• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread

Page 1743 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

StryderHells said:
Valv.Piti said:
10 kilometres is a bit too much even for me, but Im all for expanding it, 5 km would be sensible.

Why does the rule need to be changed? Part of racing for the GC is to stay upright and out of trouble, 3 km rule is already plenty and it works.
It's now a race to the 3km mark for the GC teams and there's a lot of fighting to be on the front, you have the sprinters' teams and the GC teams all trying to be in the first 20 of the peloton. Due to this, the risk of crashes in this section of the race (10-3km) only increases. If it would be expanded to the last 5km or even 10km, of course people would still try to get safely within the safe zone but I think there would be less stress because in the event of a mishap just before this zone, you still have some time to get back to the peloton. If you suffer a mechanical or crash with 3.1km to go, good luck trying to chase back to a peloton at full speed.

Another idea is to expand the gap necessary between riders of the peloton in a sprint stage to create time gaps to 3 or even 5 seconds. Now, even if they get within the 3km zone, some riders will still try to be in the first 20 positions of the peloton to not get caught behind a split. We often see Sky GC riders finish top-20 on sprint stages. This causes stress as well, while if the necessary gap would be 3s instead of 1s, gaps would be much less likely to occur and there would be less stress and as a result less crashes. I think this would be a better solution than just taking the times at 10km to go.
 
Jul 4, 2015
658
0
0
Visit site
IMO there shouldn't be any rule at all, crashes and mechanicals are part of cycling, if anything having a 3km rule makes it worst as there is a rush from the GC riders to reach that point unscaved while the sprinters are aiming for the finish line, its like having a two finish lines and that is bound to be worst than just one. Can you imagine if it was at 10 km to go? You would have all the go teams on the front then at 10 km to go slow down while the sprint teams would still be going flat out, mayhem would ensue. In the fairness of sport and for safety reasons and just for simplicity to avoid issues such as ventoux last year or alaphillippe yesterday take the time at the finish line that's it no ifs no buts, no debate. Seems best for me.
 
Re:

Ramon Koran said:
IMO there shouldn't be any rule at all, crashes and mechanicals are part of cycling, if anything having a 3km rule makes it worst as there is a rush from the GC riders to reach that point unscaved while the sprinters are aiming for the finish line, its like having a two finish lines and that is bound to be worst than just one. Can you imagine if it was at 10 km to go? You would have all the go teams on the front then at 10 km to go slow down while the sprint teams would still be going flat out, mayhem would ensue. In the fairness of sport and for safety reasons and just for simplicity to avoid issues such as ventoux last year or alaphillippe yesterday take the time at the finish line that's it no ifs no buts, no debate. Seems best for me.
100% this. The rule is nonsense. Why should a mechanical at 3km be treated differently from 3.1km to the finish? The race should be from the start to the finish. Your time should be when you cross the finish line, no ifs no buts.

Having GC riders fighting for position all the way to the line should disrupt the sprint trains as well and put more importance on a sprinter's positioning and timing if they want to win the stage - rather than it just being a dull drag race all about pure power.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Singer01 said:
SHAD0W93 said:
I believe Ienric nailed it. From 12-13 the only crash I remember him in was Alpe d'Huez?? when him and Froome crashed on the descent. I think it more started from him crashing out of the 14 Tour with great form that caused him to get a lot more anxious and nervous to prove he still is the best.
He does have some that are unavoidable because it just happens but some of them shouldn't.

I hope he gets better because I want him to win the Tour again and beat Merckx record for GT wins.
How can you even think that is possible? you think he wins TDF 17, and Giro-Vuelta double in 18 and 19?
If you count from 9 it would take the 2017 TDF or Vuelta and the Giro-Vuelta double in 2018. Or the TDF-Vuelta double this year and Giro or Vuelta next year.
Won't happen of course, I would be happy if he could reach double digits (counting from 9).

Because I still count him at 9 wins. So want him to win the Tour this year then do Giro Vuelta next year and retire.

If we count him at 7 then I hope a miracle happens and he does a double for the next 3 years.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Ramon Koran said:
IMO there shouldn't be any rule at all, crashes and mechanicals are part of cycling, if anything having a 3km rule makes it worst as there is a rush from the GC riders to reach that point unscaved while the sprinters are aiming for the finish line, its like having a two finish lines and that is bound to be worst than just one. Can you imagine if it was at 10 km to go? You would have all the go teams on the front then at 10 km to go slow down while the sprint teams would still be going flat out, mayhem would ensue. In the fairness of sport and for safety reasons and just for simplicity to avoid issues such as ventoux last year or alaphillippe yesterday take the time at the finish line that's it no ifs no buts, no debate. Seems best for me.
100% this. The rule is nonsense. Why should a mechanical at 3km be treated differently from 3.1km to the finish? The race should be from the start to the finish. Your time should be when you cross the finish line, no ifs no buts.

Having GC riders fighting for position all the way to the line should disrupt the sprint trains as well and put more importance on a sprinter's positioning and timing if they want to win the stage - rather than it just being a dull drag race all about pure power.
Yes, I'd totally rather see a sprint that is all about breaking bones and imitating the Scheldeprijs than see riders do the thing they trained for.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
DFA123 said:
Ramon Koran said:
IMO there shouldn't be any rule at all, crashes and mechanicals are part of cycling, if anything having a 3km rule makes it worst as there is a rush from the GC riders to reach that point unscaved while the sprinters are aiming for the finish line, its like having a two finish lines and that is bound to be worst than just one. Can you imagine if it was at 10 km to go? You would have all the go teams on the front then at 10 km to go slow down while the sprint teams would still be going flat out, mayhem would ensue. In the fairness of sport and for safety reasons and just for simplicity to avoid issues such as ventoux last year or alaphillippe yesterday take the time at the finish line that's it no ifs no buts, no debate. Seems best for me.
100% this. The rule is nonsense. Why should a mechanical at 3km be treated differently from 3.1km to the finish? The race should be from the start to the finish. Your time should be when you cross the finish line, no ifs no buts.

Having GC riders fighting for position all the way to the line should disrupt the sprint trains as well and put more importance on a sprinter's positioning and timing if they want to win the stage - rather than it just being a dull drag race all about pure power.
Yes, I'd totally rather see a sprint that is all about breaking bones and imitating the Scheldeprijs than see riders do the thing they trained for.
Yeah, all those GC riders cause havoc at Schelderprijs.

Cycling should be a race to the line. Bike handling and positioning is as integral to the sport as power imo. Being able to use a team to protect a rider or to navigate through the sharp end of a peloton is exactly one of the things they should be training for. Or, if that's a skill they don't have, perhaps they could sit at the back and risk losing a few seconds - giving an advantage to the more skilled riders.

The other problem with the 3km rule is it's just a really arbitrary place to have what is essentially a second finishing line. On many stages there might be something like a dangerous pinch point or tight corner at 4km to go followed by an open, straight highway until the finish. Yet the arbitrary rule basically tells riders to race hard through the pinch points and ease off on the highway. Nonsense.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Valv.Piti said:
LaFlorecita said:
It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of luck.
Its not 100% and 0%, black and white. Theres much luck involved, but also positioning and bike handling/reaction time. You know that. ;)
Ok. It's 25% skill 75% luck.
That seems more reasonable, but Im more inclined to say its more a 50/50, but I really don't know. I think you'd have to have raced professionally before to tell and even then, its pretty hard to tell.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Valv.Piti said:
LaFlorecita said:
It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of luck.
Its not 100% and 0%, black and white. Theres much luck involved, but also positioning and bike handling/reaction time. You know that. ;)
Ok. It's 25% skill 75% luck.
The main point isn't about luck v skill anyway, it's about fairness. It's clearly not fair that Alaphilippe lost 2 minutes, while Contador lost nothing on Stage 1. Just because one had difficulty 3.2km from the line and the other had difficulty in the final kilometre. And, wherever you put the cut off point for GC, it's going to result in unfairness with riders suffering mechanicals or crashes just outside the zone, while others limp over the arbitrary cut-off line. The only fair cut off is at the finishing line itself.
 
Re:

Netserk said:
Arbitrarity isn't necessarily unfair. Is it unfair that you can vote when you are 18, but not when you are 17 (and 363 days)?
Well, imo, that example is a bit unfair especially if you are paying tax from 16. But, not sure that's an entirely accurate analogy. There needs to be an arbitrary cut off age for voting; there is already a cut off in cycling races - the finish line. It's not necessary to add a second one which often adds nothing to safety anyway and which penalises riders differently for very similar incidents.

I think cycle races should be won on the road, not by technicalities of the rule book.
 
"There needs to be an arbitrary cut off age for voting"

Not any more than in racing. Just like the finish line is already there, so is birth.

I agree that the rule can be seen as unfair, but not because of its arbitrarity, imo. The fact that it makes a part of the race not fully racing is enough to qualify for that.

Though I get the sentiment, and I also agree with it, your last sentence can be applied to any rule.
 
Jul 19, 2010
5,361
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
lenric said:
It's a very simple issue actually. It's called anxiety which makes him reckless. He's eager to prove that he can still win something big, like the Tour, against the very best. By failing year after year, he's becoming more and more reckless, which has made him a very dumb rider when it comes to positioning, for example, hence why he can't help but hitting the tarmac once in a while, way more times actually when compared to the pre-ban.

So it's a simple problem. However, it's a hard one, because it takes a relaxed mind to ackowledge and correct it and Contador isn't relaxed. He was accustomed to win whatever he wanted, so, when he returned to cycling and saw that he wasn't as good as before (the reasons are irrelevant), he became stressed and frustrated.

It's not good, but it's a very common reaction. I just hope that he doesn't seriously hurt himself.
I don't see the connection anxiety = recklessness, but it's obvious he is too nervous during the race which would make him more prone to crashing. I don't remember who suggested it but perhaps he should stay at the back of the peloton for the final 10km of every flat stage at the Tour. He would lose seconds in splits but the risk of crashing would be less. Anyway, maybe he is lucky for once and doesn't crash when it matters most.

Maybe recklessness isn't the right word. Just put yourself in his shoes. When your day is numbered and there's only few TDF you can participate, there's always eagerness, hope, wanting, whatever you call it, to do the best and to want to win it. Or in another word, when you want things so badly, usually it will make you nervous. We are all experience it. (whether it's new dream job interview, getting a grant for your research etc). And, suddenly we calculate everything, we remember every second you need to do instead of go by without too much scrutiny. I think that what makes him "nervous". It's not a stretch to think that it may be the reason of having him crashes too often recently. He might think too much to make sure everything goes smoothly. Maybe if he just doesn't care and just ride like he has many TDF ahead of him, it might loosen him up and not so nervous/uptight.. I guess, when the year isn't your year anymore, everything is 3/4x times harder to be on your side.

And the problem with staying at the back of the peloton is that someone like Froome is always sprinting with the front group. Until there's a rule, the 3km only for sprinting team, it won't reduces crashes. I know there's argument about that. But to me, what's the point of watching a crash 3km before the sprint and takes down the major contender (whether it's GC or sprinter). Suddenly, it's a game of luck.
 
The master and his pupil in one photo :arrow: :arrow:
17818123_1838821213033111_8412636512365051904_n.jpg
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
LaFlorecita said:
Valv.Piti said:
LaFlorecita said:
It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of luck.
Its not 100% and 0%, black and white. Theres much luck involved, but also positioning and bike handling/reaction time. You know that. ;)
Ok. It's 25% skill 75% luck.
The main point isn't about luck v skill anyway, it's about fairness. It's clearly not fair that Alaphilippe lost 2 minutes, while Contador lost nothing on Stage 1. Just because one had difficulty 3.2km from the line and the other had difficulty in the final kilometre. And, wherever you put the cut off point for GC, it's going to result in unfairness with riders suffering mechanicals or crashes just outside the zone, while others limp over the arbitrary cut-off line. The only fair cut off is at the finishing line itself.
These are bureaucrats. 1 mm beyond the 3k line is out. What they have to be is fair other wise AI computer is good enough for logic based issues.
 
Obviously normal why Tinkov got frustrated with Contador, though lacking the education and finess to demonstrate it.
This isn't a matter of luck, unless for fanboys. Out of all the top-10 GT contenders, he's the one who has fallen off of his bike the most during the last years.
 
Re:

lenric said:
Obviously normal why Tinkov got frustrated with Contador, though lacking the education and finess to demonstrate it.
This isn't a matter of luck, unless for fanboys. Out of all the top-10 GT contenders, he's the one who has fallen off of his bike the most during the last years.
Then he should have invested in some bike handling training or a sports psychologist instead of whining on social media.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
lenric said:
Obviously normal why Tinkov got frustrated with Contador, though lacking the education and finess to demonstrate it.
This isn't a matter of luck, unless for fanboys. Out of all the top-10 GT contenders, he's the one who has fallen off of his bike the most during the last years.
Then he should have invested in some bike handling training or a sports psychologist instead of whining on social media.
Lol.

"Alberto, the menu today will be 3 hours of proper bike handling skills"
 
Feb 21, 2017
1,019
0
0
Visit site
Re:

lenric said:
Obviously normal why Tinkov got frustrated with Contador, though lacking the education and finess to demonstrate it.
This isn't a matter of luck, unless for fanboys. Out of all the top-10 GT contenders, he's the one who has fallen off of his bike the most during the last years.

What are the numbers you are basing this on?