To race or to wait?

twotoebenny

What exactly was wrong with Froome bike? He seems to still be able to pedal ok for a bit from the tv pics... didn't look like a puncture?

RichN95.

TwoToeBenny wrote:

What exactly was wrong with Froome bike? He seems to still be able to pedal ok for a bit from the tv pics... didn't look like a puncture?

His gears were stuck

blazing_saddles

The fact is, rightly or wrongly, that Aru did attack.
It's really, it's what happened next that has got some folks moaning.
And if the other riders hadn't got on Aru's case, what then?
Those moaning have a Utopian scenario playing out in their heads, in which all the GC contenders take turns on the front, to distance big threat of Froome.
Trouble is, this is the Tour, not the Dauphine.
At that point in the climb, it would have played out quite similar to what we actually got, with everyone following wheels.
Heck, towards the top of the climb, when Froome attacked and his mate, plus Sky old boy, Uran were the only two left, neither would contribute. Even though only three riders get to stand on the final podium.

Richmond Racer 2

If riders are starting to preserve top 10 positions before even the first rest day, I give up

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

If riders are starting to preserve top 10 positions before even the first rest day, I give up

Exactly.

RichN95.

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

If riders are starting to preserve top 10 positions before even the first rest day, I give up

After six years, Sky have most of them conditioned. Few of them can remember a time before the Empire. They need their leadership. Sky don't even have to discipline dissidents like Aru themselves, the others will do it for them.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

If riders are starting to preserve top 10 positions before even the first rest day, I give up

After six years, Sky have most of them conditioned. Few of them can remember a time before the Empire. They need their leadership. Sky don't even have to discipline dissidents like Aru themselves, the others will do it for them.

Evil Emperor Froome does seem to be maturing into a proper Patron, a la Hinault. He's even hit a spectator.
We wouldn't have this debate back in Hinault's day, but anyone who attacked him when he had a mechanical.... That could get ugly.

Richmond Racer 2

not particularly healthy from a spectator sport's perspective

and things have moved on from Hinault's day when we'd have all had to be content with following the most meagre of coverage channels, and we'd have had to have gleaned how the stage went from how a reporter chose to describe it

ugo.santalucia

Boardman is banging on the to race drum and I am 100% with it... if your gears don't work, you problem, if you puncture, next time think tubeless... if you go down, tough luck... a race is a race and there are already far too few opportunities to attack

blazing_saddles

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Boardman is banging on the to race drum and I am 100% with it... if your gears don't work, you problem, if you puncture, next time think tubeless... if you go down, tough luck... a race is a race and there are already far too few opportunities to attack

ITV 4 have an interesting debate going on.
David Millar takes the completely opposite view, points out the flaws in his argument and he seemed to be agreeing with much of that too!

craigus89

t's taking sportsmanship to a level that is no longer sportsmanship in my opinion.

Also on the point about people protecting their top 10 position, this is something that bothers me a lot in other sports too, I dare mention football and the seeming satisfaction of getting a european qualification spot. Winning isn't everything it seems, and that takes away form the spectacle and entertainment enormously for me.

salsiccia1

I disagree with Boardman. I don't want riders attacking when they see some misfortune befalling a rival. It's cynical and unsportsmanlike.

I wouldn't expect riders to change what they're doing if they're already doing it or it's part of their planned strategy for that point on the race - I don't think Movistar did anything wrong by continuing to drill it when Thomas crashed in the Giro, as they were already doing that - but Aru's attack did look opportunist and cynical, and it did look like a direct reaction to Froome's mechanical. If he decided to go for it before he saw Froome put his hand up for the car, then it's not so clear cut, but only he can ever know that.

rick_chasey

Cycling? Cynical?

NO WAY.

RichN95.

Craigus89 wrote:

t's taking sportsmanship to a level that is no longer sportsmanship in my opinion.

Also on the point about people protecting their top 10 position, this is something that bothers me a lot in other sports too, I dare mention football and the seeming satisfaction of getting a european qualification spot. Winning isn't everything it seems, and that takes away form the spectacle and entertainment enormously for me.

People in all walks of life tend to know what their 'level' is and a generally happy with attaining it or maybe slightly improving it. People are more motivated by loss aversion than by gain.

Football's a bit different as it's 38 independent battles adding to a whole. A 2-0 loss is little difference to a 1-0 loss in the long run, so it's worth gambling for that equaliser. A team will often settle for a 1-1 draw, even though the gains of another goal for are double the loses of a goal against. In cycling though a larger loss effects the whole.

iainf72

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Boardman is banging on the to race drum and I am 100% with it... if your gears don't work, you problem, if you puncture, next time think tubeless... if you go down, tough luck... a race is a race and there are already far too few opportunities to attack

If a spectator pushed a rider off, would it be acceptable to attack then?

salsiccia1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cycling? Cynical?

NO WAY.

Reflected in many of its fans

ugo.santalucia

iainf72 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Boardman is banging on the to race drum and I am 100% with it... if your gears don't work, you problem, if you puncture, next time think tubeless... if you go down, tough luck... a race is a race and there are already far too few opportunities to attack

If a spectator pushed a rider off, would it be acceptable to attack then?

yes, it's not against the rules... if you want gentlemen behaviour, then you need rules, otherwise the line not to cross is not clear... Personally I think the other day Aru did the right thing... if Froome's bike doesn't work properly, that's his problem. You can attack subtly (like Millar pointed out) or not, like Aru did, but you have to attack or it's not a race...

I'd say more Formula 1 than Football is the way to go

bobmcstuff

Salsiccia1 wrote:

I disagree with Boardman. I don't want riders attacking when they see some misfortune befalling a rival. It's cynical and unsportsmanlike.

I wouldn't expect riders to change what they're doing if they're already doing it or it's part of their planned strategy for that point on the race - I don't think Movistar did anything wrong by continuing to drill it when Thomas crashed in the Giro, as they were already doing that - but Aru's attack did look opportunist and cynical, and it did look like a direct reaction to Froome's mechanical. If he decided to go for it before he saw Froome put his hand up for the car, then it's not so clear cut, but only he can ever know that.

Basically this, except with crashes it kind of depends on why. If a rider overcooks it on a descent then that's part of the game but if a dog runs out in front of them it's a bit different.

Basically you want to see the races decided by the skill and strength of the riders not on who happens to suffer a gear failure or whatever (not that it stopped Uran!).

larkim

Aru had every opportunity (if he honestly didn't see the hand or presume it was for a mechanical) to keep on soloing up the hill. I know he would expect some riders to follow if he attacked, but (given how far off the summit they were) he might also have imagined he might have been left to suffer alone - his risk.

No-one actually stopped him by riding in front etc. They just sucked his wheel and prevented him from getting away on his own.

buckmulligan

Rick Chasey wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

If riders are starting to preserve top 10 positions before even the first rest day, I give up

Exactly.

I've seen this mentioned a few times, but I really don't see that was what was happening when Aru/Fuglsang weren't working together against Froome in the finish; I think they see each other more of a competitor than Froome and aren't willing to sacrifice their own GC position at the risk of the other getting a leg-up in the Astana pecking-order and there wasn't even a consideration of such as thing as a "team-victory".

Maybe that is classed as protecting their positions to a certain degree, but it's not for the fear of Froome/Sky, it's the lack of organisation and structure within their own ranks.

iainf72

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I'd say more Formula 1 than Football is the way to go

But cycling is unique in this regard - You are reliant on your competitors for aspects of the sport. You need to be able to work with others, so you need to do a cost-benefit analysis.

Aru could've persisted with his attack. He'd pay for it in the future. His DS, who was Pantani's DS knows this and would've told him to stop it.

timoid.

iainf72 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I'd say more Formula 1 than Football is the way to go

But cycling is unique in this regard - You are reliant on your competitors for aspects of the sport. You need to be able to work with others, so you need to do a cost-benefit analysis.

Aru could've persisted with his attack. He'd pay for it in the future. His DS, who was Pantani's DS knows this and would've told him to stop it.

Dunno, Nibali (many times) and Valverde haven't suffered much and they've both attacked when rivals had mechanical difficulty. It was a big reason for Valverde's 2009 Vuelta win.

rick_chasey

Timoid. wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I'd say more Formula 1 than Football is the way to go

But cycling is unique in this regard - You are reliant on your competitors for aspects of the sport. You need to be able to work with others, so you need to do a cost-benefit analysis.

Aru could've persisted with his attack. He'd pay for it in the future. His DS, who was Pantani's DS knows this and would've told him to stop it.

Dunno, Nibali (many times) and Valverde haven't suffered much and they've both attacked when rivals had mechanical difficulty. It was a big reason for Valverde's 2009 Vuelta win.

There is a small difference; they do it with *such style*.

Aru didn't.

buckmulligan

Timoid. wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I'd say more Formula 1 than Football is the way to go

But cycling is unique in this regard - You are reliant on your competitors for aspects of the sport. You need to be able to work with others, so you need to do a cost-benefit analysis.

Aru could've persisted with his attack. He'd pay for it in the future. His DS, who was Pantani's DS knows this and would've told him to stop it.

Dunno, Nibali (many times) and Valverde haven't suffered much and they've both attacked when rivals had mechanical difficulty. It was a big reason for Valverde's 2009 Vuelta win.

Well I, for one, used to be a fan of Nibali but can't stand him now. Not so much for the unsportsmanlike (or otherwise) attacks, but the bare-faced lying to the media and to the fans straight afterwards. Same goes for sticky-bottle-gate on the Vuelta.

I'm sure he's devastated to lose me as a fan...

ugo.santalucia

Looking back, rivalry is what made sport interesting and some sportsmen great.... think Anquetil, not exactly a gentleman on the road, think Lemond and Hinault, think Senna and Prost... pushing the boundaries of what is right and what is wrong makes sport more exciting... I find this polite code of conduct extremely boring, I find this generation of subdue cycling stars very tedious... they lack charisma, personality, authenticity and yes, they lack the balls to take their chance despite what everybody else thinks... in 2004 Cunego pipped his captain Simoni and controvertially bagged the Giro, that was clever... he made his career out of that win, despite what the establishment thought

Now they do their 9 to 5 cycling job without much passion or flare... clean and well behaved... and so bloody boring

bobmcstuff

BuckMulligan wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I'd say more Formula 1 than Football is the way to go

But cycling is unique in this regard - You are reliant on your competitors for aspects of the sport. You need to be able to work with others, so you need to do a cost-benefit analysis.

Aru could've persisted with his attack. He'd pay for it in the future. His DS, who was Pantani's DS knows this and would've told him to stop it.

Dunno, Nibali (many times) and Valverde haven't suffered much and they've both attacked when rivals had mechanical difficulty. It was a big reason for Valverde's 2009 Vuelta win.

Well I, for one, used to be a fan of Nibali but can't stand him now. Not so much for the unsportsmanlike (or otherwise) attacks, but the bare-faced lying to the media and to the fans straight afterwards. Same goes for sticky-bottle-gate on the Vuelta.

I'm sure he's devastated to lose me as a fan...

See, I disagree. I like the fact that Froome and Aru had a bit of a beef and then kept schtum. It lets you read between the lines, put words into their mouths, it adds to the drama. If they both just insulted each other in the press it would just be a bit crass, wouldn't it?

No_Ta_Doctor

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Looking back, rivalry is what made sport interesting and some sportsmen great.... think Anquetil, not exactly a gentleman on the road, think Lemond and Hinault, think Senna and Prost... pushing the boundaries of what is right and what is wrong makes sport more exciting... I find this polite code of conduct extremely boring, I find this generation of subdue cycling stars very tedious... they lack charisma, personality, authenticity and yes, they lack the balls to take their chance despite what everybody else thinks... in 2004 Cunego pipped his captain Simoni and controvertially bagged the Giro, that was clever... he made his career out of that win, despite what the establishment thought

Now they do their 9 to 5 cycling job without much passion or flare... clean and well behaved... and so bloody boring

Hold on, you can't simultaneously say that rivalries are built out of pushing the boundaries of sportsmanlike behaviour and then say that sportsmanship is the problem. If it wasn't unsporting to attack a mechanical it wouldn't be the stuff that caused a rivalry, would it? You can't be a villain if there aren't any rules.

ugo.santalucia

No tA Doctor wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Looking back, rivalry is what made sport interesting and some sportsmen great.... think Anquetil, not exactly a gentleman on the road, think Lemond and Hinault, think Senna and Prost... pushing the boundaries of what is right and what is wrong makes sport more exciting... I find this polite code of conduct extremely boring, I find this generation of subdue cycling stars very tedious... they lack charisma, personality, authenticity and yes, they lack the balls to take their chance despite what everybody else thinks... in 2004 Cunego pipped his captain Simoni and controvertially bagged the Giro, that was clever... he made his career out of that win, despite what the establishment thought

Now they do their 9 to 5 cycling job without much passion or flare... clean and well behaved... and so bloody boring

Hold on, you can't simultaneously say that rivalries are built out of pushing the boundaries of sportsmanlike behaviour and then say that sportsmanship is the problem. If it wasn't unsporting to attack a mechanical it wouldn't be the stuff that caused a rivalry, would it? You can't be a villain if there aren't any rules.

There are no such rules, I just wish they weren't so well behaved.

In 2004 (or was it 2003) Ullrich lost a Tour de France for being a gentleman and waiting for Armstrong who then dropped him.. in 2010 (I think) Contador won a Tour for not being a gentleman (then removed for the infamous beef... )... there is a lot to gain and I don't understand why they don't seize their chances when they are there

tailwindhome

Brian Holm good value on the Cycling Podcast

buckmulligan

bobmcstuff wrote:

See, I disagree. I like the fact that Froome and Aru had a bit of a beef and then kept schtum. It lets you read between the lines, put words into their mouths, it adds to the drama. If they both just insulted each other in the press it would just be a bit crass, wouldn't it?

Not necessarily insulting each other, just being honest.

If Aru had come out and said "that's all part of racing, it's just tough luck for Froome", I'd be totally fine with it. But standing there and telling the media and the fans a load of blatant lies to try to propagate this charade of "sportsmanship" on his part, which is no doubt in his own self-interest as to discourage anyone attacking him should he be in similar circumstances, just strikes me as duplicitous, underhanded and pitiful.

As you say, it's easy enough to read between the lines, but I'm not liking what I'm seeing.