Teams & Riders Mark Cavendish Discussion Thread

[Caruut]

So condenscending while so wrong.
Bravo.
EOD

Bit rich to hate on him for condescension after that post, don't you think?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Nominate a one trick pony riders?

 

[hmsgenoa]

So condenscending while so wrong.
Bravo.
EOD

Don't mention it. There are a lot of past masters here when it comes to being oblivious to the obvious, and speculating.

So I answered your questions, you couldn't answer mine.

How can I be wrong when I say that Cav wasn't blameless but the others contributed to the accident?

 

[hmsgenoa]

He certainly isn't hesitant with the hyperbole. I'll chalk it up to him being excited about the team's prospects but still he needs to come back to earth.

He doesn't need to come back down to earth. Have you considered the possibility he wants to appear confident about his teams prospects?

You can talk all you like about hyperbole dont you think he's earned the right to talk up his chances? There's no BS here - he knows they've got a better chance of delivering than any other team.

Why would operations like HTC then subsequently Sky put their resources into helping this particular rider win? Because they know he delivers the goods more often than anyone else, and that when he doesn't he manages to bounce back.

I've never seen a rider give so much credit to his teamates for helping him, and that's why they'll coninue to do so and why he'll continue to win.

 

[therhodeo]

I've never seen a rider give so much credit to his teamates for helping him, and that's why they'll coninue to do so and why he'll continue to win.

Also there is no one in the peloton more willing to give credit to others when they keep him from winning.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Don't mention it. There are a lot of past masters here when it comes to being oblivious to the obvious, and speculating.

So I answered your questions, you couldn't answer mine.

How can I be wrong when I say that Cav wasn't blameless but the others contributed to the accident?

You're not wrong, you're just making out that Haussler should get the lion's share of the blame. That's what the debate is.

Haussler contributed to it a bit in the final moments, but it wouldn't have happened at all if Cav hadn't decided to do his Abdou tribute.

 

[Caruut]

You do not take somebody down by running into his back (on the bike). I am quite sure Hausller knows that.

You have nothing to say about Cav moving at least a full meter to the left, and nothing about his bike being positioned diagonally in the moment of the crash (as visible in your slo-mo video). Why?

And, no, no shove from H.

There's a clear shove from Haussler; maybe it was unintentional, but he leans very far over into Cavendish, knocking him over, which then causes Cav to take Haussler out. Cav hits the deck first, and you can see Haussler well over onto Cav's side when he does.

Why did I not say anything about that? Frankly, because chiming in and saying "I agree with that" is far less interesting than disagreeing with someone and debating it. In every one of my posts, I have stated that I think Cavendish is more to blame, if you want to make out that I'm calling him innocent and then attack that strawman, then that's your problem.

So, here goes - Cavendish moves over to the left, and Haussler moves over to the right a bit, but not by much either way. Looking at it, I think they were either both trying to make life as difficult as possible for the other or both trying to get onto the other one's wheel, and ended up to close together.

My problem with your posts is the way you say that Haussler isn't contributing to what happened at all.

 

[Caruut]

Nominate a one trick pony riders?

Schelck - climbing mountains
Wiggins - riding at one speed for a really long time
Gilbert - attacking on the last climb
Cancellara - being ridiculously strong
Valverde - sprinting after climbing
Contador - being really good at climbing and TTs

 

[therhodeo]

Contador - being really good at climbing and TTs

Thats 2 tricks.

 

[happychappy]

Thats 2 tricks.

But he does both tricks in the same race!

 

[pmcg76]

Schelck - climbing mountains
Wiggins - riding at one speed for a really long time
Gilbert - attacking on the last climb
Cancellara - being ridiculously strong
Valverde - sprinting after climbing
Contador - being really good at climbing and TTs

Oh come on, seriously!!! I wouldnt put Cav anywhere near those other guys in terms of being a top cyclist.

Cavendish is a one trick pony because he can only win on one type of course, generally flat that ends in a sprint and which can be controlled by his team, i.e usually flat stages during a stage race.

 

[El Pistolero]

Schelck - climbing mountains
Wiggins - riding at one speed for a really long time
Gilbert - attacking on the last climb
Cancellara - being ridiculously strong
Valverde - sprinting after climbing
Contador - being really good at climbing and TTs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdbyv94L6fA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdpbroglYTw

 

[Caruut]

I thought listing two talents for Valverde and Contado and also the rolleyes were enough to make it clear that I wasn't really being serious.

Back in serious mode now, I think the one-trick-pony accusations are a tad harsh. Yes he is more specialised than most, but anyone who's going to win a one-day race has got to be the best in a group at something during that day.

 

[Caruut]

Oh come on, seriously!!! I wouldnt put Cav anywhere near those other guys in terms of being a top cyclist.

Cavendish is a one trick pony because he can only win on one type of course, generally flat that ends in a sprint and which can be controlled by his team, i.e usually flat stages during a stage race.

He can win if it ends in a sprint and he's there. The team just make sure it ends in a sprint. I think there's a chance he has more in his locker later in his career. I certainly hope so, 'cos it gets pretty tough trying to stick up for him.

 

[mb2612]

I thought listing two talents for Valverde and Contado and also the rolleyes were enough to make it clear that I wasn't really being serious.

Back in serious mode now, I think the one-trick-pony accusations are a tad harsh. Yes he is more specialised than most, but anyone who's going to win a one-day race has got to be the best in a group at something during that day.

I would say that he is clearly a one trick pony.

But as it's an amazing trick it doesn't matter so much.

 

[personal]

Bit rich to hate on him for condescension after that post, don't you think?

No, I don't.

 

[personal]

There's a clear shove from Haussler; maybe it was unintentional, but he leans very far over into Cavendish, knocking him over, which then causes Cav to take Haussler out. Cav hits the deck first, and you can see Haussler well over onto Cav's side when he does.

Why did I not say anything about that? Frankly, because chiming in and saying "I agree with that" is far less interesting than disagreeing with someone and debating it. In every one of my posts, I have stated that I think Cavendish is more to blame, if you want to make out that I'm calling him innocent and then attack that strawman, then that's your problem.

So, here goes - Cavendish moves over to the left, and Haussler moves over to the right a bit, but not by much either way. Looking at it, I think they were either both trying to make life as difficult as possible for the other or both trying to get onto the other one's wheel, and ended up to close together.

My problem with your posts is the way you say that Haussler isn't contributing to what happened at all.

Hausller leaned on Cav only when he felt that impact was coming. You know, like when rider beside you comes to contact and you (both) do that to avoid losing control and crashing.

Without Cav crossing Hausller's path and actually riding his front wheel under Hausller's there would be no crash, and slight Hausller's movement certainly woud not cause it. Therefore it is completely Cav's fault.

I find it quite unbeliveble that this is still matter of discussion because race jury penalized him for "changing his line, putting his colleagues in danger and causing an accident". Plus, next day riders staged a two-minute protest at the start of stage.

But, I guess, they are all wrong.

 

[Hawkwood]

Yeah I agree, that defense is ridiculous, he clearly says any nation.

And its not even the strongest team a nation can put together atm. I mean what will the Spanish team be for the worlds. Valverde? Contador? Samuel Sanchez? Joaquim Rodriguez? Moreno, Lulu, Freire, Rojas???

It reminds me of when someone said that Australias up and coming late 80's early 1990's kids will become the greatest generation in the history of cycling, forgetting that Pantani, Rebellin, Simoni, Bettini, Savoldeli, Simoni etc are all from the same era.

The journalist says that the article was based on two interviews, however it's written up as one conversation, so he cherry-picked the bits that he thought would make a story. The reality is we don't even know that Cav said that it will be the strongest team etc etc, and we certainly don't know whether Cav then went on to clarify this.

 

[hmsgenoa]

Hausller leaned on Cav only when he felt that impact was coming. You know, like when rider beside you comes to contact and you (both) do that to avoid losing control and crashing.

Without Cav crossing Hausller's path and actually riding his front wheel under Hausller's there would be no crash, and slight Hausller's movement certainly woud not cause it. Therefore it is completely Cav's fault.

I find it quite unbeliveble that this is still matter of discussion because race jury penalized him for "changing his line, putting his colleagues in danger and causing an accident". Plus, next day riders staged a two-minute protest at the start of stage.

But, I guess, they are all wrong.

It's a matter for discussion because someone brought it up on here and because there are still misconceptions about the accident.

If you had watched the link carefully, you'd have seen that Cavendish's wheel does not go under Hausslers until after the moment he has been barged and lost balance. Haussler didn't lean on Cav he shoulder barged him, bringing the lot of them down unnecessarily.

To say this accident is completely Cav's fault is wrong and was the reason I came on here to put matters straight - quite frankly while he is partially to blame, to say 'entirely to blame' is absolute claptrap. Watch again, closely.

Leaning on is a la Champs Elysees finish on 2003 Tour de France - you have to make a distinction between what is professional behaviour and what is unprofessional. Leaning on is acceptable, barging is not.

Judhing by the fact that nobody seems able to see what is clearly before them Specsavers will continue to make a killing. Either that or no one bothered to watch the links (to the incident & 2003 TDF finish) to see what I am talking about.

 

[hmsgenoa]

There's a clear shove from Haussler; maybe it was unintentional, but he leans very far over into Cavendish, knocking him over, which then causes Cav to take Haussler out. Cav hits the deck first, and you can see Haussler well over onto Cav's side when he does.

Why did I not say anything about that? Frankly, because chiming in and saying "I agree with that" is far less interesting than disagreeing with someone and debating it. In every one of my posts, I have stated that I think Cavendish is more to blame, if you want to make out that I'm calling him innocent and then attack that strawman, then that's your problem.

So, here goes - Cavendish moves over to the left, and Haussler moves over to the right a bit, but not by much either way. Looking at it, I think they were either both trying to make life as difficult as possible for the other or both trying to get onto the other one's wheel, and ended up to close together.

My problem with your posts is the way you say that Haussler isn't contributing to what happened at all.

Some common sense at last! My point precisely.

They pinned all the blame on Cav at the time without examining the available evidence properly and taking into account earlier switches that were so bad they could have all come down earlier.

@ Libertine Seguros - I have nevere stated Lions share of the blame but yes I agree with that - he should have. Simply because without that shove they might have stayed upright. With it - well you can see what happened.

 

[Catwhoorg]

The journalist says that the article was based on two interviews, however it's written up as one conversation, so he cherry-picked the bits that he thought would make a story. The reality is we don't even know that Cav said that it will be the strongest team etc etc, and we certainly don't know whether Cav then went on to clarify this.

Exactly, a 'home' journalist taking fragmented notes and putting together a response for the 'home' audience. I really doubt Cav thinks that the GB team is the best ever for any nation, but he does think its the best British team to grace the Olympics road race.

The loose verbage from the journalist is the issue.

 

[Caruut]

Hausller leaned on Cav only when he felt that impact was coming. You know, like when rider beside you comes to contact and you (both) do that to avoid losing control and crashing.

Without Cav crossing Hausller's path and actually riding his front wheel under Hausller's there would be no crash, and slight Hausller's movement certainly woud not cause it. Therefore it is completely Cav's fault.

I find it quite unbeliveble that this is still matter of discussion because race jury penalized him for "changing his line, putting his colleagues in danger and causing an accident". Plus, next day riders staged a two-minute protest at the start of stage.

But, I guess, they are all wrong.

Not sure that leading with an elbow into someone who can't see that you're doing it counts as a "lean". Even if you think it is, for leaning on each other to keep you upright, both parties have to do it - since Cav can't see the lean, how is he supposed to do it? If one leans, and the other does not, then the one who does not lean goes over.

Without Cav doing some things there would be no crash. But then there are hundreds of individual decisions that could have changed what happened that day. You choose your words carefully, characterising Haussler's move as slight. I don't think barging into someone like that is slight at all in that situation.

Maybe Cav's behaviour made it so that they were more than likely to go down. Haussler ensured that they did. Hence why I say Cav is more to blame, but Haussler is not innocent. Haussler is only not at all at fault if there was nothing he could have done to prevent it. That's simply not the case. Cavendish's wheel doesn't touch Haussler until Cav hits the deck.

Do you actually find it unbelievable that this is a matter of discussion? Since when did a race jury's finding mean that fans were going to say "Oh right, well that's fair enough then, case closed. I see it differently, but if the race jury says so, I shan't argue at all with them."?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Can you guys stop it now? Posters in CN forum hardly ever say that they were wrong so this will never end.

 

[personal]

Not sure that leading with an elbow into someone who can't see that you're doing it counts as a "lean". Even if you think it is, for leaning on each other to keep you upright, both parties have to do it - since Cav can't see the lean, how is he supposed to do it? If one leans, and the other does not, then the one who does not lean goes over.

Without Cav doing some things there would be no crash. But then there are hundreds of individual decisions that could have changed what happened that day. You choose your words carefully, characterising Haussler's move as slight. I don't think barging into someone like that is slight at all in that situation.

Maybe Cav's behaviour made it so that they were more than likely to go down. Haussler ensured that they did. Hence why I say Cav is more to blame, but Haussler is not innocent. Haussler is only not at all at fault if there was nothing he could have done to prevent it. That's simply not the case. Cavendish's wheel doesn't touch Haussler until Cav hits the deck.

Do you actually find it unbelievable that this is a matter of discussion? Since when did a race jury's finding mean that fans were going to say "Oh right, well that's fair enough then, case closed. I see it differently, but if the race jury says so, I shan't argue at all with them."?

Race jury penalized Cav for "changing his line, putting his colleagues in danger and causing an accident" and next day riders staged a two-minute protest at the start of stage. All of them people well informed, who saw it themselves, who watched replays carefuly and with pro rider experience.
And you think you know better?

 

[AussieGoddess]

The journalist says that the article was based on two interviews, however it's written up as one conversation, so he cherry-picked the bits that he thought would make a story. The reality is we don't even know that Cav said that it will be the strongest team etc etc, and we certainly don't know whether Cav then went on to clarify this.

isnt that the case with any interview?