Mayo crashes before Pavé

[K. J. Papai]

Curtis L. Russell <curtis@[email protected]>...

> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 02:34:34 GMT, Darrell Criswell
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The unwritten rule more applies to someone not attacking
> >immediately after they see a contender crash. If Ullrich
> >had crashed next to Armsrong and then USPS had hit it
> >hard and gotten significant time on him that would have
> >been unsportsmanly.
>
> Geez, any team at the front that waits before entering
> pave is a team of fools. It just rachets up the danger for
> everyone. You can wait on a mountain stage with most of
> the peloton strung over God's green Earth, but doing
> something damn stupid as possibly creating bottlenecks on
> a stretch already designed to create a bit more of
> excitement is simply stupid. About like a F-1 driver
> deciding to be sportsmanlike by waiiting in the middle of
> a chicane.

Sometimes the most succinct explanations like Curtis' are
often the best. Explain that to haters like Jonathan though
and it's like talking to a thick brick wall.

-Ken

> Evidently, some people 'promote' sportmanship by making
> 'sportsmanship' = 'stupid'.
>
> Curtis L. Russell

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Diablo Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> benjo maso wrote:

>> The whole discussion is slightly off the mark. The point
>> is not if everybody should have waited for Mayo. Of
>> course that would be silly. The point is if it's
>> sportsmanlike to attack or to accelerate if one of your
>> rivals is down. Did the Postals do that? Yes they did,
>> said Jimmy Caspar (www.letour.fr). If that's really the
>> case it's understandable, but from a fair play-
>> perspective certainly not very admirable.
>>
>> Benjo Maso
>>
>>
> In Mayo's interview in AS.com he seems to be saying
> (matter of factly) that sportsmanship is suspended for
> the Tour.

> http://tinyurl.com/3bew3

Here is what cyclingnews had to say about the 1999 Passage
du Gois incident:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/tour99/stage2.html
++++++++
Once the crash occurred and it was realised who was being
delayed by it, the teams went into action to maximise the
loss. Others worked to minimise the loss. Spaniard Abraham
Olano had ONCE working hard as did American Bobby Julich and
his Cofidis teammates. But a second fall damaged the
continuity of the peloton even further.

The gaps between the front and trailing groups then began to
grow. It was 1.10 at the intermediate sprint of Machecoul
twenty-five kilometers further on but from then on grew
quickly. Four teams were hammering -ONCE, US Postal,
Cofidis, and Casino. The evidence was clear. The avs in the
first hour was 32.9 km/h and in the hour after the crash it
was 46.822 km/h
++++++++

If some of those guys caught behind the crash had been ahead
of it instead you would have to think that the number of
teams working to inflict damage would have been higher.

Bob Schwartz [email protected]

 

[Jim Flom]

"K. J. Papai" wrote...
>
> Ullrich waits for Lance and vice-versa, as well as
> Hamilton, et al. Ullrich totally waited for Lance after
> the spectator crashed him and Mayo.

I saw the same race Ken, and to be honest am not presuming
to "know" what Ulrich did. I was just citing Liggett (in
Cyclesport editorial) and Armstrong (post-tour OLN
interview) with their identical statements that they
believed that Ulrich was attacking the fallen Armstrong when
I said "Both Leggett (sp) and Armstrong are on record as
having stated their opinion after reviewing the tapes that
they believe Ulrich didn't let up a bit."

 

[Tom Schulenburg]

"Jim Flom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
newsT_Gc.8328$Rf.1208@edtnps84...
> "K. J. Papai" wrote...
> >
> > Ullrich waits for Lance and vice-versa, as well as
> > Hamilton, et al. Ullrich totally waited for Lance after
> > the spectator crashed him and Mayo.
>
> I saw the same race Ken, and to be honest am not presuming
> to "know" what Ulrich did. I was just citing Liggett (in
> Cyclesport editorial) and Armstrong (post-tour OLN
> interview) with their identical statements that they
> believed that Ulrich was attacking the fallen Armstrong
> when I said "Both Leggett (sp) and Armstrong are on record
> as having stated their opinion after reviewing the tapes
> that they believe Ulrich didn't let up a bit."
>

Maybe this is just semantics, but - I don't think anyone
thinks that Jan attacked after Armstrong fell, it's more of
a question of him making a conscious decision to wait.
Ullrich was gassed trying to stay with Armstrong and Mayo,
the crash gave him the opportunity to ride a more
comfortable tempo. If you look at the TV replay you can see
the chase group coming around the corner before Ullrich
leaves the screen - they weren't that far back. I don't
think Jan tried to take advantage of the situation, but he
didn't do anything to keep the other riders in check. Basso
had passed Jan and was heading up the road before Tyler told
him to settle down. Mayo certainly didn't wait for Armstrong
to get up and join him in the chase.

-T

 

[Tm]

"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BD104C40.3808F%[email protected]...
> On 7/6/04 8:56 AM, in article

<snip>
>
> 16:19 CEST 170km/40km to go The Mayo group are coming back
> towards the leading bunch, but only
slowly -
> it doesn't look as though they're going to get back before
> the second section of pave. T-Mobile, US Postal and Phonak
> are all working hard on
the
> front (whatever happened to not attacking favourites who
> crash, I hear you ask - and have no answer). Illes
> Baleares have moved up to help in the chasing group, to
> work for Denis Menchov. The sprinters' teams are all
> taking it nice and easy for the moment.
>

Well here's the obvious answer: Make a joke out of the TTT
and the stronger teams will have to find another way to take
time out of the weaker teams. This is it. They can no longer
afford to be gentleman on the road when the rules change.

Look for crosswind attacks like CSC in Paris Nice. It
must be done.

 

[Jim Flom]

"Tom Schulenburg" wrote...
>
> Maybe this is just semantics, but - I don't think anyone
> thinks that Jan attacked after Armstrong fell, it's more
> of a question of him making a conscious decision to wait.
> Ullrich was gassed trying to stay with Armstrong and Mayo,
> the crash gave him the opportunity to ride a more
> comfortable tempo. If you look at the TV replay you can
> see the chase
group
> coming around the corner before Ullrich leaves the screen
> - they weren't that far back. I don't think Jan tried to
> take advantage of the
situation,
> but he didn't do anything to keep the other riders in
> check. Basso had passed Jan and was heading up the road
> before Tyler told him to settle
down.
> Mayo certainly didn't wait for Armstrong to get up and
> join him in the chase.

That's fair. Ulrich certainly didn't soft-pedal, and more
likely just continued more or less as he had been till
Hamilton said, "Whoa cowboy." Auf Deutsch of course.

 

[Hank Sniadoch]

Poor Mayo ..... I feel sorry for him.
"Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Diablo Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> > benjo maso wrote:
>
> >> The whole discussion is slightly off the mark. The
> >> point is not if
everybody
> >> should have waited for Mayo. Of course that would be
> >> silly. The point
is if
> >> it's sportsmanlike to attack or to accelerate if one of
> >> your rivals is
down.
> >> Did the Postals do that? Yes they did, said Jimmy
> >> Caspar
(www.letour.fr). If
> >> that's really the case it's understandable, but from
> >> a fair
play-perspective
> >> certainly not very admirable.
> >>
> >> Benjo Maso
> >>
> >>
> > In Mayo's interview in AS.com he seems to be saying
> > (matter of factly) that sportsmanship is suspended for
> > the Tour.
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/3bew3
>
> Here is what cyclingnews had to say about the 1999
> Passage du Gois
incident:
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/tour99/stage2.html
> ++++++++
> Once the crash occurred and it was realised who was being
> delayed by it, the teams went into action to maximise the
> loss. Others worked to minimise the loss. Spaniard Abraham
> Olano had ONCE working hard as did American Bobby Julich
> and his Cofidis teammates. But a second fall damaged the
> continuity of the peloton even further.
>
> The gaps between the front and trailing groups then began
> to grow. It was 1.10 at the intermediate sprint of
> Machecoul twenty-five kilometers further on but from then
> on grew quickly. Four teams were hammering -ONCE, US
> Postal, Cofidis, and Casino. The evidence was clear. The
> avs in the first hour was 32.9 km/h and in the hour after
> the crash it was 46.822 km/h
> ++++++++
>
> If some of those guys caught behind the crash had been
> ahead of it instead you would have to think that the
> number of teams working to inflict damage would have
> been higher.
>
> Bob Schwartz [email protected]

 

[Rick Hopkins]

benjo maso wrote:

> "Richard Anderson" <[email protected]> schreef in
> bericht news:[email protected]...
>
>>Hey!
>>
>>What if Lance and the Postals *had* waited for Mayo. Can
>>you imagine the whole peloton slowing down and riding
>>piano as they entered the pave? I can't. That would really
>>be lame.
>
>
>
> The whole discussion is slightly off the mark. The point
> is not if everybody should have waited for Mayo. Of course
> that would be silly. The point is if it's sportsmanlike to
> attack or to accelerate if one of your rivals is down. Did
> the Postals do that? Yes they did, said Jimmy Caspar
> (www.letour.fr). If that's really the case it's
> understandable, but from a fair play-perspective certainly
> not very admirable.
>
> Benjo Maso

It is far more complex than that since all of the pre-race
favorites, except for Mayo, increased tempo. It would have
been stupid and foolish for any favorite to wait.

Riok

 

[Tom Kunich]

"steve robertson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 22:55:35 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >So who instigated the attack? Was it US Postal or
> >McEwen's team who saw
most
> >of the main sprinters to the rear? Are you telling us
> >that Lance should
not
> >follow the front to effect your idea of sportsmanship?
> >
> USPS were definitely riding hard the first time we saw the
> peloton after the crash images. But they had to continue
> to ride hard right through the pavé or they would have
> been swamped and there would have been more problems.

USPS plan was to ride on the front and VERY hard in order
to have the safest path through the cobbles. It was a
good plan.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"steve robertson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 00:39:40 GMT, "Jim Flom"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"steve robertson" wrote ...
> >>
> >> USPS were definitely riding hard the first time we saw
> >> the peloton after the crash images. But they had to
> >> continue to ride hard right through the pavé
> >
> >FWIW, here's Graham Watson's expert commentary, putting
> >the pace more on T-Mobile's shoulders than US Postals.
> >
> >"Two minutes back, the Euskatel team are working flat-out
> >to close the growing gap for Mayo"
>
>http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/updateframesetcal-
>l?openform&04tour
St3
> >
> >and then...
> >
> >"On hearing this, T-Mobile go to the head of the leading
> >group to make
sure
> >Mayo never returns..."
>
>http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/updateframesetcal-
>l?openform&04tour
St3
> >
>
> Jim, do you have a point? All I said is that according to
> the TV images, USPS drove hard before, during, and for a
> few Km past the cobbles where other teams took over.
>
> I am not accusing USPS of anything nefarious, or anything
> beyond what would be expected before such a potentially
> decisive segment.

Just laying to rest the idea that anyone should have soft
pedaled in these conditions.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:07:00 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Excuse me, but if you don't understand the rules why are
> >you commenting
on
> >them?
>
> These are not rules, only "unwritten rules". Okay with me,
> but riders should be consistent, not only pointing at
> those commitments when they have the benefit of them.

There are times you'd wait and other's where you wouldn't.
Remember in '90 when LeMond flatted and Chiapucci attacked
as hard as he could. Man did that ******** LeMond and he
burned his team up getting back up there. When Lance waited
for Jan and when Jan waited for Lance they were both in safe
positions timewise. They could make it mano-a-mano. That
wasn't the case yesterday when all of the teams were worried
about falling on the pave' and the Posties were driving it
as hard as they could not to drop Mayo but to stay at the
front across a really dangerous section of course.

> >Jens Voigt was almost 4 minutes up and a definite threat
> >on GC if he maintained that sort of advantage. UPS wasn't
> >dumping Mayo - they were closing down the time to Voigt.
>
> Since when Armstrong is concerned about who's wearing the
> yellow in the first week of the Tour?

When you put on the Yellow it changes you. Or maybe you
don't remember that nobody French climber who became the
longest run of Polkadots after wearing Yellow in, what, '90?

> Mayo might win on Alpe d'Huez, of course. but Mayo's dream
> was to win the Tour and he had a very good chance. until
> yesterday.

Do you think that Mayo had any serious aspirations of
beating Lance? Come on now - fess up.

> Armstrong eliminated one opponent, not in a very
> "sportsmanlike" way. That's okay with me, but Armstrong
> should not be complaining if T-Mobile will attack , the
> moment Armstrong got a flat tire or falls again, as a
> result of his own mistakes.

It was T-Mobile who attacked after they realized that Mayo
was off the back. Of COURSE Jan's and Tyler's teams are
going to attack. By all of the smart money they're going to
be fighting for the leavings and why would they want someone
else competing against them when they needn't?

 

[Dave Casey]

> So there you go, on the virtual Tour scale Lance has
> only managed
> 1.5 victories. In fact, I'm not sure anyone has actually
> won a Tour since Hinault, or maybe Stephen Roche.

Did your alarm clock go off right after you wrote this?

------
Dave Casey - Realtor www.LasVegasHomesDirect.com
[email protected]

 

[Roland2k]

Ewoud Dronkert <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 7 Jul 2004 12:42:55 -0700, Roland2k wrote:
> >What a short memory you have. Go back a few years to when
> >Ullrich crashed hard on a descent. Armstrong waited.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=off&ie=UTF-
> 8&[email protected]&lr=&num=30&hl=en

Touche

 

[Steve Robertson]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 05:29:17 GMT, "Jim Flom"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"steve robertson" wrote (en toto)...
>> Jim:
>>
>> I am sorry if you think I "flamed" you.
>>
>> However, I resent your selective editing of my post.
>> Please respond to the original post. If you have some
>> comments, do not take my words out of context. Comment on
>> my full sentecnces at least, if not the entire expository
>> paragraph.
>>
>> Hell, I could say that "Jim...is...a...n...enigma". But
>> it would not have anything to do with you, just taking
>> words out of your post, like you have done to mine.
>>
>> Please try to be fair next time.
>>
>> steve
>
>Give me a break, Steve. Here's your original paragraph,
>before my edits: "Ullrich, who was right behind Mayo (who
>was right behind Armstrong) when they fell, attacked.
>Hamilton, who was dropped big time, then sprinted ahead
>(accompanied by a bunch of other dropped riders). He flew
>up to Ullrich, who was in full attack mode, and told him to
>slow down."
>
>Here's my edit:
>> Ullrich, ...attacked. Hamilton, ...flew up to Ullrich,
>> who was in full attack mode, and told him to slow down.
>
>I changed nothing of the essential meaning and eliminated
>only those parts that were not directly pertinent to the
>point you and I both made that Ulrich was attacking after
>Armstrong fell. I didn't change the meaning an iota.
>
>Ladies and gentlemen, you be the judge. And now, back to
>our regularly scheduled programming.
>
>J "fair is fair" F
>

Jim:

You left out some important things again. Do you work for
Fox News or Dog Eat Dog?

My original contention was that Ullrich did not attack, and
he did not even continue in the same pace that his select
group (Mayo, Armstrong, Ullrich only) had reached. The
overwhelming fact is that Ullrich, along with Armstrong and
Mayo, had dropped the rest of the group.

Perhaps you could explain how Hamilton, who had been dropped
big time, could catch a great climber like Ullrich (who had
caught on to Armstrong and Mayo), if Ullrich had not waited?

 

[Steve Robertson]

On 7 Jul 2004 13:01:18 GMT, "Charlie C."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>steve robertson <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7 Jul 2004 04:16:22 GMT, "Charlie C."
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Armstong never complained about "a lack of
>>>sportsmanship". He never once spoke negativly about
>>>Ulrich for not waiting. He simply pointed out that he
>>>didn't think Jan waited. And he did so because he was
>>>asked about it; he didn't just come out and say it.
>>
>> Ullrich waited, simple as that.
>
>The point of my post was not whether or not Ullrich waited
>or not. I was rebuting someone who said that Armstrong
>complained about Jan not waiting. I simply pointed out that
>Lance only brought it up when he was asked about it and he
>never said anything negative per se (or whined) about Jan,
>simply stated that he thought he didn't wait based on what
>he saw while in the race, what he saw on TV and what Tyler
>said. I suppose Tyler could have been lying when he told
>Lance that Jan didn't hold up.
>
>Also, I don't think the issue is whether or not Jan
>attacked but whether or not Jan waited. Also you assume
>that Tyler couldn't catch up. You have no idea whether or
>not he had it in him or not. Your theory fits your feelings
>on the issue but in no way is your theory irrefutable.

Of course Ullrich waited. The dropped riders (Hamilton was
not even the first of those to come up) could never have
caught Ullrich if he had not. Marketing in the United States
may require that the dropped Hamilton was the hero, but that
is not the reality.

>
>Of course, another thing people seem to be forgetting is
>that Mayo attacked Lance when he went down last year. Why
>is it okay for Mayo to attack the Yellow Jersey when he
>crashes but it's not okay for the race to continue through
>a dangerous stretch of road if a Mayo crashes?
>

Mayo fell with Armstrong. Together, they caught the waiting
riders. Mayo attacked (like he had to start the original Armstrong-Mayo-
Ullrich break) and Armstrong countered. Everybody knows that
Ullrich cannot accelerate, so it was ideal for Armstrong
that the group was riding slowly waiting for him. I think
that Mayo attacking was the best thing for Armstrong since
he could not be accused of attacking Ullrich at his most
vulnerable, when the reason that Ullrich was vulnerable was
that he had slowed down for Armstrong to catch back on.

Maybe Armstrong would have been able to attack Mayo and
Ullrich if he had not ridden into the spectator, and it
would have been over anyway. But Ullrich was with Armstrong
at that point, and the three had dropped all the others. If
Ullrich had not slowed down, nobody in the world could have
caught him after Armstrong and Mayo fell - even Armstrong
could not have made up 30-40 seconds on Ullrich when he
winds it up (evidenced by the fact that Armstrong *lost* 30
seconds once Ullrich had wound it up).

 

[Charlie C.]

steve robertson <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
>
> Of course Ullrich waited. The dropped riders (Hamilton was
> not even the first of those to come up) could never have
> caught Ullrich if he had not. Marketing in the United
> States may require that the dropped Hamilton was the hero,
> but that is not the reality.

This is what I don't get.... how do you KNOW that Hamilton
couldn't have cought up? You don't KNOW. You're just
assuming. You have no idea how those guys were feeling, what
strategy they were employing. Just because Tyler caught up,
doesn't automatically mean that Jan waited. Just like Tyler
dropping back doesn't necessarily mean he couldn't get a
second wind and surge ahead. How can you know? Only the
riders can actually know.

Also, there was no "marketing" in the U.S (however, there
was MUCH marketing of the idea that Jan waited - didn't Jan
win some kind of award or something for it?). Just what
Tyler claimed (that Jan didn't wait) and the ONLY reason
Tyler said anything was because so much was being made
about Jan waiting. Tyler obviously didn't think so. He was
there. Were you?

 

[leif_ericson]

>This is what I don't get.... how do you KNOW that Hamilton
>couldn't have cought up? You don't KNOW. You're just
>assuming. You have no idea how those guys were feeling, what
>strategy they were employing. Just because Tyler caught up,
>doesn't automatically mean that Jan waited.

It was extremely obvious. A few other riders caught up as well. And you could tell by their motions that they weren't riding hard at all. (you don't suddenly have five riders side by side on a climb like that if they are going all out)

 

[Steve Robertson]

On 11 Jul 2004 02:09:04 GMT, "Charlie C."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>steve robertson <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>>
>> Of course Ullrich waited. The dropped riders (Hamilton
>> was not even the first of those to come up) could never
>> have caught Ullrich if he had not. Marketing in the
>> United States may require that the dropped Hamilton was
>> the hero, but that is not the reality.
>
>This is what I don't get.... how do you KNOW that Hamilton
>couldn't have cought up? You don't KNOW. You're just
>assuming. You have no idea how those guys were feeling,
>what strategy they were employing. Just because Tyler
>caught up, doesn't automatically mean that Jan waited. Just
>like Tyler dropping back doesn't necessarily mean he
>couldn't get a second wind and surge ahead. How can you
>know? Only the riders can actually know.
>
>Also, there was no "marketing" in the U.S (however, there
>was MUCH marketing of the idea that Jan waited - didn't Jan
>win some kind of award or something for it?). Just what
>Tyler claimed (that Jan didn't wait) and the ONLY reason
>Tyler said anything was because so much was being made
>about Jan waiting. Tyler obviously didn't think so. He was
>there. Were you?

You are probably right. Hamilton is the best climber ever,
and he was just waiting a minute behind for the best time to
launch his devastating attack. When he saw the evil Ullrich
attack the fallen hero Lance, Tyler (hence referred to as
"The Amazing Tyler, or TAF) simply rode up to Ullrich and
forced him to slow down based on TAF's amazing force of
personality, and obvious physical superiority.

There was no marketing in the United States at all. All
the books and websites and magazines published in the U.S.
were actually part of a German plot which tried to portray
Ullrich as some sort of god. But even though they were
hugely biased against Armstrong, they unanimously claimed
that Ullrich did not wait, because that is just how
obvious it was.

Sorry, Charlie. I apologise. You are right, Ullrich attacked
but luckily Hamilton was there with his superman cape to set
things right.

I would not try to be ironic. Ever. Geez.

 

[Charlie C.]

steve robertson <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 11 Jul 2004 02:09:04 GMT, "Charlie C."
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>steve robertson <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course Ullrich waited. The dropped riders (Hamilton
>>> was not even the first of those to come up) could never
>>> have caught Ullrich if he had not. Marketing in the
>>> United States may require that the dropped Hamilton was
>>> the hero, but that is not the reality.
>>
>>This is what I don't get.... how do you KNOW that Hamilton
>>couldn't have cought up? You don't KNOW. You're just
>>assuming. You have no idea how those guys were feeling,
>>what strategy they were employing. Just because Tyler
>>caught up, doesn't automatically mean that Jan waited.
>>Just like Tyler dropping back doesn't necessarily mean he
>>couldn't get a second wind and surge ahead. How can you
>>know? Only the riders can actually know.
>>
>>Also, there was no "marketing" in the U.S (however, there
>>was MUCH marketing of the idea that Jan waited - didn't
>>Jan win some kind of award or something for it?). Just
>>what Tyler claimed (that Jan didn't wait) and the ONLY
>>reason Tyler said anything was because so much was being
>>made about Jan waiting. Tyler obviously didn't think so.
>>He was there. Were you?
>
> There was no marketing in the United States at all. All
> the books and websites and magazines published in the U.S.
> were actually part of a German plot which tried to portray
> Ullrich as some sort of god. But even though they were
> hugely biased against Armstrong, they unanimously claimed
> that Ullrich did not wait, because that is just how
> obvious it was.

Name one publication who's editor claimed that Ullrich did
not wait. Not a publication that repeated what Tyler said
(or what Lance said Tyler said) but one who's editors
claimed it. You can't do it. Where was the "marketing" that
said Jan didn't wait?

Also, Tyler is a pretty good climber. This year's time trial
up Mount Ventoux is an example of that.

You still are simply presenting your interpretation of
events. You havn't proved anything. There is still no
evidence that Jan waited. He might have not attacked but he
didn't wait.

And as for sportsmanship (the original theme of this thread)
was Mayo very sportsmanlike when he let Ullrich pull him up
that mountain and then darted around him to claim the second
place time bonus? How come no one's complaining about that?

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/6521.0.html

 

[Jim Flom]

"Charlie C." wrote ...
>
> Name one publication who's editor claimed that Ullrich did
> not wait. Not a publication that repeated what Tyler said
> (or what Lance said Tyler said) but one who's editors
> claimed it. You can't do it.

Can so. CycleSport. Editorial. Phil Liggett. Somewhere
between August and October 2003 editorial.