2016 Vuelta a España, stage 11: Colunga > Peña Cabarga

Page 16 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

burning said:
SeriousSam said:
It's fine to concoct subjective rules and evaluate things with respect to those rules. There are no thought crimes.

But in the real world, we have definite procedures to determine the outcome of a contest, and Contador no more won the Giro in 2011 and the Tour in 2010 than Al Gore won the US Presidency in 2000.
Can you give an "definite" answer who won 2001 Tour by your "definite" procedure? You can not, so your procedure is not definite at all. For Al Gore, I probably missed the part when he won the US Presidency, but I guess you think that he won at some point.
There's a definite procedure to answer who won the race and that is to look at the organizer's records.
According to http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/us/TDF/2001/index.html nobody won the 2001 Tour
Similarly, according to http://www.giroditalia.it/eng/albo-doro/ the 2011 Giro was won by Scarponi
 
Re: Re:

wwabbit said:
burning said:
SeriousSam said:
It's fine to concoct subjective rules and evaluate things with respect to those rules. There are no thought crimes.

But in the real world, we have definite procedures to determine the outcome of a contest, and Contador no more won the Giro in 2011 and the Tour in 2010 than Al Gore won the US Presidency in 2000.
Can you give an "definite" answer who won 2001 Tour by your "definite" procedure? You can not, so your procedure is not definite at all. For Al Gore, I probably missed the part when he won the US Presidency, but I guess you think that he won at some point.
There's a definite procedure to answer who won the race and that is to look at the organizer's records.
According to http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/us/TDF/2001/index.html nobody won the 2001 Tour
Similarly, according to http://www.giroditalia.it/eng/albo-doro/ the 2011 Giro was won by Scarponi
According to that procedure, Contador was listed as winner of 2010 Tour for a long time, even after his ban. That procedure is no way a definite procedure.
 
Re: Re:

burning said:
wwabbit said:
burning said:
wwabbit said:
Contador's results between July 2010 and February 2012 have been officially voided.
Saying he still won those races that has been voided is also saying Armstrong won 7 Tour de Frances.
Do you think that Indurain won 5 Tours and 2 Giros? If your answer is no, then who is the winner for these races?
According to http://www.giroditalia.it/eng/albo-doro/ Indurain won the Giro in 1992 and 1993.
According to http://www.letour.fr/le-tour/2016/us/history/ Indurain won the Tour in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995

I have no evidence to believe that anyone else won those races.
So, please explain what is the difference between Armstrong and Indurain. Both won their Grand Tours with clinic stuff, the only difference is that Indurain is a silent guy and not a bully, so he has no enemies who would testify against him. For me, this is not a difference when it comes to cycling on road, so they both won their GT's.
The difference is that Armstrong's results has been invalidated, whereas Indurain's results are not.
It does not matter what caused the results to be invalidated and why it was apply to one and not to another. The fact remains that in official records, one has been invalidated one the other remains valid.
 
Re: Re:

burning said:
wwabbit said:
burning said:
SeriousSam said:
It's fine to concoct subjective rules and evaluate things with respect to those rules. There are no thought crimes.

But in the real world, we have definite procedures to determine the outcome of a contest, and Contador no more won the Giro in 2011 and the Tour in 2010 than Al Gore won the US Presidency in 2000.
Can you give an "definite" answer who won 2001 Tour by your "definite" procedure? You can not, so your procedure is not definite at all. For Al Gore, I probably missed the part when he won the US Presidency, but I guess you think that he won at some point.
There's a definite procedure to answer who won the race and that is to look at the organizer's records.
According to http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/us/TDF/2001/index.html nobody won the 2001 Tour
Similarly, according to http://www.giroditalia.it/eng/albo-doro/ the 2011 Giro was won by Scarponi
According to that procedure, Contador was listed as winner of 2010 Tour for a long time, even after his ban. That procedure is no way a definite procedure.
It is very simple, I'm not sure why you don't get it. Before his results have been invalidated, the definite procedure says that the 2010 victory is his. After the results have been invalidated, the definite procedure says that the 2010 victory belongs to Andy Schleck. Since we now exist in the period of time known as "after Feb 2012", therefore the 2010 Tour is now considered to be definitively won by Andy Schleck.
 
Re: Re:

wwabbit said:
burning said:
wwabbit said:
burning said:
SeriousSam said:
It's fine to concoct subjective rules and evaluate things with respect to those rules. There are no thought crimes.

But in the real world, we have definite procedures to determine the outcome of a contest, and Contador no more won the Giro in 2011 and the Tour in 2010 than Al Gore won the US Presidency in 2000.
Can you give an "definite" answer who won 2001 Tour by your "definite" procedure? You can not, so your procedure is not definite at all. For Al Gore, I probably missed the part when he won the US Presidency, but I guess you think that he won at some point.
There's a definite procedure to answer who won the race and that is to look at the organizer's records.
According to http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/us/TDF/2001/index.html nobody won the 2001 Tour
Similarly, according to http://www.giroditalia.it/eng/albo-doro/ the 2011 Giro was won by Scarponi
According to that procedure, Contador was listed as winner of 2010 Tour for a long time, even after his ban. That procedure is no way a definite procedure.
It is very simple, I'm not sure why you don't get it. Before his results have been invalidated, the definite procedure says that the 2010 victory is his. After the results have been invalidated, the definite procedure says that the 2010 victory belongs to Andy Schleck.
For me, a procedure is not definite if it changes according to some random events, but you can think that way, that is perfectly fine.
 
Re: Re:

wwabbit said:
It is very simple, I'm not sure why you don't get it. Before his results have been invalidated, the definite procedure says that the 2010 victory is his. After the results have been invalidated, the definite procedure says that the 2010 victory belongs to Andy Schleck.
Yep.
burning said:
So, please explain what is the difference between Armstrong and Indurain. Both won their Grand Tours with clinic stuff, the only difference is that Indurain is a silent guy and not a bully, so he has no enemies who would testify against him. For me, this is not a difference when it comes to cycling on road, so they both won their GT's.
The difference, is when any news source, any encyclopedia, any official UCI or organizer document published from now onward tallies up their win, they say Indurain won 7. And Armstrong won 0. That's just the facts as they stand.

You want to debate whether that should be, we can debate that in the Clinic. You can persuade me, or I can persuade you, or (what's much more likely) we can agree to disagree. But we won't change the facts, as we are not the legitimate arbiters of those facts.
 
Aug 3, 2016
66
0
0
Just watched todays stage and Chapeau Froome, he looked magnificent. Great to see him and Quintana go head to head and fair play to Contador for hanging in there and losing only a handful of seconds.

Really enjoyable end to the stage
 
Jul 6, 2012
223
0
0
Surprisingly good stage. Thanks Tinkoff, thanks Quindawg.
Surprisingly awesomely hilarious end of stage thread. Thanks Contafans (first recorded use in human history of these two words together)
 
Re:

Ataraxus said:
Observations from the rewatching:

1- Valverde's road block seemed like a movistar gang-up on Froome at first but really was unintentional. Zero harm zero affect.
2- With 500m to go, Contador was 16 seconds behind the leading duo and was able to finish 8 seconds behind. The leading duo slowed a bit until the final 200m, but AC did a very good finale especially considering he's not a good sprinter.
3- The time distance between Froome's second wheel and Quintana's first wheel at the finish was 0.7-0.8 seconds (according to my amateur measurements) so the same time result seems fair.

Valverde put him 2 secods,and Alberto is quite explosive...Koing put him more.. Quintana and Froome stoped for the spring, other way alberto lose today 30 secondsin a climb better for him than for Quintana and Froome.
 
Re: Re:

burning said:
TMP402 said:
burning said:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ycRwxWufmQc

Feel free to believe that Rujano wheelsucked a ghost or Klöden won a stage in 2004 Tour, I am not going to do that
I'm so glad you brought up ghosts, because under your rules - many people saw it - they exist.
Nope, there is no objective evidence about ghosts, you are just doing a textbook strawman.
Please show an official list of winners where Contador is listed as winning the things you claim he won.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Hugo Koblet said:
LaFlorecita said:
Hugo Koblet said:
That's part of my point. Why work if he doesn't have the legs to attack?
Maybe he felt good. They can't know how his rivals feel, obviously.
I'm sure that at this point of his career he knows when he's good and when he's not. I don't really buy the story that he felt good all stage and as soon as they hit the climb, he felt bad. I don't understand what you mean by your last sentence. Can you explain?
What?
Again:
Contador feels good,his legs feel strong. He doesn't know how his rivals feel. He will in all likelihood find out on the climb. He has to decide between letting the break take the stage and using his team to bring back the break. He chooses the second option, because in the best case he wins the stage, worst case another rider wins. On the climb it becomes clear his rivals also have strong legs, which means he can't win the stage. Unfortunate, but at least he didn't finish 1st out of the GC riders behind a break.
I was 'watching' this stage via this thread, and I thought Contador must have lost half a minute....at least. Turns out he finished only six seconds behind on a difficult finish; hardly a bad day or poor performance. He is showing signs of fading a little, but he is still 'competitive' as a GC rider. I know that many of us happily ride on the Contador hype train with gay abandon, but come on guys, lynching a bloke for finishing six seconds behind the winner and whilst being 5th on GC is another hype train going through a deep dark tunnel. Cut the bloke some slack.
 
Jul 12, 2013
981
0
0
Re: Re:

Taxus4a said:
Ataraxus said:
Observations from the rewatching:

1- Valverde's road block seemed like a movistar gang-up on Froome at first but really was unintentional. Zero harm zero affect.
2- With 500m to go, Contador was 16 seconds behind the leading duo and was able to finish 8 seconds behind. The leading duo slowed a bit until the final 200m, but AC did a very good finale especially considering he's not a good sprinter.
3- The time distance between Froome's second wheel and Quintana's first wheel at the finish was 0.7-0.8 seconds (according to my amateur measurements) so the same time result seems fair.

Valverde put him 2 secods,and Alberto is quite explosive...Koing put him more.. Quintana and Froome stoped for the spring, other way alberto lose today 30 secondsin a climb better for him than for Quintana and Froome.
At times I can't quite get you Taxus.
When has Alberto shown any explosiveness in the past 3 years against guys like Valverde, Froome or Purito or even Quintana? Valverde putting him two seconds in the sprint is a bad result?
He is quite explosive compared to who? The aforementioned riders??
Konig finished s.t with Valverde while being 3-4 seconds ahead with 150m to go.
If Froome and Quintana were riding for gaps they probably would have given a 30 second gapto him(not by riding like they rode yesterday though). My point is that: usually when Contador drops, he drops like a stone. But it wasn't quite the case yesterday. He didn't dose his energies badly and actually had something left for the finale.
 
Jan 4, 2012
154
0
0
For me, winning a race involves successfully doing several things. One of those is completing the course in the shortest time. Another is passing all drugs tests. Failing a drugs test means you have failed to win the race. Whether others are doping or not is irrelevant, if you fail to pass all the obstacles you need to pass to win the race, you have not won the race.
 
The only reason Contador was 6 seconds back and 45 was that Froome and Quintana engaged in a little cat and mouse in the final km. Had they gone full gas to the finish Contador et al would have lost much more time.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY