Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives

[RedheadDane]

You are a master of repeating yourself without getting the point.

How did I repeat myself?

I acknowledged that you were right, that Mäder probably was devastated in the moment during that P-N finish, as any rider who got caught so close to the finish would be. But he knew that's just racing; attackers get caught just before the line all the time.
(Sadly, we can't ask him how he felt in that situation.)

And I'm still trying to remember what finish in this Vuelta something similar happened...

 

[Extinction]

How did I repeat myself?

I acknowledged that you were right, that Mäder probably was devastated in the moment during that P-N finish, as any rider who got caught so close to the finish would be. But he knew that's just racing; attackers get caught just before the line all the time.
(Sadly, we can't ask him how he felt in that situation.)

And I'm still trying to remember what finish in this Vuelta something similar happened...

Because you basically said what you stated before. Look, it doesn't matter what Mader said, with grace, in the moment of defeat. The whole world saw how Roglic denied him that victory and the general consensus amongst the pundits at the time was that it was a lowly act. So it's not just a question of racing, but how one choses to race, which can be more praiseworthy or less praiseworthy. Look, it's not just me, but how it has always been in the sport. I recall at the time how a number of commentators talked about a certain "unwritten" cycling ediquite (this, too, has always existed) expects that when you are the race leader in such circumstances, you don't deny a victory on the line to a fading rider, who showed guts and panache for laying it all out on the road. An Indurain wouldn't have done that, it was remarked, also because that's how the sovereign creates loyal allies in the peloton. And we all noticed Roglic's fate the very next day. Uncoincidentally ever since whenever Roglic is talked about, it's always yea, he's undoubtedly a great rider, BUT he lacks panache. It's why he lost the Tour and probably why now he shall never win it.

 

[Luthor]

I hope he trained his ITT after the the Giro, he needs to be better than Vinge.

 

[RedheadDane]

I recall at the time how a number of commentators talked about a certain "unwritten" cycling ediquite (this, too, has always existed) expects that when you are the race leader in such circumstances, you don't deny a victory on the line to a fading rider, who showed guts and panache for laying it all out on the road.

WTF are you talking about? Was Roglic supposed to have just... eased up and let Mäder win? Talk about disprespecting the guy...
Not to mention that we're talking about P-N, a race where the difference between getting 10 bonus seconds for a stage win, and only getting 6 for second on a stage could potentially have made a huge difference in the GC. Sure, in the end it didn't matter, because Roglic faded (and crashed?), but that had nothing to do with it.

 

[bNator]

Because you basically said what you stated before. Look, it doesn't matter what Mader said, with grace, in the moment of defeat. The whole world saw how Roglic denied him that victory and the general consensus amongst the pundits at the time was that it was a lowly act. So it's not just a question of racing, but how one choses to race, which can be more praiseworthy or less praiseworthy. Look, it's not just me, but how it has always been in the sport. I recall at the time how a number of commentators talked about a certain "unwritten" cycling ediquite (this, too, has always existed) expects that when you are the race leader in such circumstances, you don't deny a victory on the line to a fading rider, who showed guts and panache for laying it all out on the road. An Indurain wouldn't have done that, it was remarked, also because that's how the sovereign creates loyal allies in the peloton. And we all noticed Roglic's fate the very next day. Uncoincidentally ever since whenever Roglic is talked about, it's always yea, he's undoubtedly a great rider, BUT he lacks panache. It's why he lost the Tour and probably why now he shall never win it.

Maybe he didn’t lose the Tour due to lack of panache, but rather than that it was fate - just as in Paris-Nice? An advance punishment by god for what he was going to do to Mäder…

Roglic was racing for GC that day. His speed was such he would have to brake and wait considerably if he wanted to gift victory to Mäder. It would look ridiculous, to be honest. You said Indurain would not have done it. Who else? Tell me - who of the current crop of top riders do you see braking behind Mäder, gifting him the win while gifting additional 10+ seconds to his opposition in lost time advantage due to braking and waiting, maybe even giving up the position? I’m all ears…

 

[Extinction]

WTF are you talking about? Was Roglic supposed to have just... eased up and let Mäder win? Talk about disprespecting the guy...
Not to mention that we're talking about P-N, a race where the difference between getting 10 bonus seconds for a stage win, and only getting 6 for second on a stage could potentially have made a huge difference in the GC. Sure, in the end it didn't matter, because Roglic faded (and crashed?), but that had nothing to do with it.

Read up on the history of the sport and then ask yourself, what the f am I talking about!?

 

[Extinction]

Maybe he didn’t lose the Tour due to lack of panache, but rather than that it was fate - just as in Paris-Nice? An advance punishment by god for what he was going to do to Mäder…

Roglic was racing for GC that day. His speed was such he would have to brake and wait considerably if he wanted to gift victory to Mäder. It would look ridiculous, to be honest. You said Indurain would not have done it. Who else? Tell me - who of the current crop of top riders do you see braking behind Mäder, gifting him the win while gifting additional 10+ seconds to his opposition in lost time advantage due to braking and waiting, maybe even giving up the position? I’m all ears…

That's not how many read the scenario and, no, the gods didn't prevent him from winning, but an adverse peloton. But we mustn't discuss such matters here, but only those that concern Remco and only Remco.

 

[RedheadDane]

Read up on the history of the sport and then ask yourself, what the f am I talking about!?

The only example you could give was Indurain...

But we mustn't discuss such matters here, but only those that concern Remco and only Remco.

This is the Roglic thread.

 

[Gargamel35]

It's just haters hatin and bringing up unimportant old ***. Stop answering to trolls guys.

 

[bNator]

Read up on the history of the sport and then ask yourself, what the f am I talking about!?

There is no example in the history in the sport, where a rider who is going for GC brakes and intentionally loses time so he can give a victory. That is my claim and I bet you can't find one.

 

[Extinction]

As for today's riders and the peloton of yore, well let's just say the sport today, driven by all the business interests, has become more egocentric and cut-throat in all matters except those regarding safety. Etiquite and respect are just nice pleasantries of an antiquated era. Of course, if there is a little mud on the road some representative or vocal group gets all bent out of shape and cries scandal that they should actually have to ride through it!

 

[Extinction]

There is no example in the history in the sport, where a rider who is going for GC brakes and intentionally loses time so he can give a victory. That is my claim and I bet you can't find one.

You completely ignore context, but go on.

 

[Berniece]

At first I was under the impression that Vingegaard was stronger, and the actual leader, but I've changed my opinion. Roglic seems to be in great form, even better than at the Giro. Still hope Remco will win, but Roglic definitely has the best cards at the moment. Remco just needs to crack 1 time properly, and it's over.

 

[Netserk]

There is no example in the history in the sport, where a rider who is going for GC brakes and intentionally loses time so he can give a victory. That is my claim and I bet you can't find one.

Maybe Jalabert didn't literally brake, but he's probably the closest. Valverde on Ventoux also slowed down significantly.

 

[Extinction]

I hasn't noticed the jump in threads, pardon.

 

[Salvarani]

Enjoying my morning coffee. Why not, eh?

 

[tobydawq]

There is no example in the history in the sport, where a rider who is going for GC brakes and intentionally loses time so he can give a victory. That is my claim and I bet you can't find one.

As Netserk said:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuFF-cyItfg&t=1618s&ab_channel=Alesma76er


(That's not to say that I blame Roglic for taking that win at all).

 

[bNator]

You completely ignore context, but go on.

What context?

The context as I see it: Roglic did on that stage what he always did in those kind of stages. Sprint panachelessly to utilize his strength and gain time and bonus seconds on his opponents. He didn't race Mader - he raced GC guys, most of all Schachmann who was right behind him. And the cost of giving a win would not be insignificant to him GC-wise.

What is the context that makes this an "eggregious example of lack of panache", as you put it?

 

[Elos Anjos]

Because you basically said what you stated before. Look, it doesn't matter what Mader said, with grace, in the moment of defeat. The whole world saw how Roglic denied him that victory and the general consensus amongst the pundits at the time was that it was a lowly act. So it's not just a question of racing, but how one choses to race, which can be more praiseworthy or less praiseworthy. Look, it's not just me, but how it has always been in the sport. I recall at the time how a number of commentators talked about a certain "unwritten" cycling ediquite (this, too, has always existed) expects that when you are the race leader in such circumstances, you don't deny a victory on the line to a fading rider, who showed guts and panache for laying it all out on the road. An Indurain wouldn't have done that, it was remarked, also because that's how the sovereign creates loyal allies in the peloton. And we all noticed Roglic's fate the very next day. Uncoincidentally ever since whenever Roglic is talked about, it's always yea, he's undoubtedly a great rider, BUT he lacks panache. It's why he lost the Tour and probably why now he shall never win it.

This has to be one of the most WTF takes I have ever read. Especially coming from a user that thrives on being taken seriously. Generally, users employ logical thinking, stage profile analysis and historical data to make a point on why a rider wins or looses a stage but now we know that panache is that magical ingredient that makes a rider win a Tour.

 

[Extinction]

What context?

The context as I see it: Roglic did on that stage what he always did in those kind of stages. Sprint panachelessly to utilize his strength and gain time and bonus seconds on his opponents. He didn't race Mader - he raced GC guys, most of all Schachmann who was right behind him. And the cost of giving a win would not be insignificant to him GC-wise.

What is the context that makes this an "eggregious example of lack of panache", as you put it?

It's unecessaryness. He gained no strategic benefit, his lead was no more consolidated than before. He only denied another a well-deserved victory. That this matters not today, says much about how the sport is interpreted over the past.

 

[Extinction]

This has to be one of the most WTF takes I have ever read. Especially coming from a user that thrives on being taken seriously. Generally, users employ logical thinking, stage profile analysis and historical data to make a point on why a rider wins or looses a stage but now we know that panache is that magical ingredient that makes a rider win a Tour.

He would have won it had he had panache, everything else is just drivel. There is a logical component to this, because calculated opportunism lost out to aggressive bravura. That's not even opinionable.

 

[Elos Anjos]

He would have won it had he had panache, everything else is just drivel. There is a logical component to this, because calculated opportunism lost out to aggressive bravura. That's not even opinionable.

You're not making any sense . Panache is a style that contextless viewers attribute to a certain win or way of riding. Not having it does not affect how much one wins or if one rider wins. Pogacar in Ronde 20022 comes to mind. The only "logic" around your thinking is that you are not speaking generally by stating "riders with panache will more likely win" but taking Roglic's example as proof of what are you saying. And what is that example, exactly?

1. That because he didn't gift Mader (RIP) the peloton started getting resentful on his greed for stage wins;
2. That if had otherwise let Mader win the peloton would be more respectful towards the slovenian;
3. That ultimately 2. had a bearing on why he crashed in both 2021 and 2022.

In 2022 Roglic crashed because of a hay bale.
In 2021 Colbrelli was careless towards Roglic.

This is basically what you're saying that is remotely "logic": that a win that should have not happened in Paris Nice somehow resulted months later in a vengeful act of a rider that is a part of a peloton that agreed in giving Roglic's lack of panache its due karma. Had he gifted Mader the win, he wouldn't crash in the Tour and could win it.

Unless you argue a little bit better, I think you can be considered a troll

 

[Blanco]

As Netserk said:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuFF-cyItfg&t=1618s&ab_channel=Alesma76er


(That's not to say that I blame Roglic for taking that win at all).

But there's one huge difference here. Szmyd rode and worked with Valverde for 10km, even he didn't need to, cause Valverde was riding to gain time on GC, stage win was a reward for that work.

Contador was maybe a better example, gifting a stage to Tiralongo, but we also had here a difference to Roglic case. Tirolongo was a good buddy of Contador, ex-teammate, so he did a favor to a friend.

Late Mader wasn't a friend of Roglic, didn't shared work with Roglic, and there was no reason at all to gift him a stage, nor was ever such a case in history, at least I do not know about one...

 

[Scarponi]

How can a win be well deserved if someone who could have beat you didn't even try? Hilaroius

 

[Gargamel35]

Guys, he's trolling and clowning around. Why the hell are you answering?