79th Gent-Wevelgem, 26th March 2017, 249 km, 1.UWT

[Netserk]

Re:

Not sure why everyone is having a go at Terpstra. If he works he likely comes 4th at best. He isn't beating GVA, Sagan or Keukeleire in a sprint where they all have the same tiredness in their legs. If he makes everyone else do the work he might have a chance to get away and he has a very good card to play, Gav and Boonen are only a few seconds back and can challenge for the win. He actually did exactly what he should have done, make Sagan close the gap so he can take a flyer off the break. Didn't happen but it likely made no difference to his finishing position.

That's a false dichotomy In maximizing his team's winning chances, Terpstra *** up (but not as much as Sagan did, when it comes to winning GW). He didn't have to work with the group and he shouldn't have let the gap open up (if he did, the team should at least have committed themselves to the bunch sprint). His job in that group was to mark it and slow it down, but for that to work he has to stay with them all. If he moved up to third spot and continued to glue himself to the move, without taking any real turns, it would have been far likelier for his teammates to come up from behind. This way he *** up his own chances to win and his teammates' chances.

Not that I want to be controversial, but imagine if it wasn't Sagan but Nacer doing that. Remember the outcry when his train "waved" Katusha out of the way last year? In the Catalunya thread, I raised what I see as a major issue: some teams or riders are more likely to get away with breaking the rules. Nothing new: Michael Jordan hardly ever got called for travelling, et caetera...but at least in cycling, there's more time for the officials to rule. Or rule twice as in Catalunya .

Sagan is in my top-10 favorite riders (see recent thread), and I'd like to see more angles before I judge: but I don't like what I saw. Not one bit...

I have to agree with you. I didn't get to watch the race and I've only seen the youtube video that was linked, but if it were Bouhanni or Cav people would be up in arms. I can't see any justifiable reason for it. But then we've only seen a very short clip, hard to judge.

Have to agree with both you and Tonton, it's all about heroes and villians and yep if Bouhanni had done it then posters would be screaming for his head, imagine if it had been Gerrans! the forum would of gone into meltdown and we would have 5 new threads started about it
It was far from the worst thing I've seen and very much borderline DQ stuff and with the way the rules of the sport are written he gets away with it.

I just watched it again out of curiosity and to me it's even more minor than first viewing it. I don't have heroes or villains either. He gave the rider on the left plenty polite warning that he needed some space and the guy wouldn't budge, despite having loads of space on the left to move to. So Sagan gave him a shoulder bump to create some space. It's a bit of a non-event to my eyes.
We obviously all see things quite differently though.

No rider has to move out of the way for another rider. If Sagan wants to move up because he's in the wrong position he needs to find his way through.

Similarly you can't just push another rider out of the way because you want to ride in the space they are riding in.

Are you absolutely sure of that? Your sentence sure does remind me of a mountain stage in the Giro Rosa recently when Rabobank blocked off Abbott(?)

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

That's a false dichotomy In maximizing his team's winning chances, Terpstra **** up (but not as much as Sagan did, when it comes to winning GW). He didn't have to work with the group and he shouldn't have let the gap open up (if he did, the team should at least have committed themselves to the bunch sprint). His job in that group was to mark it and slow it down, but for that to work he has to stay with them all. If he moved up to third spot and continued to glue himself to the move, without taking any real turns, it would have been far likelier for his teammates to come up from behind. This way he **** up his own chances to win and his teammates' chances.

I don't agree. Terpstra works to get himself and Sagan to the front two and comes 4th, even if he sits on. Adding Sagan to the front two wouldn't have stopped them, they were committed to the move and Sagan would have made it stronger. Removing the strongest rider helps his team catch it if they are going to work and forcing the strongest rider to bridge the gaps gives him a better chance in the finale.

Are you absolutely sure of that? Your sentence sure does remind me of a mountain stage in the Giro Rosa recently when Rabobank blocked off Abbott(?)

Context is important on an online forum where people don't want to write paragraphs and paragraphs to refine every single point. In this discussion it's pretty obvious we are not talking about deliberate impedance of a rider, but if you really want to be pedantic you should look up the regulations and see for yourself.

 

[Dan2016]

Not that I want to be controversial, but imagine if it wasn't Sagan but Nacer doing that. Remember the outcry when his train "waved" Katusha out of the way last year? In the Catalunya thread, I raised what I see as a major issue: some teams or riders are more likely to get away with breaking the rules. Nothing new: Michael Jordan hardly ever got called for travelling, et caetera...but at least in cycling, there's more time for the officials to rule. Or rule twice as in Catalunya .

Sagan is in my top-10 favorite riders (see recent thread), and I'd like to see more angles before I judge: but I don't like what I saw. Not one bit...

I have to agree with you. I didn't get to watch the race and I've only seen the youtube video that was linked, but if it were Bouhanni or Cav people would be up in arms. I can't see any justifiable reason for it. But then we've only seen a very short clip, hard to judge.

Have to agree with both you and Tonton, it's all about heroes and villians and yep if Bouhanni had done it then posters would be screaming for his head, imagine if it had been Gerrans! the forum would of gone into meltdown and we would have 5 new threads started about it
It was far from the worst thing I've seen and very much borderline DQ stuff and with the way the rules of the sport are written he gets away with it.

I just watched it again out of curiosity and to me it's even more minor than first viewing it. I don't have heroes or villains either. He gave the rider on the left plenty polite warning that he needed some space and the guy wouldn't budge, despite having loads of space on the left to move to. So Sagan gave him a shoulder bump to create some space. It's a bit of a non-event to my eyes.
We obviously all see things quite differently though.

No rider has to move out of the way for another rider. If Sagan wants to move up because he's in the wrong position he needs to find his way through.

Similarly you can't just push another rider out of the way because you want to ride in the space they are riding in.

Agreed, you don't have to move, but it's normal racing courtesy/respect to do so in a specific situation like that. The guy had loads of space to move a touch to the left but didn't budge an inch. Sagan was justified to bump him IMO.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

That's a false dichotomy In maximizing his team's winning chances, Terpstra **** up (but not as much as Sagan did, when it comes to winning GW). He didn't have to work with the group and he shouldn't have let the gap open up (if he did, the team should at least have committed themselves to the bunch sprint). His job in that group was to mark it and slow it down, but for that to work he has to stay with them all. If he moved up to third spot and continued to glue himself to the move, without taking any real turns, it would have been far likelier for his teammates to come up from behind. This way he **** up his own chances to win and his teammates' chances.

I don't agree. Terpstra works to get himself and Sagan to the front two and comes 4th, even if he sits on. Adding Sagan to the front two wouldn't have stopped them, they were committed to the move and Sagan would have made it stronger. Removing the strongest rider helps his team catch it if they are going to work and forcing the strongest rider to bridge the gaps gives him a better chance in the finale.

No, Terpstra doesn't work. He just continues to sit behind the same wheel he did previously.

Adding two anchors to the front two would have slowed them down sooner or later. And in that scenario Terpstra would actually have a good chance to win if they indeed did drag him all the way. He didn't have much of a chance winning the way he raced yesterday.

 

[Dan2016]

Re:

Not sure why everyone is having a go at Terpstra. If he works he likely comes 4th at best. He isn't beating GVA, Sagan or Keukeleire in a sprint where they all have the same tiredness in their legs. If he makes everyone else do the work he might have a chance to get away and he has a very good card to play, Gav and Boonen are only a few seconds back and can challenge for the win. He actually did exactly what he should have done, make Sagan close the gap so he can take a flyer off the break. Didn't happen but it likely made no difference to his finishing position.

Sagan needs to realise that he's painted himself into this corner with his talent and his actions/racing. Everyone knows that he can beat anyone in a sprint finish either on the flat or on a ramp, and make them look like a chump doing it. Yes, he's lost this year but that doesn't change the fact that no-one is going to drag him up to the front group in the knowledge that he's going to smoke them at the finish line. He has to know that people will expect him to do more work because he has the most to gain from a reduced sprint. People will work with him earlier on, when they think they might have a chance, but not when they know any work just ends up with them trailing Sagan as he raises his hands crossing the finish line.

A rider of Terpstra's quality can't literally just sit on the back of a five man break like that. Agreed it wouldn't have made sense for him to drive the break, but he had to at least tap through, glass-cranking, keep the line smooth. Doing so gives him a chance of winning from a late solo attack, and gives his sprinters in the bunch behind a chance of catching. Trying to get away with sitting on the back is crazy negative, not smart at all. And then once the two were away he starts working...it was bizarre tactics.

Several riders have spoken about how the dominance of race radio has made them a bit brain-dead to making their own good split-second tactical decisions. Who knows if that was part of it but it was strange to watch.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Not sure why everyone is having a go at Terpstra. If he works he likely comes 4th at best. He isn't beating GVA, Sagan or Keukeleire in a sprint where they all have the same tiredness in their legs. If he makes everyone else do the work he might have a chance to get away and he has a very good card to play, Gav and Boonen are only a few seconds back and can challenge for the win. He actually did exactly what he should have done, make Sagan close the gap so he can take a flyer off the break. Didn't happen but it likely made no difference to his finishing position.

Sagan needs to realise that he's painted himself into this corner with his talent and his actions/racing. Everyone knows that he can beat anyone in a sprint finish either on the flat or on a ramp, and make them look like a chump doing it. Yes, he's lost this year but that doesn't change the fact that no-one is going to drag him up to the front group in the knowledge that he's going to smoke them at the finish line. He has to know that people will expect him to do more work because he has the most to gain from a reduced sprint. People will work with him earlier on, when they think they might have a chance, but not when they know any work just ends up with them trailing Sagan as he raises his hands crossing the finish line.

A rider of Terpstra's quality can't literally just sit on the back of a five man break like that. Agreed it wouldn't have made sense for him to drive the break, but he had to at least tap through, glass-cranking, keep the line smooth. Doing so gives him a chance of winning from a late solo attack, and gives his sprinters in the bunch behind a chance of catching. Trying to get away with sitting on the back is crazy negative, not smart at all. And then once the two were away he starts working...it was bizarre tactics.

Several riders have spoken about how the dominance of race radio has made them a bit brain-dead to making their own good split-second tactical decisions. Who knows if that was part of it but it was strange to watch.

Perhaps Terpstra was trying to show Sagan before the big two monuments that if Sagan wants to win then he will have to drag riders along with him and risk getting outsprinted. I'm not sure a classic is the time and place to be playing games like that, and also it kind of goes against some of the unwritten rules of classics riding - but it could pay dividends next week. Sagan will know then that he has to work more if he wants a shot of winning in a similar situation, even if it means towing an anchor like Terpstra.

And Sagan, as joint-favourite for RVV (and any other cobbled classic) is the one with much more to lose from some kind of mutual sabotage.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

The damage was already done for Quickstep before the Terpstra / Sagan incident. They went from having 3 out of 14 (so quite a good situation) to having 1 out of 5 and the two big favourites still there (so not very good). At least one of Stybar and Trentin had to stay with the favourites group

With the headwind finish they could have just killed the race if they wanted to - keep their whole team together over the last Kemmel, give Sagan, GVA and co their 30-45 secs and then mow it down in the last 15 kms for a small bunch sprint (which they would probably have lost to everyone's amusement). At least now they know who their strong(er) riders are.

 

[sQiD]

Neal Rogers analysis of the race (which i agree with) :

Sagan wanted to prove a point, that he wasn't going to tow Terpstra and Andersen. He played poker, Terpstra called his bluff, and they marked each other out. After what happened at Milan-San Remo, Sagan is more concerned about making sure the same thing — riders sitting on — doesn't happen at Flanders or Roubaix.

Fact is, Sagan has won Gent-Wevelgem twice before, and finished today on the podium. Quick-Step, a Belgian team at a Belgian classic, had three in the group of 14, landed a weak sprinter in the final selection, and did not make the podium.

Terpstra could have dropped back to help bring Trentin back up, but he didn't. Or he could have tried a late attack, and hoped GVA and Sagan might mark each other out; there are other ways to win besides a bunch sprint.

You can sit on if you have stronger sprinter teammates behind, but you have to realize that something like this can happen; Sagan took himself and Quick-Step out of the contention for the win. Both Sagan and Quick-Step lost something in the final, but I'd argue Quick-Step was the bigger loser of the day. And I'd argue that at Flanders and Roubaix, if Sagan swings off the rotation, Quick-Step will chase straight away. If so, mission accomplished.

 

[Ricco']

Agreed, you don't have to move, but it's normal racing courtesy/respect to do so in a specific situation like that. The guy had loads of space to move a touch to the left but didn't budge an inch. Sagan was justified to bump him IMO.

When is a physical aggression justified? It is also justified for a sprinter to give the same bump when another sprinter has space to move to the left but doesn't do that? It's the difference in speed or in slope that changes the behaviour and makes it unjustified?

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

Kragh Andersen says he didn't work hard because Matthews was behind. What!? You don't wait for anybody in that situation, you just go. The DS should have told him that.

LOL. Giving the same excuses as QS. They always have good excuses for not pulling.

 

[jaylew]

Re:

Because Terpstra made the right decision.

No he didn't. He gave his team zero chance of winning. He certainly wouldn't have been a favorite in that group but by being there he at least has some chance. At some point there would have been attacks, and who knows he could have gotten lucky with a well-timed attack like he did at Roubaix. Unlikely, but at least he would have some shot rather than no shot.

We're not talking about someone like Keukeleire. Terpstra is a big-time rider with a great cobbled classics palmares, riding for the best team. If you're riding for sprinters behind, why work with Sagan once you're dropped instead of sitting back, doing no work and working for the team when the group catches you?

 

[SafeBet]

Soren Kragh Andersen is also a very young rider, with zero experience at this level of racing (and riding as a clear domestique for his captain behind). I'll add that he looked half cooked as the race panned out.
Completely different situation from QS. The analysis by Neal Rogers is spot on.

 

[Netserk]

Agreed, you don't have to move, but it's normal racing courtesy/respect to do so in a specific situation like that. The guy had loads of space to move a touch to the left but didn't budge an inch. Sagan was justified to bump him IMO.

When is a physical aggression justified? It is also justified for a sprinter to give the same bump when another sprinter has space to move to the left but doesn't do that? It's the difference in speed or in slope that changes the behaviour and makes it unjustified?

The same shoulder would be much more dangerous in a bunch sprint (but could still be fine in the right sprint scenario), but moving your opponents is still legit. See Freire here: https://youtu.be/fJ6j01tPmEg?t=111

In this case there was plenty of space for the other rider, and Sagan only shoulders him after he has moved him 'gently' first, which he then resists. At that point I think it's a fair fight for position and shoulder action is part of that.

 

[KGB]

Message was sent but the wrong one. Everybody knows now how vulnerable he is and they will keep doing the same thing over and over again.

It's quite likely he will cool down by Sunday, it's all he needs. And he has new cards to play - GVA's overconfidence ("On the Kemmelberg it was clear that I was a level above the others" - ?), Quick-Step panicking... he is not the only one sending messages, even wrong ones.

Well GVA was above the others not just Kemmelberg but whole race.Could be only his ''great day'' or could be better form then rest.Sagan was super strong on Kemmelberg but only on that hill.After that in group of 14 Sagan missed many turns while GVA not.Even Sagan's ''cheat'' ride behind car show he was empty.Maybe he had his first peak on TA :idea:

 

[Dan2016]

Agreed, you don't have to move, but it's normal racing courtesy/respect to do so in a specific situation like that. The guy had loads of space to move a touch to the left but didn't budge an inch. Sagan was justified to bump him IMO.

When is a physical aggression justified? It is also justified for a sprinter to give the same bump when another sprinter has space to move to the left but doesn't do that? It's the difference in speed or in slope that changes the behaviour and makes it unjustified?

The same shoulder would be much more dangerous in a bunch sprint (but could still be fine in the right sprint scenario), but moving your opponents is still legit. See Freire here: https://youtu.be/fJ6j01tPmEg?t=111

In this case there was plenty of space for the other rider, and Sagan only shoulders him after he has moved him 'gently' first, which he then resists. At that point I think it's a fair fight for position and shoulder action is part of that.

Well put.

This stuff goes on in races at all levels. Physicality is okay, it just depends on context and degree.

A few much older riders I know, quality riders in their time, have many stories on how things used to be...racing against hardened Belgians, Soviet bloc riders and the like, doing the Peace Race etc. ''Boxing on wheels'' they call it. Racing is pretty civil nowadays in comparison.

 

[Hellyea]

By the way, Bora ended with 3 riders in top 20. Same as QSF whose Boonen claimed that Sagan's team is mediocre. So mediocre that they had even better result as a team than "the best classics team in the world"

 

[Ricco']

Re:

By the way, Bora ended with 3 riders in top 20. Same as QSF whose Boonen claimed that Sagan's team is mediocre. So mediocre that they had even better result as a team than "the best classics team in the world"

Bora didn't have a better result as a team than Quick-Step.

Quick-Step put 3 riders on the top-10 (4th, 6th, 9th) while Bora put 1 (3rd). Statistically speaking, Quick-Step was the better team of the two.

On the other hand, analysing the race, Boonen was right. Quick-Step had 4 riders on the decisive move (Stybar, Trentin, Terpstra and Vermote, I think) while Bora had 1 (Sagan). Quick-Step even had Boonen, Gaviria and Lampaert on the bunch and Gilbert at home. From Bora, who might be a factor in the race on the pointy end of it? Sagan, Burghardt and who else? So I don't see where Boonen is wrong. Gent-Wevelgem is a very specific race where usually a big big group fights for the win or the minor places of the top-10. On RvV, we will see Quick-Step all over the place where from Bora we will see them until 40 or 50 k's from the line and then it will be Sagan mostly alone.

*This analysis was done not considering tactical ineptitude by Quick-Step.

 

[KGB]

Re:

By the way, Bora ended with 3 riders in top 20. Same as QSF whose Boonen claimed that Sagan's team is mediocre. So mediocre that they had even better result as a team than "the best classics team in the world"

Yes they have.QS was everywhere.They been strongest team by far yesterday(not only) and not only this year.

 

[This Charming Man]

Sorry to see the negative riding by Terpstra. Also, Belgian camaramen, Motorpacing the winning break. Such is the BS of cycling.I hope thst Terpstra was well payed, for working with BMC.

 

[Kwibus]

Re:

Because Terpstra made the right decision.

Indeed. If he worked he probably ended 5th.

It didn't change that much for him. Sagan could've won the race, but lost it because he played the game with Terpstra.
It didn't change much for Terpstra, but it did change a lot for Sagan. He did make a point though which could certainly help him at the RvV. So it wasn't that bad for him, better make a statement in a classic than in an monument.

GVA is in stellar form and together with the fact that Sagan is extremely marked he's having a good time. RvV will be great this year.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Re: Re:

Because Terpstra made the right decision.

Indeed. If he worked he probably ended 5th.

It didn't change that much for him. Sagan could've won the race, but lost it because he played the game with Terpstra.
It didn't change much for Terpstra, but it did change a lot for Sagan. He did make a point though which could certainly help him at the RvV. So it wasn't that bad for him, better make a statement in a classic than in an monument.

GVA is in stellar form and together with the fact that Sagan is extremely marked he's having a good time. RvV will be great this year.

Yep. Spot on.

 

[tukabel]

race in a nutshell:

Sagan: I would not leave a gap.
Terpstra: Why?
Sagan: It ain't good for your (race) health.
Terpstra: Fcuk you!
Sagan: Fcuk me? SPRINT! Fcuk YOU!!!

(though in the original he did not miss)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uUxLpRWHQZA

 

[WheelofGear]

Am I the only one who thinks that Durbridge will win De Panne?

6th in Strade + 4th in Dwars & E3 + a 14.2k time trial as the last stage.

 

[WheelofGear]

No De Panne thread yet? It's tomorrow, fellas.

 

[RedheadDane]

Then make it!