SHACK ATTACK: Radioshack fail dismally!

[flicker]

The Tour and the Giro are very different races. Between now and the Pyrenees we've got more than a week and a half of pretty much nothing. Cadel's team in this race will be more than enough to get him to the few important days at the end. Not that the slim advantage he has will be enough to get him ahead of Contador--but I'd be surprised if it wasn't enough to keep him on the podium.

Wow, it would be quite an accomplishment for Cadel to podium in this tour. I hope to see that.

 

[Cerberus]

TT is about CdA/power and climbing is about w/kg. Contador might have lower CdA than Armstrong so he doesn't have to put out as many watts as Armstrong to go as fast in the TT.

If they both have similar CdA, then AC will crush everyone in the mountains and have this Tour in the pocket. We will find that out on Sunday.

I'm not sure whether this is directed at me, but for the record I consider the fact that Contador almost matched Armstrong in the flat prologue a (further) indication that he'll smash him in the mountain.
ETA: The correlation I'm postulation comes from the fact that both climbing and the prologue (plus the longer TT late in the race) require "power". Climbing also requires low weight, while TT requires CdA, just as you say.

but watch out cerberus will twist and distort even this basic element to fit his crackpot theory that armstrong's 4th in the prologue indicates future climbing success. he will even try to arrange your quotes from the posts week apart so that it looks he won an argument on the rather idiotic assumption because he cant take the public embarrassment.

The public embarrassment of having said almost the exact opposite of what you're saying here only a week ago, except in much stronger terms than I did? You said the prologue could be "a huge statement about the podium in paris." I said that the prologue "indicates (but does not prove) ... form". I don't think I'm the one making "wild predictions. As for "arranging the quotes" nice try for a save, but anyone can click on the arrow on top of the quote and satisfy themselves that I'm not in any way quoting you out of context.

ETA: I'll even quote your entire post as a service for those who're interested. I left out the 2 last lines and bolded "huge statement". Not much "arranging" I would say.

the prologue with its flatness and long straight runs is the perfect course for watts over watts per kilo.

if 'watts per kilo' do very well in the race, they are making a huge statement about the podium in paris.

watts per kilo= jani brakovic, berto, ll, schlecks.

watts= all pure itters with canc being the absolute dominator.

 

[spanky wanderlust]

exactly. pretty much a known fact. and when you analyze the prologue results you'll see it was won by specialists. a climber like contador doing as well as he did should be feared by his competitors.

but watch out cerberus will twist and distort even this basic element to fit his crackpot theory that armstrong's 4th in the prologue indicates future climbing success. he will even try to arrange your quotes from the posts week apart so that it looks he won an argument on the rather idiotic assumption because he cant take the public embarrassment.

normally, a prologue tt can very strongly predict the form of the gc candidates. but it is not as simple as saying "fabian won the prologue, therefore i predict he will win the tour".

i mean, it is the "race against the truth" afterall, right?

if you subtract out the specialists. then, take the gc candidates. subtract out effective factors such as changes in weather, crashes, etc. this should give you a pretty good indication of the final podium. if you use proper judgement.

proper judgement is the key phrase here. nobody thought that christophe moreau was a serious gc threat when he edged lance in a short prologue. but it was pretty obvious who was going to win the tour when lance shot past ulle in a prologue a few years later.

this tour is a little different from previous years, for reasons i can only post in the clinic. plus the weather changes throughout the day. you really have to throw the prologue out as an indicator this year.

 

[python]

i can now perfectly see the methods how you try to save your face after making idiotic statement ('flat prologue indicates armstrong's strong climbing') by taking others general statements out of context (w/kg doing well in the flat prologue= a climber doing well in the prologue) and cutting their words to fit your crackpot theories.

a rather good indication of being desperate and being embarrassed.

 

[Cerberus]

normally, a prologue tt can very strongly predict the form of the gc candidates. but it is not as simple as saying "fabian won the prologue, therefore i predict he will win the tour".

i mean, it is the "race against the truth" afterall, right?

if you subtract out the specialists. then, take the gc candidates. subtract out effective factors such as changes in weather, crashes, etc. this should give you a pretty good indication of the final podium. if you use proper judgement.

proper judgement is the key phrase here. nobody thought that christophe moreau was a serious gc threat when he edged lance in a short prologue. but it was pretty obvious who was going to win the tour when lance shot past ulle in a prologue a few years later.

Thanks that's pretty much what I'm saying. Obviously we'll have a much better indication of how the Tour is going after the first real mountains, but it's not very impressive to go "hmm, Contador's climbing is really strong this year" right after he's put 5 minutes into all his competitors on a 3 km climb.

this tour is a little different from previous years, for reasons i can only post in the clinic. plus the weather changes throughout the day. you really have to throw the prologue out as an indicator this year.

Did the weather really improve that much for the late riders? Also do you recall when it started clearing up? Obviously you're correct in your implication that riding on a dry road isn't a strong indicator of anything.

 

[Cerberus]

i can now perfectly see the methods how you try to save your face after making idiotic statement ('flat prologue indicates armstrong's strong climbing') by taking others general statements out of context (w/kg doing well in the flat prologue= a climber doing well in the prologue) and cutting their words to fit your crackpot theories.

a rather good indication of being desperate and being embarrassed.

You realize that repeating you lie that I'm quoting you out of context doesn't magically make it true don't you? As I said before anyone who wants can push the helpful little arrow beside your name in the top of the quote box and get all the context they want. It doesn't change what you said.

 

[python]

normally, a prologue tt can very strongly predict the form of the gc candidates. but it is not as simple as saying "fabian won the prologue, therefore i predict he will win the tour".

agreed. predicting outcomes, particularly those in a 3-week long gt, is very tricky. a flat, uncomplicated, short itt ridden all out is certainly one of the valid indications of a rider’s fitness. but it should be applied carefully (considerations of weather, motivation, luck, leader/domestique etc). that’s why when we see a slim climber doing well on an uncharacteristic (for him) terrain it’s something to watch for. the opposite statement however, (‘a hefty rider doing well in a flat itt points to great performance in high mountains‘) is seldom an indicator to run with b/c as experience shows larger riders are somewhat better suited to flat-terrain efforts and it’s expected. hence the fallacy of Cerberus’s prediction about Armstrong future climbing from a 10 minute flat prologue.

my post (made well before the prologue’s start) about watts/kg vs. watts was intended as you put it ‘to subtract the specialists’ and watch out for the gc candidates with the known propensity for climbing (berto, schlecks etc)

if you subtract out the specialists. then, take the gc candidates. subtract out effective factors such as changes in weather, crashes, etc. this should give you a pretty good indication of the final podium. if you use proper judgement.

agreed again except we need to stress that a prologue could be a good indication of the potential for podium. iow, the prologue can reveal the form with which the riders start the tour given &#8216]this tour is a little different from previous years, for reasons i can only post in the clinic. plus the weather changes throughout the day. you really have to throw the prologue out as an indicator this year.[/QUOTE]
true it was different this year for ’clinical’ and other reasons. weather was also inconsistent. the riders willingness to take/not to take the risk was a definite factor in the outcome. but i would not throw out/away the prologue results as worthless... we saw improving Armstrong, we saw excellent berto, we saw disappointing wiggins, we saw chicken menchov, we saw improved frank schlock, we saw solid evans…some preliminary conclusions could be drawn.

one conclusion that seems a stretch - armstrong' climbing power was revealed - would be the wrong one to draw.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Gert Steegmans visited the RadioShack teambus today and reports tension an hour before todays stage in the team bus was surprisingly high. He didn't know the details (or didn't want to tell it).

But I thought you might want to know to laugh some more at Lance

yeah whatever mate, move on

 

[Cerberus]

agreed. predicting outcomes, particularly those in a 3-week long gt, is very tricky. a flat, uncomplicated, short itt ridden all out is certainly one of the valid indications of a rider’s fitness. but it should be applied carefully (considerations of weather, motivation, luck, leader/domestique etc). that’s why when we see a slim climber doing well on an uncharacteristic (for him) terrain it’s something to watch for. the opposite statement however, (‘a hefty rider doing well in a flat itt points to great performance in high mountains‘) is seldom an indicator to run with b/c as experience shows larger riders are somewhat better suited to flat-terrain efforts and it’s expected. hence the fallacy of Cerberus’s prediction about Armstrong future climbing from a 10 minute flat prologue.

my post (made well before the prologue’s start) about watts/kg vs. watts was intended as you put it ‘to subtract the specialists’ and watch out for the gc candidates with the known propensity for climbing (berto, schlecks etc)
agreed again except we need to stress that a prologue could be a good indication of the potential for podium. iow, the prologue can reveal the form with which the riders start the tour given ‘average’ luck for the next 3 weeks. but again, a flat prologue will tell little about anyone’s climbing in 2 weeks except that a 60 kg climber’s form after a successful flat prologue is a weightier factor than a 73 kg rider’s form after equally successful flat prologue. hence again, the fallacy of cerberus' argument vs. mine.

Except that Armstrong beat every GC contender in that prologue, including those like Wiggins who are just as heavy and arguably far more of a prologue specialist than Armstrong. If prologue performance is an indicator of form for climbing specialized GC contenders then it must logically also be an indicator for TT specialized GC contenders, even if the bar is higher. I expected a worse performance from Armstrong than the one he delivered and therefore I'm re-evaluating my prior beliefs about his podium chances. It's a simple straightforward argument and I honestly have no clue what you beef is is unless you just saw me saying something positive about Armstrong and decided to contradict me on general principle.

true it was different this year for ’clinical’ and other reasons. weather was also inconsistent. the riders willingness to take/not to take the risk was a definite factor in the outcome. but i would not throw out/away the prologue results as worthless... we saw improving Armstrong, we saw excellent berto, we saw disappointing wiggins, we saw chicken menchov, we saw improved frank schlock, we saw solid evans…some preliminary conclusions could be drawn.

And I'm drawing preliminary conclusions. Are you listening to yourself?

one conclusion that seems a stretch - armstrong' climbing power was revealed - would be the wrong one to draw.

I never, ever said that, I said we saw an indicator. Don't you know what the word "indicator" means? It's not "proof positive, all debate is ended now, Armstrong will win the Tour because of his 5 second advantage over Contador in the Prologue". I'll remind you of what I said:

That being said we clearly don't have a clear indication of his climbing ability since the only selective stages we've seen have been the cobbles and the prologue. Out of those two I think that the prologue is a much better indication of climbing ability, so I think he is likely, but not certain to climb a bit better than last year.

Where are you getting anything except a very preliminary preliminary conclusion from?

 

[python]

you can keep posting away to mask your incompetence ('armstrong's flat prologue is an indication of his future climbing') or to mask your manipulative misapplication of others quotes about simple issues you seem to struggle with and intended to 'win an argument' - it wont make a difference.

you only making yourself more publicly embarrassed and revealing you inability to accept being wrong.

i repeat flat prologues dont indicate squat about high mountains. even if it's armstrong.

caught, exposed, embarrassed.

swallow it and go on.

 

[Cerberus]

you can keep posting away to mask your incompetence ('armstrong's flat prologue is an indication of his future climbing') or to mask your manipulative misapplication of others quotes about simple issues you seem to struggle with and intended to 'win an argument' - it wont make a difference.

you only making yourself more publicly embarrassed and revealing you inability to accept being wrong.

i repeat flat prologues dont indicate squat about high mountains. even if it's armstrong.

caught, exposed, embarrassed.

swallow it and go on.

And I repeat you're being blatantly hypocritical and the quotes are there for all to see. You said the prologue indicates podium chances, I agree, you just don't like the logic applied to Armstrong. There's a reason one of us can back up everything he says with quotes and another one of us cannot.

 

[python]

and you are being being blatantly dishonest, manipulative and foolish if you think that cutting and parsing quotes or dropping context isn't obvious.

anyone who is interested in my position will read my response to spanky wonderlust. you are discredited in my eyes by making stupid statement and then trying to backpedal when caught and exposed.

again, it is stupid and unsjustified to extrapolate high mountains performance from a flat prologue (your position about armstrong). It is reasonable to watch out for successful flat prologue performances by climbers (my consistent position) and attempt to evaluate their chances.

if the difference is not obvious, i'm afraid your intellectual capacity or your knowledge base need help.

 

[Cerberus]

and you are being being blatantly dishonest, manipulative and foolish if you think that cutting and parsing quotes or dropping context isn't obvious.

And I repeat lying about some magical context that changes what you just said, is obvious and easilly found out by anyong clicking on the helpful arrow.

anyone who is interested in my position will read my response to spanky wonderlust. you are discredited in my eyes by making stupid statement and then trying to backpedal when caught and exposed.

My position has been 100% consistent throughout this, the closest thing to backpedaling I've done is agreeing with Publicus and spanky wanderlust that if the weather was better doing Armstrongs ride it changes things somewhat. Changing you position to reflect new fact is however what rational people do, you should try it sometime.

again, it is stupid and unsjustified to extrapolate high mountains performance from a flat prologue (your position about armstrong). It is reasonable to watch out for successful flat prologue performances by climbers (my consistent position) and attempt to evaluate their chances.

Speaking of you post to Spanky wanderlust was that the one where you said that "we saw improving Armstrong […] some preliminary conclusions could be drawn."? I'd ask you to explain what preliminary conclusion could be drawn, but I suspect that you'd rather keep lying about "context".

Actually I'll help you out, you could claim you simply meant that he was likely to do better in the longer TT, that would be consistent. It would however miss the point that for the same GC contender there is most often a correlation between TT performance and climbing performance. Witness for example the relatively strong TTs by Sastre, the Chicken and Pantani the years they won (or in the case of the Chicken almost won) the Tour, or in the case of non-climber witness the dramatic and simultaneous improvement in Armstrong's climbing and TTs, almost like there was a common factor (let us call this mysterious common factor "power" or "form") that increases your performance in both.

 

[python]

very interesting.

the one who is lying about the context is you. you also seem to underestimate the discussants ability to see through your falsehoods.

you pulled out my post from a week ago that was made prior to the prologue's start, cut the words out ( so that it would seem to fit your argument) and inserted it in the general response to my post that challenged your incompetent projections about the prologue.

now that you failed and were exposed, in stead of admitting the spaciousness of your argument ('armstrong flat prologue is indicative of his future climbing), you drag the thread into gutter by being obtuse and manipulative and by attempting to misrepresent my position or equate it to your lack of knowledge.

and now , that it's obvious, you use a knew strawman asking yourself questions, answering your own questions and claiming you helped me

you look more and more like a sad case.


but i will keep exposing you as long as the mods allow it.

 

[Cerberus]

very interesting.

the one who is lying about the context is you. you also seem to underestimate the discussants ability to see through your falsehoods.

you pulled out my post from a week ago that was made prior to the prologue's start, cut the words out ( so that it would seem to fit your argument) and inserted it in the general response to my post that challenged your incompetent projections about the prologue.

now that you failed and were exposed, in stead of admitting the spaciousness of your argument ('armstrong flat prologue is indicative of his future climbing), you drag the thread into gutter by being obtuse and manipulative and by attempting to misrepresent my position or equate it to your lack of knowledge.

and now , that it's obvious, you use a knew strawman asking yourself questions, answering your own questions and claiming you helped me

you look more and more like a sad case.


but i will keep exposing you as long as the mods allow it.

You're comedy gold, you really are.

I suppose the fact that reposted you entire reply the second you brought up "context" and that I keep suggesting that people follow the helpful arrow to check all the context for themselves is only proof of how nefarious my plot is. I'm like an evil genius!

I don't suppose you'd like to give you own answer to my question to contrast with my "strawman"? (I don't think you know what that word means BTW)

 

[python]

you are a study case in back fitting

i suggest that after being challenged and exposed about manipulating someone's words and quotes, going back and editing an obvious attempt at manipulation, is all the proof that's needed.

you are a sad case indeed.

 

[Cerberus]

you are a study case in back fitting

i suggest that after being challenged and exposed about manipulating someone's words and quotes, going back and editing an obvious attempt at manipulation, is all the proof that's needed.

I don't suppose there's any chance of you spelling out exactly what I'm supposed to have edited? My words? Your words? The exact post?

 

[python]

just another attempt at masking a lie and misdirection.

i simply pointed to a spacious argument -- projecting armstrong's climbing ability from a flat short prologue is unjustified if not stupid. that exposre obviously penetrated a very thin skin and now we're dealing with all this

all post and records are there. if you edit them after being accused of manipulation, that's also there. and if you ask, if you changed my posts, that's another indication of a sad case.

 

[Cerberus]

I don't suppose there's any chance of you spelling out exactly what I'm supposed to have edited? My words? Your words? The exact post?

all post and records are there. if you edit them after being accused of manipulation, that's also there. and if you ask, if you changed my posts, that's another indication of a sad case.

So that's a no then? Am I suppose to guess? Is it
A)The first post in the discussion posted at yesterday 19:19 (page 31) edited at 19:22. before anyone had replied? (probably to correct spelling errors or similar, though I don't recall).
B) the one on page 33 written Yesterday, 20:52 edited Yesterday at 20:58. after you'd replied to a different post but before Publicus who it was addresed to replied to it? (again most likely spelling, typos or grammar)
C) The one on page 40 written Today, 06:36 edited a whopping 11 minutes later at Today at 06:47 (though still before any replies were made). Which actually included significant additions, helpfully marked ETA (meaning edited to add) so that anyone could see that these changes were the results of edits?
Or perhaps it was:
D) I noticed that a lot of you post contained edits and immediately grasped at that slender straw without considering that "all post and records are there" and as such anyone can see that they were edited long before any accusation were made just like they can see that all you posts were quoted accurately.

Come on don't keep us in suspense, you could even pick one of my other posts that contains edits, usually within a few minutes and usually to correct minor language issue and make the case for what dark secrets the post contained before it was edited.

I know better than to expect an honest answer of cause, but I just thought I'd demonstrate you dishonesty once again for anyone to see.

ETA: (note the helpful identification of a meaningful addition by the acronym "ETA") You could of cause spoil my masterful schemes to edit my post in response to accusations that haven't been made yet (though I do wonder why I don't use my precognitive powers to win million in lotto) by actually quoting my posts, but I suppose that makes dodging to point I make harder.

 

[python]

once again, what an interesting case of thin skin hurt-ego- driven overreaction, accusations... all in response to my simple commentary to a very spacious argument:

projecting armstrong's flat prologue performance into successful high mountains performance makes little sense.


instead of accepting the simple fact, yes it is a huge stretch, we get a string of counter accusations.

when simply pointed to the existing record of misquotes, manipulation of words, out of context statements, plain mistakes, you get a childish analysis 'it's you'.
we even got an analysis of posts that have nothing, zero to do with the suject.

again, all due to an inability of facing an argument with an open mind and being called for a rather foolish argument.

a sad case indeed.

to get back on subject, armstrong prologue performance has little to do with the shack attack. it only indicates an improvement in his form based on what we have seen so far. claiming it can be projected to high mountains is well, almost stupid.

and if you need me to repeat it, i will.

 

[Cerberus]

Thank you for acknowledging, by you evasion of the subject, that you were lying about me editing anything to counter later allegation.

 

[python]

you can thank yourself all you want, you can even answer your own questions and claim you 'helped me D) but as i said before, i have little intention to merit your worthless statements because your dishonesty and your attempts to cover up via counter accusations a rather simple own mishap about armstrong prologue performance is on record here.

 

[Cerberus]

you can thank yourself all you want, you can even answer your own questions and claim you 'helped me D) but as i said before, i have little intention to merit your worthless statements because your dishonesty and your attempts to cover up via counter accusations a rather simple own mishap about armstrong prologue performance is on record here.

In the interest of saving time I'll just take this discussion to it's logical conclusion, I'll even let you get the last word in the projection of further debate you see below, unfortunatly I don't know how to make a "to be posted by" quote box so:

You're lying!

No, You're lying!

Did, not!

Did to!

Did, not!

Did to!

Did, not!

Did to!

Did, not!

Did to!

Did, not!

Did to!

Did, not!

Did to!

Did, not!

 

[python]

what you failed to realize is that occasionally you run into a poster who has the sense of of what was the main point of the discussion, and who is not willing to be derailed by the childish 'you too'.

i care little about your accusations but i will repeat, armstrong's performance in the flat prologue is a poor indicator of his future climbing. if you hope to detract anyone from the rather stupid assumptions it's not so, you failed.

 

[auscyclefan94]

i care little about your accusations but i will repeat, armstrong's performance in the flat prologue is a poor indicator of his future climbing. if you hope to detract anyone from the rather stupid assumptions it's not so, you failed.

+1
Tyler Farrar top 10'd in the prologue so I guess that means he will be riding away from Alberto Contador on the climbs.