Gerrans rubbishes Worlds vote rumours

[auscyclefan94]

Gerrans rubbishes Worlds rift rumour

So did it happen and was it fair? I think it is at least a bit obvious that some of the riders don't like each other.

Your thoughts?

 

[blaxland]

Gerrans rubbishes Worlds rift rumour

So did it happen and was it fair? I think it is at least a bit obvious that some of the riders don't like each other.

Your thoughts?

I'd say its Media trying to sell more newspapers....don,t read to much into it...

 

[Ferminal]

I thought Evans was doing the Quebec/Montreal races.

 

[Martin318is]

Assuming that it was just a made up story after last year's WC, I would be very disappointed about the fact it has taken almost a year for any of the riders to say so.

As such, it does look like the vote actually happened in some form...

 

[auscyclefan94]

I thought Evans was doing the Quebec/Montreal races.

He pulled out a few weeks ago as he said he would not be able to prepare well enough for those events.

 

[Ferminal]

He pulled out a few weeks ago as he said he would not be able to prepare well enough for those events.

Shame, probably could have won them both.

 

[simo1733]

He would say that

Cadel is clearly the strongest Aussie + he is the world champ. So if u want to be in the team u have work for him.Of course if u are looking for a charismatic leader of men, probably better not pick a squeky voiced whinger.

 

[L'arriviste]

Oh wait, so this headline comes out now in the big lead up to the Worlds, hot on the trail of the Geelong-may-flood story. Bof. Even if it was true, why on earth does it matter now after almost a year of watching Evans race in the jersey? Obviously these SMH journos sit on their behinds so they have to cook something up to justify their salary once a year. I don't know why Gerrans even dignified it with an answer.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Assuming that it was just a made up story after last year's WC, I would be very disappointed about the fact it has taken almost a year for any of the riders to say so.

As such, it does look like the vote actually happened in some form...

Gerrans denied the vote thing in a video interview with Oz Cycling months ago (January 2010?).

 

[gregod]

from the cyclingnews story:

Simon Gerrans has dismissed suggestions that Cadel Evans didn’t have the support of his Australian team-mates when he claimed victory at last year’s UCI World Road Championships in Mendrisio, Switzerland. The normally reserved rider didn’t mince words when addressing rumours that of the nine man squad, eight had vowed to support himself at a pre-race meeting while only Evans voted for himself.

I can't quite get the meaning of the part of the sentence in bold. Could somebody explain this please?

cheers

 

[hughmoore]

from the cyclingnews story:



I can't quite get the meaning of the part of the sentence in bold. Could somebody explain this please?

cheers

I assume you taking the ****s, but if you your not

The riders voted to decide who should be captain/who they are riding for. They all voted for Gerrarns except Evans who voted for himself according to the gossip.

Gerrans is saying this is crap and both were slated for the potential win with Evans taking his opportunity.

This was discussed last year and is old gossip.


Hugh

 

[Cerberus]

from the cyclingnews story:



I can't quite get the meaning of the part of the sentence in bold. Could somebody explain this please?

cheers

Eight supported Gerrans and only Evans supported Evans, but yes the use of "himself" to mean two different people is confusing.

 

[Galic Ho]

from the cyclingnews story:



I can't quite get the meaning of the part of the sentence in bold. Could somebody explain this please?

cheers

It means they had a vote on who the riders thought should be the designated winner, aka the protected go to rider. Eight voted for Gerrans and the last vote went to Evans. No need to guess who the one vote was.

I do have to ask a serious question though. Have the journalists and reporters for cycling news been reading the forums for ideas? This was floated a few days ago (by me) on the 2010 WC thread. Not that a vote is really an issue, unless it did happen and you were too much of a bonehead to actually back the only guy who had form (I also though Gerrans should have been leader...will never happen again). Do the riders read these threads and feel they need to sway public opinion and thus contact CyclingNews to divulge their glorious perspective?

 

[Ferminal]

It means they had a vote on who the riders thought should be the designated winner, aka the protected go to rider. Eight voted for Gerrans and the last vote went to Evans. No need to guess who the one vote was.

I do have to ask a serious question though. Have the journalists and reporters for cycling news been reading the forums for ideas? This was floated a few days ago (by me) on the 2010 WC thread. Not that a vote is really an issue, unless it did happen and you were too much of a bonehead to actually back the only guy who had form (I also though Gerrans should have been leader...will never happen again). Do the riders read these threads and feel they need to sway public opinion and thus contact CyclingNews to divulge their glorious perspective?

I think Gerrans made the quote to SMH. Not sure when the story was published though.

 

[auscyclefan94]

It means they had a vote on who the riders thought should be the designated winner, aka the protected go to rider. Eight voted for Gerrans and the last vote went to Evans. No need to guess who the one vote was.

I do have to ask a serious question though. Have the journalists and reporters for cycling news been reading the forums for ideas? This was floated a few days ago (by me) on the 2010 WC thread. Not that a vote is really an issue, unless it did happen and you were too much of a bonehead to actually back the only guy who had form (I also though Gerrans should have been leader...will never happen again). Do the riders read these threads and feel they need to sway public opinion and thus contact CyclingNews to divulge their glorious perspective?

It doesn't seem that it is coincidence that gerrans has said this to rupert guinness just at this moment in time. He has been reading the forums along with his buddy's Mick Rogers and Brad Wiggins + others.

 

[gregod]

thanks to everybody who replied explaining the sentence. i wasn't taking the (word that means "urine"; for some reason we can't write "piss"). that is kind of what i thought it meant. am i wrong in thinking that that sentence is poorly written?

as for the story; do the riders have the time or the inclination to read what's going on in these forums? they cannot be that narcissistic can they? why torture yourself over what some overweight guy in his mother's basement is saying about you?

 

[philcrisp]

I think Gerrans made the quote to SMH. Not sure when the story was published though.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling...ll-teammates-says-gerrans-20100829-13xpp.html Published 30 August 2010.

 

[**Uru**]

I think the sentance was gibberish. If 8 riders voted for self, that means the 8 riders voted for themselves. But that renders singling Evans out as the 9th rider voting for himself as being a rather stupid distinction.

 

[powerste]

Every man for himself!

I think the sentance was gibberish. If 8 riders voted for self, that means the 8 riders voted for themselves. But that renders singling Evans out as the 9th rider voting for himself as being a rather stupid distinction.

Yep, too hastily sent to print after probable editing by multiple people.

Gerrans is the subject of the following sentence:

"The normally reserved rider didn’t mince words when addressing rumours that of the nine man squad, eight had vowed to support himself at a pre-race meeting while only Evans voted for himself."

7 people who were rumored to have voted for Simon were not Simon, so Simon should be referred to as "him" instead of "himself." Evans allegedly voted for Evans, who would of course be . . . himself.

Strike the bit in red (can we get support for the BB Code tag, please?) and it makes perfect sense.

 

[bobgod]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story--------------------------
If we dont hear a good rumour by 10.00am,---we start one!

 

[Eyeballs Out]

I wonder if Gerrans will get any votes this year

 

[Night Rider]

I wonder if Gerrans will get any votes this year

Himself?

Maybe each rider could vote for himself

 

[PCutter]

Based on Cadel's comments in his biography, I would suggest no vote was taken. He noted that after they came out of the final team meeting - and discussion with DS Neil Stephens - he had to clarify with his room mate Simon Clarke (of ISD) that he was a protected rider based on Stephens' discussions in the meeting. There would be no need to clarify if a vote was taken. Besides, what DS is going to decide via a vote - its the DS's job to decide, and if he doesn't have the balls to make the call, he shouldn't be a DS/shouldn't be asked back.

The reality is, when the heat got put on in Switzerland, Gerrans couldn't match it, he won the sprint of his group, but that was for 10th, two groups back from the winner.

 

[galaxy1]

why would a joint leader need to check that he was a joint leader after the final meeting? surely that contradicts the Gerrans idea that the meeting was a full and frank discussion of team tactics?

 

[Nick C.]

We sat down, had our team meeting and discussed tactics and who were the best chances.

''I had a good run leading into worlds, winning the Grand Prix de Plouay and [a stage in] the Vuelta,” he added. “While Cadel and I were going for the win, we decided I would be the best [chance] to win but by natural selection he was good enough. I wasn't. We were equally protected. Cadel had the legs to finish it off. I didn't


that's from the article extrapolate what you like but we had a team meeting...we decided I would be the best chance for the win. tell me how did "we decided I would be the best chance" if not by vote, perhaps not a hands in the air but still.