Contador blasts LA

Page 41 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Jayarbie said:
Contador's attack opening the gap did not hinder Armstrong from bridging, either. He DID try to attack Wiggins lower on the slopes (after Armstrong let Frank go but before Contador's attack widened the gap), but Wiggins followed the first attack and Armstrong HAD to ease off. It wasn't until near the summit that Armstrong was able to get rid of Wiggins, and even if the gap was still under 2 minutes, there's no way he could have bridged it. He made up less than a minute on the downhill chase.

There's a lot about this stage that you clearly do not understand. It's best that you just concede to Publicus on this. He has the situation nailed dead on.
Armstrong dropped Wiggins because he had do a lot of work chasing while Lance was towed by him. That is when Brad was tired that Lance could drop him.
 
Jayarbie said:
No, Jesus Christ are you stupid. He didn't keep driving because the two Schlecks marked the attack but Kloden didn't. Now he was isolated 1-on-2 in a situation that was dangerous to HIS GC standing and you want him to burn himself out pacing the lead group so the Schelck could follow and attack in tandem once he tired himself out? How f-ing stupid is that?!?

Easy! I don't think he believed that one, even as he was typing it.
 
Jul 6, 2009
27
0
0
Jayarbie said:
No, you don't get it at all. It was a mistake only because it weakened HIS position (by dropping a teammate). Contador's GC position was the ONLY one that mattered. This 1-2-3 boloney is a bunch of crap. Contador (and Astana as a whole) needed to be concerned only with winning the Tour, not worrying about where their 2nd and 3rd riders were placed. It was a mistake because it left HIM isolated with the 2 most dangerous riders to his GC standing (because they would work together agaisnt him, not because Frank was actually a threat).

This also why Armstrong failing to properly mark Frank was a mistake as well, and a huge one. It left Contador with TWO strong Saxo riders to deal with instead of one. If Armstrong had marked Frank, Frank would not have been able to bridge because it would have been worse for Saxo to have both Armstrong and Frank in the lead group than both in the chase group, so Frank would NOT have dragged Lance back to the lead group.

Contador's attack opening the gap did not hinder Armstrong from bridging, either. He DID try to attack Wiggins lower on the slopes (after Armstrong let Frank go but before Contador's attack widened the gap), but Wiggins followed the first attack and Armstrong HAD to ease off. It wasn't until near the summit that Armstrong was able to get rid of Wiggins, and even if the gap was still under 2 minutes, there's no way he could have bridged it. He made up less than a minute on the downhill chase.

There's a lot about this stage that you clearly do not understand. It's best that you just concede to Publicus on this. He has the situation nailed dead on.

It was a mistake on these fronts:
1) As you said, it weakened his position
2) It gave the Schlecks more motivation to distance AK, LA and BW
3) It gave the SB riders motivation to hold their GC positions.

If AK and LA would have been there, then I don't think the SB's would have gained 2 minutes on AK and LA, therefore the 1-2-3 that JB has dreamed of. He said it before.
 
padyakpinoy said:
It was a mistake on these fronts:
1) As you said, it weakened his position
2) It gave the Schlecks more motivation to distance AK, LA and BW
3) It gave the SB riders motivation to hold their GC positions.

If AK and LA would have been there, then I don't think the SB's would have gained 2 minutes on AK and LA, therefore the 1-2-3 that JB has dreamed of. He said it before.

Yes, and then Lance Armstrong would have run around telling anyone who would listen that he was just as strong as Contador and he should be team leader.
 
Jul 6, 2009
27
0
0
Jayarbie said:
No, Jesus Christ are you stupid. He didn't keep driving because the two Schlecks marked the attack but Kloden didn't. Now he was isolated 1-on-2 in a situation that was dangerous to HIS GC standing and you want him to burn himself out pacing the lead group so the Schelck could follow and attack in tandem once he tired himself out? How f-ing stupid is that?!?

I was posting that in response to Publicus, who said that AC shouldn't have been concerned about AK or LA's GC spots.

Exactly, you are echoing my point. I was reiterating that AC still Is concerned about his teammates, that was why he did not pace the SB's. Please read the previous threads.
 
padyakpinoy said:
It was a mistake on these fronts:
1) As you said, it weakened his position
2) It gave the Schlecks more motivation to distance AK, LA and BW
3) It gave the SB riders motivation to hold their GC positions.

If AK and LA would have been there, then I don't think the SB's would have gained 2 minutes on AK and LA, therefore the 1-2-3 that JB has dreamed of. He said it before.

Your comments remind me of the underpants gnomes business plan....

1. Collect underpants.
2. [unknown]
3. Profit!

:D
 
Apr 24, 2009
206
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Should that be considered a mistake or a weakness?


IMO, it was initially a mistake. He was inattentive and FSchleck put on a brilliant attack move. By the time Armstrong reacted, he was so far up the road Lance realized he could not bridge up w/out taking Wiggins and, observing team tactics, had to sit on Wiggins' wheel until he could get away by himself.

We don't really know if it was a weakness. We do know that before that final attack by FSchleck, Armstrong had easily covered two earlier ones by FS. When he finally rode away from Wiggins, it was 1 against 3, so he did not make up any real time.

The previous stage he bridged up to the lead group on the final climb w/out too much difficulty, and on Ventoux, he marked FSchleck all day.

Still doesn't prove that on that particular day he could have followed all the way, but I think it is reasonable to assume that Armstrong didn't sit on Wiggins' wheel because he couldn't go any faster.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,384
0
0
UpTheRoad said:
Do you agree with this part?



Playing with the semantics a bit here...do you believe that the Astana machine and Johan Bruyneel were behind (i.e. supporting) Contador this TdF? If so, I am of the opposite opinion. If the stories coming out are true, it appears that both LA and JB were sabotaging Contador's chances.

This pertains to the road only...should Contador have felt threatened by either Armstrong or Kloden?

Look, I haven't a clue what the internal politics were within the team. All that I can comment on are the public statements made by JB/AC/LA and they were so contradictory that I'm not surprised that all of this conjecture is flying around. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that JB was playing a waiting game with regard to whom the team supported during the last week of the tour. The events on the road to La Grand Motte and Arcalis turned the dynamic inside out with both LA and AC making their own independent decisions on the road in a high stakes game for leadership.

Should Contador have felt threatened by Lance or Kloden? Hell, no. He won that battle hands down. Actually, he won with one hand tied behind his back.

The more relevant question is should Contador have felt threatened by Bruyneel? To this, imo, yes he should. And next year, with all of the horse trading between the teams, the power brokers will be spread more widely over the pro tour teams, each trying to win the race and not under a DS like JB who can exert control over most of them. Contador will have a harder time next year. Not because LA will be stronger, but because he will be riding for a weaker team. Oh, and Radio Shack and JB will be weaker without AC.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
5
0
Hugh Januss said:
This is getting to be like a ride in a dryer.

There are some guys with literally 500 posts with precisely the same words, just in slightly different order. Repeat enough times, it just might become reality.
 
yep they both suck

eleven said:
I know you're supposed to pick sides and defend one rider at the immense expense of the other in this thread, but let's face it:

Both guys sound rather pathetic. They both had great tours, they are both great champions, and they both need to shut the *^%$ up and act like adults.

Fact is LA should never have come back. He looks just as pathetic as when Jordan came out of retirement. In his prime, LA would have smoked AC by five minutes or more. LA has always came off as a do-goodie image wannabe, fake smiling, back stabbing douchbag, though. As for Euro riders their hasn't been one that inspired any respect at least in the North American general public since Big Mig (imho way better person and just as good if not better a rider than either these punks). As the only sport more tainted by chemicals than baseball its hard to take any of these idiots seriously any more.
:cool:
 
Jul 23, 2009
22
0
0
cheese_eating_surrender_monkey said:
Fact is LA should never have come back. He looks just as pathetic as when Jordan came out of retirement. In his prime, LA would have smoked AC by five minutes or more. LA has always came off as a do-goodie image wannabe, fake smiling, back stabbing douchbag, though. As for Euro riders their hasn't been one that inspired any respect at least in the North American general public since Big Mig (imho way better person and just as good if not better a rider than either these punks). As the only sport more tainted by chemicals than baseball its hard to take any of these idiots seriously any more.
:cool:


You are correct in asserting that Indurain was superior to both. However wrong is asserting that only baseball rivals cycling in drug problems. North American NHL and NFL are both riddled with drug abuse and doping.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Yes, and then Lance Armstrong would have run around telling anyone who would listen that he was just as strong as Contador and he should be team leader.

Well, I think this is exactly what Team Radio Shack will be saying next year.

At least LeMond hates them both ....
 

Carboncrank

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
LugHugger said:
The events on the road to La Grand Motte and Arcalis turned the dynamic inside out with both LA and AC making their own independent decisions on the road in a high stakes game for leadership.

The more relevant question is should Contador have felt threatened by Bruyneel? To this, imo, yes he should. And next year, with all of the horse trading between the teams, the power brokers will be spread more widely over the pro tour teams, each trying to win the race and not under a DS like JB who can exert control over most of them. Contador will have a harder time next year. Not because LA will be stronger, but because he will be riding for a weaker team. Oh, and Radio Shack and JB will be weaker without AC.

What independent decisions did Lance make on the road?
 
Jul 26, 2009
364
0
0
Carboncrank said:
you don't mention any actual comments by Lance.

I guess you don't understand that on a flat stage any time you can get is golden and that is a different animal from sprinting past 3 teammates that have control of the tempo at the front of a climb who have worked for you and who's wheels you've been riding on, leaving chaos in your wake for a mere 20 seconds in the first week of the race.

i geuss you dont understand the whole point of your team setting tempo on a climb is so that you can sprint past them and gain time on the entire field,and calling 21 seconds gained in 2km into a 40 km headwind" mere " is laughable
 
Jul 26, 2009
364
0
0
boalio said:
The old peloton. The new wave coming through don't give a sh!t. Do you think the Schlecks would rather side with Armstrong?

The respect the peloton may have is for his riding. Contador has said that even he has respect for Armstrong's riding.

Armstrong and The Hog are about to start their own team. The biggest threat to them - Contador. So of course they are going to start talking smack about him. Armstrong knows that his strongest ability is to play the psychological game (basically be a pr!ck), which also happens to be Contador's weakest point.

On the other hand, it could backfire and create an all American team, that is seen to embody the clique view of Americans as arrogant.

actually berto said that all the team and internal turmoil only motivated him further to succeed
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
5
0
lagartija said:
actually berto said that all the team and internal turmoil only motivated him further to succeed

That, and he didn't want to spoil that caveman-drawn yellow baseball hat with the peace sign on it.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
5
0
Publicus said:
Cut him some slack. He hasn't figured out a catchy slogan that embodies his near death from an aneurysm.

He should start a foundation for the prevention of that sort of thing.
 
Jul 26, 2009
364
0
0
fulcrum said:
Damn, did this dude just come out from under a rock? We've discussed these points ad nauseam. What is a bonked Kloden going to do for a crashed Contador... Go Dr. Mengele on him and fix the collarbone? What if it has a mechanical... Contador is going to need a wheel, so the time is lost no matter what, he could get one from Kloden or from race organization. If he gets it from Kloden, then Kloden is without the wheel, so Contador is still on his own. Kloden couldn't work for shit anyway so it wouldn't have been a great aid downhill.

Maybe he should have waited for a full Formula 1 team uphill, so they can change both wheels in under 6 seconds in case he has a flat. And a trained ER group too, just in case...

LOL.....that was great