• 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.


Should Sky have waited when Valverde fell?

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Should Sky have waited?

  • Normally not but since they caused it, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .
Oct 16, 2010
Visit site
Libertine Seguros said:

No, he didn't. Because he was suspended in the 2010 Vuelta (and Cadel wasn't there as BMC weren't invited). I presume you mean 2009.

And in that instance you are very wrong. Evans wasn't stationary for anything like 1'32. In fact, after setting back on the bike he very swiftly rejoined the Samuel Sánchez group (Samu had already been distanced, which was the reason nobody waited for Evans - why let a contender come back for free?). Valverde finished at 1'16" back from the winner that day (Moncoutié) - Evans at 2'24". Which my rudimentary mathematics tells me is 1'08", + 8 seconds bonus = 1'16". Which is less than Evans' overall deficit, so actually Evans didn't lose the Vuelta that day.

Also, Samu was in the Evans group after the puncture, and Samu finished at 1'37, just 21 seconds behind Valverde - Evans chased too hard in his desperation and blew himself up (which had always been a problem for him until 2011), whereas Samu didn't panic and dosed his efforts.

Movistar tried to use the descent to put their rivals under pressure in Paris-Nice. Just because one of those rivals crashed they should stop trying to drop others? Are you only allowed to distance one rival from an attack?

Sky seemed to think so. But now they don't.

That's all that I take issue with.

you are right, it was vuelta 2009, sorry.

i did not state that valverde should have waited for the unlucky cadel, i think he was right doing the race. cadel should have complained against the race organizer ( i don' t know if he did or not ) and surely not against valverde.

that just to say again that valverde has nothing to complain against sky, that was correctly doing the race like alejandro did in 2009.

i add that was not flecha to deliberately cause the fall.

punctures and falls are part of cycling and if they occur in critical moments of the race that is just bad luck.
only in particular circumstances rider should stop. IMHO it was right to wait on the mur de peguiere this year, contador should not have waited in the port de bales chain affair, cancellara was wrong to stop the peloton in the tour to protect the schleck brothers..... while he did the opposite on the following)or previous , i do not remember) stage on the cobbles in the same tour

why nobody blames lance for not waiting zulle in the passage de gois and everybody thinks that ulle was right to accept hamilton stopping the race when armstrong and mayo fell a couple of years later?

nobody is waiting in the paris roubaix when a favourite fall...
thehog said:
“Sky had set up the echelon action well, and the attack had been started, when Valverde crashed. But I would have expected that after a few kilometers the command to wait would come across on the radio,” Ullrich wrote.

Ullrich doubted that it was a “pointed attack” against Valverde and his Movistar team, “But I don't think it had anything to do with antipathy. Valverde is actually well-liked in the field, and it was only a few teams which rode. Most of them were actually fair.”

"It is hard to judge the matter when one was not present," he said. “Personally, I would have slowed, since it was a situation which wouldn't really have helped me –I want to measure myself against my opponents and not profit from their bad luck.”

Ullrich. Always a gentleman on and off his bike.