TDF Stage 10-Mulhouse-La Planche des Belles Filles *spoiler*

1…3435363840

Comments

  • above_the_cows
    above_the_cows Posts: 11,406
    iainf72 wrote:
    Above The Cows wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    I wonder if Tinkoff-Saxo might be up for working over Valv,Piti after the altercation after stage 5.

    What altercation?

    Bert and Piti's mechanics got into it a bit because Bert's guy accused Piti of taking a tow during the stage. They had to be separated by someone else.

    Looks like Piti's cartoon villain hat is well deserved

    I've always thought of this when Valverde appears:

    Dick_Dastardly.jpg
    Correlation is not causation.
  • r0bh
    r0bh Posts: 2,382
    Above The Cows wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Above The Cows wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    I wonder if Tinkoff-Saxo might be up for working over Valv,Piti after the altercation after stage 5.

    What altercation?

    Bert and Piti's mechanics got into it a bit because Bert's guy accused Piti of taking a tow during the stage. They had to be separated by someone else.

    Looks like Piti's cartoon villain hat is well deserved

    I've always thought of this when Valverde appears:

    Dick_Dastardly.jpg

    Before hair transplants cartoon villains had to wear preposterous hats to hide their thinning hair.
  • ContrelaMontre
    ContrelaMontre Posts: 3,027
    Above The Cows wrote:
    ContrelaMontre wrote:
    Coriander wrote:
    Do men win the Tour because they haven't crashed, or do they not crash because they are Tour winning standard riders?

    Does it matter?

    Well yes it does.

    If you're going to say that people who are in the form needed to win the Tour don't crash that is a causal claim that needs to be backed up with evidence tested and re-tested over and over until you can substantively move from a hypothesis i.e. those with form don't crash? to a claim i.e. those with form don't crash.

    Then there is saying that Tour winners don't crash which is really just a case of stating the bleeding obvious because you can't really win the Tour if you have withdrawn because of a crash. The reasons for that crash may well be form but there may be multiple other reasons.

    I wasn't just referring to Tour ending crashes. Tour winners rarely crash at all - Froome had a low speed tumble before a stage last year and Lance Armstrong on Luz Ardiden are the only examples I can think of.

    Causal or otherwise there is a definite correlation. Some forum members bemoaning the exit of their favourite rider ought to recognise that. To say that they would have lit up the race is counter-factualism.
    Rule No.10 // It never gets easier, you just go faster
  • Bakunin
    Bakunin Posts: 868
    Interesting account by Roche.

    http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-s ... 31225.html
  • salsiccia1
    salsiccia1 Posts: 3,725
    ContrelaMontre wrote:
    Above The Cows wrote:
    ContrelaMontre wrote:
    Coriander wrote:
    Do men win the Tour because they haven't crashed, or do they not crash because they are Tour winning standard riders?

    Does it matter?

    Well yes it does.

    If you're going to say that people who are in the form needed to win the Tour don't crash that is a causal claim that needs to be backed up with evidence tested and re-tested over and over until you can substantively move from a hypothesis i.e. those with form don't crash? to a claim i.e. those with form don't crash.

    Then there is saying that Tour winners don't crash which is really just a case of stating the bleeding obvious because you can't really win the Tour if you have withdrawn because of a crash. The reasons for that crash may well be form but there may be multiple other reasons.

    I wasn't just referring to Tour ending crashes. Tour winners rarely crash at all - Froome had a low speed tumble before a stage last year and Lance Armstrong on Luz Ardiden are the only examples I can think of.

    Causal or otherwise there is a definite correlation. Some forum members bemoaning the exit of their favourite rider ought to recognise that. To say that they would have lit up the race is counter-factualism.

    I'm not sure I follow this one. Are you saying riders without concrete GC ambitions crash more often? Or could it be that there are far more riders without concrete GC ambitions, ergo more crashes involving them?

    I just don't get this undercurrent of thought that implies if a rider has crashed out then he wasn't in good enough form to win it. I don't see how anyone can say that. You can speculate that a rider might have been on form good enough to win it before crashing out though.
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • GentlemanBear
    GentlemanBear Posts: 280
    Seems to me like AC made a mistake, or suffered a momentary lapse of concentration, or misjudged the conditions. He fell off. His tour is over because of injuries sustained in said lapse of concentration. It's personally unfortunate for him, and might subjectively impair the entertainment left in the Tour for some or indeed many... but there has been absolutely no injustice or tragedy at play; a bike racer fell off his bike (through the fault of no one else) and can't carry on.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    edited July 2014
    Which genuine GC contender has crashed and had their hopes ended prior to this?

    How many GT winners are there who have only won to due the favourite crashing and abandoning?

    I think the consensus is 'not often' and Contador and Froome need to work on positioning, risk management and generally 'creating' more luck by not lurking in dangerous places in the peloton (Froome x2 or 3!?) and paying attention when descending at 70kph in the wet (for which Contador has a previous).
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    Bakunin wrote:
    Interesting account by Roche.

    http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-s ... 31225.html

    Had anyone posted anything about that Wiggins snippet on the same site from yesterday? ...I can't see a Wiggins thread near the top of Pro Race anywhere

    http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/bradley-wiggins-to-stay-with-team-sky-but-return-to-tour-de-france-looks-doubtful-30429173.html
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    GentlemanBear wrote:
    Seems to me like AC made a mistake, or suffered a momentary lapse of concentration, or misjudged the conditions. He fell off. His tour is over because of injuries sustained in said lapse of concentration. It's personally unfortunate for him, and might subjectively impair the entertainment left in the Tour for some or indeed many... but there has been absolutely no injustice or tragedy at play; a bike racer fell off his bike (through the fault of no one else) and can't carry on.

    This is spot on. Well said.
  • ContrelaMontre
    ContrelaMontre Posts: 3,027
    Salsiccia1 wrote:
    I'm not sure I follow this one. Are you saying riders without concrete GC ambitions crash more often? Or could it be that there are far more riders without concrete GC ambitions, ergo more crashes involving them?

    I just don't get this undercurrent of thought that implies if a rider has crashed out then he wasn't in good enough form to win it. I don't see how anyone can say that. You can speculate that a rider might have been on form good enough to win it before crashing out though.

    What's the point in speculating about a rider's form? Staying upright is part and parcel of winning the Tour. Contador didn't and therefore isn't challenging for the race. To say he would have done this that or the other is irrelevant. That's bike racing. Otherwise let's just put all the riders in a lab and test their VO2 max or some such proxy for 'form'.
    Rule No.10 // It never gets easier, you just go faster
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    coriordan wrote:
    Which genuine GC contender has crashed and had their hopes ended prior to this?

    How many GT winners are there who have only won to due the favourite crashing and abandoning?

    I think the consensus is 'not often' and Contador and Froome need to work on positioning, risk management and generally 'creating' more luck by not lurking in dangerous places in the peloton (Froome x2 or 3!?) and paying attention when descending at 70kph in the wet (for which Contador has a previous).

    Has happened throughout the years.

    Ocana, Poulidor, Hinault in 1980, Fignon (1987, 1990). Armstrong and Indurain are the rarities.
    _
  • GentlemanBear
    GentlemanBear Posts: 280
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    coriordan wrote:
    Which genuine GC contender has crashed and had their hopes ended prior to this?

    How many GT winners are there who have only won to due the favourite crashing and abandoning?

    I think the consensus is 'not often' and Contador and Froome need to work on positioning, risk management and generally 'creating' more luck by not lurking in dangerous places in the peloton (Froome x2 or 3!?) and paying attention when descending at 70kph in the wet (for which Contador has a previous).

    Has happened throughout the years.

    Ocana, Poulidor, Hinault in 1980, Fignon (1987, 1990). Armstrong and Indurain are the rarities.

    Wiggins in 2011 could have been described as a contender, if not a nailed on winner
  • salsiccia1
    salsiccia1 Posts: 3,725
    GentlemanBear wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    coriordan wrote:
    Which genuine GC contender has crashed and had their hopes ended prior to this?

    How many GT winners are there who have only won to due the favourite crashing and abandoning?

    I think the consensus is 'not often' and Contador and Froome need to work on positioning, risk management and generally 'creating' more luck by not lurking in dangerous places in the peloton (Froome x2 or 3!?) and paying attention when descending at 70kph in the wet (for which Contador has a previous).

    Has happened throughout the years.

    Ocana, Poulidor, Hinault in 1980, Fignon (1987, 1990). Armstrong and Indurain are the rarities.

    Wiggins in 2011 could have been described as a contender, if not a nailed on winner

    As I've just had pointed out, that's speculation and therefore pointless :wink:
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    ContrelaMontre wrote:

    I wasn't just referring to Tour ending crashes. Tour winners rarely crash at all - Froome had a low speed tumble before a stage last year and Lance Armstrong on Luz Ardiden are the only examples I can think of.
    Schleck went down as well this year. He crashed badly in the neutralised stage in 2010 too.
    Wiggins broke his collarbone in 2011
    Contador crashed on stage 1 in 2011 losing over a minute
    Evans broke his elbow in 2010, and a crash also probably cost him the 2008 Tour
    Pereiro had a huge crash in 2008 which put him out of the race
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • ContrelaMontre
    ContrelaMontre Posts: 3,027
    Salsiccia1 wrote:
    GentlemanBear wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    coriordan wrote:
    Which genuine GC contender has crashed and had their hopes ended prior to this?

    How many GT winners are there who have only won to due the favourite crashing and abandoning?

    I think the consensus is 'not often' and Contador and Froome need to work on positioning, risk management and generally 'creating' more luck by not lurking in dangerous places in the peloton (Froome x2 or 3!?) and paying attention when descending at 70kph in the wet (for which Contador has a previous).

    Has happened throughout the years.

    Ocana, Poulidor, Hinault in 1980, Fignon (1987, 1990). Armstrong and Indurain are the rarities.

    Wiggins in 2011 could have been described as a contender, if not a nailed on winner

    As I've just had pointed out, that's speculation and therefore pointless :wink:

    Wiggins would've destroyed this field of Plan B's this year if selected :wink:
    Rule No.10 // It never gets easier, you just go faster
  • GentlemanBear
    GentlemanBear Posts: 280
    Salsiccia1 wrote:
    GentlemanBear wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    coriordan wrote:
    Which genuine GC contender has crashed and had their hopes ended prior to this?

    How many GT winners are there who have only won to due the favourite crashing and abandoning?

    I think the consensus is 'not often' and Contador and Froome need to work on positioning, risk management and generally 'creating' more luck by not lurking in dangerous places in the peloton (Froome x2 or 3!?) and paying attention when descending at 70kph in the wet (for which Contador has a previous).

    Has happened throughout the years.

    Ocana, Poulidor, Hinault in 1980, Fignon (1987, 1990). Armstrong and Indurain are the rarities.

    Wiggins in 2011 could have been described as a contender, if not a nailed on winner

    As I've just had pointed out, that's speculation and therefore pointless :wink:

    I agree - we could probably compile a huge list of possible winners: if only x hadn't have punctured, if only y hadn't have been pulled out of the tour for a massive doping scandle, if only z hadn't been caught with an electric motor in his seat post... :lol: ... point being that there's probably dozens of instances in which rider error or misfortune has had an impact on the outcome of the GC podium; in fact probably every edition. AC's hardly a special case in that regard.
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    coriordan wrote:
    Which genuine GC contender has crashed and had their hopes ended prior to this?

    How many GT winners are there who have only won to due the favourite crashing and abandoning?

    I think the consensus is 'not often' and Contador and Froome need to work on positioning, risk management and generally 'creating' more luck by not lurking in dangerous places in the peloton (Froome x2 or 3!?) and paying attention when descending at 70kph in the wet (for which Contador has a previous).

    There is no consensus at least not one built on any kind of knowledge base. There are plenty of examples of GT favourites/contenders crashing out, of others benefitting from crashes, and of riders winning inspite of crashes. Luis Ocana is an obvious example in 71. His crash and subsequent withdrawal when in yellow was precipitated by Mercyx crashing (who went on to crash again further down the descent). Mercyx went on to win. Then there's Roger Riviere in 1960 whose crash put him out of the race (and very possible victory) and ended his career. In 1958, Charly Gaul lost minutes in a crash before going on to win (so is an example of someone who crashed heavily AND won!)
  • ContrelaMontre
    ContrelaMontre Posts: 3,027
    Paulie W wrote:
    coriordan wrote:
    Which genuine GC contender has crashed and had their hopes ended prior to this?

    How many GT winners are there who have only won to due the favourite crashing and abandoning?

    I think the consensus is 'not often' and Contador and Froome need to work on positioning, risk management and generally 'creating' more luck by not lurking in dangerous places in the peloton (Froome x2 or 3!?) and paying attention when descending at 70kph in the wet (for which Contador has a previous).

    There is no consensus at least not one built on any kind of knowledge base. There are plenty of examples of GT favourites/contenders crashing out, of others benefitting from crashes, and of riders winning inspite of crashes. Luis Ocana is an obvious example in 71. His crash and subsequent withdrawal when in yellow was precipitated by Mercyx crashing (who went on to crash again further down the descent). Mercyx went on to win. Then there's Roger Riviere in 1960 whose crash put him out of the race (and very possible victory) and ended his career. In 1958, Charly Gaul lost minutes in a crash before going on to win (so is an example of someone who crashed heavily AND won!)

    You're going back to 1958 to find an example of someone overcoming a heavy crash to win. It just goes to show that staying upright - whether as a result of good form or good luck - is a key ingredient to winning a Grand Tour.
    Rule No.10 // It never gets easier, you just go faster
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    I could have told you that.

    When I fall off my bike I take a good day or so off, at least, 'cos it f*cking hurts.
    _
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    So we're back full circle. Why was Contador descending like a loon when he fell off?

    1) Because his form wasn't as good as he was saying, so it was worth the risk to end his tour chances just to get on the front for the next climb?
    2) He's a great bike handler who excels on descents?
    3) He wasn't, he was taking it easy, even though he was taking gaps on those at the front?
    4) Poor luck considering he took his eyes off the road for 1 second and came down?

    4) Obviously, but I think there is a hint of 1) there. That said, if he had Dauphine form, I'd say there would be nothing to be worried about
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    coriordan wrote:
    So we're back full circle. Why was Contador descending like a loon when he fell off?

    1) Because his form wasn't as good as he was saying, so it was worth the risk to end his tour chances just to get on the front for the next climb?
    2) He's a great bike handler who excels on descents?
    3) He wasn't, he was taking it easy, even though he was taking gaps on those at the front?
    4) Poor luck considering he took his eyes off the road for 1 second and came down?

    4) Obviously, but I think there is a hint of 1) there. That said, if he had Dauphine form, I'd say there would be nothing to be worried about

    Think everyone takes a risk here and there when racing. Racing like a Loon is a bit much. It's bad luck.

    You can manage the risk, but ultimately there is always a risk.
    _
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    ^^He wasn't descending like a loon. He was descending easy enough that he was able to reach into his back pocket to take a bar. He then hit a pothole and at which point there is nothing you can do. A knock to the front end while one handed while descending is an almost certain crash. The only thing he could do differently was keep two hands on the bars.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    edited July 2014
    Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't he starting to gap the front of the bunch when he went down with some observers saying he went past at 10/15kph faster? (Fulsgang and VdB to name 2)

    *
    I'd like to add I am actually warming to AC and am equally glad for AC,CF and NV to win. I am just wondering if he was starting to panic after losing so much time on the cobbles that he wanted to create a small gap so he was tee'd up to start attacking hard on the next ascent.
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    coriordan wrote:
    So we're back full circle. Why was Contador descending like a loon when he fell off?

    1) Because his form wasn't as good as he was saying, so it was worth the risk to end his tour chances just to get on the front for the next climb?
    2) He's a great bike handler who excels on descents?
    3) He wasn't, he was taking it easy, even though he was taking gaps on those at the front?
    4) Poor luck considering he took his eyes off the road for 1 second and came down?

    4) Obviously, but I think there is a hint of 1) there. That said, if he had Dauphine form, I'd say there would be nothing to be worried about

    One thing's for sure, he didn't once in 10 stages 'light up the race like a true champion' (pause to be sick.. ahem, that's better, sorry). Nibali, Kittel and Martin just to mention three have provided some proper entertainment.

    Looking forward to tomorrow now, put all this Contador stuff behind us and get back to the racing.
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    edited July 2014
    ContrelaMontre wrote:
    Paulie W wrote:
    coriordan wrote:
    Which genuine GC contender has crashed and had their hopes ended prior to this?

    How many GT winners are there who have only won to due the favourite crashing and abandoning?

    I think the consensus is 'not often' and Contador and Froome need to work on positioning, risk management and generally 'creating' more luck by not lurking in dangerous places in the peloton (Froome x2 or 3!?) and paying attention when descending at 70kph in the wet (for which Contador has a previous).

    There is no consensus at least not one built on any kind of knowledge base. There are plenty of examples of GT favourites/contenders crashing out, of others benefitting from crashes, and of riders winning inspite of crashes. Luis Ocana is an obvious example in 71. His crash and subsequent withdrawal when in yellow was precipitated by Mercyx crashing (who went on to crash again further down the descent). Mercyx went on to win. Then there's Roger Riviere in 1960 whose crash put him out of the race (and very possible victory) and ended his career. In 1958, Charly Gaul lost minutes in a crash before going on to win (so is an example of someone who crashed heavily AND won!)

    You're going back to 1958 to find an example of someone overcoming a heavy crash to win. It just goes to show that staying upright - whether as a result of good form or good luck - is a key ingredient to winning a Grand Tour.

    Some are trying to argue that genuine GT contenders dont crash, therefore Froome and Contador were not genuine contenders because they couldnt stay on the bike. We could extend this argument to an array of very good and great riders such as Ocana, Mercyx, more recently Wiggins who all lost the opportunity to win Tours because of crashes - their own or someone else's fault. Crashes have happened quite often to the top riders in Grand Tours, sometimes costing the rider and sometimes not. The above were just some of many examples - Hinault crashed badly and won in 1985.
  • salsiccia1
    salsiccia1 Posts: 3,725
    Paulie W wrote:
    ContrelaMontre wrote:
    Paulie W wrote:
    coriordan wrote:
    Which genuine GC contender has crashed and had their hopes ended prior to this?

    How many GT winners are there who have only won to due the favourite crashing and abandoning?

    I think the consensus is 'not often' and Contador and Froome need to work on positioning, risk management and generally 'creating' more luck by not lurking in dangerous places in the peloton (Froome x2 or 3!?) and paying attention when descending at 70kph in the wet (for which Contador has a previous).

    There is no consensus at least not one built on any kind of knowledge base. There are plenty of examples of GT favourites/contenders crashing out, of others benefitting from crashes, and of riders winning inspite of crashes. Luis Ocana is an obvious example in 71. His crash and subsequent withdrawal when in yellow was precipitated by Mercyx crashing (who went on to crash again further down the descent). Mercyx went on to win. Then there's Roger Riviere in 1960 whose crash put him out of the race (and very possible victory) and ended his career. In 1958, Charly Gaul lost minutes in a crash before going on to win (so is an example of someone who crashed heavily AND won!)

    You're going back to 1958 to find an example of someone overcoming a heavy crash to win. It just goes to show that staying upright - whether as a result of good form or good luck - is a key ingredient to winning a Grand Tour.

    Some are trying to argue that genuine GT contenders dont crash, therefore Froome and Contador were not genuine contenders because they couldnt stay on the bike. We could extend this argument to an array of great riders such as Ocana, Mercyx, Hinault who all lost Tours because of crashes - their own or someone else's fault. Crashes have happened quite often to the top riders in Grand Tours, sometimes costing the rider and sometimes not. The above were just some of many examples - Hinault crashed badly and won in 1985.

    That's what I was trying to say, but less articulately than this. Thanks
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,390
    coriordan wrote:
    So we're back full circle. Why was Contador descending like a loon when he fell off?

    1) Because his form wasn't as good as he was saying, so it was worth the risk to end his tour chances just to get on the front for the next climb?
    2) He's a great bike handler who excels on descents?
    3) He wasn't, he was taking it easy, even though he was taking gaps on those at the front?
    4) Poor luck considering he took his eyes off the road for 1 second and came down?

    4) Obviously, but I think there is a hint of 1) there. That said, if he had Dauphine form, I'd say there would be nothing to be worried about

    Even for (4), one has to consider how much benefit there was from eating going downhill as opposed to waiting until he'd started the next climb to tuck in, when falling off is so much less of a risk.
  • r0bh
    r0bh Posts: 2,382
    Wallace and Gromit wrote:
    Even for (4), one has to consider how much benefit there was from eating going downhill as opposed to waiting until he'd started the next climb to tuck in, when falling off is so much less of a risk.

    You generally do want to eat when going downhill, as it is much easier to digest when not working that hard. Ideally you stuff your face over the top of the climb then digest on the way down.
  • nevman
    nevman Posts: 1,611
    Agree.He wouldnt get far on an Audax.I can hear my bearded Carradice carrying colleagues calling schoolboy error.
    Whats the solution? Just pedal faster you baby.

    Summer B,man Team Carbon LE#222
    Winter Alan Top Cross
    All rounder Spec. Allez.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,390
    r0bh wrote:
    Wallace and Gromit wrote:
    Even for (4), one has to consider how much benefit there was from eating going downhill as opposed to waiting until he'd started the next climb to tuck in, when falling off is so much less of a risk.

    You generally do want to eat when going downhill, as it is much easier to digest when not working that hard. Ideally you stuff your face over the top of the climb then digest on the way down.

    But didn't Berto crash very close to the bottom of the descent? From what I saw on the highlights, when he re-started, he was going uphill.

    There's a big difference between the speeds involved going over the top of the climb and when descending properly. I don't think I've seen too many riders actually reaching into their pockets for food once on the descent proper. If nothing else, they'd be slower than fellow descendees and would potentially get dropped.

Categories