• 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 693 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
rhubroma said:
It sounds as if the intial crash unnerved him somewhat and this is why he was frantically wanting to get back to the front.

Just to testify to the spectacle and entertainment value AC brings to the race, with Froome and Contador out, I honestly don't have much motivation to watch the rest of this Tour.

And I appreciate Nibali. But its not worth my afternoons, as before.

This. And the thing is I thought the tour was shaping up to be pretty epic - I'd really enjoyed the first half, with even the flat sprint days mainly having something enjoyable about them (the crowds, the Queen, the echelons etc).

Such a shame.
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
4
0
Visit site
I'm afraid that Contador is gonna try to avoid an operation so he can ride the vuelta. That might screw over his next season.

As much as i desire to see him ride the vuelta this year, it's not a good idea :(

Contador was 1st and 2nd in all the stage races he rode this year, that's amazing but i would be a liar if i say his season was a success. One crash can ruin everything, it's painful for me, it must be horrible for him.
 
deValtos said:
Pretty sure Roche is right.

The two things aren't really contradictory are they?

Isn't it most likely (given the reports) that Contador did overtake riders on the descent, and in their subjective opinions that was risky, and then he hit a rock when eating and crashed? The riders thinking he was taking risks might have assumed he crashed because of what they saw as his sketchy riding (confirmation bias), while Roche might not have thought the overtaking was risky in and of itself, and solely blames the rock?

Indeed, isn't it possible that he was overtaking because he wanted to eat something on the descent, and he didn't want to be following too many wheels when he did so?

Likewise the second 'crash'. Roche seems to suggest it wasn't a crash but a planned stop for the medical car. But when we saw that on tv we all assumed he'd crashed there - don't you think other riders, passing him in the road at 70kp/h might have made that (very reasonable) assumption too?

In any case, it's a pretty daft debate to be having - in the real world the difference in risk between descending a wet road on a push bike at 65 kp/h or 75 kp/h while tryign to eat is probably marginal to say the least - both are inherently risky activities, and I wouldn't fancy your chances hitting something at 65 kp/h either. Yet riders do this all the time (and indeed, rider crash on descents all the time).

It's just racing.
 
Don't be late Pedro said:
So Roche is wrong and everyone else is right?

Both Roche and the others could be right. Its is different views with different intrests. Roche was with Alberto at the moment and it might indicate (might not) that the team went for advances in the peloton, which according to "others" was reckless, going downhill. Why Roche doesnt mention the risks like the other do is probably because Maduit gave a teamorder earlier to not taking any unnecessary risks going downhill.

Sitting in the wheel of van den Broeck was a "unnecessary risk" IMO.

The problem with trusting Roches "One crash theory" is that he has no clue what happened after he was waiting for his spare bike. 2 km is a long road of possibilities. Although i do believe him since Albertos reaction signals a man in shock, bruised and beaten. Also, the moment of his arrival, the med. car was already there.

rhubroma said:
It sounds as if the intial crash unnerved him somewhat and this is why he was frantically wanting to get back to the front.

Just to testify to the spectacle and entertainment value AC brings to the race, with Froome and Contador out, I honestly don't have much motivation to watch the rest of this Tour.

And I appreciate Nibali. But its not worth my afternoons, as before.

So you support the two-crash theory? It could also be that Machado went to the floor moments earlier and this is what triggered TCS to move further ahead.
 
del1962 said:
Don't think we will see him agian until next year. Still he won two world tour stage races so not a bad season up until the crash.

Indeed. Today I can console myself by watching TA and Pais Vasco. What a horrible disappointment for him.

90% of the peloton would consider his palmares this year as a total success. However by his standards it is a lost season :(
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
4
0
Visit site
You guys gotta relax, for me personally it also ruins my next week cause i was looking forward to this tour a lot but hey life goes on.

Besides Froome will be in the vuelta, it'll be entertaining to see him go full genius.
 
Miburo said:
I'm afraid that Contador is gonna try to avoid an operation so he can ride the vuelta. That might screw over his next season.

As much as i desire to see him ride the vuelta this year, it's not a good idea :(

Contador was 1st and 2nd in all the stage races he rode this year, that's amazing but i would be a liar if i say his season was a success. One crash can ruin everything, it's painful for me, it must be horrible for him.

As Contador acknowledged himself, with an operation there is a small possibility he can still ride the Vuelta, if he doesn't undergo an operation there is 0% chance he'll ride it.
 
when Floyd got dq'd, that's about my only comparison, simply because the solo attack was the epic stage to end all stages and Floyd was so much more relatable than Lance. (at least to me)

And even that comparison is very weak, given AC's career. It's truly been a privilege to watch AC race, and I find races without him much less interesting.
 
Don't be late Pedro said:
The important thing is that at least people are not overreacting to a rider crashing out of a race with nothing more that a broken leg when it could have been much, much worse.

Just because it could have been worse (and we're all grateful it isn't) doesn't mean we can't be sad. Because it's still a bad injury, with arthritis as a possible complication. If he gets that, he'll never be the same again.
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
4
0
Visit site
LaFlorecita said:
As Contador acknowledged himself, with an operation there is a small possibility he can still ride the Vuelta, if he doesn't undergo an operation there is 0% chance he'll ride it.

Really? i would assume it would be the reverse, well i'm not a doctor.
 
Nov 29, 2010
2,326
0
0
Visit site
Miburo said:
Really? i would assume it would be the reverse, well i'm not a doctor.

My dad broke his arm recently (cycle crash) and he was given the option of an operation or to let it heal naturally. With the surgery they said he could be back on his bike almost immediately but the downside is that he'd have metal screws and whatever else in his arm holding the bones/ligaments together. Letting it heal naturally takes a lot longer but it's probably better in the long term (don't have a bunch of **** in your arm.)
 
Jan 3, 2011
4,594
0
0
Visit site
ggusta said:
Still gutted. Totally Gutted.

I know how you feel. I feel likewise. I just really hope he can motivate him self to once again prepare this well for the 2015 Tour. Or maybe even skip the damn Tour de Crash and do Giro and Vuelta.
 
deValtos said:
Yup that's what Roche is saying.

The simplest explanation is often the right one.

Roche says Contador's bike was broken in the crash and he held the broken bike waiting for the team car. The Saxo director says the broken bike was Contador's spare and was broken in an incident with team cars. Has there been any resolution to whether there was a bike fault, or why there are different stories? Just seems a little odd.
 

TRENDING THREADS