"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:09:17 +0200, "trg" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:39:50 -0600, Fred Marx <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Hunter wrote: >> Vino rocks. >> >> The references I keep seeing describe the GC as "neutralized" for the >> circuits. How can you be neutralized, but have time bonuses? >> That's-- >> really odd, I've never heard it used that way. >> >> Is "neutralized" just a bad translation of what the TdF rules actually >> say? Did they actually just move the crash zone back to the start of >> the circuits from 3k to go? >> >the way it read on cyclingnews.com was that the GC times were finalized >at he start of the Champs E curcuits.... then they gave Vino a time >bonus for the stage win... inequitable I would think, murky at best.
For me the bottom line is that it is a race and finishing sooner is better than finishing later and should be rewarded.
No matter how finely one parses the rules and how one maximizes his efforts under the rules you're better off finishing ahead of the other guy. Lance is a perfect example of this, spending most of his time operating procedurally marking time and working the angles, but he rides like a scalded demon if someone threatens his position.
Check out hows your "scalded deamon" did in the final stage of the 2003 tour at the finish in Paris vis-a-vis the guy who was a little over a minute behind. He didn't sweat it. He didn't try to finish ahead of Ullrich. Cause he was under the (correct) impression that even if there were a time gap, it wouldn't change things.
Let Ullrich try to get away early enough to put himself a minute up for the stage and see if Armstrong would let him go. Lance knew that all he had to do was finish in the same pack as Jan and nothing Jan could do would cover the one difference.
Levi was not that far ahead.
Quoted message said:
If you don't think you can lose your spot to the guy behind you, you don't worry about when you cross the finish line, (unless you're going for the win), whether you are Lance or anyone else. In fact the main thing is to safely cross the line. Gerolsteiner can be faulted for not getting clarification on what the rule meant, but not for their actions based on what they thought the rule meant.
I'm sorry, I think they should have covered. Here's a guy breaking with enough distance and enough time bonus in play to put him ahead. You cover that move.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think it's wrong to simply assume that letting the other guy finish ahead of you won't hurt.
I think that it was either bad management on the part of Gerolsteiner, or bad communicatin on the part of the race organizers. Given the fact that other teams, and the race announcer seemed to have understood the rules the same way that GST did, I am willing to cut them a little slack. Why put yourself at the pointy end of the course at 70kph in a turn on the cobbles when there's no need to? Especially if time gaps no longer counted. When they saw Vino break away, they might have even thought "Good luck, maybe a good showing on the line will take the sting out of missing 5th by a fracrion of a second to Levi." (Other than the fact they would probably have preferred Förster or Wrolich to win, of course)
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:09:17 +0200, "trg" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:39:50 -0600, Fred Marx <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Hunter wrote: >> Vino rocks. >> >> The references I keep seeing describe the GC as "neutralized" for the >> circuits. How can you be neutralized, but have time bonuses? >> That's-- >> really odd, I've never heard it used that way. >> >> Is "neutralized" just a bad translation of what the TdF rules actually >> say? Did they actually just move the crash zone back to the start of >> the circuits from 3k to go? >> >the way it read on cyclingnews.com was that the GC times were finalized >at he start of the Champs E curcuits.... then they gave Vino a time >bonus for the stage win... inequitable I would think, murky at best.
For me the bottom line is that it is a race and finishing sooner is better than finishing later and should be rewarded.
No matter how finely one parses the rules and how one maximizes his efforts under the rules you're better off finishing ahead of the other guy. Lance is a perfect example of this, spending most of his time operating procedurally marking time and working the angles, but he rides like a scalded demon if someone threatens his position.
Check out hows your "scalded deamon" did in the final stage of the 2003 tour at the finish in Paris vis-a-vis the guy who was a little over a minute behind. He didn't sweat it. He didn't try to finish ahead of Ullrich. Cause he was under the (correct) impression that even if there were a time gap, it wouldn't change things.
Let Ullrich try to get away early enough to put himself a minute up for the stage and see if Armstrong would let him go. Lance knew that all he had to do was finish in the same pack as Jan and nothing Jan could do would cover the one difference.
Levi was not that far ahead.
Quoted message said:
If you don't think you can lose your spot to the guy behind you, you don't worry about when you cross the finish line, (unless you're going for the win), whether you are Lance or anyone else. In fact the main thing is to safely cross the line. Gerolsteiner can be faulted for not getting clarification on what the rule meant, but not for their actions based on what they thought the rule meant.
I'm sorry, I think they should have covered. Here's a guy breaking with enough distance and enough time bonus in play to put him ahead. You cover that move.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think it's wrong to simply assume that letting the other guy finish ahead of you won't hurt.
I think that it was either bad management on the part of Gerolsteiner, or bad communicatin on the part of the race organizers. Given the fact that other teams, and the race announcer seemed to have understood the rules the same way that GST did, I am willing to cut them a little slack. Why put yourself at the pointy end of the course at 70kph in a turn on the cobbles when there's no need to? Especially if time gaps no longer counted. When they saw Vino break away, they might have even thought "Good luck, maybe a good showing on the line will take the sting out of missing 5th by a fracrion of a second to Levi." (Other than the fact they would probably have preferred Förster or Wrolich to win, of course)
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:09:17 +0200, "trg" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:39:50 -0600, Fred Marx <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Hunter wrote: >> Vino rocks. >> >> The references I keep seeing describe the GC as "neutralized" for the >> circuits. How can you be neutralized, but have time bonuses? >> That's-- >> really odd, I've never heard it used that way. >> >> Is "neutralized" just a bad translation of what the TdF rules actually >> say? Did they actually just move the crash zone back to the start of >> the circuits from 3k to go? >> >the way it read on cyclingnews.com was that the GC times were finalized >at he start of the Champs E curcuits.... then they gave Vino a time >bonus for the stage win... inequitable I would think, murky at best.
For me the bottom line is that it is a race and finishing sooner is better than finishing later and should be rewarded.
No matter how finely one parses the rules and how one maximizes his efforts under the rules you're better off finishing ahead of the other guy. Lance is a perfect example of this, spending most of his time operating procedurally marking time and working the angles, but he rides like a scalded demon if someone threatens his position.
Check out hows your "scalded deamon" did in the final stage of the 2003 tour at the finish in Paris vis-a-vis the guy who was a little over a minute behind. He didn't sweat it. He didn't try to finish ahead of Ullrich. Cause he was under the (correct) impression that even if there were a time gap, it wouldn't change things.
Let Ullrich try to get away early enough to put himself a minute up for the stage and see if Armstrong would let him go. Lance knew that all he had to do was finish in the same pack as Jan and nothing Jan could do would cover the one difference.
Levi was not that far ahead.
Quoted message said:
If you don't think you can lose your spot to the guy behind you, you don't worry about when you cross the finish line, (unless you're going for the win), whether you are Lance or anyone else. In fact the main thing is to safely cross the line. Gerolsteiner can be faulted for not getting clarification on what the rule meant, but not for their actions based on what they thought the rule meant.
I'm sorry, I think they should have covered. Here's a guy breaking with enough distance and enough time bonus in play to put him ahead. You cover that move.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think it's wrong to simply assume that letting the other guy finish ahead of you won't hurt.
I think that it was either bad management on the part of Gerolsteiner, or bad communicatin on the part of the race organizers. Given the fact that other teams, and the race announcer seemed to have understood the rules the same way that GST did, I am willing to cut them a little slack. Why put yourself at the pointy end of the course at 70kph in a turn on the cobbles when there's no need to? Especially if time gaps no longer counted. When they saw Vino break away, they might have even thought "Good luck, maybe a good showing on the line will take the sting out of missing 5th by a fracrion of a second to Levi." (Other than the fact they would probably have preferred Förster or Wrolich to win, of course)
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:09:17 +0200, "trg" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news: [email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:39:50 -0600, Fred Marx <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Hunter wrote: >> Vino rocks. >> >> The references I keep seeing describe the GC as "neutralized" for the >> circuits. How can you be neutralized, but have time bonuses? >> That's-- >> really odd, I've never heard it used that way. >> >> Is "neutralized" just a bad translation of what the TdF rules actually >> say? Did they actually just move the crash zone back to the start of >> the circuits from 3k to go? >> >the way it read on cyclingnews.com was that the GC times were finalized >at he start of the Champs E curcuits.... then they gave Vino a time >bonus for the stage win... inequitable I would think, murky at best.
For me the bottom line is that it is a race and finishing sooner is better than finishing later and should be rewarded.
No matter how finely one parses the rules and how one maximizes his efforts under the rules you're better off finishing ahead of the other guy. Lance is a perfect example of this, spending most of his time operating procedurally marking time and working the angles, but he rides like a scalded demon if someone threatens his position.
Check out hows your "scalded deamon" did in the final stage of the 2003 tour at the finish in Paris vis-a-vis the guy who was a little over a minute behind. He didn't sweat it. He didn't try to finish ahead of Ullrich. Cause he was under the (correct) impression that even if there were a time gap, it wouldn't change things.
Let Ullrich try to get away early enough to put himself a minute up for the stage and see if Armstrong would let him go. Lance knew that all he had to do was finish in the same pack as Jan and nothing Jan could do would cover the one difference.
Levi was not that far ahead.
Quoted message said:
If you don't think you can lose your spot to the guy behind you, you don't worry about when you cross the finish line, (unless you're going for the win), whether you are Lance or anyone else. In fact the main thing is to safely cross the line. Gerolsteiner can be faulted for not getting clarification on what the rule meant, but not for their actions based on what they thought the rule meant.
I'm sorry, I think they should have covered. Here's a guy breaking with enough distance and enough time bonus in play to put him ahead. You cover that move.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think it's wrong to simply assume that letting the other guy finish ahead of you won't hurt.
I think that it was either bad management on the part of Gerolsteiner, or bad communicatin on the part of the race organizers. Given the fact that other teams, and the race announcer seemed to have understood the rules the same way that GST did, I am willing to cut them a little slack. Why put yourself at the pointy end of the course at 70kph in a turn on the cobbles when there's no need to? Especially if time gaps no longer counted. When they saw Vino break away, they might have even thought "Good luck, maybe a good showing on the line will take the sting out of missing 5th by a fracrion of a second to Levi." (Other than the fact they would probably have preferred Förster or Wrolich to win, of course)
