Lance: "Patrice Halgand = Asshole"

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Kenny, Jun 14, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kenny

    Kenny Guest

    After yesterday's stage Lance wasn't too happy with the actions of Patrice Halgand. When
    Dauphine-leader Lance fell in the descent Halgand attacked twice. Armstrong was pretty much pissed
    off by Halgand's acting and called him an asshole after the race. Halgand tried to defend himself by
    saying that he thought that Armstrong was behind because of a puncture...
     
    Tags:


  2. Bart

    Bart Guest

    "Kenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > After yesterday's stage Lance wasn't too happy with the actions of Patrice Halgand. When
    > Dauphine-leader Lance fell in the descent Halgand attacked twice. Armstrong was pretty much pissed
    > off by Halgand's acting and called him an asshole after the race. Halgand tried to defend himself
    > by saying that he thought that Armstrong was behind because of a puncture...

    And I doubt you read that too.Especially that last sentence. Quite some defense that would
    be .......
     
  3. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Bart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Kenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > After yesterday's stage Lance wasn't too happy with the actions of Patrice Halgand. When
    > > Dauphine-leader Lance fell in the descent Halgand attacked twice. Armstrong was pretty much
    > > pissed off by Halgand's acting and called him an asshole after the race. Halgand tried to defend
    > > himself by saying that he thought that Armstrong was behind because of a puncture...
    >
    > And I doubt you read that too.Especially that last sentence. Quite some defense that would
    > be .......

    From L'Equipe:

    Le Texan est resté persuadé que le Français l'avait attaqué alors qu'il s'était «vautré» après un
    vol plané à plus de 70 km/h dans la descente du col de Taninges. «Faux», a vainement rétorqué
    Halgand, qui s'est fait renvoyer à ses chères études alors qu'il allait donner des explications à

    une attitude d'amateur que d'attaquer un leader à terre», a claironné l'Américain après l'arrivée.
    «Cela explique le bien fondé de l'interrogation des gens sur la présence de Jean Delatour au départ
    du Tour de France».

    Nice mouth. I wonder, if Armstrong had been lying in second place to Ulrich when Ulrich crashed,
    would Armstrong have waited or attacked? Crashes happen. That's part of racing and no gifts are or
    should be given. And please don't tell me about Armstong waiting for Ulrich. When his place was
    threatened on the descent, he stopped waiting for Ulrich and did what he had to do for himself.
     
  4. In article <[email protected]>, "B. Lafferty"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Bart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Kenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > After yesterday's stage Lance wasn't too happy with the actions of Patrice Halgand. When
    > > > Dauphine-leader Lance fell in the descent Halgand attacked twice. Armstrong was pretty much
    > > > pissed off by Halgand's acting and called him an asshole after the race. Halgand tried to
    > > > defend himself by saying that he thought that Armstrong was behind because of a puncture...

    > From L'Equipe:
    >
    > Le Texan est resté persuadé que le Français l'avait attaqué alors qu'il s'était «vautré» après un
    > vol plané à plus de 70 km/h dans la descente du col de Taninges. «Faux», a vainement rétorqué
    > Halgand, qui s'est fait renvoyer à ses chères études alors qu'il allait donner des explications à

    > une attitude d'amateur que d'attaquer un leader à terre», a claironné l'Américain après l'arrivée.
    > «Cela explique le bien fondé de l'interrogation des gens sur la présence de Jean Delatour au
    > départ du Tour de France».
    >
    > Nice mouth. I wonder, if Armstrong had been lying in second place to Ulrich when Ulrich crashed,
    > would Armstrong have waited or attacked? Crashes happen. That's part of racing and no gifts are or
    > should be given. And please don't tell me about Armstong waiting for Ulrich. When his place was
    > threatened on the descent, he stopped waiting for Ulrich and did what he had to do for himself.

    Traditionally, you don't attack for a break when the lead riders are feeding, during temporary
    misfortunes (crashes, flats) of the rider you are attacking, or on the last day of the Tour before
    you can see the Arc de Triomphe.

    Cycling is a sport where you defy this complex etiquette at your peril, because so much success can
    depend on ad hoc assistance in working a break or closing a gap, and because so much trust is
    required to ride safely in a 200-man peloton. Learning this stuff is part of the very structured
    tradition of working your way up as a domestique before you get to become a star rider.

    --
    Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
     
  5. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    So Merckx should have waited for Ocana? The peloton should have waited for buttercup Wim Van Est?
    The leaders should have waited for Duclos at the exit of the Arenburg? Johan should have waited for
    George to get out of the ditch? There are many more examples. This is racing. Some riders crash and
    lose. Some crash and still go on to win. If you want to win you crash and chase back. It's all part
    of racing and a bit different than attacking a feed zone (which is regualrly done) or attacking
    during the call of nature or slipping into the lead break that you were't in before boing stopped at
    the level crossing. I suspect that Mister Nice Personality may be in the process of getting some
    payback this season.

    BTW, I hear that NASCAR is considering a rule change to neutralize races in which the leader crashes
    to give time to get in the replacement car..

    "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, "B. Lafferty"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "Bart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > "Kenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > After yesterday's stage Lance wasn't too happy with the actions of Patrice Halgand. When
    > > > > Dauphine-leader Lance fell in the descent Halgand attacked twice. Armstrong was pretty much
    > > > > pissed off by Halgand's acting and called him an asshole after the race. Halgand tried to
    > > > > defend himself by saying that he thought that Armstrong was behind because of a puncture...
    >
    > > From L'Equipe:
    > >
    > > Le Texan est resté persuadé que le Français l'avait attaqué alors qu'il s'était «vautré» après
    > > un vol plané à plus de 70 km/h dans la descente
    du
    > > col de Taninges. «Faux», a vainement rétorqué Halgand, qui s'est fait renvoyer à ses chères
    > > études alors qu'il allait donner des explications
    à

    C'est
    > > une attitude d'amateur que d'attaquer un leader à terre», a claironné l'Américain après
    > > l'arrivée. «Cela explique le bien fondé de
    l'interrogation
    > > des gens sur la présence de Jean Delatour au départ du Tour de France».
    > >
    > > Nice mouth. I wonder, if Armstrong had been lying in second place to
    Ulrich
    > > when Ulrich crashed, would Armstrong have waited or attacked? Crashes happen. That's part of
    > > racing and no gifts are or should be given. And please don't tell me about Armstong waiting for
    > > Ulrich. When his place
    was
    > > threatened on the descent, he stopped waiting for Ulrich and did what he
    had
    > > to do for himself.
    >
    > Traditionally, you don't attack for a break when the lead riders are feeding, during temporary
    > misfortunes (crashes, flats) of the rider you are attacking, or on the last day of the Tour before
    > you can see the Arc de Triomphe.
    >
    > Cycling is a sport where you defy this complex etiquette at your peril, because so much success
    > can depend on ad hoc assistance in working a break or closing a gap, and because so much trust is
    > required to ride safely in a 200-man peloton. Learning this stuff is part of the very structured
    > tradition of working your way up as a domestique before you get to become a star rider.
    >
    > --
    > Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
     
  6. Benjo Maso

    Benjo Maso Guest

    "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, "B. Lafferty"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "Bart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > "Kenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > After yesterday's stage Lance wasn't too happy with the actions of
    >
    > Traditionally, you don't attack for a break when the lead riders are feeding, during temporary
    > misfortunes (crashes, flats) of the rider you are attacking,

    That was the reason why Zülle, Boogerd, Gotti, etc. were so angry after the massive crash at the
    Passage du Gois in 1999 when they were attacked by the teams of Olano, Julich and ... Armstrong.

    Benjo Maso
     
  7. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    And it would have been a very different race considering Zulle's form. Lance might even be looking
    for win four this year. But that's racing. Time for the Texan to grow up.

    "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]>, "B. Lafferty"
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > "Bart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > >
    > > > > "Kenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > > After yesterday's stage Lance wasn't too happy with the actions of
    > >
    > > Traditionally, you don't attack for a break when the lead riders are feeding, during temporary
    > > misfortunes (crashes, flats) of the rider you are attacking,
    >
    >
    > That was the reason why Zülle, Boogerd, Gotti, etc. were so angry after
    the
    > massive crash at the Passage du Gois in 1999 when they were attacked by
    the
    > teams of Olano, Julich and ... Armstrong.
    >
    >
    > Benjo Maso
    >
    >
     
  8. Raptor

    Raptor Guest

    B. Lafferty wrote:
    > And it would have been a very different race considering Zulle's form. Lance might even be looking
    > for win four this year. But that's racing. Time for the Texan to grow up.

    Did Zulle express outrage or disappointment after that attack, and/or did the other "victims" of the
    attacks mentioned in other posts object to them?

    Perhaps attacking during a contender's misfortune is a part of bike racing, just like the
    unfortunate contender getting pissed about it is.

    --
    --
    Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
    could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
    charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.
     
  9. Warren

    Warren Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, benjo maso <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    > > Traditionally, you don't attack for a break when the lead riders are feeding, during temporary
    > > misfortunes (crashes, flats) of the rider you are attacking,
    >
    >
    > That was the reason why Zülle, Boogerd, Gotti, etc. were so angry after the massive crash at the
    > Passage du Gois in 1999 when they were attacked by the teams of Olano, Julich and ... Armstrong.

    That is a very different case. All the teams knew about the problem with the road ahead and some
    teams worked very hard to be at the front before the dangerous section (to avoid crashes). It's the
    same as working hard to be at the front before the Arenberg Forest or any of the narrow climbs in
    the Dutch Classics. If you're unwilling to work hard to be in front you may have to suffer the
    consequences.

    -WG
     
  10. "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >Crashes happen. That's part of racing and no gifts are or should be given.

    <snip>

    from:

    http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/4103.0.html

    Halgand defended himself, telling AFP: "I thought Armstrong had had a puncture. I did not know he
    had fallen. That's why I attacked, but then I was told to stop because Armstrong was on the ground.
    I agree you should not attack in these circumstances."
     
  11. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >Crashes happen. That's part of racing and no gifts are or should be given.
    >
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >
    >
    > from:
    >
    > http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/4103.0.html
    >
    > Halgand defended himself, telling AFP: "I thought Armstrong had had a puncture. I did not know he
    > had fallen. That's why I attacked, but then I was told to stop because Armstrong was on the
    > ground. I agree you should
    not
    > attack in these circumstances."

    Do you actually believe he would admit that he decided to attack? If you think that, I have some
    waterfront property that might interest you.
     
  12. Amit

    Amit Guest

    "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > So Merckx should have waited for Ocana? The peloton should have waited for buttercup Wim Van Est?
    > The leaders should have waited for Duclos at the exit of the Arenburg? Johan should have waited
    > for George to get out of the ditch? There are many more examples.

    Whatever douchebag, not waiting (all your examples) is not the same thing as attacking someone when
    they go down.

    -Amit
     
  13. "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > from:
    > >
    > > http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/4103.0.html
    > >
    > > Halgand defended himself, telling AFP: "I thought Armstrong had had a puncture. I did not know
    > > he had fallen. That's why I attacked, but then
    I
    > > was told to stop because Armstrong was on the ground. I agree you should
    > not
    > > attack in these circumstances."
    >
    >
    > Do you actually believe he would admit that he decided to attack?

    If that was accepted behavior in the peloton, yes.

    >If you think that, I have some waterfront property that might interest you.

    Not attacking the GC leader who has crashed is one of the unwritten rules in the peloton. Sometimes
    those rules get broken.

    Other unwritten rules:

    don't attack in the feed zone don't attack the GC leader if he flats don't take the wheel of a
    sprinter who's getting lead out

    etc.

    Like any rule, these rules get broken, but most riders will follow the code of conduct since their
    peers can make life miserable for them if they acquire a bad reputation.
     
  14. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Amit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > So Merckx should have waited for Ocana? The peloton should have waited
    for
    > > buttercup Wim Van Est? The leaders should have waited for Duclos at the exit of the Arenburg?
    > > Johan should have waited for George to get out of
    the
    > > ditch? There are many more examples.
    >
    > Whatever douchebag, not waiting (all your examples) is not the same thing as attacking someone
    > when they go down.
    >
    > -Amit

    Dear Dickhead, Please explain at what point and under what circumstances not waiting turns into an
    attack. Did Armstaong and Ulrich not wait for Zulle or was that an attack?
     
  15. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > from:
    > > >
    > > > http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/4103.0.html
    > > >
    > > > Halgand defended himself, telling AFP: "I thought Armstrong had had a puncture. I did not know
    > > > he had fallen. That's why I attacked, but
    then
    > I
    > > > was told to stop because Armstrong was on the ground. I agree you
    should
    > > not
    > > > attack in these circumstances."
    > >
    > >
    > > Do you actually believe he would admit that he decided to attack?
    >
    >
    > If that was accepted behavior in the peloton, yes.
     
  16. Benjo Maso

    Benjo Maso Guest

    "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:140620030950102094%[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, benjo maso <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > > > Traditionally, you don't attack for a break when the lead riders are feeding, during temporary
    > > > misfortunes (crashes, flats) of the rider
    you
    > > > are attacking,
    > >
    > >
    > > That was the reason why Zülle, Boogerd, Gotti, etc. were so angry after
    the
    > > massive crash at the Passage du Gois in 1999 when they were attacked by
    the
    > > teams of Olano, Julich and ... Armstrong.
    >
    > That is a very different case. All the teams knew about the problem with the road ahead and some
    > teams worked very hard to be at the front before the dangerous section (to avoid crashes). It's
    > the same as working hard to be at the front before the Arenberg Forest or any of the narrow climbs
    > in the Dutch Classics. If you're unwilling to work hard to be in front you may have to suffer the
    > consequences.

    You mean it's OK to attack if a crash is a riders's own fault? But that's almost always the case:
    lack of concentration, taking to many risks, not riding in front, misjudging a situation, etc., etc.
    There are exceptions of course: a riders might be hit by a car or a motorcycle, like Poulidor in
    1968 (by the way, his rivals attacked immediately). But who is to decide if it's justified or not?
    For instance, in the stage to Saint-Nazaire, Michael Boogerd was all the time in front, but two
    miles before the Passage du Gois he got a flat and couldn't be back in time. So was it right to
    attack him, yes of no? The point is of course that riders are completely opportunistic. It doesn't
    look good to attack when a rival has crashed or has a flat. But if they think they can get away with
    it they do it all the time, as they did after the Passage du Gois. Armstrong's remarks on the Jean
    Delatour team were completely uncalled for, but the message it's clear: a small team can't get away
    with it and they will regret it. No surprising stage wins in the Tour for Jean Delatour...

    Benjo Maso
     
  17. Nick Burns

    Nick Burns Guest

    The difference is what was reported. For some reason, just about everything Lance says makes it to
    the web through some route. The more you win, the more they print. I have no doubt that Zulle was
    cussing mad but I guess there were no reporters around that thought anyone would care.

    "Raptor" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > B. Lafferty wrote:
    > > And it would have been a very different race considering Zulle's form. Lance might even be
    > > looking for win four this year. But that's racing. Time for the Texan to grow up.
    >
    > Did Zulle express outrage or disappointment after that attack, and/or did the other "victims" of
    > the attacks mentioned in other posts object to them?
    >
    > Perhaps attacking during a contender's misfortune is a part of bike racing, just like the
    > unfortunate contender getting pissed about it is.
    >
    > --
    > --
    > Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
    > could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP
    > in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.
     
  18. "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > >
    > > > > from:
    > > > >
    > > > > http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/4103.0.html
    > > > >
    > > > > Halgand defended himself, telling AFP: "I thought Armstrong had had
    a
    > > > > puncture. I did not know he had fallen. That's why I attacked, but
    > then
    > > I
    > > > > was told to stop because Armstrong was on the ground. I agree you
    > should
    > > > not
    > > > > attack in these circumstances."
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Do you actually believe he would admit that he decided to attack?
    > >
    > >
    > > If that was accepted behavior in the peloton, yes.
    >

    Face it, if it was accepted behavior, he would have defended his actions.
     
  19. B. Lafferty

    B. Lafferty Guest

    "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > from:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/4103.0.html
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Halgand defended himself, telling AFP: "I thought Armstrong had
    had
    > a
    > > > > > puncture. I did not know he had fallen. That's why I attacked, but
    > > then
    > > > I
    > > > > > was told to stop because Armstrong was on the ground. I agree you
    > > should
    > > > > not
    > > > > > attack in these circumstances."
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Do you actually believe he would admit that he decided to attack?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > If that was accepted behavior in the peloton, yes.
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > Face it, if it was accepted behavior, he would have defended his actions.

    the truth because they raise their right hand and swear that they will. Read Benjo's second post on
    this thread and see if you can't come up with at least one reason H. wouldn't admit to intentionally
    attacking Armstrong if he had.
     
  20. Warren

    Warren Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, benjo maso <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:140620030950102094%[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]>, benjo maso <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >
    > > > > Traditionally, you don't attack for a break when the lead riders are feeding, during
    > > > > temporary misfortunes (crashes, flats) of the rider
    > you
    > > > > are attacking,
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > That was the reason why Zülle, Boogerd, Gotti, etc. were so angry after
    > the
    > > > massive crash at the Passage du Gois in 1999 when they were attacked by
    > the
    > > > teams of Olano, Julich and ... Armstrong.
    > >
    > > That is a very different case. All the teams knew about the problem with the road ahead and some
    > > teams worked very hard to be at the front before the dangerous section (to avoid crashes). It's
    > > the same as working hard to be at the front before the Arenberg Forest or any of the narrow
    > > climbs in the Dutch Classics. If you're unwilling to work hard to be in front you may have to
    > > suffer the consequences.
    >
    >
    > You mean it's OK to attack if a crash is a riders's own fault? But that's almost always the
    > case: lack of concentration, taking to many risks, not riding in front, misjudging a situation,
    > etc., etc.

    The examples I gave you were not about risk taking, lack of concentration, or misjudging a
    situation. Everyone in the race knows they should be at the front at a given point to avoid the
    expected crashes or the congestion behind them. (Why do you think the guys racing for the win are
    always in the top 15 going into the forest?) That is not the same as one guy crashing on a descent.

    -WG
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...