What is the difference in what big george did and what Valaverde did in state 10 (passing lance in the last 100 meters). Nothing.
L
L
Stage 15 TDF :Lézat-sur-Lèze - Saint-Lary Soulan (Pla d'Adet) : Spoiler
- Thread starter limerickman
- Start date
Good point mate.Lonnie Utah said:
The difference is that Lance having set the pace most of the way up the last 5-9 km turned and shook Valverde's hand, no whining and no chicken **** response from Bruyneel.
And no ridiculous rants on line from Lance and Disco haters claiming cultural and moral superioirity/
Geez, you should be in France, just got back from watching in the Alps: there was all the innuendo from the LOSER french riders about two speeds in the peloton and how thats why they werent winning, because they were not doping because of France's stricter laws. Bobby Julich had the best answer--no, when he was on Credit Agricole and would ask "WHY" they were doing such and such in terms of tactics training nutrition whatever,, the answer was always that 'we always have done it this way." And they have gotten the consistent results for now twenty years. Go figure.
Enough for moral superiority.
Lonnie Utah said:
.....could it be the fact that Valverde actually did several stints on the front BEFORE contesting the sprint finish, perhaps.
It's getting awfully shrill in here. It's a little sad reading the posts of some of you, making ham-fisted generalizations about Americans to make yourselves feel better.
In the meantime, Hincapie's improvement as a climber hasn't been an overnight development. He's shed a lot of weight over the past few years -- probably out of necessity. I read a quote from one of Disco's boys yesterday (can't remember which) who said that, when it became clear that Armstrong was going to be a TdF contender for years to come, the edict was handed down: if you can't climb, you're off the team. Hincapie has worked very hard to keep his job.
And for those who suggest it's "scandalous" that he managed to outclimb a climber yesterday, consider the unique set of circumstances that got him to that position:
He went off on a long breakaway with 14 riders, ostensibly to be ready to come back to Armstrong if there was a crisis. But with that many men in the breakaway, and with no one threatening the GC, the peleton didn't feel bothered to chase. Hincapie, as a domestique for the GC favorite, had the "divine right" (as described by Bob Roll yesterday) not to do his share of pulling up front, so he just slipped in behind everyone (as did Sevilla) and allowed himself to be towed up as fast as the rest would drag him.
No major moves were made until the last climb, when Pereiro, realizing that he needed a gap if he was going to win the stage, attempted to distance himself. Sevilla tried it once as well, and when his legs gave out he simply waited for Jan, who needed help behind him. But Hincapie had nothing to do except stay on Perera's wheel and wait.
Now, I will acknowledge there is room for debate about whether, once it became clear that these two men were going to be fighting for stage honors, Hincapie should have spent more time in the front. As I recall, he did do some time up front after the brief conversation between the two of them at about the 2K mark.
All that being said, Pereiro had his opportunity earlier and tried to break away. No one would have suggested that he wait for Hincapie, because everyone who knows anything about cycling knows that Pereiro had every right to try to exploit his climbing superiority. So when they got to the top and it became a tactical duel, the advantage shifted to Hincapie, and suddenly you girls come out with your claws out suggesting Hincapie should have given Pereiro some help. LOL. If Pereiro and Hincapie had developed an alliance further down the slope and if Pereiro had not attempted to get rid of him, I'd have more sympathy with an argument that George took advantage.
As it is, each man had his strategy -- Pereiro to get away -- George to wait until his sprinting ability gave him an advantage. George gallantly managed to say on Pereiro's wheel, and thus deserved the win.
I would also note that when some cyclists get the rare opportunity for a stage win in the TdF, they manage to do rise to a different level for a day. I'm guessing this is the first time since 1999 that George has been given the green light to go for a stage win in the TdF. Just like Totschnig the day before, Hincapie rose to the occasion and experience a once-in-a-lifetime thrill of a TdF stage win. It'd be nice if some of you would acknowledge that instead of mewling like a starving kitten everytime anyone associated with Discovery or the United States accomplishes something in your precious Tour.
As an aside, I find it less than surprising that not one person has suggested that Rasmussen must be on some extra-special juice for elevating his performance level so suddenly and dramatically, going on an all day breakaway for a solo win and then staying with Armstrong/Basso on the highest Alpine climb the very next day. I'm gratified to know that some riders do get the benefit of the doubt among those of you who stick pins in your Lance doll every evening.
This Tour is turning out to be a wonderful event, with gallant attacks by riders and teams trying to dethrone a champion. There have been hotly contested sprints, dramatic breakaways, deaths and resurrections (Vino), stupid mistakes (Horner), and moments of real suspense (anyone who didn't stand up and do a fist pump when T-Mobile got up front on Saturday and went for broke ought to reassess their interest in the sport). Yet all some of you can seem to do is suck on sour-grapes with half-baked doping allegations and self-righteous indignation that someone you didn't think capable of winning a stage managed to do it.
Bottom line is some of you are missing a well-contested, relatively exciting TdF. I can't offer help, but if it's any consolation, you have all my pity.
In the meantime, Hincapie's improvement as a climber hasn't been an overnight development. He's shed a lot of weight over the past few years -- probably out of necessity. I read a quote from one of Disco's boys yesterday (can't remember which) who said that, when it became clear that Armstrong was going to be a TdF contender for years to come, the edict was handed down: if you can't climb, you're off the team. Hincapie has worked very hard to keep his job.
And for those who suggest it's "scandalous" that he managed to outclimb a climber yesterday, consider the unique set of circumstances that got him to that position:
He went off on a long breakaway with 14 riders, ostensibly to be ready to come back to Armstrong if there was a crisis. But with that many men in the breakaway, and with no one threatening the GC, the peleton didn't feel bothered to chase. Hincapie, as a domestique for the GC favorite, had the "divine right" (as described by Bob Roll yesterday) not to do his share of pulling up front, so he just slipped in behind everyone (as did Sevilla) and allowed himself to be towed up as fast as the rest would drag him.
No major moves were made until the last climb, when Pereiro, realizing that he needed a gap if he was going to win the stage, attempted to distance himself. Sevilla tried it once as well, and when his legs gave out he simply waited for Jan, who needed help behind him. But Hincapie had nothing to do except stay on Perera's wheel and wait.
Now, I will acknowledge there is room for debate about whether, once it became clear that these two men were going to be fighting for stage honors, Hincapie should have spent more time in the front. As I recall, he did do some time up front after the brief conversation between the two of them at about the 2K mark.
All that being said, Pereiro had his opportunity earlier and tried to break away. No one would have suggested that he wait for Hincapie, because everyone who knows anything about cycling knows that Pereiro had every right to try to exploit his climbing superiority. So when they got to the top and it became a tactical duel, the advantage shifted to Hincapie, and suddenly you girls come out with your claws out suggesting Hincapie should have given Pereiro some help. LOL. If Pereiro and Hincapie had developed an alliance further down the slope and if Pereiro had not attempted to get rid of him, I'd have more sympathy with an argument that George took advantage.
As it is, each man had his strategy -- Pereiro to get away -- George to wait until his sprinting ability gave him an advantage. George gallantly managed to say on Pereiro's wheel, and thus deserved the win.
I would also note that when some cyclists get the rare opportunity for a stage win in the TdF, they manage to do rise to a different level for a day. I'm guessing this is the first time since 1999 that George has been given the green light to go for a stage win in the TdF. Just like Totschnig the day before, Hincapie rose to the occasion and experience a once-in-a-lifetime thrill of a TdF stage win. It'd be nice if some of you would acknowledge that instead of mewling like a starving kitten everytime anyone associated with Discovery or the United States accomplishes something in your precious Tour.
As an aside, I find it less than surprising that not one person has suggested that Rasmussen must be on some extra-special juice for elevating his performance level so suddenly and dramatically, going on an all day breakaway for a solo win and then staying with Armstrong/Basso on the highest Alpine climb the very next day. I'm gratified to know that some riders do get the benefit of the doubt among those of you who stick pins in your Lance doll every evening.
This Tour is turning out to be a wonderful event, with gallant attacks by riders and teams trying to dethrone a champion. There have been hotly contested sprints, dramatic breakaways, deaths and resurrections (Vino), stupid mistakes (Horner), and moments of real suspense (anyone who didn't stand up and do a fist pump when T-Mobile got up front on Saturday and went for broke ought to reassess their interest in the sport). Yet all some of you can seem to do is suck on sour-grapes with half-baked doping allegations and self-righteous indignation that someone you didn't think capable of winning a stage managed to do it.
Bottom line is some of you are missing a well-contested, relatively exciting TdF. I can't offer help, but if it's any consolation, you have all my pity.
rejobako said:
I think all of us on the opposing side agree with you to here.
(That Bog Roll guy, I remember him - he came over here in the 1980's -
he's preaching about divine rights now, is he ? Hmmmmmmm)
rejobako said:
That's the problem : major moves were being made before the last climb.
Pereiro was attacking and he caused the group to be whittled down.
Hincapie didn't contribute to that whittling down.
It can be argued that GH was given the day off by his employer to work and was told to sit on the wheels.
Either way he sat on the wheels.
(maybe TDF coverage in the USA isn't as comprehensive as what we see in Europe : we got over fours hours live coverage : practically the entire stage).
rejobako said:
The stage was err, 200kms long : bit late at 2km to go to commence your first pull, don't you think ?
rejobako said:
The fans are unhappy because, contrary to what may have gone out on US Television, Pereiro was seen to be clearly working hard on the second last and last climbs, when GH wasn't.
As I already noted, as a domestique who was in the breakaway primarily to support his team captain if necessary, Hincapie had no responsibility to assist the breakaway in gaining time. In fact, it would have been downright stupid for him to do so.limerickman said:
Pereiro was indeed "working hard" on the last climb -- some of that work involved an attempt to get away from George and the rest. As I said, if he had stayed in front, pulling steadily, I would be more sympathetic to the argument that George had a responsibility to help as soon as it became clear that the GC leaders were out of the picture. But as soon as Pereiro attempted to maximize his climbing ability to shake the rest loose, Hincapie had the right to try to match him and turn the tables at the end. As Pereiro said yesterday, "this is a sporting competition and sometimes the strongest man doesn't win". Some part of me feels sympathy for Pereiro, but he took his chance earlier on that final climb and did not succeed. C'est la vie.
musette said:
The issue is the revisionism that you attempted to apply, yesterday, which stated that GH and OP worked together during the climbs.
They didn't.
OP worked.
GH, didn't.
musette said:
Wheelsucking isn't the nature of cycling.
rejobako said:
And to further emphasize this, how many times has George been crticized for being the strongest rider in a race and then screwing it up tactically? A lot!
This time he didnt and he won. Bad sportsmanship on Pereiro's part for saying he was the strongest. If the two had been caught and the third guy won, then he would have a reason to complain.
HE made the move that distanced them from everyone else and George went up to him. That was the nature of the game. The rest is whining.
And EVERYONE in France is wondering what juice Rasmussen is on. He has made a huge jump in ability.
As C Carmichael and even the French announcers said, Vino made a huge effort on the stage to Briancon, and he paid for it two and three days later when he didnt have it in the Pyrenees--a totally normal state of affairs. Rasmussen made a similar all day attack and was right back with the leaders on COurchevel when Basso and Ullrich couldnt. Weird huh? And then he chases Ullrich down on the last climb yesterday afetr having been gapped by over a minute. Weird huh?
The more I watch Rasmussen and his KOM jersey, my mind goes back to Christophe Rinero and the TDF 1998.
Throw in Virenque interviewing Armstrong after the stage : and it becomes positively surreal.
Throw in Virenque interviewing Armstrong after the stage : and it becomes positively surreal.
Agreed, as a general statement. However, when the man behind is a domestique who's role it is to monitor a breakaway, not advance it, then staying on the wheel is expected and acceptable. If Sevilla had raced the exact same tactics as Hincapie, this wouldn't even be a discussion. Some of you only like to split hairs when a Discovery or American rider is involved.limerickman said:
"Some of you only like to split hairs when a Discovery or American rider is involved. "
Its called Lance Armstrong Syndrome. Lim and WBT have it as do a few other on this board. They will be fully recovered on July 24.
Its called Lance Armstrong Syndrome. Lim and WBT have it as do a few other on this board. They will be fully recovered on July 24.
rejobako said:
I agree to the extent that a domestique doesn;t help the breakaway unless his patron asks or allows him to do so.
My point is that the time gap was at 17mins from the lead group back to the peloton, when GH ought to have started to work
Commentators and fans knew that there was no way the peloton was going to reel in that front group with 17m time gap at that point of the stage : and even with that time gap, GH didn't go to the front.
My gut tells me that GH was told not to pull by his employer or by his team manager.
I think GH is the type of guy who'd naturally wish to pull given that time gap.
Here we agree (I found it fascinating to listen to Phil/Paul try to maintain the suspense. It would have been different if the guy out front was Laszlo Bodrogi alone, but let's face it: there were 14 guys in that break, some of whom could climb -- it would have been insanity for the chasers to put forth the effort needed to try to bring them all back).limerickman said:
That being said, the philosophy of being a domestique of a GC contender doesn't change the moment that a stage win becomes a possibility. As I said, the other guy in the same situation as Hincapie was Sevilla, who didn't do anything different than Hincapie until the last climb, when he tried to attack but quickly dropped back. Hincapie simply continued to play his role as the climb ascended. I understand your position that he should have taken his turn in front once it became clear it was a two-man race. However, I maintain that Hincapie had no responsibility to help in a situation where Pereiro did everything he could for the 1st two-thirds of that climb to get rid of George. He withstood Pereiro's maneuvers where Pereiro had the advantage. I maintain that George had a right to turn the tables when the opportunity presented itself.
First, I didn't see the stage - someone send me a tape! 
Second, it strikes me that this quote is the proper way to focus on this debate, and anyone arguing against GH has to do so by saying that the facts of what happened in the last 8 km were actually different than as described by thebluetrain.
In particular, was it actually true, as said below and as said by GH, that he could not attack because of the narrow road covered with fans? Also, what was the situation like between 8 km and 4.5 km - did GH have opportunity and obligation to pull?
I am presuming that by 8 km left it was clear to all that the break was not coming back and that LA didn't need GH.
J
Second, it strikes me that this quote is the proper way to focus on this debate, and anyone arguing against GH has to do so by saying that the facts of what happened in the last 8 km were actually different than as described by thebluetrain.
In particular, was it actually true, as said below and as said by GH, that he could not attack because of the narrow road covered with fans? Also, what was the situation like between 8 km and 4.5 km - did GH have opportunity and obligation to pull?
I am presuming that by 8 km left it was clear to all that the break was not coming back and that LA didn't need GH.
J
thebluetrain said:
OP's final words this morning:
“In the escape he didn’t cooperate because he said his job was to wait for Lance Armstrong if he needed to, but later on the stage was up for grabs. I thought that he was going to work with me, but then he didn’t,” said Pereiro. “And I couldn’t stop because I didn’t want Michael Boogerd to get back up to us. It’s obvious that Hincapie tricked me. I congratulate Hincapie on his win, but I don’t think he should have acted like that.”
Pereiro explained that he didn’t think that what Hincapie had done was very sporting. “I think you could say that it wasn’t an ethical victory,” he claimed. “I think I was the moral victor of the stage. At least no one can take that away from me.”
“In the escape he didn’t cooperate because he said his job was to wait for Lance Armstrong if he needed to, but later on the stage was up for grabs. I thought that he was going to work with me, but then he didn’t,” said Pereiro. “And I couldn’t stop because I didn’t want Michael Boogerd to get back up to us. It’s obvious that Hincapie tricked me. I congratulate Hincapie on his win, but I don’t think he should have acted like that.”
Pereiro explained that he didn’t think that what Hincapie had done was very sporting. “I think you could say that it wasn’t an ethical victory,” he claimed. “I think I was the moral victor of the stage. At least no one can take that away from me.”
MJtje said:
My tiny violin is playing for OP. He could have slowed down and force Hincapie ahead of himself in the final kms. Or is it only "flat stage" finishes that can be played like this, according to the rules? They may have been caught by others, but that's the gamble he was faced with. Or, he could have tried to leave GH behind. Whenever a 67kg climbing specialist is whining about not being able to outclimb an 80kg classics rider my tiny violin is playing.whiteboytrash said:
All of you who are complaining about GH yet are silent about Vino pulling exactly the same trick on Botero a few days ago, or when Wheening outsprinted Kloden. Shows some inconsistency
Similar threads
