How good is Chris Froome?
Comments
-
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Salsiccia1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:But then commissars, egged on by sky decided to take luck and fate into their own hands and change the results so they didn't resemble what we saw. Sky was bullied by chance, dobbed him in, and turned up to the podium, grinning smugly, knowing they'd got away with it.
No wonder the crowds booed. That's not what the Tour is about. You don't beat fortune. You submit to its arbitrary and merciless ways. You're not bigger than the Tour, and the Tour isn't bigger than luck and chance.
In the end, Froome didn't need the time to win. He'd have looked far more the better sport had he taken it on the chin.
If he did need the time, then a lot of fans would have put their own asterix by his win. 'Won by the jury'.
Did Sky bully them into it? And if it were, say, Quintana that was in Froome's position, do you not think Unzue would have protested vehemently?
I can understand why the decision made by the commissaires was badly received by the press and fans, but you surely can't blame Froome and Sky for asking the question over such a ludicrous incident.
But I do think that Brailsford in particular pushes it by trying to ensure he is around race juries or Commies as they deliberate over a decision. He knows he can try to influence via his presence whilst they discuss. He has previous for this on road and on the track. For example in London 4 years ago he tried to do this when the Commies were looking at the Pendleton-Varnish change, and they had to tell him to shove off (and ended up disqualifying Pendleton and Varnish)
(FTR AtC, this comment of mine isn''t about trying to fit things to a narrative)
I am sure Brailsford tries his luck. I wouldn't expect anything else. Marginal gains and all that. I just think it funny that no one talks about BMC in any of this. I suppose that's what comes of being a bit 'sh*t', people don't talk about you
Perhaps BMC would be better if they took some notes from Brailsford's book. Correlation is not causation.0 -
Above The Cows wrote:Gosh it's suddenly come over like the Republican National Convention.
As long as nobody has a tennis ball we should be fine...Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0 -
As always it boils down to how you perceive things, or want to perceive things.0
-
Above The Cows wrote:I just think it funny that no one talks about BMC in any of this.
Nobody talks about BMC ever, which s presumably why Andy is talking about taking his ball home.Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0 -
When the issue is the fault of the organisers (i.e. not having barriers in place so close to the finish) and one of their bikes being held up by the crowd and another of their bikes ramming the riders from behind and breaking CF's bike then there is no alternative other than to step in and do the right thing.
In reality Froome lost time that day as he was gaining on Quintana by the second.0 -
The_Boy wrote:Above The Cows wrote:I just think it funny that no one talks about BMC in any of this.
Nobody talks about BMC ever, which s presumably why Andy is talking about taking his ball home.
BMC = Boring Mediocre Cyling.
BMC = Billionaire's Money Club.
Daddy Andy better not take his ball to any Republican National Conventions.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Joelsim wrote:When the issue is the fault of the organisers (i.e. not having barriers in place so close to the finish) and one of their bikes being held up by the crowd and another of their bikes ramming the riders from behind and breaking CF's bike then there is no alternative other than to step in and do the right thing.
In reality Froome lost time that day as he was gaining on Quintana by the second.
As has many a rider in races since the year dot who's been held up and lost out thanks to external factors. Which is what annoys some people re this.0 -
Above The Cows wrote:The_Boy wrote:Above The Cows wrote:I just think it funny that no one talks about BMC in any of this.
Nobody talks about BMC ever, which s presumably why Andy is talking about taking his ball home.
Daddy Andy better not take his ball to any Republican National Conventions.
Didn't Lance already do that?Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0 -
-
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Joelsim wrote:When the issue is the fault of the organisers (i.e. not having barriers in place so close to the finish) and one of their bikes being held up by the crowd and another of their bikes ramming the riders from behind and breaking CF's bike then there is no alternative other than to step in and do the right thing.
In reality Froome lost time that day as he was gaining on Quintana by the second.
As has many a rider in races since the year dot who's been held up and lost out thanks to external factors. Which is what annoys some people re this.
Hence why I said the fault of the organisers rather than just other external factors. The precedent had been set with Yates's flamme rouge incident.0 -
The_Boy wrote:Above The Cows wrote:The_Boy wrote:Above The Cows wrote:I just think it funny that no one talks about BMC in any of this.
Nobody talks about BMC ever, which s presumably why Andy is talking about taking his ball home.
Daddy Andy better not take his ball to any Republican National Conventions.
Didn't Lance already do that?
Correlation is not causation.0 -
I think what annoyed people is that their last chance of a contest for the yellow jersey disappeared with that decision.Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Joelsim wrote:When the issue is the fault of the organisers (i.e. not having barriers in place so close to the finish) and one of their bikes being held up by the crowd and another of their bikes ramming the riders from behind and breaking CF's bike then there is no alternative other than to step in and do the right thing.
In reality Froome lost time that day as he was gaining on Quintana by the second.
As has many a rider in races since the year dot who's been held up and lost out thanks to external factors. Which is what annoys some people re this.Twitter: @RichN950 -
He won by a huge amount, he would have won by a huge amount regardless of that decision.Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0
-
RichN95 wrote:
I think what annoyed people is that their last chance of a contest for the yellow jersey disappeared with that decision.Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Joelsim wrote:When the issue is the fault of the organisers (i.e. not having barriers in place so close to the finish) and one of their bikes being held up by the crowd and another of their bikes ramming the riders from behind and breaking CF's bike then there is no alternative other than to step in and do the right thing.
In reality Froome lost time that day as he was gaining on Quintana by the second.
As has many a rider in races since the year dot who's been held up and lost out thanks to external factors. Which is what annoys some people re this.
What annoyed me was that I was walking back down to Bedoin and missed the bloody action0 -
okgo wrote:He won by a huge amount, he would have won by a huge amount regardless of that decision.
Agreed0 -
Joelsim wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Joelsim wrote:When the issue is the fault of the organisers (i.e. not having barriers in place so close to the finish) and one of their bikes being held up by the crowd and another of their bikes ramming the riders from behind and breaking CF's bike then there is no alternative other than to step in and do the right thing.
In reality Froome lost time that day as he was gaining on Quintana by the second.
As has many a rider in races since the year dot who's been held up and lost out thanks to external factors. Which is what annoys some people re this.
Hence why I said the fault of the organisers rather than just other external factors. The precedent had been set with Yates's flamme rouge incident.
And I disagree. But there you go.0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Joelsim wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Joelsim wrote:When the issue is the fault of the organisers (i.e. not having barriers in place so close to the finish) and one of their bikes being held up by the crowd and another of their bikes ramming the riders from behind and breaking CF's bike then there is no alternative other than to step in and do the right thing.
In reality Froome lost time that day as he was gaining on Quintana by the second.
As has many a rider in races since the year dot who's been held up and lost out thanks to external factors. Which is what annoys some people re this.
Hence why I said the fault of the organisers rather than just other external factors. The precedent had been set with Yates's flamme rouge incident.
And I disagree. But there you go.
Thankfully I'm always right. Phew.0 -
well OBVIOUSLY0
-
hang on, hang on, forget being right, which one of you is smarter? That's the question around here these days...0
-
Joelsim wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Joelsim wrote:When the issue is the fault of the organisers (i.e. not having barriers in place so close to the finish) and one of their bikes being held up by the crowd and another of their bikes ramming the riders from behind and breaking CF's bike then there is no alternative other than to step in and do the right thing.
In reality Froome lost time that day as he was gaining on Quintana by the second.
As has many a rider in races since the year dot who's been held up and lost out thanks to external factors. Which is what annoys some people re this.
Hence why I said the fault of the organisers rather than just other external factors. The precedent had been set with Yates's flamme rouge incident.
I can remember chatting with a colleague about this at the time - as has already been said - had they not changed the results it would've given a green light for anyone to disrupt a race and alter the standings. Wouldn't need to be just with crowds - someone could've thrown an umbrella through spokes on a descent or even just run across the road as the target racer is approaching - and don't think it would nescersarily be some random punter - it could just as easily be organised by a team or sponsor when things aren't going their way.
Think about it - perhaps that road block went wrong - perhaps the bikes were supposed to be stopped after Porte had gone past them ... or perhaps it was right - give Quintana a chance to catch up ... lots of ifs and buts ...0 -
Slowbike wrote:Joelsim wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Joelsim wrote:When the issue is the fault of the organisers (i.e. not having barriers in place so close to the finish) and one of their bikes being held up by the crowd and another of their bikes ramming the riders from behind and breaking CF's bike then there is no alternative other than to step in and do the right thing.
In reality Froome lost time that day as he was gaining on Quintana by the second.
As has many a rider in races since the year dot who's been held up and lost out thanks to external factors. Which is what annoys some people re this.
Hence why I said the fault of the organisers rather than just other external factors. The precedent had been set with Yates's flamme rouge incident.
I can remember chatting with a colleague about this at the time - as has already been said - had they not changed the results it would've given a green light for anyone to disrupt a race and alter the standings. Wouldn't need to be just with crowds - someone could've thrown an umbrella through spokes on a descent or even just run across the road as the target racer is approaching - and don't think it would nescersarily be some random punter - it could just as easily be organised by a team or sponsor when things aren't going their way.
Think about it - perhaps that road block went wrong - perhaps the bikes were supposed to be stopped after Porte had gone past them ... or perhaps it was right - give Quintana a chance to catch up ... lots of ifs and buts ...
Yep.0 -
Equally it could be argued the other way too
Hell its amazing how races have ever been raced before the race jury in the Tour started changing results thanks to events stemming from something other than another rider0 -
Well one of them spends his days watching cycling and playing with cats, and the other seems to be permanently on holiday, so I'd say they're both pretty smart.dish_dash wrote:hang on, hang on, forget being right, which one of you is smarter? That's the question around here these days...Twitter: @RichN950 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Equally it could be argued the other way too
Hell its amazing how races have ever been raced before the race jury in the Tour started changing results thanks to events stemming from something other than another rider
Things that have gone wrong before doesn't mean it was wrong to act this time. On this occasion the commissaires had a reference for correction (Mollema, but the gap would probably have been bigger), and it was so obviously going to affect the overall. It wasn't perfect but best efforts was the right thing to do IMO.
In the examples further up the thread, it was impossible to measure the impact of the incident or wouldn't have had any impact on the overall, at least as far as I'm aware of.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Equally it could be argued the other way too
How so?
I think ATC nails it here:Above The Cows wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Whatever the ins and outs of L'Equipe and whether or not Rich has read it, I can't help thinking it would have been better to just let the Ventoux result stand - one less stone for people to throw.
Would have been horrible for Richie though.
I'm not sure they could have allowed that. It would have been an effective greenlight from ASO and the UCI commissaires for roadside interference. I'm not sure it was 'Sky's' interference (I love how everyone conveniently forgets that BMC were also present in that meeting as it destroys the narrative) with the Jury that swung the decision it was ASO and the UCI trying to salvage the integrity of the sport.
We've seen the fans by the roadside at the big MTF set pieces grow hugely over recent years, and we've seen then become increasingly rowdy, alcohol fuelled and stupid. While we know there are isolated incidents of fans attacking riders in the past (and if we go all the way back it was pretty common - but so was taking a shortcut or jumping on a train) but the atmosphere is now dangerous. Allowing fans to delay riders would have set a terrible precedent.
For the record, the particular situation on Ventoux was something ASO should have been in control of, but weren't (and yes, I know there were many confounding factors). One of the other options open to them was neutralising the race entirely, as the road wasn't rideable. Would we have preferred that?
And in terms of precedent, looking at Merckx being punched is wrong. Merckx didn't lose time that day because of it, he was broken later and blamed his injuries. That's not something that the race commissaires can take into account in any way shape or form.
Incidentally, I'm not very smart, as I haven't shaved for several days and am "working" from home in an old pair of shorts and slightly shabby t-shirt.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
RonB wrote:
Still "winning" - this time in the Aalst crit
I always thought Froome was a lot bigger.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:RonB wrote:
Still "winning" - this time in the Aalst crit
I always thought Froome was a lot bigger.
Lager than life.0 -
I would have finished that in about a minute.Correlation is not causation.0
-
Above The Cows wrote:I would have finished that in about a minute.
And then placed it on top of your head in an upturned position.
Before spewing.0
