Clerc "Contador the Star"
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/n ... id=3331125
Bruyneel is right about the styles of racing.
Bruyneel is right about the styles of racing.
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
0
Comments
-
Bruyneel is right that Contador is more exciting than Evans, Sastre etc, but will that matter come July? People tune in to watch the Tour de France because it's the Tour de France, not because Alberto Contador is racing. There will always be new and exciting riders. No-one will give a crap about Astana or Contador once the race starts.0
-
"It's not an easy decision to take, especially since the team holds Alberto Contador," Clerc said. "Believe me, if the team didn't hold Contador, the decision would have been taken much sooner."
A *very* interesting comment.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
afx237vi wrote:Bruyneel is right that Contador is more exciting than Evans, Sastre etc, but will that matter come July?
Depends. If Bertie does interviews during the race and says "yeah, nice ride, but I could've put 25 seconds into him on that stage" it could devalue the race.
People want excitement. And if the main guys are dullards.....Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
How quickly people forget about Rasmussen - it was he who brought the race to life with his attacking style - for most of the time Contador only followed him and even when he did attack he did not break the Chicken. But history is written by the winners so Contador becomes the big attacking rider and Rasmussen's panache and stage wins are forgotten.0
-
That's because Rass never finished the race....
IMO it was a very bad decision to pull the yellow jersey out in in the final days, if he was allowed to start, then he should've been allowed to finish....0 -
Oh, for goodness sake! Can we move on fellas?0
-
skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:Oh, for goodness sake! Can we move on fellas?
That's a good one! Some of these guys haven't come to terms with 1999 yet, and you're asking them to move on from last year? Bless. Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I am only making the point that, if Rassmussen had been allowed to finish then he would have been the new star as he was very much the most attacking rider in the race. I've moved on so much I always look forward to the new season no matter who is riding
0 -
DaveyL wrote:"It's not an easy decision to take, especially since the team holds Alberto Contador," Clerc said. "Believe me, if the team didn't hold Contador, the decision would have been taken much sooner."
A *very* interesting comment.
Well he is the current champion. Of course that makes the decision harder.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Well, to me it is an indication of how high their principles are. They are supposedly booting the whole team for past indiscretions, and I think it's telling that they were swayed to some extent by Contador's presence.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
So because Contador says he could have put 25 seconds into a rider it must be true? When I see the evidence of this - which was not there in the last year's race in that he never put any time into the race leader on the climbs - only then will the race will be 'devalued' for me Contador and Bruyneel seem to think that they are bigger than the race - in July they will soon learn that this is not true.
There is no doubt Contador is a talent - and I have followed him since his days with Saiz and Liberty - but he is only one of a crop of new young riders. I wonder if he broke his allegiance to Saiz/Bruyneel he would still be as much of a 'star'?
I remember that, in 1999, there were no race favourites and no defending chanpion - it was supposed to be the weakest race in years. And yet what happened? We saw Armstrong emerge as the winner. The race can make stars but I don't think the race needs so called stars to be exciting. BTW I am definitely no fan of Armstrong but the 1999 example is a good one - of course Armstrong is another rider who thinks he is bigger than the race, or maybe even the sport 0 -
Well, he won, so he must have put time into someone at some point (exclduing the Chicken, of course)....Le Blaireau (1)0
-
DaveyL wrote:"It's not an easy decision to take, especially since the team holds Alberto Contador," Clerc said. "Believe me, if the team didn't hold Contador, the decision would have been taken much sooner."
which way would this decision have gone????
astana have an anti doping policy but murky past.
contador is linked with saiz.0 -
NNNnnnrnrnrnrrnnrghghghghghg. My Dad's car is bigger than your Dad's car....0
-
how do you know stalker?0
-
There has been precedents in the past of riders putting legal pressure on ASO to let them ride the tour, so why doesn’t Contador/Bruyneel/Astana ?
Or doesn't that work any more.0 -
Show me the law that says Astana have a right to ride the Tour de France 0
-
I don't know.....'right to ply their trade' or something. I am sure someone else has argued this previously.0
-
What gives them a greater right in law than Slipstream, Lampre, Agritubel or Rabobank?
They are backed by a quasi-dictatorial state, supplied over half of pro cycling's positive tests last year, managed by the man who signed Ivan Basso and scared away his sponsor prematurely plus they are supplied by the likes of Trek. Even if they had Jesus Christ on the team I still wonder if they'd get a ride.0 -
Cor, is J-C planning a comeback? That's been a long time coming!Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
Kléber wrote:What gives them a greater right in law than Slipstream, Lampre, Agritubel or Rabobank?
They are backed by a quasi-dictatorial state, supplied over half of pro cycling's positive tests last year, managed by the man who signed Ivan Basso and scared away his sponsor prematurely plus they are supplied by the likes of Trek. Even if they had Jesus Christ on the team I still wonder if they'd get a ride.
Yes, but they aren't banned by the governing body or state laws. Regardless of all the above.....if you want to get serious you wheel out employment laws, a bit like Bosman etc.
Just to add, I've no real idea of what I am talking about, but am sure this has been done before...Virenque was it ?0 -
Astana has no positives from 2007, nor does Bruyneel as a DS...this is about getting back at Armstrong and for sigining Basso...so ASO are using one of the few opportunities to give them a poke in eye....the French are a jealous group at times...7 TDF wins hurts, none since Hinault0
-
Are you quite sure on your first point? I'd contend Vinokourov, Kashechin, Kessler and Mazzoleni all provided positive tests in 2007.Dave_1 wrote:Astana has no positives from 2007, nor does Bruyneel as a DS...this is about getting back at Armstrong and for sigining Basso...so ASO are using one of the few opportunities to give them a poke in eye....the French are a jealous group at times...7 TDF wins hurts, none since Hinault0 -
My point is that technically it shoudln't matter how many failed tests etc you have. You are either banned or not, there shouldn't be this middle ground of 'not invited' because it is not clear what grounds ASO are able to do this. Employment law should makes it much clearer on whether someone has the right to ply their trade or not.
I do sympathise with ASO's probable view that half the teams can't be trusted and that they have to take action to save the tour (and thus cycling in their minds), but would the 'non-invites' stack up in court ?
How did Virenque force Leblanc to let him ride ?0 -
le patron wrote:I don't know.....'right to ply their trade' or something. I am sure someone else has argued this previously.
Maybe I could try this?Dan0 -
I think Virenque and his Quick-Step team got Verbruggem and the UCI to order Leblanc to back down. Leblanc's successor, Prudhomme, no longer has to take orders like this.
Hopefully in a few years' time this will all be forgotten. Astana can prove themselves this year and come back next year and show us what they can do. They don't seem in a hurry either, still no news on their "Damsgard" anti-doping scheme...0 -
le patron wrote:You are either banned or not, there shouldn't be this middle ground of 'not invited' because it is not clear what grounds ASO are able to do this.
What right do ASO have in not inviting Astana? Well it's their race.
I can't see the problem with Astana not being invited - it's ASO's race and they can invite who they like.
If you had a party at your house, would you invite somebody you didn't like?0 -
flattythehurdler wrote:le patron wrote:I don't know.....'right to ply their trade' or something. I am sure someone else has argued this previously.
Maybe I could try this?
If you are good enough. The entry requirements should be consistent for all teams....which it was when UCI were in control.
Regardless of what you think of McQuaid and the UCI.....the situation now, essentially the rules are made up depending on who you are, carries the very real risk that it turns into an exhibition event - in my opinion.0 -
redddraggon wrote:le patron wrote:You are either banned or not, there shouldn't be this middle ground of 'not invited' because it is not clear what grounds ASO are able to do this.
What right do ASO have in not inviting Astana? Well it's their race.
I can't see the problem with Astana not being invited - it's ASO's race and they can invite who they like.
If you had a party at your house, would you invite somebody you didn't like?
It's professional sport, not a private house party. There should be a fair qualification system, like most other sports events with credibility.0 -
