• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Quickstep Double Standard?

Apr 10, 2017
1
0
0
Visit site
Following Gent-Wevelgem, where Niki Terpstra sat on Sagan's wheel and refused to work:
"Boonen later broke it down for reporters outside the Quick-Step bus. For the Belgian superstar, with only three races left on his calendar before retiring at Paris-Roubaix in two weeks’ time, the fault lies firmly with Sagan.
'When you’re the strongest and the world champion, you have to react,' Boonen told Het Nieuwsblad. 'If you’re Sagan, and you’re in that situation, you have to react … Niki [Terpstra] didn’t lose, Sagan is the one [who lost].'”

Following Paris-Roubaix, where Jon Degenkolb sat on Boonen's wheel and refused to work:
“'Some guys were always on my wheels…,' Boonen said with a shake of his head. 'I think that John Degenkolb did the most cowardly race by only focusing on me.'
Quick-Step team boss, Patrick Lefevere added, 'Some men rode like such little children that they could only lose.'”
 
Ask yourself: who had the most to lose? In the first example that is quite evident. Sagan lost a bigger opportunity than Terpstra (and QS) did. I think Terpstra's ride was dumber, but he didn't have as much to lose either.

In Roubaix on the other hand, it was more equal, but Trek lost more, I think.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
Visit site
Boonen would have been stupid to ride with Degenkolb on his wheel. And Sagan was dumb in G-W because even if Terpstra wheeksucks him all the way to the finish he'd still lose the sprint.

Although it's become clear now that he can't win a sprint against GVA after a really hard classic. GVA almost wins all his sprints in such races while Sagan has lost pretty much all of them. Not sure if you can train on that, but it's his main weakness at least.
 
It is quite funny what they were talking about especially after what Styby was doing in the finale. ( Let us not forget they were caught by 2 other chasers )

Can you imagine what would be in this forum if Sagan says something like this about Degenkolb after the race? :) Boonen was as equal pre-race favorite as Sagan was.

It´s not that QS has a double standard. We all have. :D

What is marvelous from Contador is stupid by Froome, what is smart by Kwiatko is wheel sucking by Gerro etc. :)

The worst thing is that this becoming the standard. All these excuses like "I had a sprinter in the second group" (no matter how shitty he is), "I have no sprint so I do not work at all". I can understand not doing exact amount of pulls but not doing single one or even intentionally opening the gaps is a different cup of coffee.

"The win justify the means" is the motto today at it will be worst and worst. And a lot of riders will get frustrated a lot of fans will be upset. We better start to get used to it.

I am glad that GVA won, but for one selfish moment, I was cheering for Moscone to win. This forum would have exploded and Belgium would start the war against GB and Czechia . :D
I still dream of the monument race where the first group of some favorites with the decisive advantage and not willing to cooperate with Sagan is caught by peloton but Sagan wins anyway with sprint.

I am pretty sure Sagan or his team will adapt. It will take some time, but he only can get stronger out of it.
 
What is the double standard?

Sagan let go the winning move without him nor any team mate in GW because he couldn't handle the dead weight of Terpstra.

Boonen had team mate Stybar attacking and thus didn't ride full with dangerous sprinter Degenkolb firmly on his wheel.
Degenkolb even refused to do much work after his team mate Stuyven got dropped.

And by the way, Stybar didn't ride because he was cramped. I want to see you riding full with team leader half a minute behind after Carrefour if you have cramps and ride with GvA.

Actually, all 3 (Terpstra, Sagan, Degenkolb) showed what the syndrome of stupid racing means.
In order of stupidity, I would rank them as this:
1. Sagan
2. Degenkolb
3. Terpstra
 
Re:

Volderke said:
What is the double standard?

Sagan let go the winning move without him nor any team mate in GW because he couldn't handle the dead weight of Terpstra.

Boonen had team mate Stybar attacking and thus didn't ride full with dangerous sprinter Degenkolb firmly on his wheel.
Degenkolb even refused to do much work after his team mate Stuyven got dropped.

And by the way, Stybar didn't ride because he was cramped. I want to see you riding full with team leader half a minute behind after Carrefour if you have cramps and ride with GvA.

Actually, all 3 (Terpstra, Sagan, Degenkolb) showed what the syndrome of stupid racing means.
In order of stupidity, I would rank them as this:
1. Sagan
2. Degenkolb
3. Terpstra

Ahaaa :surprised: Stybar was not smart nor trying to save the energy for the sprint. He was cramped.
Well. Now I understand :D

What about Degenkolb? Was not he cramped too? Probably Terpstra had cramps too. And I am sure Gerro is always cramped few kilometers before the line.


So we have general excuse now - CRAMPS
 
Probably Degenkolb was just not good enough to do more. But that would only change the ranking very slightly:
1. Sagan
2. Terpstra
3. Degenkolb

Still, while I thought it was a pretty dumb and lazy move from Terpstra not to just hang on GvA and Keukeleire, of the 3 riders mentioned above he is the only one without sprint, so the only one who didn't really loose much by not riding.
 
Re:

Volderke said:
Probably Degenkolb was just not good enough to do more. But that would only change the ranking very slightly:
1. Sagan
2. Terpstra
3. Degenkolb

Still, while I thought it was a pretty dumb and lazy move from Terpstra not to just hang on GvA and Keukeleire, of the 3 riders mentioned above he is the only one without sprint, so the only one who didn't really loose much by not riding.
He didn't lose much himself, but his team lost an anchor up ahead. Once he let go, while not going back to the bunch and pull, the duo up ahead were never to be caught by the bunch, so QS lost their best winning card.
 
Apr 1, 2013
426
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Volderke said:
Actually, all 3 (Terpstra, Sagan, Degenkolb) showed what the syndrome of stupid racing means.
In order of stupidity, I would rank them as this:
1. Sagan
2. Degenkolb
3. Terpstra

I do not think of any of those three being stupid .... even if a decision doesn't turn out the way it was intended, might make someone look stupid but perhaps not being stupid ....

what I think the tread is about is QS tasting their own medecine and not being able to cope with it .... remember it was indeed QS who openly admitted to race AGAINST Peter Sagan prior to RvV (seems Philippe Gilbert didn't care much about team tactics and when nobody could follow his pace on Kwaremont just decided to give it a try) .... now at Paris-Roubaix Tom Boonen was declared the first and foremost favorite, so it's somewhat natural (in QS standards) for other teams to race AGAINST him ... (actually from the bigger teams it was only Trek and to some lesser extend Katusha) ... and all over sudden they highly dislike such treatment ... so yes, there is some double standard there ....
(and I am certainly not taking any defense of John D and Trek - their racing is another issue though)
 
Double standards maybe.
But look at what is there to lose. GW or PR. PR has more prestige
Front group or 1st chasers. The guys in the 1st chasers have more onus to bring back the front group and Boonen was in that group
Sentimentality- Last Race for Boonen. What is the problem to work with him or to even let him go? there are many more PRs to wheelsuck
 
For me, stupid racing is not necessarily defensive racing, but intentional moves within a race that contribute significantly to losing the race.

I am actually very curious what would be considered the dumbest, intentional move, to not win a race.
Sagan's move comes pretty close. At the moment he did that, I felt like a lot of people that this was a good move to show how cool and relaxed Sagan is about losing a race and not always working for others, but now I feel more and more that this was just stupid, especially after he didn't win a monument this spring. He wouldn't have won with a 100% chance, though.

This guy on the other hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EaJMr26F5w

If I would have to make a list of dumb racing, Boonen could well be in the list for what he did in Omloop with Stannard, and for his 2010 Roubaix race...
 
Re: Re:

loge1884 said:
Volderke said:
Actually, all 3 (Terpstra, Sagan, Degenkolb) showed what the syndrome of stupid racing means.
In order of stupidity, I would rank them as this:
1. Sagan
2. Degenkolb
3. Terpstra

I do not think of any of those three being stupid .... even if a decision doesn't turn out the way it was intended, might make someone look stupid but perhaps not being stupid ....

what I think the tread is about is QS tasting their own medecine and not being able to cope with it .... remember it was indeed QS who openly admitted to race AGAINST Peter Sagan prior to RvV (seems Philippe Gilbert didn't care much about team tactics and when nobody could follow his pace on Kwaremont just decided to give it a try) .... now at Paris-Roubaix Tom Boonen was declared the first and foremost favorite, so it's somewhat natural (in QS standards) for other teams to race AGAINST him ... (actually from the bigger teams it was only Trek and to some lesser extend Katusha) ... and all over sudden they highly dislike such treatment ... so yes, there is some double standard there ....
(and I am certainly not taking any defense of John D and Trek - their racing is another issue though)
Spot on!