SHACK ATTACK: Radioshack fail dismally!

[flicker]

Watched Lance on tour tracker minute 61 stage4. He and Kloeden having a good laugh.

 

[python]

Which still had him leaving Wiggo when he wanted to.

and it remains to be seen he'll drop wiggins this year plus basso, evans and menchov to add just a few.

 

[Dedelou]

What was up with Vino leaving AC at the end of today's stage? You'd think he would stay with his Captain but he took off looking like he wanted to gain time on his own teammate.

Will Vino actually work for AC or will he break the promise and go for his own glory?

(shttt.. don't tell anybody I told you so. (whispering : vino and Contador are going for 2 and I in Paris. shttt)

 

[woodburn]

Delgado in 1989
LeMond in 1985
Millar in 1985 Vuelta

Rationale for the first two?
Delgado missed his start time. That is not bad luck.
LeMond was held back. That is tactics.

 

[eleven]

I got that impression from seeing them all riding at the front today.....like it was pre-planned cos LieStrong was gonna be in yellow after RadioSmack took everyone out on over the cobbles and they had no plan B so stick to plan A without he jersey.....

If that was Astana i imagine they would have been trying to create havoc, attacking in feeding zones etc.....

I think the time at the front was actually quite the opposite - good face time / exposure for their sponsors now that they seem less likely to get that exposure later in the race.

 

[Cerberus]

anyone too optimistic about armstrong's podium chances this early in the game is missing a huge chunk of info - we dont know how he will climb compared to the other gc contenders.

yes we saw an excellent prologue but that's just too little to extrapolate.

we also saw armstrong at his absolute limit on the cobbles (by his own admission) and that wasn't where everyone thought he'll be.

by my reckoning, he will climb (relative to his competition) no better than last year.

If it's to early to be optimistic about his podium chances because we don't know how he'll climb then it's clearly also to early to rule a podium out.

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.

In any case even climbing only at last years level he still could podium. The only people who out climbed him last year were Contador, Frank (crashed out) and Andy (with a question-mark on his form), though of cause Evans and Menchov could climb better and Basso could be a factor.

 

[hamperium]

rumours on dutch tv about internal problems with Radioshack
whats going on?
not that good for Armstrong
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hamperium_espana/4759768806/

 

[Barrus]

rumours on dutch tv about internal problems with Radioshack
whats going on?
not that good for Armstrong
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hamperium_espana/4759768806/

Any indication about the rumours? Also can you please stop with the links in each post?

 

[Oldman]

I think the time at the front was actually quite the opposite - good face time / exposure for their sponsors now that they seem less likely to get that exposure later in the race.

Yes. And Flicker's fantasy that LA losing time to the climbers is a winning strategy sealed that deal. LA won't be taking any flyers off the front without a Vino shadow. Unless Ferrari's program can work without detection we're most likely to see a gradual loss of reserves. That would be natural, of course. Having said that Saxo and Astana should act as mutually interested partners until they achieve some greater time separation from other contenders.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

In any case even climbing only at last years level he still could podium. The only people who out climbed him last year were Contador, Frank (crashed out) and Andy (with a question-mark on his form), though of cause Evans and Menchov could climb better and Basso could be a factor.

You don't remember Verbier? Or Le Grand Bornand? When Wiggins, Evans and Sastre also left him behind? Nibali as well if I recall correctly. Nibali did get dropped by Armstrong on the Romme and Colombière stage but caught him on the descent and could probably have taken more time if Armstrong hadn't been so keen to stay in front.

 

[Dedelou]

Watched Lance on tour tracker minute 61 stage4. He and Kloeden having a good laugh.

They say the one that laughs the best is the one who laughs last. Greatest laugh, of course, is Paris' Champs Elysee's laughter.

 

[Oldman]

They say the one that laughs the best is the one who laughs last. Greatest laugh, of course, is Paris' Champs Elysee's laughter.

I bet LA would like to be there to see that first hand.

 

[Cerberus]

You don't remember Verbier? Or Le Grand Bornand? When Wiggins, Evans and Sastre also left him behind? Nibali as well if I recall correctly. Nibali did get dropped by Armstrong on the Romme and Colombière stage but caught him on the descent and could probably have taken more time if Armstrong hadn't been so keen to stay in front.

I was talking about out climbing him in the Tour as a whole, not on any individual stage. IIRC the Schlecks and Contador were the only one to actually gain time on him in the mountains as a whole. Perhaps Nibali gained a few seconds to, but no more than that and in any case he's not at the Tour either.

 

[Oldman]

I was talking about out climbing him in the Tour as a whole, not on any individual stage. IIRC the Schlecks and Contador were the only one to actually gain time on him in the mountains as a whole. Perhaps Nibali gained a few seconds to, but no more than that and in any case he's not at the Tour either.

Nibali may be on the rise as a dark horse contender and one of the guys Schleck and Contador need to watch. If they're all going at it the action will be fun to watch.

 

[Cobblestones]

They say the one that laughs the best is the one who laughs last. Greatest laugh, of course, is Paris' Champs Elysee's laughter.

Uh huh ..........

 

[perico]

Rationale for the first two?
Delgado missed his start time. That is not bad luck.
LeMond was held back. That is tactics.

1. Delgado missed his start time because of confusion about when he was supposed to be in the gate. That's bad luck, and a bit of poor judgement.

2. LeMond was led to believe that Hinault was just behind him, not minutes back.

 

[python]

<snip> I think that the prologue is a much better indication of climbing ability<snip>

not being condescending and i understand your context but sorry the statement above does not make sense to me.

a pan cake flat 10 minute prologue is an indication of climbing ability ?

then, cancellara should outclimb texas downright as he whipped him in both the prologue and the cobbles.

unknown is an unknown.

and if one wants to speculate about armstrong's climbing a flat itt performance wouldn't be my first choice. in fact during my time i specialized in itts and if anything i saw a negative correlation.

 

[ulrikmm]

Uh huh ..........

This is because Contadors victory was in fact celebrated to the sound of the Danish national anthem!! The Societé put the wrong CD in the PA system. For us Danes, this was hilarious to watch - and taken as a sign of things to come

 

[Cerberus]

not being condescending and i understand your context but sorry the statement above does not make sense to me.

a pan cake flat 10 minute prologue is an indication of climbing ability ?

then, cancellara should outclimb texas downright as he whipped him in both the prologue and the cobbles.

No he should not because Cancellara is a specialist. A prologue, even a flat one, is an indicator of form and form is an indicator of climbing ability. Andy's disappointingly poor prologue, even by his standard indicates (but does not prove) poor form. Armstrong's unexpectedly strong prologue indicates (but does not prove) good from. if you looked at betting sites you could see the odds on Andy and LA moving in response to the performances, more I think than the gain or loss of a few seconds would justify.

unknown is an unknown.

That didn't stop you from speculating that his form would be no better than last year. I think my assumption that he's likely to climb better because he TTs better is more reasonable than you assumption that he's likely to climb no better because of.. well whatever you base that on.

and if one wants to speculate about armstrong's climbing a flat itt performance wouldn't be my first choice.

It's not my first choice either, but since I don't own a time machine I can't check what happens on any of the actual mountain stages.

 

[ulrikmm]

No he should not because Cancellara is a specialist. A prologue, even a flat one, is an indicator of form and form is an indicator of climbing ability. Andy's disappointingly poor prologue, even by his standard indicates (but does not prove) poor form. Armstrong's unexpectedly strong prologue indicates (but does not prove) good from. if you looked at betting sites you could see the odds on Andy and LA moving in response to the performances, more I think than the gain or loss of a few seconds would justify.


That didn't stop you from speculating that his form would be no better than last year. I think my assumption that he's likely to climb better because he TTs better is more reasonable than you assumption that he's likely to climb no better because of.. well whatever you base that on.


It's not my first choice either, but since I don't own a time machine I can't check what happens on any of the actual mountain stages.

Your theory that high prologue topspeed equals good climbing capacity is interesting - we will know after the weekend whether the theory is correct.

I am sceptical - in a prologue bike handling skills and max power must be essential - and low weight an disadvantage in the battle against the wind (aerodynamics).

 

[red_flanders]

No he should not because Cancellara is a specialist. A prologue, even a flat one, is an indicator of form and form is an indicator of climbing ability. Andy's disappointingly poor prologue, even by his standard indicates (but does not prove) poor form. Armstrong's unexpectedly strong prologue indicates (but does not prove) good from. if you looked at betting sites you could see the odds on Andy and LA moving in response to the performances, more I think than the gain or loss of a few seconds would justify.

Glad someone gets it. Good post.

 

[VeloCity]

No he should not because Cancellara is a specialist. A prologue, even a flat one, is an indicator of form and form is an indicator of climbing ability. Andy's disappointingly poor prologue, even by his standard indicates (but does not prove) poor form. Armstrong's unexpectedly strong prologue indicates (but does not prove) good from. if you looked at betting sites you could see the odds on Andy and LA moving in response to the performances, more I think than the gain or loss of a few seconds would justify.

So does A Schleck and Evan's and Contador's performance on St 3 indicate that they are in considerably better form vis a vis Armstrong?

A prologue isn't any more an indication of climbing form than who was "stronger" on the cobbles, and for the same reason: there's way too many variables - weather, type of course, bad luck, some riders holding back a bit, or just having an off day, as A Schleck seemed to have - that have nothing to do with form.

 

[Cerberus]

Your theory that high prologue topspeed equals good climbing capacity is interesting - we will know after the weekend whether the theory is correct.

I am sceptical - in a prologue bike handling skills and max power must be essential - and low weight an disadvantage in the battle against the wind (aerodynamics).

Obviously it only holds when accounting for other factors such as rider type. Concellara won't climb well even after an unusually strong TT. Andy Schleck will never win a TT no matter what form he's in. I do think comparing a rider to his usual standard gives and indication.

Based on that I'll stick my head out and predict some combination of:
1) Lance climbing relatively well.

2) Wiggins doing relatively badly.

3) Menchov doing relatively badly.

4) Andy perhaps not being quite up to his usual standard. (this one I'm least confident of, perhaps because I hope I'm wrong.

After the first couple of real mountain stages we can get back to this and start arguing about what "relatively well" means and and whether getting for example 2 right and 2 wrong proves I'm right or that I'm wrong .

 

[Cerberus]

So does A Schleck and Evan's and Contador's performance on St 3 indicate that they are in considerably better form vis a vis Armstrong?

No, it indicates that they were in front of the crash and in the case of Andy and Evans had no defects.

 

[Benotti69]

.... if you looked at betting sites you could see the odds on Andy and LA moving in response to the performances, more I think than the gain or loss of a few seconds would justify.

betting is based on odds and it also based on the amount bet on a certain, team, candidate, rider, horse etc....

so if no one bet on Contador winning the TdF his odds would get bigger and if everybody was betting on Robbie McEwen winning the odds would reduce as bookies hedge the potential losses...

so betting is not a great guide.