Floyd attacked hard on the Col des Saisies, it must have looked
like a suicide attack to the rest of the field. Yet he maintained
that level of effort on all the subsequent climbs. If the other GC
contenders had gone with him, they ran the risk of blowing up and
losing big chunks of time.

It's a beautiful thing.

<eg>

"Terry Morse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

I need to watch the early part replay to see how he opened it
up like that. BIG can of whoop-ass.

It might be illustrative to see the power Floyd was putting out on
the climbs:

Col des Saisies (6.4%): 395 watts in 36:55.
Col des Aravis (7.1%): 371 watts in 16:49.
Col de la Colombiere (5.8%): 392 watts in 27:45.
Cote de Chatillion-sur-Cluses (4.9%): 374 watts in 11:07.
Col de Joux-Plane (8.5%): 372 watts in 37:34.

When Floyd attacked hard on the Col des Saisies, it must have looked
like a suicide attack to the rest of the field. Yet he maintained
that level of effort on all the subsequent climbs. If the other GC
contenders had gone with him, they ran the risk of blowing up and
losing big chunks of time.
--

It was a gutsy move, with the odds against it succeeding. It fails if other
teams chase together to share the burden. It fails if Floyd blows. But
Floyd had little to lose, and it was beautiful that it worked.

It won't work again, at least not for another 10 years. 😉
I wonder if part of the reason it worked this time is that this go-for-broke
strategy didn't work when Pantani tried it a few years ago (which many
riders and tour directors would remember).