• 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!

Teams & Riders Sepp Kuss is the next Sepp Kuss thread

Page 43 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Lol do you really think they thought Sepp Kuss in his 3rd GT would be beating Ayuso and Evenepoel?

Probably they thought they might 1-2, and in a 1-2 Roglic and Vingegaard fighting each other would have been able to happen.
I didn't say that though did I. I said they underestimated both riders, which they 100% did, nor did they prepare for how to deal with the fault out of their multiple leader situation.

As @jmdirt already indicated, it can be understood as to why they did not expect that Sepp would perform the way he did. But Vigo, c'mon. And how to deal with the situation 🤔
 
They said from day one that “the road would decide” between Vinge and Rog. Not sure when Kuss got pulled in, but seems like Rog always thought there was a possibility. But multiple sources have said they decided explicitly to race Angliru and see how it shook out. Kuss kept the red jersey, and they decided that night to ride for Kuss. Vinge said he’d have preferred to ride for Kuss after the second race day but since Vinge and Kuss were going to race, he did as well. Confirms some theories. Pet all sources, j clueing the man himself, Rog helped Kuss, advised Kuss, is happy for Kuss, but also disappointed for himself. Maybe I’m an idiot but I believe all of the above, and don’t see anything wrong with it.
there was zero need to attack Kuss on the angliru, or even to “race” it at all. I think it was just Roglic trying to get back at Vingegaard for leapfrogging him on the podium. Roglic should have led Kuss to the finish and then stomped Landa. Everyone would have been reasonably happy with that outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
there was zero need to attack Kuss on the angliru, or even to “race” it at all. I think it was just Roglic trying to get back at Vingegaard for leapfrogging him on the podium. Roglic should have led Kuss to the finish and then stomped Landa. Everyone would have been reasonably happy with that outcome.
He was showing his strength to the world but more importantly (for his 2024 program) to his team.
 
He was showing his strength to the world but more importantly (for his 2024 program) to his team.
They know how strong he is by now. What did he prove? That he can't drop Vingegaard, who nose-breathed up the Angliru while Roglic was huffing and puffing? That he can drop Kuss at the end of his third GT of the season? That left a sour taste in my mouth and I think Roglic has some fence-mending to do.
 
I didn't say that though did I. I said they underestimated both riders, which they 100% did, nor did they prepare for how to deal with the fault out of their multiple leader situation.

As @jmdirt already indicated, it can be understood as to why they did not expect that Sepp would perform the way he did. But Vigo, c'mon. And how to deal with the situation 🤔
I can't stand cycling today, where domestiques are allowed to go into breaks and leaders are made into domestiques. Well at least after this charade is done, everybody will go back to their natural roles. And what a disgrace to the Vuelta, not having the two strongest be allowed to fight for victory, since they have to support a weaker rider who only took the lead because he was allowed in a break working for them. I can't even quantify the perversion of it all! And what the hell is Vingegaard saying? He likes riding with clipped wings? At least Roglic has the sense to admit nothing. Bring back Bernard Hinault, bring back Stephen Roche!
 
They know how strong he is by now. What did he prove? That he can't drop Vingegaard, who nose-breathed up the Angliru while Roglic was huffing and puffing? That he can drop Kuss at the end of his third GT of the season? That left a sour taste in my mouth and I think Roglic has some fence-mending to do.
Uh, it was as agreed upon between them beforehand. Why shouldn't he race Angliru when that was the plan of the team?
 
I can't stand cycling today, where domestiques are allowed to go into breaks and leaders are made into domestiques. Well at least after this charade is done, everybody will go back to their natural roles.

Personally, I think it's one of the best things about cycling today; that it's not so damned hierachial!
And what do you mean by "natural roles"? Riders aren't magically told "You will be a leader", or "You will be a domestique" when they sign their first contract.
Vingegaard was a domestique... until he wasn't. And now he is again, for a little while.
Kuss has been a domestique... until now, where he isn't.
Roles change and shift all the time.
 
Personally, I think it's one of the best things about cycling today; that it's not so damned hierachial!
And what do you mean by "natural roles"? Riders aren't magically told "You will be a leader", or "You will be a domestique" when they sign their first contract.
Vingegaard was a domestique... until he wasn't. And now he is again, for a little while.
Kuss has been a domestique... until now, where he isn't.
Roles change and shift all the time.
It is a question of class and bring back the days of hiearchy! At least we watched racing! And what's with all thus warm and fuzzy stuff on the team bus? It's about knives.
 
Last edited:
It is a question of class and bring back the days of hiearchy! At least we watched racing! And what's with all thus warm and fuzzy stuff on the team bus? It's about knives.

No, don't bring back the dark days of hierarchy!
You're saying that a rider who has the legs to go into the break shouldn't be allowed to do so, simply because "He's a domestique", how is that racing?
Besides, domestiques getting a good GC position because of a break is not a new concept. I do remember how, back in the 2010 Giro, Arroyo got on the podium because of a break. Porte did pretty well too.
Kuss got the jersey, and then he was able - and allowed, I suppose you think he should have been told to drop a lot of time as quickly as possible to re-establish the "oh-so-wonderful" hierarchy - to defend the jersey.
Meanwhile, Roglic and Vingegaard are showing a lot of class by being willing to allow Kuss to have his big moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
No, don't bring back the dark days of hierarchy!
You're saying that a rider who has the legs to go into the break shouldn't be allowed to do so, simply because "He's a domestique", how is that racing?
Besides, domestiques getting a good GC position because of a break is not a new concept. I do remember how, back in the 2010 Giro, Arroyo got on the podium because of a break. Porte did pretty well too.
Kuss got the jersey, and then he was able - and allowed, I suppose you think he should have been told to drop a lot of time as quickly as possible to re-establish the "oh-so-wonderful" hierarchy - to defend the jersey.
Meanwhile, Roglic and Vingegaard are showing a lot of class by being willing to allow Kuss to have his big moment.
Whatever, I'm saying leaders who can win the race should be allowed to go for it, but poltical and economic considerations have castrated the spectacle and falsified the results. Yes, bring back the days of hiearchy! End this hypocrisy that's ruining the sport!
 
Whatever, I'm saying leaders who can win the race should be allowed to go for it, but poltical and economic considerations have castrated the spectacle and falsified the results. Yes, bring back the days of hiearchy! End this hypocrisy that's ruining the sport!

What if a domestique is stronger than the leader? Surely he should be allowed to go for it too... otherwise, wouldn't it be castrating the spectacle and falsifying the result?
Kuss may not be the strongest in the race, but he has earned his right to have a shot.

But you know what? I can't take someone who talks about how "amaaaaaaazing" the 80s and 90s were too seriously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Oh Muricans... it's to thee that Robert Gesink has so wisely spoken.

“We went into this race with a clear two captain situation and Sepp did a great job with our tactical plan, which we made ourselves," Gesink said. "That put him in this position in the first place, now it’s a bit easy to complain about our tactical plans once Sepp has red after getting red because of our tactics. It’s a circle."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
What if a domestique is stronger than the leader? Surely he should be allowed to go for it too... otherwise, wouldn't it be castrating the spectacle and falsifying the result?
Kuss may not be the strongest in the race, but he has earned his right to have a shot.

But you know what? I can't take someone who talks about how "amaaaaaaazing" the 80s and 90s were too seriously.
May I suggest that you illustrate your point with an example? The 2011 Vuelta. Froome was a dom, Wiggins was the captain. Does @Extinction think that Froome's role in that race was the best use of his abilities? Should he have stayed with Wiggins on Angliru?
 
What if a domestique is stronger than the leader? Surely he should be allowed to go for it too... otherwise, wouldn't it be castrating the spectacle and falsifying the result?
Kuss may not be the strongest in the race, but he has earned his right to have a shot.

But you know what? I can't take someone who talks about how "amaaaaaaazing" the 80s and 90s were too seriously.
Moot point, as Kuss isn't stronger than Vingeggard and Roglic. What you refer to is Lemond in the 85 Tour and we know how that ended! Right, he earned the right to have a shot, but that shouldn't be at the expense of those two in having their shot until the bitter end and may the best man win (so long as Jumbo wins, which was never under threat - to the contrary, they shall sweep the podium)!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rackham
What you refer to is Lemond in the 85 Tour and we know how that ended!

No I wasn't, and no I don't. It was three years before I was even born...
But surely there have been cases where a stronger rider wasn't allowed to ride his own chance, because someone else was higher in the hierarchy.
Jumbo decided, over the course of the race, that Kuss is higher in the hierarchy than Roglic and Vingegaard.
 
I don't trust ex post facto PR statements, and even if it was the plan, it should have been called off when it was apparent that they were the three strongest riders.
Well, I don't think it's necessarily that the plan should have been called off, but that the plan should have been consistent. If they went with that plan, then the change of plan came too late. I think a lot of the problem has come out of that flip-flopping rather than what the plan actually was. If they'd turned around and said, we came in with 2 leaders and we're letting the road decide, now because of circumstances Sepp has the red jersey meaning the road has decided in favour of him, and we support him unless he cracks... then that would be fine. The racing might have been tame, but the team would be clear on it: they prioritised the rider best placed on the road.

However, if they were of the opinion that now the top 3 was virtually assured, they were happy for the team to duke it out on the road, then they shot themselves in the foot by then panicking as soon as they realised that Kuss was as popular as he has somehow become, and changing the plan, leading to a very transparently artificial conclusion with everybody involved looking miserable.

Going with "we'll decide on the road" until it became bad PR and then caving in to social media demands gave them the worst outcome. It makes Sepp look like a lame duck champion who would never have won without team orders; it makes Rogla and Jonas look like unruly children who won't follow orders bickering amongst themselves, and then too weak to assert themselves when the team changes its mind; and it makes the team either too weak to control its leaders if they went against orders; or too weak to stand up for itself against negative comments, and easily manipulated by social media, if they didn't.

So now the race leader has been shown up that the lead could have been taken off him anytime in week 3, showcasing that he only wins because social media would be upset if the team didn't let him; the best and second best riders in the race are both mad at each other and possibly with the team (and quite likely the presence of Kuss as a neutral third option is the only thing that's prevented this becoming a Roche-Visentini or Olano-Jiménez breakdown), and the team has somehow contrived to win 5 mountain stages, lock out the podium of the GC of a Grand Tour, and still manage to look bad in the process.

It's like, if they can't do the Rabofail on the bike, they have to find another way :laughing:
 
Well, I don't think it's necessarily that the plan should have been called off, but that the plan should have been consistent. If they went with that plan, then the change of plan came too late. I think a lot of the problem has come out of that flip-flopping rather than what the plan actually was. If they'd turned around and said, we came in with 2 leaders and we're letting the road decide, now because of circumstances Sepp has the red jersey meaning the road has decided in favour of him, and we support him unless he cracks... then that would be fine. The racing might have been tame, but the team would be clear on it: they prioritised the rider best placed on the road.

However, if they were of the opinion that now the top 3 was virtually assured, they were happy for the team to duke it out on the road, then they shot themselves in the foot by then panicking as soon as they realised that Kuss was as popular as he has somehow become, and changing the plan, leading to a very transparently artificial conclusion with everybody involved looking miserable.

Going with "we'll decide on the road" until it became bad PR and then caving in to social media demands gave them the worst outcome. It makes Sepp look like a lame duck champion who would never have won without team orders; it makes Rogla and Jonas look like unruly children who won't follow orders bickering amongst themselves, and then too weak to assert themselves when the team changes its mind; and it makes the team either too weak to control its leaders if they went against orders; or too weak to stand up for itself against negative comments, and easily manipulated by social media, if they didn't.

So now the race leader has been shown up that the lead could have been taken off him anytime in week 3, showcasing that he only wins because social media would be upset if the team didn't let him; the best and second best riders in the race are both mad at each other and possibly with the team (and quite likely the presence of Kuss as a neutral third option is the only thing that's prevented this becoming a Roche-Visentini or Olano-Jiménez breakdown), and the team has somehow contrived to win 5 mountain stages, lock out the podium of the GC of a Grand Tour, and still manage to look bad in the process.

It's like, if they can't do the Rabofail on the bike, they have to find another way :laughing:
I think your comment illustrates that they could never have made the right choice. Because you could have written an equally longish, "oh look it's Rabofail again" post if they had chosen to kill the race after Tourmalet. "See, they don't dare to challenge America's favourite son Sepp Kuss", "see, they're just the new Team Sky, riding like a boring procession on every mountain stage", "see, Roglic/Vingegaard (pick your rider of choice) has to leave because he'll never get his chances on this team".

That's just how it goes if you're the best team, by far, and there's nobody else to write about. Who gives a f.ck about Bahrain intra-team dynamics?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
I think your comment illustrates that they could never have made the right choice. Because you could have written an equally longish, "oh look it's Rabofail again" post if they had chosen to kill the race after Tourmalet. "See, they don't dare to challenge America's favourite son Sepp Kuss", "see, they're just the new Team Sky, riding like a boring procession on every mountain stage", "see, Roglic/Vingegaard (pick your rider of choice) has to leave because he'll never get his chances on this team".

That's just how it goes if you're the best team, by far, and there's nobody else to write about. Who gives a f.ck about Bahrain intra-team dynamics?
Sure, but that's the product of them being as strong as they are. The only drama in the race is what's going on in their team meeting, so more attention is paid to that because there's sure as hell no intrigue left on the bike in this race except for the relations between the three Jumbo riders. No choice would have satisfied everybody, but by flip-flopping around their decisions, they've managed to find a solution that makes everybody look bad.
 
Well, I don't think it's necessarily that the plan should have been called off, but that the plan should have been consistent. If they went with that plan, then the change of plan came too late. I think a lot of the problem has come out of that flip-flopping rather than what the plan actually was. If they'd turned around and said, we came in with 2 leaders and we're letting the road decide, now because of circumstances Sepp has the red jersey meaning the road has decided in favour of him, and we support him unless he cracks... then that would be fine. The racing might have been tame, but the team would be clear on it: they prioritised the rider best placed on the road.

However, if they were of the opinion that now the top 3 was virtually assured, they were happy for the team to duke it out on the road, then they shot themselves in the foot by then panicking as soon as they realised that Kuss was as popular as he has somehow become, and changing the plan, leading to a very transparently artificial conclusion with everybody involved looking miserable.

Going with "we'll decide on the road" until it became bad PR and then caving in to social media demands gave them the worst outcome. It makes Sepp look like a lame duck champion who would never have won without team orders; it makes Rogla and Jonas look like unruly children who won't follow orders bickering amongst themselves, and then too weak to assert themselves when the team changes its mind; and it makes the team either too weak to control its leaders if they went against orders; or too weak to stand up for itself against negative comments, and easily manipulated by social media, if they didn't.

So now the race leader has been shown up that the lead could have been taken off him anytime in week 3, showcasing that he only wins because social media would be upset if the team didn't let him; the best and second best riders in the race are both mad at each other and possibly with the team (and quite likely the presence of Kuss as a neutral third option is the only thing that's prevented this becoming a Roche-Visentini or Olano-Jiménez breakdown), and the team has somehow contrived to win 5 mountain stages, lock out the podium of the GC of a Grand Tour, and still manage to look bad in the process.

It's like, if they can't do the Rabofail on the bike, they have to find another way :laughing:
Another scenario, which I think Is the more likely one, is that higher powers determined Kuss must win, because of the lucrative opportunity greater exposure to the rich US market provides. Either from sponsorship or governance pressure or both, Jumbo-Visma had to call off the racing in favor of a greater scheme, thus prioritizing the colossal business interests over the human aspect of sport. It's to be expected, mind you, but it doesn't make the miserable outcome any less scandalous!
 
Last edited:

TRENDING THREADS