The official debate: Should Contador have waited for Schleck?

[santacruz]

Schleck should have said WAIT and threw his arms out and grabbed Vino and AC by their jerseys, and stopped the race, lol.

 

[santacruz]

Don't cross chain or our equipment stops working, OK?? So shift PROPERLY and there wont be a problem! gosh!! Please Andy switch to eletric Shimano next year... and then talk about how awesome their crap is every day you are interviewed.

 

[biokemguy]

Chaingate wasn't a fluke

Didn't wanna start a new thread.

Did anyone else notice Schleck blow shift during his attack on Sierra Road?

It's at about 2:12 in this video http://www.cyclingfans.com/node/2040

His bike jerks a bit, he looks down and missed a pedal stroke or two.
Phil reacts in the commentary but recovers as quickly as Schleck.

Maybe I'm just seeing things, or maybe Schleck still hasn't learned how to shift.

 

[ElChingon]

The return of the Schleck-anical, he'll never live it down

Also, never wait, its a race for who finishes first not who waits first.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: The official debate: Should Contador have waited for Sch

To continue the discussions from another thread

So you can say that AC is a cyclist who doesn't always act polite and that he shouldn't complain when astana or sky set a high pace.

I never said anything of the sort. On the contrary I said AC has no right to complain if it happens.

Its really annoying when people assume they know what someone else thinks about something, based on what they said about something completely different.

The thing about chaingate is, Contador did the exact same thing to Schleck, that Schleck did to him earlier.

If I steal £100 from you, I cannot complain if you then steal £100 from me later.

It is a matter of principle. I was 100% behind Schleck in that TDF as I wanted someone else to win the Tour for a change, but right is right.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: The official debate: Should Contador have waited for Sch

To continue the discussions from another thread

So you can say that AC is a cyclist who doesn't always act polite and that he shouldn't complain when astana or sky set a high pace.

I never said anything of the sort. On the contrary I said AC has no right to complain if it happens.

Its really annoying when people assume they know what someone else thinks about something, based on what they said about something completely different.

The thing about chaingate is, Contador did the exact same thing to Schleck, that Schleck did to him earlier.

If I steal £100 from you, I cannot complain if you then steal £100 from me later.

It is a matter of principle. I was 100% behind Schleck in that TDF as I wanted someone else to win the Tour for a change, but right is right.

I just wanted to stop the discussion with this comment. However its a little bit unfair from you to say my comment doesn´t have anything to do with what you wrote before and support that with a quote which only shoes half of my original comment. I just didn't want to post two replies about one and the same topic, so half of my post was not a direct answer to what you wrote.

To come back to the main question, I don't think Contador attacked because Andy did the same to him earlier. Schleck had the defect and Contador was out of the saddle immediately after that. I doubt that these one or two seconds were enough time for Alberto to think if andy deserves that or not. He just attacked because he saw the chance to pull back some time

 

[Angliru]

Re: The official debate: Should Contador have waited for Sch

To continue the discussions from another thread

So you can say that AC is a cyclist who doesn't always act polite and that he shouldn't complain when astana or sky set a high pace.

I never said anything of the sort. On the contrary I said AC has no right to complain if it happens.

Its really annoying when people assume they know what someone else thinks about something, based on what they said about something completely different.

The thing about chaingate is, Contador did the exact same thing to Schleck, that Schleck did to him earlier.

If I steal £100 from you, I cannot complain if you then steal £100 from me later.

It is a matter of principle. I was 100% behind Schleck in that TDF as I wanted someone else to win the Tour for a change, but right is right.

I just wanted to stop the discussion with this comment. However its a little bit unfair from you to say my comment doesn´t have anything to do with what you wrote before and support that with a quote which only shoes half of my original comment. I just didn't want to post two replies about one and the same topic, so half of my post was not a direct answer to what you wrote.

To come back to the main question, I don't think Contador attacked because Andy did the same to him earlier. Schleck had the defect and Contador was out of the saddle immediately after that. I doubt that these one or two seconds were enough time for Alberto to think if andy deserves that or not. He just attacked because he saw the chance to pull back some time

You fail to recognize or simply choose to ignore the fact that Andy was in the midst of an attack himself when he threw his chain. His opponents only responded in kind. To expect them all to suddenly stop pedaling because Andy had misshifted is at the least unreasonable. The often mentioned quote that I will gladly mention again of Ryder Hesjedal to all of the drama that resulted was this: "If you pull out your sword in a battle and drop it, you die!" Andy attacked, muffed up his shifting, his rivals responded to his attack and the rest is history. Part of mastering the sport is knowing how to use the equipment. In an event later in that same year at the start of a time trial, Andy once again muffed up his shifting in plain view for all to see. Of course the blame was likely placed on his mechanics or on his equipment manufacturer having sent the team defective gear. Tactical awareness and being one with his bike was not this rider's forte'.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: The official debate: Should Contador have waited for Sch

To continue the discussions from another thread

So you can say that AC is a cyclist who doesn't always act polite and that he shouldn't complain when astana or sky set a high pace.

I never said anything of the sort. On the contrary I said AC has no right to complain if it happens.

Its really annoying when people assume they know what someone else thinks about something, based on what they said about something completely different.

The thing about chaingate is, Contador did the exact same thing to Schleck, that Schleck did to him earlier.

If I steal £100 from you, I cannot complain if you then steal £100 from me later.

It is a matter of principle. I was 100% behind Schleck in that TDF as I wanted someone else to win the Tour for a change, but right is right.

I just wanted to stop the discussion with this comment. However its a little bit unfair from you to say my comment doesn´t have anything to do with what you wrote before and support that with a quote which only shoes half of my original comment. I just didn't want to post two replies about one and the same topic, so half of my post was not a direct answer to what you wrote.

To come back to the main question, I don't think Contador attacked because Andy did the same to him earlier. Schleck had the defect and Contador was out of the saddle immediately after that. I doubt that these one or two seconds were enough time for Alberto to think if andy deserves that or not. He just attacked because he saw the chance to pull back some time

Fair enough. Sorry if I misrepresented your position. I had said in the thread that I didn't think AC's rivals would do anything wrong if they attacked him, and I thought you were suggesting I had said otherwise.

Anyway I am not arguing that Contador's motivation was revenge on Andy. You are probably right that that thought never came into Contador's head, he attacked just to get time.
I don't think Contador is some great sportsman nor am I trying to present him as such. I've criticised him for lying or playing unfair dozens of times.

For lying post chaingate about not knowing Andy had mech.
For continuing to celebrate Armstrong as a champion even after LA punked him.
For lying about that thing that won't be named.
For lying about his form in 2013 and claiming he only cared about the win and would attack every day in the mountains while doing nothing of the sort and blatantly trying to follow wheels for a podium.
For wheelsucking Chris Froome on the final Vuelta stage, then taking the stage win (he had the race wrapped up, in my opinion should have given Chris the stage if he was going to ws him.)

The last 2 have gotten me unlimited abuse from certain sections of the Contador fanbase here.

However re chaingate, it doens't matter what his motivation was, what matters is the result. Andy took the time in an unsportsmanlike manner. Contador had the right to take back the time in an unpleasant manner, whether he knew he was doing it or not.

2ndly its important to remember Sanchez and Menchov were with Contador and also pushed the pace. Contador could not let them fly off while he waited for Andy. They were rivals too, Menchov finishing only 1 minute behind Contador in the end. They had also lost time in Arenberg. Contador had to stay with them.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: The official debate: Should Contador have waited for Sch

yes you are right, I am a big andy schleck fan but I wouldn't say that alberto didn't deserve the win in 2010. I think at the end you just cannot say what would have been the right thing to do in this situation. (and that counts for sanchez and menchov too)

 

[red_flanders]

Re: The official debate: Should Contador have waited for Sch

yes you are right, I am a big andy schleck fan but I wouldn't say that alberto didn't deserve the win in 2010. I think at the end you just cannot say what would have been the right thing to do in this situation. (and that counts for sanchez and menchov too)

Sure, you can say what would have been right. It's completely subjective, with some guidance from historical behavior. IMO, no one should have waited in that tactical situation. Rider 1 attacked and dropped his chain. Rider 2 needed to gain time, and was responding to the attack. As was said at the time, "if you draw your sword, it's not my fault if you drop it".

My only problem with Contador was that he didn't know how to handle the cross-examination in the media and by the public, and gave a chicken-*** answer to the question of whether he should have attacked.

My other, historical problem with all this, is that attitudes of the public were formed in large part by the behavior of Armstrong. His "interpretation" of the long-standing gentlemen's agreement was simply another head game to show his dominance. He botched it with Pantani who rejected his clumsy show of "respect", and he overdid it with Ullrich, at least in part to show he was so dominant he could wait. Classic case of an American with a ham-fisted interpretation of a European custom. No sense for the nuance.

Anyway, the idea that a Patron (if there is one, and I don't see where Contador was a Patron at that point) must wait was exaggerated out of all historical perspective from what I can see.

Give me the Badger and his attitude any day.

 

[mrhender]

The situation afterwards was even more complicated due to the fact that Contador was deep in if not alrady confirmed the change to Riis' team..

The point is that Contadors "shaky" handling and the half excuse he posted late in the evening came after late night conversations with Riis on the phone..

 

[mrhender]

I don't think there is a right and wrong here..

The riders don't have the luxury of post stage analasys as we do..

They have to make a decision and might feel ambivalence towards it later..

 

[lenric]

Yeah, he should have waited. Why not waiting while drinking a coffee and eating some candies?

Cyclists are paid to win, period.