Re: [censored] You George

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Speaking of the defending champion, Hincapie did not seem very happy
with his second place behind his teammate's win.

Why do you assert he should be happy with Levi's riding? Do you know what
the team plan was going into the race?

Are you suggesting that it is a team tactic for the man out in front to give
up a win so that the team leader could POSSIBLY win? Just cause George got a
second doesn't mean that he could have won a sprint for first. When the win
is on the line a lot of guys get bigger legs.

Tom Kunich said:

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Speaking of the defending champion, Hincapie did not seem very happy
with his second place behind his teammate's win.

Why do you assert he should be happy with Levi's riding? Do you know
what the team plan was going into the race?

Are you suggesting that it is a team tactic for the man out in front to
give up a win so that the team leader could POSSIBLY win? Just cause
George got a second doesn't mean that he could have won a sprint for
first. When the win is on the line a lot of guys get bigger legs.

I suggest nothing. The accusation was against George. My response was that there are circumstances in which one can justifiably be disappointed at a race result, even if a teammate wins. Once Levi was off the front, obviously he had to go for it. The issue is how he got there.

This can go multiple ways. Don't judge Hincapie without knowing the facts.

Dan

Dan Connelly said:

My response was that there are circumstances in which
one can justifiably be disappointed at a race result,
even if a teammate wins.

While this is true, it should never be apparent to the
press.

I am thinking this does not bode well for George. If he
isn't willing to chase down a teammate how will he ever
fit in with T-Mobile?

Bob Schwartz

"Bob Schwartz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am thinking this does not bode well for George. If he
isn't willing to chase down a teammate how will he ever
fit in with T-Mobile?

That was a pretty low blow. I like it!

DA74 said:

On Sep 3, 7:35 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>

Quoted message said:

My response was that there are circumstances in which one can justifiably be disappointed at a race result, even if a teammate wins.

I completely disagree. This is a team sport. If your team wins then
everything went perfectly given the circumstances of that particular
race. Period.

A team arranges a leadout train. A leadout man intentionally boxes his sprinter in, going for the W himself, which he takes.

All's well that ends well?

Another situation: your GC leader is on the final climb in a stage race, and it's your job to protect him. That's not your style. You drop him, leaving him isolated, then take the W for the stage. He hangs on to keep the jersey.

No problem?

It's easy to come up with scenerios where the final result isn't the whole story.

Dan

P.S. Each of these examples is strictly hypothetical.

On Sep 4, 9:45 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>

Quoted message said:

DA74 said:

On Sep 3, 7:35 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My response was that there are circumstances in which one can justifiably be disappointed at a race result, even if a teammate wins.

Quoted message said:

I completely disagree. This is a team sport. If your team wins then
everything went perfectly given the circumstances of that particular
race. Period.

A team arranges a leadout train. A leadout man intentionally boxes his sprinter in, going for the W himself, which he takes.

All's well that ends well?

Another situation: your GC leader is on the final climb in a stage race, and it's your job to protect him. That's not your style. You drop him, leaving him isolated, then take the W for the stage. He hangs on to keep the jersey.

No problem?

It's easy to come up with scenerios where the final result isn't the whole story.

Dan

P.S. Each of these examples is strictly hypothetical.

You're right, they are hypothetical and yes, it's easy to come up with
scenarios and yes, individuals may not be personally satisfied with
how things played out but you're missing the point. This is a TEAM
SPORT. A team win trumps all, period. End of story. The rest is moot
and has no room in the press. Period. The rest of the story is for the
guys who are unhappy about themselves.

There is zero reason to complain about a teammate winning and
following that up with a second placing. It's a perfect example of
success on every level in this sport for a given race. The only reason
you'd complain is if you're unhappy for the winner.

Thanks,
DA74

On Sep 4, 9:49 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>

Quoted message said:

George, after missing the classics, worked hard for 3 weeks to help Levi and Alberto podium at the Tour. Debt payed, with interest. George owed Levi nothing.

Wrong again. This is a TEAM SPORT. There are no debts accrued or paid
when you are designated as a domestique and you are working for the
team leader(s). George is and always has been a domestique at the
Tour. That is what he's getting paid to do.

Last year at USPRO was a completely different situation because Levi
was on Gerolsteiner and George was on Discovery. Levi gave a gift. Big
difference.

Thanks,
DA74

DA74 said:

With that said, let me further expound on my original point. It
doesn't matter what was or wasn't said subsequently, concurrently or
prior to the offending remark. There is no reason to say anything
negative to an interviewer after taking second place to a teammate.
Everything worked out perfectly unless you are unhappy that your
teammate won. Period.

I guess such absolutism is easy when nobody ever interviews you.

Quoted message said:

DA74 said:

With that said, let me further expound on my original point. It
doesn't matter what was or wasn't said subsequently, concurrently or
prior to the offending remark. There is no reason to say anything
negative to an interviewer after taking second place to a teammate.
Everything worked out perfectly unless you are unhappy that your
teammate won. Period.

I guess such absolutism is easy when nobody ever interviews you.

Such naivete is natural since you've never been there. You are
excused.

Bitterly Yours,
DA74

Geraard Spergen said:

And he missed the Classics because he crashed while helping Levi win
ToC.

No. He missed the classics because he crashed doing the job for which
he is handsomely paid:
Being a domestique in stage races for the Discovery Channel Team.

This is starting to get annoying. You guys do understand the "team"
concept right?

Thanks,
DA74

Quoted message said:

You're right, they are hypothetical and yes, it's easy to come up with
scenarios and yes, individuals may not be personally satisfied with
how things played out but you're missing the point. This is a TEAM
SPORT. A team win trumps all, period. End of story. The rest is moot
and has no room in the press. Period. The rest of the story is for the
guys who are unhappy about themselves.

Except that it's not the team that wears the national championship jersey,
it's the rider.

Beyond that, "teams" lately have been built around elevating a single rider
to the podium, and the big picture dictates that, even when that rider is
having an off day, the rest of the team sacrifices, when required, to help
the designated leader to minimize losses and maximize the change to win. The
team interest is often best looked after with a plan that doesn't allow for
individual rider initiative.

Quoted message said:

There is zero reason to complain about a teammate winning and
following that up with a second placing. It's a perfect example of
success on every level in this sport for a given race. The only reason
you'd complain is if you're unhappy for the winner.

That would depend on the team's objectives for the year, wouldn't it? If
you're trying to instill a sense of sacrifice towards a single person (as US
Postal did so well), little is done without explicit permission from the DS.
Yes, you may need permission to go with a break. This isn't news.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

There is zero reason to complain about a teammate winning and
following that up with a second placing. It's a perfect example of
success on every level in this sport for a given race. The only reason
you'd complain is if you're unhappy for the winner.

That would depend on the team's objectives for the year, wouldn't it? If
you're trying to instill a sense of sacrifice towards a single person (as US
Postal did so well), little is done without explicit permission from the DS.
Yes, you may need permission to go with a break. This isn't news.

Huh, no wonder they don't win classics then. I don't
have a huge problem with what George actually said about
negative racing, just the way it sounds foro him to be griping.
Remember when Servais Knaven went off the front at
Paris-Roubaix and George had to sit there knowing he'd
only tow Museeuw back up if he chased? Knaven won,
even though he's hardly the star (it is kind of an
outlier on his palmares), and I don't remember Museeuw
[censored] at George or anyone else afterward.

Ben

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

That would depend on the team's objectives for the year, wouldn't it? If
you're trying to instill a sense of sacrifice towards a single person (as US
Postal did so well), little is done without explicit permission from the DS.
Yes, you may need permission to go with a break. This isn't news.

There is no team sport, of which I am aware, in which individual initiative is fully justified by the result, Teams have chains of command, which if ignored, there's a long-term problem.

The same applies to cycling.

The simplest explanation of all of this is the quote was out of context, stripped of intonation, and is being misinterpreted. But the point remains valid: winning is not a self evident indicator that there was no problem. There are longer-term issues.

Dan

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote..

Quoted message said:

There is no team sport, of which I am aware, in which individual
initiative is fully justified by the result, Teams have chains of
command, which if ignored, there's a long-term problem.

Cross country skiing.
Downhill skiing.
Ski jumping.
Aerial.

--
JF

http://velominator.spaces.live.com/

On Sep 4, 10:35 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>

Quoted message said:

There is no team sport, of which I am aware, in which individual initiative is fully justified by the result, Teams have chains of command, which if
ignored, there's a long-term problem. The same applies to cycling.

Wrong again. For the sake of argument let's say that in the first race
of the season Rider A breaks the "chain of command" and wins the race
while his teammate, Rider B, the protected rider, places second. This
is a perfect result as far as the team is concerned. Now let's move to
the second race of the season. Rider A again breaks the "chain of
command" and wins the race while Rider B, again the protected rider
places second. Another perfect scenario where team objectives are
reached with the best possible outcome. If the team wins then the race
unfolded perfectly. Period.

The only argument is that Rider A didn't follow the chain of command.
But this point is moot given the result. I'd argue that the chain of
command was not flexible enough in the first place or simply wrong
given the conditions and tactics for that particular race on that
particular day. Again, the win trumps all. That is my only point here
and there is no argument against it.

Thanks,
DA74

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is no team sport, of which I am aware, in which individual
initiative is fully justified by the result, Teams have chains of
command, which if
ignored, there's a long-term problem. The same applies to cycling.

Wrong again. For the sake of argument let's say that in the first race
of the season Rider A breaks the "chain of command" and wins the race
while his teammate, Rider B, the protected rider, places second. This
is a perfect result as far as the team is concerned. Now let's move to
the second race of the season. Rider A again breaks the "chain of
command" and wins the race while Rider B, again the protected rider
places second. Another perfect scenario where team objectives are
reached with the best possible outcome. If the team wins then the race
unfolded perfectly. Period.

The only argument is that Rider A didn't follow the chain of command.
But this point is moot given the result. I'd argue that the chain of
command was not flexible enough in the first place or simply wrong
given the conditions and tactics for that particular race on that
particular day. Again, the win trumps all. That is my only point here
and there is no argument against it.

I take it Patton is one of your favorite movies?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is zero reason to complain about a teammate winning and
following that up with a second placing. It's a perfect example of
success on every level in this sport for a given race. The only reason
you'd complain is if you're unhappy for the winner.

That would depend on the team's objectives for the year, wouldn't it?

Are you sniffing Schlauchreifenkitt? What does an "objective for the
year"
have to do with a rider complaining after taking second place to his
teammate
that just won a single day race?

The winner in bike racing, as in most other sports (perhaps all?), isn't
determined by the person who's in the best-possible physical condition on
the start line. Differences upstairs (rider thinking/mentality) are likely
to be the deciding factor more often than not, all things being equal (and
it can be argued that, physically, the top guys are pretty darned close).
Sports becomes a chess game, not just against the other teams, but within
your own ranks as well. Ego comes into play. If you can't see the long-term
ramifications of that (even for a one-day event)...

But this isn't a black & white scenario. There are lots of reasons why the
#2 (or even #6 or whatever) guy might be in a position to win the race for
the team, with the support, or at least the understanding, of the rest of
the team (including the designated leader). But one of those reasons would
not be, for example, to attack your designated leader when he's hanging onto
your wheel by a thread. Or to abandon him early in the race if he crashes.

But you know all that. You're just arguing because you feel you're the
designated leader here and unwilling to give up a point to anyone else.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"DA74" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

No one can disagree with me here.

I think that the above says it all...

Frank Drackman said:

"DA74" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

No one can disagree with me here.

I think that the above says it all...

Truth trumps. And yes, it's good to be the king,
if that is what you are suggesting.

Thanks,
DA74