The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Jasper said:Only a minor concussion. He must have a guardian angel when you come to think of it: his fall in the 2007 Amstel and still finishing 10th with only a broken rib, plunging into a gorge in the Tour without any damage or injury, and now this...
Dekker_Tifosi said:So you rather see a race where the big guns fire at 80km, and the last 35km are boring? (Tour of Flandres, Paris Roubaix)?
Well, personal opinion. I enjoyed this Amstel Gold Race. Always attacks from 70km on, the peloton never too far away, people falling off, 'big guns' who turned out to be too tired. Valverde cramping up, Rebellin losing. Sanchez dead. Love it.
Like Valverde said after the race "This is the hardest classic".
il_fiammingo said:What's the definition of "hard"?? What does Valverde know? He never did P-R or Flanders.
I did enjoy Flanders & PR much more. Boring? not at all: attacks of Pozzato on the Berendries (40k to go), Devolder on the Eykenmolen (20k) and the Muur (15k). In PR the drama can happen on every cobbled sector. But yesterday the most exciting moment until the finale was the crash of Schleck. That says it all.
I don't understand; all the ingredients are there: beautifull hills, a high quality peloton and lots of people. But the result is an artificial parcours of 3 loops, a ridiculous number of climbs of which some are done multiple times, a festival of traffic objects and dangerously parked cars and most of the time images shot from a motorcycle behind the riders.
I'm not saying they should go back to the parcours of the 90's, but please simplify because it robs the riders from any initiative.