Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard thread: Mountain Sprinter

[Samu Cuenca]

What are you on about with Rolic and Kuss not being able to influence the choice to attack?

They are all on the same radio channel. When Vingegaard called up the car to ask if he should attack, they obviously both heard it and could have chimed in if they disagreed.

Also everyone seems to forget that at that point JV was out of Doms, Valter was the last one and he was cooked, so JV either had to attack to force the other teams to chase, or possibly comprome 1 of their leaders to ride tempo and run the risk of getting planted when others attacked.

So from a tactical perspective it was the right choice for JV to attack at that point - it might as well have been Roglic or Kuss - but apparently Vingegaard got the idea and was first to call it.

Forget about "calculating bastard" or "naive do-gooder" - it was the right call TACTICALLY.

The only problem was, which nobody could have forseen, that the other teams just flat out refused to chase, but blaming Vingegaard or JV for that makes no sense.

I don't think they usually hold long meetings during the final of a stage. Either one rider calls the shot, or the DSs do. But it doesn't really matter how smart it was, the action still created tension within the team, which may or may not have been avoidable (on that particular stage at least).

I see you ignoring the point about Roglic attacking Kuss and riding away from him - I wonder why

It has already been explained/assumed on here, that Roglič was just returning the favour.

 

[Boehmand]

I don't think they usually hold long meetings during the final of a stage. Either one rider calls the shot, or the DSs do. But it doesn't really matter how smart it was, the action still created tension within the team, which may or may not have been avoidable (on that particular stage at least).

You said Roglic and Kuss had no influence, I demonstrated for you they did, but apparently either chose not to exercise it or agreed it was the right call.

- and yes, of course it matters if it was the right tactical choice.

 

[Boehmand]

It has already been explained/assumed on here, that Roglič was just returning the favour.

Which there is zero proof of.

It's basically just Roglic fanboys making up excuses for why Roglic was right but Vingegaard wrong, for doing the exact same thing at the exact same time.

It's an obvvious double standard.

Also - and just as importantly - dropping Kuss with 1.8 K to the line when the rest of the peloton is already dropped, is not a tactically sound choice, especially if Roglic (as you claim) did it out of spite to "return the favour".

 

[bNator]

Which there is zero proof of.

It's basically just Roglic fanboys making up excuses for why Roglic was right but Vingegaard wrong, for doing the exact same thing at the exact same time.

It's an obvvious double standard.

Also - and just as importantly - dropping Kuss with 1.8 K to the line when the rest of the peloton is already dropped, is not a tactically sound choice, especially if Roglic (as you claim) did it out of spite to "return the favour".

What are you talking about? What do you need proof for? It's how it was. It's self-evident. If one attacks and then the other one attacks back, the latter is the consequence of the former.

And that makes all the difference in the world. First Vingegaard attacks. Then Grischa proclaims open race to accomodate Vingegaards action and then Roglič responds to the new rules and attacks himself the next day.

There is no indicator Roglič would have attacked on Wednesday if Vingegaard didn't attack on Tuesday (and Friday). And since you are the accusor, you are the one who needs to prove he's guilty...

 

[Samu Cuenca]

You said Roglic and Kuss had no influence, I demonstrated for you they did, but apparently either chose not to exercise it or agreed it was the right call.

- and yes, of course it matters if it was the right tactical choice.

You have not demonstrated anything, as neither you or I were part of that meeting.

The smartest thing he could have done on Angliru would have been to let go of Roglic's wheel on the descent to the finish, cause then no one would have claimed he was actively trying to overtake Kuss by accident.

That said, the most selfish/greedy act we've seen in this race has probably been Kuss taking bonus seconds away from Landa.

 

[Blanco]

I see you ignoring the point about Roglic attacking Kuss and riding away from him - I wonder why

And why wouldn't he ride?
Didn't Vingegaard ride from both of them twice before? Didn't he ride from Kuss on that same Angliru?
Didn't Niermann said after that famous stage 16 that they are free to ride however they want as long as Jumbo rider wins the Vuelta?

 

[Salvarani]

And why wouldn't he ride?
Didn't Vingegaard ride from both of them twice before? Didn't he ride from Kuss on that same Angliru?
Didn't Niermann said after that famous stage 16 that they are free to ride however they want as long as Jumbo rider wins the Vuelta?

I dont believe a word of that.

 

[Boehmand]

What are you talking about? What do you need proof for? It's how it was. It's self-evident. If one attacks and then the other one attacks back, the latter is the consequence of the former.

And that makes all the difference in the world. First Vingegaard attacks. Then Grischa proclaims open race to accomodate Vingegaards action and then Roglič responds to the new rules and attacks himself the next day.

There is no indicator Roglič would have attacked on Wednesday if Vingegaard didn't attack on Tuesday (and Friday). And since you are the accusor, you are the one who needs to prove he's guilty...

You are a conspiracy theorist

 

[Blanco]

I dont believe a word of that.

Well, he did said that.

 

[Salvarani]

Well, he did said that.

I think the point is that it doesnt have to be true.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

I think the point is that it doesnt have to be true.

Vingegaard has said in his Danish pre-stage interview today, that they had agreed that they would be allowed to race against each other. However he claims the he was always in favour of the GC fight being neutralised after the final rest day so that Kuss could win.

 

[Salvarani]

Vingegaard has said in his Danish pre-stage interview today, that they had agreed that they would be allowed to race against each other. However he claims the he was always in favour of the GC fight being neutralised after the final rest day so that Kuss could win.

Cool, so he basically said all of the above and covered every angle with that. Smart answer.

 

[bNator]

You are a conspiracy theorist

Run out of arguments, have you?

I assure you that's not the case - I'm a man of science and tech. But still - what claim that I made in that post is a conpiracy theory? All my claims are supported by what TJV actually said except "to accomodate Vingegaards action". I took a bit of liberty for interpretation here, but that's not far fetched in the slightest...

 

[Salvarani]

Run out of arguments, have you?

I assure you that's not the case - I'm a man of science and tech. But still - what claim that I made in that post is a conpiracy theory? All my claims are supported by what TJV actually said except "to accomodate Vingegaards action". I took a bit of liberty for interpretation here, but that's not far fetched in the slightest...

And a man of wealth and taste, I assume.

 

[bNator]

And a man of wealth and taste, I assume.

I was trying to remain modest

 

[Boehmand]

Vingegaard has said in his Danish pre-stage interview today, that they had agreed that they would be allowed to race against each other. However he claims the he was always in favour of the GC fight being neutralised after the final rest day so that Kuss could win.

Interesting that when you quote Vingegaard for something that supports your story he "said" it, but when you quote him for something contrary to your story he "claims" it

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Interesting that when you quote Vingegaard for something that supports your story he "said" it, but when you quote him for something contrary to your story he "claims" it

 

[Blanco]

I think the point is that it doesnt have to be true.

The point is that he said that only after stage 16, and on stage 17 they raced exactly that way, every man for himself.

 

[Boehmand]

what claim that I made in that post is a conpiracy theory?

That Vingegaard "attacked Kuss".
That Vingegaard is a man "without class and character".
That Vingegaard attacked contrary to team orders.
That it's Vingegaards wife pulling the strings behind the scenes.
That Niermann was "in on it" (meaning Nierman/Vingegaard against Roglic/Kuss).

Just a few examples.

You constantly spew this senseless unfounded drivel, which all appears to be born out of you wanting desperately to believe the worst about Vingegaard.

 

[Boehmand]

It would appear you are

 

[Salvarani]

The point is that he said that only after stage 16, and on stage 17 they raced exactly that way, every man for himself.

Nah.

 

[tobydawq]

Vingegaard was pretty direct in his interview today, I must say.

Søren Reedtz: "How will you explain yourself against those people who think it's matchfixing and that the strongest guy should win?"

Vingegaard: "What do they want me to do? Stab my friend in the back? I don't want to do that. I have been a little bit between two charis in this race so it was a relief yesterday to be on the same page."

I think it is somewhat plausible that he never wanted to attack Kuss directly. Then you can ask why did he attack on stages 13 and 16 but it was probably never likely that he closed the whole gap without Kuss cracking being the reason for that.

He wasn't talking too much about Roglic but he did say that he also seemed to be in a good mood (I guess that could be a facade, I'm quite sure Roglic is not happy with the situation).

I don't think he is a manipulative liar and I think his look on his face when saying "do they want me to stab him in the back" is the sharpest I have seen him have.

 

[Andy schleck]

Vingegaard was pretty direct in his interview today, I must say.

Søren Reedtz: "How will you explain yourself against those people who think it's matchfixing and that the strongest guy should win?"

Vingegaard: "What do they want me to do? Stab my friend in the back? I don't want to do that. I have been a little bit between two charis in this race so it was a relief yesterday to be on the same page."

I think it is somewhat plausible that he never wanted to attack Kuss directly. Then you can ask why did he attack on stages 13 and 16 but it was probably never likely that he closed the whole gap without Kuss cracking being the reason for that.

He wasn't talking too much about Roglic but he did say that he also seemed to be in a good mood (I guess that could be a facade, I'm quite sure Roglic is not happy with the situation).

I don't think he is a manipulative liar and I think his look on his face when saying "do they want me to stab him in the back" is the sharpest I have seen him have.

Manipulative liar? That's something coming from roglic fanboys. They're problem in reality wouldn't not be vingegaard taking the red jersey from kuss, they're real problem was seeing vingegaard winning the tour and vuelta in front of roglic without being in top shape. That's what hurts for them, but they have to deal with that, and with the fact that vingegaard is now the leader of team, the strongest, and the number one for tour france 2024.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Guy is a pretty honest and very decent human being. I always believed him to actually not race for the win on those stages, necessarily at least, but mainly for stages. Stage 16 just spiraled a bit out of control, but that really wasn't in his control that UAE raced liked brainless chickens. He just raced to the line as everyone else woulda. I think he's perfectly fine 'donating' this win to Sepp, especially given he has shown to be the overall best rider through 3 weeks IMO.

Roglic is a completely different matter though. I don't think he's happy with this at all, but thats pure speculation on my part tbh, and I don't think their relation is great at all.

 

[bNator]

He did attack when his teammate was in leaders jersey and when there was a possibility he cracks as a consequence of this attack. Whether you call that direct or indirect attack will not affect the outcome and true intention can probably only be speculated about. I’m convinced he was trying to create a situation where he could take red from Kuss but I’ll admit, I have no proof for that. It’s not impossible he was not going for that.

Contrary to many who claim this is an established tactics, I’m saying it’s not and I’m challenging those to provide an example from history where attacking when your teammate is in leaders jersey (and there’s a fair chance you might take it) went through without controversy.

I may have gone too far calling him a manipulative liar. I didn’t have enough basis for that and I’m open to change my mind about his character if he aligns his words with his actions in the future.

It’s also possible he just went for it in the heat of the battle where his instinct kicked in and privately he’s still a decent person…