ANDY SCHLECK - NOW SHOWING IN 1D...
Comments
-
Frank Schleck questioned whether a race should be won with the decisive time taken on a downhill. "No one wants that," he said.
I couldn't help but think: 'Why not, Frank? Aren't there as many roads in pro road racing, that go down, as those that go up?'
Vino won the 2006 Vuelta by attacking on the descent into Granada, taking the then gold jersey away from Alejandro Valverde in the process............................."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:Frank Schleck questioned whether a race should be won with the decisive time taken on a downhill. "No one wants that," he said.
I couldn't help but think: 'Why not, Frank? Aren't there as many roads in pro road racing, that go down, as those that go up?'
Vino won the 2006 Vuelta by attacking on the descent into Granada, taking the then gold jersey away from Alejandro Valverde in the process.............................
He also mentioned that for everyone concerned, people want to see guys like Van Den Broeck, Vinokourov racing, not ill and hurt on the side of the road being put into an ambulance.
You can see his point.
It's one thing challenging people's skills, but when you're found out going uphill, go you slower - if you're found out going downhill, either you go slower OR you crash.
It's a significant difference.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Frank Schleck questioned whether a race should be won with the decisive time taken on a downhill. "No one wants that," he said.
I couldn't help but think: 'Why not, Frank? Aren't there as many roads in pro road racing, that go down, as those that go up?'
Vino won the 2006 Vuelta by attacking on the descent into Granada, taking the then gold jersey away from Alejandro Valverde in the process.............................
He also mentioned that for everyone concerned, people want to see guys like Van Den Broeck, Vinokourov racing, not ill and hurt on the side of the road being put into an ambulance.
You can see his point.
It's one thing challenging people's skills, but when you're found out going uphill, go you slower - if you're found out going downhill, either you go slower OR you crash.
It's a significant difference.
then go slower and lose. if the race were about watts/kg and endurance why not do it all in a gym with a load of turbos and powermeters?0 -
In the intersts of balance, the descent did look pretty dicey - the narrow roads were bad enougt, but the shade was the real complicating factor. That said, there were plenty of riders, who made it down safely and soundly, as always it comes down to a) how confident a descender you are and b) how many risks a rider is prepared to take. Like the others, the Schlecks need to strike the right balance. As it turns out, they rode the descent well enought to stay in contact with Sanchez & Contador and work together to pull them back on the flat. Voeckler so an opportunity to gain time and that was his downfall.
Personally, I would be equally happy for a rider to win using skill and courage on a descent as a I would by seeing a rider jump away and attack on a climb. I think most people would, so FrAndy are well off the mark there in terms of public opinion.
What has become apparent is that even when off-form, injured and with the hardest Giro in living memory in his legs, Contador is still better than both the Schlecks put together. Perhaps their whinging is borne out of frustration at realising this. FrAndy has put zero time into Contador through their own efforts and he was clearly there for the taking in the Pyrenees.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Frank Schleck questioned whether a race should be won with the decisive time taken on a downhill. "No one wants that," he said.
I couldn't help but think: 'Why not, Frank? Aren't there as many roads in pro road racing, that go down, as those that go up?'
Vino won the 2006 Vuelta by attacking on the descent into Granada, taking the then gold jersey away from Alejandro Valverde in the process.............................
He also mentioned that for everyone concerned, people want to see guys like Van Den Broeck, Vinokourov racing, not ill and hurt on the side of the road being put into an ambulance.
You can see his point.
It's one thing challenging people's skills, but when you're found out going uphill, go you slower - if you're found out going downhill, either you go slower OR you crash.
It's a significant difference.
If they don't have the skills then Just go slower. It just means they need to attack more in the ascents. Cycling is all about maximising your strengths to limit your weaknesses. You wont hear Evans saying the Galibier is to steep as he knows he can make time up in the TT0 -
Cogidubnus wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Frank Schleck questioned whether a race should be won with the decisive time taken on a downhill. "No one wants that," he said.
I couldn't help but think: 'Why not, Frank? Aren't there as many roads in pro road racing, that go down, as those that go up?'
Vino won the 2006 Vuelta by attacking on the descent into Granada, taking the then gold jersey away from Alejandro Valverde in the process.............................
He also mentioned that for everyone concerned, people want to see guys like Van Den Broeck, Vinokourov racing, not ill and hurt on the side of the road being put into an ambulance.
You can see his point.
It's one thing challenging people's skills, but when you're found out going uphill, go you slower - if you're found out going downhill, either you go slower OR you crash.
It's a significant difference.
If they don't have the skills then Just go slower. It just means they need to attack more in the ascents. Cycling is all about maximising your strengths to limit your weaknesses. You wont hear Evans saying the Galibier is to steep as he knows he can make time up in the TT
Look, I'm not really defending him, just trying to articulate on his behalf, since I think he has a point.
I'm not talking about losing time - I'm talking about crashing.
Crashing is an outcome if things go wrong. We saw two incidents with Voeckler and that Frenchie, that, had the fence been 2 metres further in, would have been pretty serious.
It's all very well saying go slower, but in sport, that just doesn't work.
It's a similar argument to one in formula one - and they fall on the side of intolerance of serious injury.
Cycling naturally will always be more dangerous given the nature of the beast, but minimising the risk of serious injury (within reason) should be a priority - whether it's creating a bigger selection before the downhill to spread the field out, or signposting it better.
That excellent descent by Sanchez to win a vuleta stage a few years ago was not at all a dangerous downhill, but someone with skill in that area made a difference.
It seems a recent resurgence. I can't remember many descents that were taken like the descents of the past two stages in the '90s.0 -
BarryBonds wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Frank Schleck questioned whether a race should be won with the decisive time taken on a downhill. "No one wants that," he said.
I couldn't help but think: 'Why not, Frank? Aren't there as many roads in pro road racing, that go down, as those that go up?'
Vino won the 2006 Vuelta by attacking on the descent into Granada, taking the then gold jersey away from Alejandro Valverde in the process.............................
He also mentioned that for everyone concerned, people want to see guys like Van Den Broeck, Vinokourov racing, not ill and hurt on the side of the road being put into an ambulance.
You can see his point.
It's one thing challenging people's skills, but when you're found out going uphill, go you slower - if you're found out going downhill, either you go slower OR you crash.
It's a significant difference.
then go slower and lose. if the race were about watts/kg and endurance why not do it all in a gym with a load of turbos and powermeters?
Good point.Mens agitat molem0 -
Cogidubnus wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Frank Schleck questioned whether a race should be won with the decisive time taken on a downhill. "No one wants that," he said.
I couldn't help but think: 'Why not, Frank? Aren't there as many roads in pro road racing, that go down, as those that go up?'
Vino won the 2006 Vuelta by attacking on the descent into Granada, taking the then gold jersey away from Alejandro Valverde in the process.............................
He also mentioned that for everyone concerned, people want to see guys like Van Den Broeck, Vinokourov racing, not ill and hurt on the side of the road being put into an ambulance.
You can see his point.
It's one thing challenging people's skills, but when you're found out going uphill, go you slower - if you're found out going downhill, either you go slower OR you crash.
It's a significant difference.
If they don't have the skills then Just go slower. It just means they need to attack more in the ascents. Cycling is all about maximising your strengths to limit your weaknesses. You wont hear Evans saying the Galibier is to steep as he knows he can make time up in the TT
It's not that easy though, just to stick the brakes on and let the other guys disappear down the road. This is what Voeckler said after yesterday...
“I tried to attack at the top of the last climb and to make the downhill but three times I went wide on a corner and the third time I was very, very lucky because I had to jump down a step that was about a meter high. I lost time and if I’d been more calm, I could have finished with the favorites but I was a little bit too ambitious. Maybe I wanted too much today...
“Yesterday I learned about my limits. Today I learned what my limits on the downhill are."
Pretty much Rick's point, Tommy was fortunate he found somewhere to run off too.0 -
Incidentally, it makes for a lovely story for whoever owns that house. "The maillot jaune of the Tour de France came riding into my yard". Bloody good job that gate was open.0
-
Did i miss the point when they all gave up being professional sportsmen and suddenly became amateurs?? You wouldn't hear a professional downhill skiier or mountain biker complaining. They're professionals, if they think a downhill could be potentially influential but risky, it's up to them to scope them out, ride them a few times at an easy pace, know where the potentailly tricky tight corners are etc.
A downhill skiier will know every single lump, bump, roller and turn of a course so much so that they can ski it in their head. Why can't at least some of that be used in bike racing? Why is it perfectly acceptable in every other sport to expect people who want to push hard to go into it prepared, but not in road racing?
If this wasn't the biggest, most important road race in the world, featuring the highest paid, largest teams in the sport, they may have a point. But it is, and they are. Their rant sounds utterly ridiculous to me, particularly when you compare it to other sports, where the competitors prepare for the risks they take so they can race informed of how hard to push. Maybe the Schleks are just not that comitted?Rick Chasey wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Frank Schleck questioned whether a race should be won with the decisive time taken on a downhill. "No one wants that," he said.
I couldn't help but think: 'Why not, Frank? Aren't there as many roads in pro road racing, that go down, as those that go up?'
Vino won the 2006 Vuelta by attacking on the descent into Granada, taking the then gold jersey away from Alejandro Valverde in the process.............................
He also mentioned that for everyone concerned, people want to see guys like Van Den Broeck, Vinokourov racing, not ill and hurt on the side of the road being put into an ambulance.
You can see his point.
It's one thing challenging people's skills, but when you're found out going uphill, go you slower - if you're found out going downhill, either you go slower OR you crash.
It's a significant difference.0 -
mea00csf wrote:Did i miss the point when they all gave up being professional sportsmen and suddenly became amateurs?? You wouldn't hear a professional downhill skiier or mountain biker complaining. They're professionals, if they think a downhill could be potentially influential but risky, it's up to them to scope them out, ride them a few times at an easy pace, know where the potentailly tricky tight corners are etc.
A downhill skiier will know every single lump, bump, roller and turn of a course so much so that they can ski it in their head. Why can't at least some of that be used in bike racing? Why is it perfectly acceptable in every other sport to expect people who want to push hard to go into it prepared, but not in road racing?
If this wasn't the biggest, most important road race in the world, featuring the highest paid, largest teams in the sport, they may have a point. But it is, and they are. Their rant sounds utterly ridiculous to me, particularly when you compare it to other sports, where the competitors prepare for the risks they take so they can race informed of how hard to push. Maybe the Schleks are just not that comitted?Rick Chasey wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Frank Schleck questioned whether a race should be won with the decisive time taken on a downhill. "No one wants that," he said.
I couldn't help but think: 'Why not, Frank? Aren't there as many roads in pro road racing, that go down, as those that go up?'
Vino won the 2006 Vuelta by attacking on the descent into Granada, taking the then gold jersey away from Alejandro Valverde in the process.............................
He also mentioned that for everyone concerned, people want to see guys like Van Den Broeck, Vinokourov racing, not ill and hurt on the side of the road being put into an ambulance.
You can see his point.
It's one thing challenging people's skills, but when you're found out going uphill, go you slower - if you're found out going downhill, either you go slower OR you crash.
It's a significant difference.
I disagree with your analogies to mountain bikers or skiiers.
These riders are racing 3500km in 3 weeks, in packs. Skiiers and mountain bikers are doing very short timed runs on bespoke courses.
It's not unreasonable for riders to be concerned about the safety of races, and take issue with what they feel is a course that creates too many risks.
As you say they are professionals. It's their job, so they're bound to be more concerned.0 -
yes that is a fair point, BUT, any numpty could see that the downhills on the last 2 days would be influential. They definetly go and scope out and practice uphills, so why not key downhills?
I would say the organisers do have a duty to use downhills where the road is in good condition, but as far as twists and turns go, the competitors should be scoping out the important ones. Someone on another thread mentioned that the Sky team had been up the climb 3 times in preperation for that stage, perhaps that's why EBH looked in control and comfortably won.
A skiier needs to know every lump and bump in minute detail. GC contendors on a long tour should have a good knowledge of key areas, uphills and downhills. They don't need to know 3500km of road, most of which is junk mileage of no real interest to GC contenders. I'm sure HTC know the last km of all the sprint stages in the minutest of detail.......0 -
mea00csf wrote:yes that is a fair point, BUT, any numpty could see that the downhills on the last 2 days would be influential. They definetly go and scope out and practice uphills, so why not key downhills?
I would say the organisers do have a duty to use downhills where the road is in good condition, but as far as twists and turns go, the competitors should be scoping out the important ones. Someone on another thread mentioned that the Sky team had been up the climb 3 times in preperation for that stage, perhaps that's why EBH looked in control and comfortably won.
A skiier needs to know every lump and bump in minute detail. GC contendors on a long tour should have a good knowledge of key areas, uphills and downhills. They don't need to know 3500km of road, most of which is junk mileage of no real interest to GC contenders. I'm sure HTC know the last km of all the sprint stages in the minutest of detail.......
Knowing the course doesn't make it much safer. Look at motorsport.0 -
Of course it does!! It means you can take calculated risks if you have a good idea of what's coming up rather than going into it blind.
You should brake before a corner and accelerate out, how can you possibly know how much to brake if you don't really know how tight a corner is? The only thing you can do there is to brake too much to be too cautious to stay safe. If you know it's there, you know how much to brake!
The biggest crash so far was the crash that put Vino and Wiggins out. The comments after that were that the corner just kept getting tighter and tighter and many simply didn't make it round. If they'd been spread out like on a desccent and people knew the corner, do you think there would have been similar carnage?0 -
"Maybe the Schleks are just not that comitted?"
:roll:
Think on.......................... 8)0 -
Snorebens wrote:TimB34 wrote:stokepa31 wrote:Also struck by Andy constantly saying what great shape he is in. If this is the case why didnt he bury everyone in the Pyrenees.
I suspect that Fränk and Andy have the same problem that Wiggins had last year - big team built around them, with everyone telling them how great they are. The end result is that they don't concentrate fully on their training and prep. They need someone in their team who is prepared to tell them the truth.
+1. Although I think it's more than Wiggins, rather the same problem that Sky had last year. By dealing with marginal gains, a new super-team, riding on the front, setting the pace - they are effectively trying to eliminate risk. All well and good - but they seem hamstrung when faced with others who are prepared to take the risks they aren't.
All of which gives me cause to regret picking AS for PTP!
Erm, maybe not. Fair play, the gamble was taken and he won. Will have to see how he can recover.0 -
Andy's human - if he wants to have a moan from time to time, that's ok imo - not a biggy - the sport's not made of glass, and neither are the other riders...... Regards, who's been doing what, Andy's the only rider in the world who's consistently been in-and around Contador in the TDF over the last few years - that's not bad going in my book.....Contador fears no-one in the biggest race in the world...... well... except... Andy Schleck
0 -
mea00csf wrote:Of course it does!! It means you can take calculated risks if you have a good idea of what's coming up rather than going into it blind.
You should brake before a corner and accelerate out, how can you possibly know how much to brake if you don't really know how tight a corner is? The only thing you can do there is to brake too much to be too cautious to stay safe. If you know it's there, you know how much to brake!
Do you know how many years it takes to learn the IOM TT course? years.
A bike racer wears Lycra and virtually no protection in any form what so ever.
Almost every high speed accident will involve serious injuries- try jumping out of a car naked at 40mph +, In motorsport you can crash almost at will and get up injury free, even in DH MTB they now have started wearing neck supports, road riders have non of this.
Some of your comments are more directed at a moto gp rider
As for Andy... today he has proved his critics wrong and what ever happens he has proved himself as a great rider.... seeing Merckx cheer him on was amazing and a real compliment 0 -
