Should Sky have waited when Valverde fell?

Page 2 - 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
    0
  • Poll closed .
Arnout said:
No. There's no should. It's a bike race. One can decide to wait, but the thing I hate most is that when a team or some teams decide to wait they think they are entitled to blame others for not waiting.

Stick with your own decision, make your own choice, don't bother with others, that's their choice. Beat them in the next stage if you're angry, but don't go and judge them afterwards from the moral high ground.
+1
#tenfvckingchars
 
Jul 5, 2010
943
0
0
They shouldn't have to wait, but if you don't, at least be honest about it. Don't drill the peleton and afterwards say "we didn't know Valverde crashed". Nobody is going to believe that, they knew it as soon as we did.
 
Jan 3, 2011
4,596
0
0
Arnout said:
No. There's no should. It's a bike race. One can decide to wait, but the thing I hate most is that when a team or some teams decide to wait they think they are entitled to blame others for not waiting.

Stick with your own decision, make your own choice, don't bother with others, that's their choice. Beat them in the next stage if you're angry, but don't go and judge them afterwards from the moral high ground.
There are alot of unwrittein rules in cycling. U cant just disregard them expecting no pay back. Iirc even good old Voigt wouldnt dismiss the possiblity that Rolland would get some sort of payback later on after this attack in the Tour. Remember former pro Rold Sørensen statin on Danish tv at that time that cyclists has memories like elephants in those matters.

But I reckon its natural that alot of British fans might feel as u do. Its a rather new thing that cycling has become popular some maybe u arent really accustomed to the unwritten rules and their importance (and I honestly dont mean this in a disrespectful way)
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
I really dont see why people think sky and everybody else should have waited. If Valverde had crashed and they took off then they would have been taking advantage of his crash. The fact is he crashed after an upping of the pace by a team to get an advantage using the cross winds.In that situation they are under no obligation to stop and nor should they just because he was in a bad position when the pace went up.
 
Cimber said:
There are alot of unwrittein rules in cycling. U cant just disregard them expecting no pay back. Iirc even good old Voigt wouldnt dismiss the possiblity that Rolland would get some sort of payback later on after this attack in the Tour. Remember former pro Rold Sørensen statin on Danish tv at that time that cyclists has memories like elephants in those matters.

But I reckon its natural that alot of British fans might feel as u do. Its a rather new thing that cycling has become popular some maybe u arent really accustomed to the unwritten rules and their importance (and I honestly dont mean this in a disrespectful way)
I'm not a British fan, nor am I new to cycling. I actually think those rules in cycling are rather new. I can't remember stories about people waiting for other people because they do what happens in cycling: crash. I can remember a lot of stories about riders winning or not winning because of crashes though.

I actually think that the terms sportmanship and "unwritten rules" were introduced by the Anglo-Saxon influx in the peloton in the last 2 decades, just like the mantra that it's a team sport and all that.
 
Apr 11, 2011
113
0
0
Given the scenario I think they should have waited. They'd only just that moment upped the pace so to say the race was on at that point is a little thin. I do wonder had it been a different GC contender (on a different team) going down whether they would have carried on. There may well have been a case of a dose of your own medicine to Movistar. That said Portal is suggesting that initially at least they didn't know who had gone down.

Also lets not forget other teams (in particular Katusha) contributed to driving the pace on.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Arnout said:
I'm not a British fan, nor am I new to cycling. I actually think those rules in cycling are rather new. I can't remember stories about people waiting for other people because they do what happens in cycling: crash. I can remember a lot of stories about riders winning or not winning because of crashes though.

I actually think that the terms sportmanship and "unwritten rules" were introduced by the Anglo-Saxon influx in the peloton in the last 2 decades, just like the mantra that it's a team sport and all that.
No offence but thats completely untrue. I dont even have to go back that far to destroy your last two decades argument. Sean kelly today on eurosport was talking about the unwritten rules which were there when he started and he started in 1977...35 years ago. I need go no further.

He said they were right to keep going in case anyone cares.
 
Sep 25, 2009
1,943
0
0
noddy69 said:
Movistar on the other hand attacked in the tour after the fact which they were not entitled to do so really they are the last ones I would listen to complaining.
That was Rolland.
 
Jan 3, 2011
4,596
0
0
Arnout said:
I actually think those rules in cycling are rather new.
I actually think that the terms sportmanship and "unwritten rules" were introduced by the Anglo-Saxon influx in the peloton in the last 2 decades, just like the mantra that it's a team sport and all that.
That is simply untrue
 
Jan 3, 2011
4,596
0
0
cineteq said:
SKY should have waited since they caused the crash. Neutral sources like Terptra, Sorensen and Hansen have confirmed it. Period. Thus SKY should be DQ'ed.
Must have missed Sørensens statement. Got a link?

Arnout said:
I might be wrong, mind you.
Fair enough
 
Apr 8, 2010
1,257
0
0
sartoris said:
WTF ????

What do you mean by "we all know Valverde???" Give us examples when he acted like Sky or worse.

:mad:
After the way Movistar rode in Tour de Suisse and Paris-Nice I think it's fair to say they had it coming.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,384
0
0
Lol. Movistar and moral high ground are not words which I expected to hear in the same sentence this season!
 
To question is not whether Sky should have waited. They didn’t need to wait. What they should have done is not push the pace. That was the mistake.

It didn't gain Sky much but it lost Valverde a lot. Does it matter? Probably not. Sky are so strong they don't need allies. That sort of tactic wouldn't have washed 10 years ago but these days it’s more of the norm.
 
LugHugger said:
Lol. Movistar and moral high ground are not words which I expected to hear in the same sentence this season!
I'm not talking about Movistar. Just about general behavior concerning waiting and not waiting. I didn't mind Movistar going full gas in Paris - Nice, I didn't mind Sky doing the same today.
 
The railway crossing thing in the Tour de Suisse really summed Movistar up. Ran the red lights as the peloton got to it and then were not at all happy about the race being neutralised once the commissaire's car got through. Karma.
 
sartoris said:
WTF ????

What do you mean by "we all know Valverde???" Give us examples when he acted like Sky or worse.

:mad:
this kind of attitude shows how many idiots are in this forum, "we all know valverde", is he satan or something similar?
 
I don't think they should have waited waited. I'm ok with them exploiting the situation, that's how it is in cycling, you exploit other people's problems, crashing is also part of the race..
But it is kind of lame to claim they didn't know it was Valverde that crashed, especially when they were right near the riders who fell [and obviously, some even think Sky caused the crash]. Also, didn't they make big deal out of waiting for Evans in Tour [not the same situations, I know].

Anyway, as I said, don't think they need to wait. But they shouldn't make excuses if they don't wait.

Also, while I'm sad for Valverde, he lost a lot today, but I'm happy that there is some sort of rivalry, that's always good for the race [as long as it remains within the limits of fair play]
 
Magnus said:
After the way Movistar rode in Tour de Suisse and Paris-Nice I think it's fair to say they had it coming.

could you remind me what happened in tour de suisse? P-N is not comparable (Movistar was pushing, Levy crashed, he was not the leader). Then Volta cataluña was a revenge against Movistar.

You can judge here the images, sky movement causes the crash, Flecha looks behind and continues, dumb

http://www.rtve.es/alacarta/videos/vuelta-ciclista-a-espana/lider-valverde-se-ve-envuelto-caida-peloton-vuelta/1511048/
 
Telmisartan new said:
Movistar are not in a position to give anyone a hard time but Sky should have waited.
To be honest, if Sky hadn't opened their mouths after the Paris-Nice incident (which didn't concern them, it concerned Omega Pharma, who got their revenge at Catalunya, and Valverde accepted that much more graciously)
Dutchsmurf said:
They shouldn't have to wait, but if you don't, at least be honest about it. Don't drill the peleton and afterwards say "we didn't know Valverde crashed". Nobody is going to believe that, they knew it as soon as we did.
This. They have race radios now, if there's a big crash and then you look around and the race leader isn't there, there's a good chance the two things are connected.
noddy69 said:
I really dont see why people think sky and everybody else should have waited. If Valverde had crashed and they took off then they would have been taking advantage of his crash. The fact is he crashed after an upping of the pace by a team to get an advantage using the cross winds.In that situation they are under no obligation to stop and nor should they just because he was in a bad position when the pace went up.
They shouldn't necessarily have waited. In fact, I don't care that they didn't, except that they made such a song and dance of calling Movistar out as being evil for doing the same. Movistar have been the victims but they have been just as willing to dish it out. However, Team Sky are utter hypocrites and that's what's galling. Either the unwritten rules of the péloton apply or they do not.

At Paris-Nice, the guy that went down when Movistar were pushing the pace wasn't even the race leader, yet Movistar were apparently evil.

Operating on the assumption that Sky didn't cause the crash (although some sources say they did), then Movistar don't have much to complain about, but Sky shouldn't have talked the talk regarding fair play if they weren't prepared to walk the walk.
 
I voted #3---independent accounts say that Sky Caused the crash...while I don't think they should have waited, I also don't think they should have hammered it.

Normally I'd say it's a bike race, just get on with it. But if you cause the crash least you can do is Not Attack (as opposed to wait).

If someone else (Katusha?) hammered, Sky could then participate with a clear conscience; but they were the ones Leading the Charge. And don't tell me they didn't know, it happened Right There.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY