Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread

Page 1599 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
3
0
Re: Re:

Pricey_sky said:
El Pistolero said:
PremierAndrew said:
LaFlorecita said:
They respect them so much they force them to choose between losing time and risking a crash. Right.
If they respected their opponents, they'd say, hey, let's roll in together on the sprint stages and fight it out in the other 15-16 stages.
And while we're at it, let's neutralise all downhill attacks too, they're twice as dangerous as the flat stages. And actually you know what, why attack uphill as well? Let's all be friends and roll in together
No, just flat stages will do, those aren't won by real cyclists anyway. ;)

I'm dead serious when I say that we should just cut down GT's to two weeks and cut out all flat stages. Send sprinters to the track where they belong.
Never going to happen unfortunately for you.
I know, cycling will always remain a small sport because of it, and that's unfortunate for all of us.
 
Jul 19, 2010
5,361
0
0
Re:

silvergrenade said:
CN Report: When he finally stopped a few hundred metres after the line, Contador was visibly furious, saying, “I was really well positioned, but suddenly somebody who doesn’t like using their brakes pulled across and I went down. Right now my left side is cut up, so is my wrist… things are getting really complicated.”

The Tinkoff rider then pedalled on, but not - in a very rare public show of anger and frustration - before pulling a bidon out of its cage and hurling it to the ground in rage.


Wow.. He is FURIOUS!
look at the bright side.. things are already complicated with loosing 1:20 off the main contender :D

I'm either furious or annoyed, coz he never stays upright for whatever reason (some one else or his own fault). It's getting ridiculous the amount of him hitting the deck. As if he sabotages his own chances before it's even started. Blaming team sky for GC sprinting, I don't know about that. The problem is "Froome has never crashed" because of that. Is it luck or is he willing to take more risk or or is it better bike handling? I don't know. Contador seems less fearless than Froome when it comes to the flat finish.
 
Jul 19, 2010
5,361
0
0
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
PremierAndrew said:
LaFlorecita said:
They respect them so much they force them to choose between losing time and risking a crash. Right.
If they respected their opponents, they'd say, hey, let's roll in together on the sprint stages and fight it out in the other 15-16 stages.
And while we're at it, let's neutralise all downhill attacks too, they're twice as dangerous as the flat stages. And actually you know what, why attack uphill as well? Let's all be friends and roll in together
No, just flat stages will do, those aren't won by real cyclists anyway. ;)

I'm dead serious when I say that we should just cut down GT's to two weeks and cut out all flat stages. Send sprinters to the track where they belong.
well, might as well give Froome the win already. 3rd week is where people struggling with fatigue and endurance. That's why it's harder and it's called a Grand Tour.
 
Re: Re:

Jelantik said:
silvergrenade said:
CN Report: When he finally stopped a few hundred metres after the line, Contador was visibly furious, saying, “I was really well positioned, but suddenly somebody who doesn’t like using their brakes pulled across and I went down. Right now my left side is cut up, so is my wrist… things are getting really complicated.”

The Tinkoff rider then pedalled on, but not - in a very rare public show of anger and frustration - before pulling a bidon out of its cage and hurling it to the ground in rage.


Wow.. He is FURIOUS!
look at the bright side.. things are already complicated with loosing 1:20 off the main contender :D

I'm either furious or annoyed, coz he never stays upright for whatever reason (some one else or his own fault). It's getting ridiculous the amount of him hitting the deck. As if he sabotages his own chances before it's even started. Blaming team sky for GC sprinting, I don't know about that. The problem is "Froome has never crashed" because of that. Is it luck or is he willing to take more risk or or is it better bike handling? I don't know. Contador seems less fearless than Froome when it comes to the flat finish.
Froome has been one rider off some big crashes a few times. Luck can change quickly
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Matteo. said:
Seeing the images, Alberto seems to have been afraid when he found himself flanked by two other riders. Maybe he braked and touched someone and so he fell. judging by the pictures the fall has not been so dramatic . Obviously there will be bruises etc. but I do not think afflict him so much tomorrow
I must say, you are always very rational. It's good to read :)
Thank you very much , I'm glad to read it. :)
The truth is that nobody really knows how he is. We can only speculate on the videos and images . Today in my opinion ,a possible bad performance will be a symptom of bad legs rather the fall
 
Re: Re:

Pricey_sky said:
El Pistolero said:
PremierAndrew said:
LaFlorecita said:
They respect them so much they force them to choose between losing time and risking a crash. Right.
If they respected their opponents, they'd say, hey, let's roll in together on the sprint stages and fight it out in the other 15-16 stages.
And while we're at it, let's neutralise all downhill attacks too, they're twice as dangerous as the flat stages. And actually you know what, why attack uphill as well? Let's all be friends and roll in together
No, just flat stages will do, those aren't won by real cyclists anyway. ;)

I'm dead serious when I say that we should just cut down GT's to two weeks and cut out all flat stages. Send sprinters to the track where they belong.
Never going to happen unfortunately for you.
Fortunately for us rather :)
 

Singer01

BANNED
Nov 18, 2013
2,043
2
5,485
I'm really sad about this, the 2000th page of contadors thread was coming up, i was hoping it would be to discuss a legendary performance which would have been fitting for someone who has given so much to the sport (whatever your personal opinions of the man, nobody can dispute his impact). now it looks like we will be discussing him losing time due to shitty little injuries from a shitty little crash.
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
LaFlorecita said:
They respect them so much they force them to choose between losing time and risking a crash. Right.
If they respected their opponents, they'd say, hey, let's roll in together on the sprint stages and fight it out in the other 15-16 stages.
And while we're at it, let's neutralise all downhill attacks too, they're twice as dangerous as the flat stages. And actually you know what, why attack uphill as well? Let's all be friends and roll in together
Did you actually read my post lol? My issue isn't that it's dangerous, it's that the dangers are not proportionate to the outcome of the stage. As for you suggesting to ban uphill attacks as though that would ever even come up in my thoughs :eek: , I'm offended.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
PremierAndrew said:
LaFlorecita said:
They respect them so much they force them to choose between losing time and risking a crash. Right.
If they respected their opponents, they'd say, hey, let's roll in together on the sprint stages and fight it out in the other 15-16 stages.
And while we're at it, let's neutralise all downhill attacks too, they're twice as dangerous as the flat stages. And actually you know what, why attack uphill as well? Let's all be friends and roll in together
Did you actually read my post lol? My issue isn't that it's dangerous, it's that the dangers are not proportionate to the outcome of the stage. As for you suggesting to ban uphill attacks as though that would ever even come up in my thoughs :eek: , I'm offended.
Well at the end of the day, it's a bike race. If some people are confident in their bike handling skills and positioning at high speed, they absolutely deserve to profit over someone who is less confident. If you're not so confident, you can sit up and take the time loss. In a similar way to how bad descenders ought to sit up and take the time loss to due to their inferior skills. Yes you'll lose the GC if you sit up on every flat stage, but then GC is supposed to be for the most complete cyclists, and if you can't hold your own in a high speed finish, maybe you're not the most complete cyclist in that race ;)
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Well at the end of the day, it's a bike race. If some people are confident in their bike handling skills and positioning at high speed, they absolutely deserve to profit over someone who is less confident. If you're not so confident, you can sit up and take the time loss. In a similar way to how bad descenders ought to sit up and take the time loss to due to their inferior skills. Yes you'll lose the GC if you sit up on every flat stage, but then GC is supposed to be for the most complete cyclists, and if you can't hold your own in a high speed finish, maybe you're not the most complete cyclist in that race ;)
Don't you think there is just a little bit more luck involved in sprint finishes than descents?
It's not a matter of skills. If you've got good skills, you have a very small chance of going down in a descent. In a sprint finish, 9 times out of 10 crashes are mass pileups. You can hardly argue all people involved in such a pileup lack skills and should stay back and take a time loss.
I am horrified these riders are forced to either risk their health in a way they have little influence on or discard their chances to win the GC, and clearly many cyclists agree, as there have been calls to take GC times at 3 to go or extend the necessary time difference to produce a gap in the standings to 5s in sprint finishes (Froome's suggestion, interestingly).
Of course, Froome always comes out of these stages at an advantage, whether it is his opponents going down in a crash or losing time by getting caught in a split in the peloton, so I understand your position.
Let's see if you'll still be such a big proponent of GC riders battling with sprinters and leadout trains for a top-20 when Froome's luck turns :)
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Don't you think there is just a little bit more luck involved in sprint finishes than descents?
It's not a matter of skills. If you've got good skills, you have a very small chance of going down in a descent. In a sprint finish, 9 times out of 10 crashes are mass pileups. You can hardly argue all people involved in such a pileup lack skills and should stay back and take a time loss.
I am horrified these riders are forced to either risk their health in a way they have little influence on or discard their chances to win the GC, and clearly many cyclists agree, as there have been calls to take GC times at 3 to go or extend the necessary time difference to produce a gap in the standings to 5s in sprint finishes (Froome's suggestion, interestingly).
Of course, Froome always comes out of these stages at an advantage, whether it is his opponents going down in a crash or losing time by getting caught in a split in the peloton, so I understand your position.
Let's see if you'll still be such a big proponent of GC riders battling with sprinters and leadout trains for a top-20 when Froome's luck turns :)
You're horrified that cyclists are forced to risk breaking a collarbone on a flat stage but not risk losing their life on descents? If you were saying that attacks on descents shouldn't happen either, I'd understand a bit more (even though that's another part of racing). Risking your collarbone for 5s is a much smaller risk than risking your life for 1 minute if you ask me ;)

As for me being biased, well you've probably caught on that it's not like I dislike Contador, and it's not like I was suggesting that descending should be neutralised back when Froome was unable to handle his bike
 
Jul 19, 2010
5,361
0
0
Re: Re:

Scarponi said:
Jelantik said:
silvergrenade said:
CN Report: When he finally stopped a few hundred metres after the line, Contador was visibly furious, saying, “I was really well positioned, but suddenly somebody who doesn’t like using their brakes pulled across and I went down. Right now my left side is cut up, so is my wrist… things are getting really complicated.”

The Tinkoff rider then pedalled on, but not - in a very rare public show of anger and frustration - before pulling a bidon out of its cage and hurling it to the ground in rage.


Wow.. He is FURIOUS!
look at the bright side.. things are already complicated with loosing 1:20 off the main contender :D

I'm either furious or annoyed, coz he never stays upright for whatever reason (some one else or his own fault). It's getting ridiculous the amount of him hitting the deck. As if he sabotages his own chances before it's even started. Blaming team sky for GC sprinting, I don't know about that. The problem is "Froome has never crashed" because of that. Is it luck or is he willing to take more risk or or is it better bike handling? I don't know. Contador seems less fearless than Froome when it comes to the flat finish.
Froome has been one rider off some big crashes a few times. Luck can change quickly
I mean when sky followed the sprinter. Froome always just kept going with them Yes, he crashed too, but so far not while he was sprinting on flat stage. I was just comparing Contador vs Froome in the same situation. Not sure if it's just luck. When Contador won a lot, he rarely crashed. Now every stage, I'm holding my breath because in any moment Contador might crash. That's just very sad. We will never be able to see him lit up the race. Because he always hurts. That's what frustrating.
 
There's something to it, definitely. Froome is a beast in positioning himself in sprint stages. Since 2013, these are his placements in flat stages in the Tour (discounting Champs-Élysées as the GC riders just sit up here): 41, 28, 18, 24, 14, 6, 28, 42, 28, 24, 23, 25, 22, 37, 24. For comparison, Contador's placements in these years: 163, 39, 29, 31, 24, 22, 35, 18, 40, 60, 49, 86, 77, 43, 61. I thought that he might have been better at placing himself in his heydays, but interestingly that doesn't really seem to be the case (although he does seem to have gotten worse the last few years). His placements in spint stages in 2009-2011: 57, 48, 40, 42, 48, 32, 19, 28, 40, 56, 34, 35, 33, 31, 47, 43 (I might have missed a few here and there, but overall I think the picture is quite accurate).
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
You're horrified that cyclists are forced to risk breaking a collarbone on a flat stage but not risk losing their life on descents? If you were saying that attacks on descents shouldn't happen either, I'd understand a bit more (even though that's another part of racing). Risking your collarbone for 5s is a much smaller risk than risking your life for 1 minute if you ask me ;)

As for me being biased, well you've probably caught on that it's not like I dislike Contador, and it's not like I was suggesting that descending should be neutralised back when Froome was unable to handle his bike
Again it seems like you've not read all of my post or at least not fully understood what I was saying:
1. Downhill, if you have the necessary skills, you'll rarely crash. Only the occasional fukc-up or someone crashing in front of you can take you down, but the latter can be avoided by descending in first position.
2. In a sprint crash, 9 times out of 10, skills wouldn't save you. If you're going 55kph and three riders go down in front of you, yeah, only the supernatural can save you at that point
3. Downhill, groups are often smaller and many times the battle has already commenced uphill. It seems logical to push it here to put pressure on rivals, both in your own group and in other groups further up/down the road, especially because the gaps can get quite extensive. Moreover, if someone pushes the pace, it is easy for another rider to follow if he so desires: he can pass a couple riders (the group is stretched out) and settle in the wheel of the rider attempting to break free.
4. In a sprint finish, a time loss 99% of the time is not due to the GC contender losing time. In a peloton, we have 15 sprinters and 15 GC contenders. The rest don't care about finishing as fast as possible. GC contender A can finish 20th, GC contender B 35th. But guess what, sprinters' leadouts are dropping back, they are empty and just want their sprinter to win. They don't care about keeping the wheel of the rider ahead of then. And, this way, a GC contender can lose several seconds through no fault of their own. I'm sure you'd agree 15 sprinters and 15 GC contenders and 15 leadouts can't all be among the first 20 with 500m to go. Yet if we stick to the current system, this is what we ask of the riders, if they don't want to lose time: with crashes as a result.

Just as I was writing this Alberto posted a rant on twitter aimed at the UCI, you can guess the message: is this really what you want, surely the loss of a favorite reduces the spectacle much more than a lack of crashes ever would, etc.

Now I've read and heard three possible solutions, and while I think any of them would be better than what we have now, but I realize they have their downsides. Those 3 are;
1. Take time at 3km to go (but won't riders try to gain time at that mark? won't it just become a sprint to 3km to go etc.)
2. Require a gap of 5s before taking into account time differences on GC (but what if someone attacks with 800m to go and wins by 3s and could take the jersey?)
3. The GC contenders declare a ceasefire and roll in together (good luck getting everyone to agree)

But what about this 4th option? I had never occured to me before but is it not weird that if 10 riders come in 0.9 second behind the rider in front of him, and rider 11 finishes 1.1 second behind rider 10, rider 11 suddenly loses 10 seconds on all those riders in front of him, even rider 10 who in reality was only 1.1 second in front?
So my suggestion (and am open to discussion) why not take the time between the last rider of a group and the first rider of the next group? I understand that this might seem slightly unfair to the first rider of the first group who was really (as in the example above) 10 seconds ahead of rider 11, but on the other hand, had rider 11 been .2 second faster, he'd have lost no time at all. Of course this is impossible to do on uphill finishes, so an agreement would have to be made on what stages this rule would be in effect. But to me it seems more fair than losing 10 seconds because you were .2 second too slow, or even worse, because the rider in front of you was .2 second too slow.

Personally, as long as the current rules are in effect and some GC contenders still want to push on for seconds, I'd prefer Alberto to stay back and take a time loss. Hang around at the back, worst case, he loses 15-20s, but at least in such a case he could still show his shape to all the doubters and haters. I'm sure he now wishes he'd chosen that option.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Again it seems like you've not read all of my post or at least not fully understood what I was saying:
1. Downhill, if you have the necessary skills, you'll rarely crash. Only the occasional **** or someone crashing in front of you can take you down, but the latter can be avoided by descending in first position.
2. In a sprint crash, 9 times out of 10, skills wouldn't save you. If you're going 55kph and three riders go down in front of you, yeah, only the supernatural can save you at that point
3. Downhill, groups are often smaller and many times the battle has already commenced uphill. It seems logical to push it here to put pressure on rivals, both in your own group and in other groups further up/down the road, especially because the gaps can get quite extensive. Moreover, if someone pushes the pace, it is easy for another rider to follow if he so desires: he can pass a couple riders (the group is stretched out) and settle in the wheel of the rider attempting to break free.
4. In a sprint finish, a time loss 99% of the time is not due to the GC contender losing time. In a peloton, we have 15 sprinters and 15 GC contenders. The rest don't care about finishing as fast as possible. GC contender A can finish 20th, GC contender B 35th. But guess what, sprinters' leadouts are dropping back, they are empty and just want their sprinter to win. They don't care about keeping the wheel of the rider ahead of then. And, this way, a GC contender can lose several seconds through no fault of their own. I'm sure you'd agree 15 sprinters and 15 GC contenders and 15 leadouts can't all be among the first 20 with 500m to go. Yet if we stick to the current system, this is what we ask of the riders, if they don't want to lose time: with crashes as a result.

Just as I was writing this Alberto posted a rant on twitter aimed at the UCI, you can guess the message: is this really what you want, surely the loss of a favorite reduces the spectacle much more than a lack of crashes ever would, etc.

Now I've read and heard three possible solutions, and while I think any of them would be better than what we have now, but I realize they have their downsides. Those 3 are;
1. Take time at 3km to go (but won't riders try to gain time at that mark? won't it just become a sprint to 3km to go etc.)
2. Require a gap of 5s before taking into account time differences on GC (but what if someone attacks with 800m to go and wins by 3s and could take the jersey?)
3. The GC contenders declare a ceasefire and roll in together (good luck getting everyone to agree)

But what about this 4th option? I had never occured to me before but is it not weird that if 10 riders come in 0.9 second behind the rider in front of him, and rider 11 finishes 1.1 second behind rider 10, rider 11 suddenly loses 10 seconds on all those riders in front of him, even rider 10 who in reality was only 1.1 second in front?
So my suggestion (and am open to discussion) why not take the time between the last rider of a group and the first rider of the next group? I understand that this might seem slightly unfair to the first rider of the first group who was really (as in the example above) 10 seconds ahead of rider 11, but on the other hand, had rider 11 been .2 second faster, he'd have lost no time at all. Of course this is impossible to do on uphill finishes, so an agreement would have to be made on what stages this rule would be in effect. But to me it seems more fair than losing 10 seconds because you were .2 second too slow, or even worse, because the rider in front of you was .2 second too slow.

Personally, as long as the current rules are in effect and some GC contenders still want to push on for seconds, I'd prefer Alberto to stay back and take a time loss. Hang around at the back, worst case, he loses 15-20s, but at least in such a case he could still show his shape to all the doubters and haters. I'm sure he now wishes he'd chosen that option.
You talk as if there's a lot of luck in flat finishes and not much luck involved on descents. You identified the luck involved with the rider in front, but dismiss it by saying just go to the front. In case you haven't noticed, there's often more than 1 guy who wants to lead from the front, leading to a battle for position, and not everyone gets that position. Also, you get patches of wet in certain places, potholes, sudden gusts of winds etc, which affect you a lot more on a descent, all of which can cause crashes and all of which can be attributed to luck (ok potholes are avoidable if you handle your bike well, but at high speed, you don't have much time to react).

I'm off the opinion that if you are better than someone at something, you are certainly within your right to take advantage. You're making it sound like the risks on flat stages and on descents are completely different. Yes, there's a bit more luck on the flat bunched finishes, but it's not like luck isn't a factor while descending either.

Of course, it sucks that Contador crashed yesterday. The GC was very well balanced and now we've potentially lost a major factor in this race. As a viewer, it deprives the race of action and I wouldn't oppose a neutralisation at 3km. However, to bash Sky for it is ridiculous. If they're better than their rivals, why should they not take advantage? How is that in any way a lack of respect as you put it? As for your 4th option, imo, the current system is fine. I can see where you're coming from on a flat finish, but then if you start applying that rule to flat finishes, you need to apply it to uphill and downhill finishes too. If you get dropped, you deserved to be penalised for it.

If he's losing even 5-10s on each flat stage, good luck winning GC.
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
If he's losing even 5-10s on each flat stage, good luck winning GC.
Well, DUH. Again you didn't get my point. Yes he wouldn't win but he can't win if he crashes either okay?? At least he could prove certain Sky-loving idiots (not you) who say he can only finish 5th or 6th at best wrong by winning 2 stages in the final week and finishing on the podium.

As for the rest of your post, I'm tired of this boring discussion so let's just disagree and be done with it.
 
Good to see he still had some leftover red and yellow tape from 2014 :p
On a serious note, how is he ever going to get over a hill like this? You don't use tape for bruises or road rash and it worries me that the placement matches the locations of the muscular tears he sustained in the Tour crash.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts