• 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.

    Thanks!

The Official Poll: Should Contador Have Waited For Schleck's Mechanical??

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Should AC have waited on AS's mechanical?

  • No, dropping your chain is an amateur move (not a mechanical).

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Weapons of @ss Destruction said:
Because the %s are expressed based on the number of unique responders, rather than the gross number of selected responses (in a multi-option poll)?
For each choice, it clearly adds up the number of choices, divides by the number of voters, and multiplies by 100.

So if 75 people out of 100 total voters pick A, A is marked as having 75% of the voters in agreement.

But if 75 people out 100 also pick B, which is possible if multiple voting is allowed, then B gets 75% too.

When multiple votes are allowed per voter, adding up the total percentages is as meaningless as trying to determine whether waiting or not waiting in a bike race is ethically right or wrong.

It's no wonder the results are approximately 50/50. We might as well be tossing a coin to decide this question.
 

SpartacusRox

BANNED
May 6, 2010
711
0
0
Visit site
donboling said:
Contador's comments in the article are lame. He knew full well that he was attacking and why. He has lost my respect today. Go Andy! Kick his ***!

+++1

I agree, I have just watched it again and Contador smacks it past him. Of course Menchov and Sanchez had to go as well but it was Contador who made the move.

Some will say 'that's racing' of course and Riis was pretty philosophical and even LA wouldn't really be drawn on the issue. Personally I think it was BS and shows what a tosser he really is.

Like you I hope Andy kicks his **** on 17. Listening to the boo's from the crowd I think most of the spectators will too. Whatever else he has done, Contador has just managed to turn most of France firmly towards Andy.

Classy move Alberto....not::rolleyes:
 
Ninety5rpm said:
You can hold any opinion you want, particularly if you make decisions on such things based on how the wind is blowing, by rolling a dice, or by any such arbitrary mechanism.

It's still not an ethical question, because, again, there is no basis by which to determine an ethical answer.
FROM WIKIPEDIA: Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good vs. bad, noble vs. ignoble, right vs. wrong, and matters of justice, love, peace, and virtue.
.
Yes. We can describe this controversy as "ethical". Yes. We measure athletes by standard of good/bad behavior. Or noble/ignoble.
.
Just because the answer might not appear obvious does not make the standards for judgement arbitrary. Maybe its just too close to call. But its still an issue of sporting ethics.
.
 
dgodave said:
FROM WIKIPEDIA: Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good vs. bad, noble vs. ignoble, right vs. wrong, and matters of justice, love, peace, and virtue.
.
Yes. We can describe this controversy as "ethical". Yes. We measure athletes by standard of good/bad behavior. Or noble/ignoble.
.
Just because the answer might not appear obvious does not make the standards for judgement arbitrary. Maybe its just too close to call. But its still an issue of sporting ethics.
.
I said it's not an ethical question because there is no basis from which to make an ethical decision.

You refer to a "standard of good/bad behavior" and the "standards for judgement". Clearly dentify what you mean by these phrases and I will retract what I've said.

There are no such standards that apply in this case. That's what I mean when I say there is no basis from which to make an ethical decision.
 
Jan 25, 2010
20
0
0
Visit site
Stephen Roche commented on it on eurosport,saying Schleck musn't have had his chain guard on to save 50 grams.Well he saved 50 grams but lost the time.To me this is his and his mechanics fault so why should Contador wait yet again for him.Besides Menchov and Sanchez didn't hang back.
What goes around comes around and watch for saxo trying to blow it apart in the first cross wind.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
Quite an interesting poll. Right now, the results are roughly 50% for waiting, and 57% against waiting...

Yes, one should wait on the maillot jaune when he has a mechanical. 61 50.41%
No, this "unwritten rule" stuff is nonsense. The Tour waits for no one. 9 7.44%
No, Contador already had momentum, was riding with other contenders. 17 14.05%
No, dropping your chain is an amateur move (not a mechanical). 43 35.54%
 
131313 said:
Quite an interesting poll. Right now, the results are roughly 50% for waiting, and 57% against waiting...

Yes, one should wait on the maillot jaune when he has a mechanical. 61 50.41%
No, this "unwritten rule" stuff is nonsense. The Tour waits for no one. 9 7.44%
No, Contador already had momentum, was riding with other contenders. 17 14.05%
No, dropping your chain is an amateur move (not a mechanical). 43 35.54%

Yes, about as interesting as using a coin toss to determine the answer. :rolleyes:
 
Ninety5rpm said:
I said it's not an ethical question because there is no basis from which to make an ethical decision.

You refer to a "standard of good/bad behavior" and the "standards for judgement". Clearly dentify what you mean by these phrases and I will retract what I've said.

There are no such standards that apply in this case. That's what I mean when I say there is no basis from which to make an ethical decision.
This is getting ridiculous.
.
Cycling is FULL of various standards about whats considered fair vs whats considered unsportmanlike. In this case, its the standards about when its OK to attack an opponent whos in some sort of "accidental" trouble.
.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
Ninety5rpm said:
Yes, about as interesting as using a coin toss to determine the answer. :rolleyes:

yeah, but more like, 57% heads, 51% tails. Stay in school, kids.

I realized that you can vote for more than 1 option, which is why the percentages don't add up to 100%.
 
dgodave said:
This is getting ridiculous.
.
Cycling is FULL of various standards about whats considered fair vs whats considered unsportmanlike. In this case, its the standards about when its OK to attack an opponent whos in some sort of "accidental" trouble.
.
I don't know what cycling is full of, but I'm starting to realize what you're full of. :) (sorry, that was too easy)

Now you refer to "the standards about when its OK to attack an opponent whos in some sort of 'accidental' trouble", as if that is something that exists somewhere in some form.

Please inform us as to what those standards (your word) are. I can't wait to learn!

While we're waiting for you to answer that question (forever), I will again repeat my point. There are no such standards, and that's why there is no basis by which to make an ethical judgement about this action. That's why the correct answer to this poll is "none of the above", and why the results from those answering anyway mimic the results of tossing a coin.
 
131313 said:
yeah, but more like, 57% heads, 51% tails. Stay in school, kids.

I realized that you can vote for more than 1 option, which is why the percentages don't add up to 100%.
You're double-counting the "heads".
There are two sides, but the poll is set up with one choice for one side and three choices for the other. Now, if multiple votes weren't allowed, you can just add up the three choices. But, multiple votes are allowed, so anyone on the side with three choices might very well vote for two or even all three. And for those that do, they're getting double-counted.

But, luckily, there is only one choice for the one side, and it's getting almost exactly 50%, which implies the other side is also about 50%. Big surprise.
 
Jul 19, 2010
3
0
0
Visit site
SpartacusRox said:
+++1

I agree, I have just watched it again and Contador smacks it past him. Of course Menchov and Sanchez had to go as well but it was Contador who made the move.

Some will say 'that's racing' of course and Riis was pretty philosophical and even LA wouldn't really be drawn on the issue. Personally I think it was BS and shows what a tosser he really is.

Like you I hope Andy kicks his **** on 17. Listening to the boo's from the crowd I think most of the spectators will too. Whatever else he has done, Contador has just managed to turn most of France firmly towards Andy.

Classy move Alberto....not::rolleyes:


You guys are all way to silly! it makes me wonder if any of you have ever raced before or even wached what happened, i do know the answer to that, not at all.
I'm not for Contador, or Schlek particularly, i just want to enjoy the racing because both are superb athletes. and this is a great Tour for once!

You all need to look at yourselves, none of you have been in this postion before.

here is what velnation just posted, it's the best article on this topic since it happened this morning.

But was it a mechanical anyway?

Schleck dropped his chain as he was changing gear as he attacked on the climb; this differs from other mechanical problems like punctures in that it was Scleck’s error that caused it. Bike racing is about more than just the strongest rider winning; bike handling is also an important factor, of which gear changes are a part.

It also took him two attempts to put his chain back on, as the first time he failed to put it all the way around his chainring and it came off again as he tried to remount.

Contador was already at attacking speed as he passed the stricken Schleck, he may or may not have known what was going on. Regardless of whether he knew or not though, he had no obligation to wait for a rider who made a mistake. Schleck messed up, Contador capitalised.

By the finish Contador had taken 39 seconds out of Schleck, to move ahead of him in the overall classification by a slim 8 seconds. (Hmm, leading the Tour by 8 seconds; where have I heard that before?) The time Contador took back today is just over half of what Schleck took out of him on the cobbles. Touché.


ok, sorry, but i had to say something because this forum is getting as bad as velonew and the slowtwitch forums....it's the same silly people to! please, let's talk about real issued and debate!!

shane
 
Ninety5rpm said:
I don't know what cycling is full of, but I'm starting to realize what you're full of. :) (sorry, that was too easy)

Now you refer to "the standards about when its OK to attack an opponent whos in some sort of 'accidental' trouble", as if that is something that exists somewhere in some form.

Please inform us as to what those standards (your word) are. I can't wait to learn!

While we're waiting for you to answer that question (forever), I will again repeat my point. There are no such standards, and that's why there is no basis by which to make an ethical judgement about this action. That's why the correct answer to this poll is "none of the above", and why the results from those answering anyway mimic the results of tossing a coin.
Even the discussions about what the ethical standard should be are the realm of ethics.
.
You seem to think that a difficult ethical question, or a close call, means its not an ethical issue at all... which is bunk.
.
And any way you cut it, Contadors freedom to act doesnt invalidate our freedom to judge.
.
 
dgodave said:
Even the discussions about what the ethical standard should be are the realm of ethics.
.
You seem to think that a difficult ethical question, or a close call, means its not an ethical issue at all... which is bunk.
.
And any way you cut it, Contadors freedom to act doesnt invalidate our freedom to judge.
.
Thank you for admitting that the standards to which you refer exist only in the wishful thinking crevices of your mind.

The question of what the standards should be by which cyclists should be judged (once those standards are in place) is very different from what the standards are now and how cyclists should currently be judged against those existing standards. The latter is all that should be considered with regard to judging someone's behavior that already took place, and, again, there are no such existing standards that apply here. So this question is not within the scope of ethics.
 
Mar 12, 2009
163
0
0
Visit site
Reverse the positions......the trash talking tosspot wouldnt have waited for AC. AC as always just sits back silently and sticks the dagger in when he has a chance. Thats class ;)
 
Sep 19, 2009
807
0
0
Visit site
maybe AC did notice that AS had a mechanical but then it was to late and he was only reacting to Sanchez and Menchov's move. though I highly doubt it.
I couldn't tell, did Vino wait? he was looking strong on Andy's wheel but then got dropped like a brick.
 
Ninety5rpm said:
Thank you for admitting that the standards to which you refer exist only in the wishful thinking crevices of your mind.

The question of what the standards should be by which cyclists should be judged (once those standards are in place) is very different from what the standards are now and how cyclists should currently be judged against those existing standards. The latter is all that should be considered with regard to judging someone's behavior that already took place, and, again, there are no such existing standards that apply here. So this question is not within the scope of ethics.
"the standards about when its OK to attack an opponent whos in some sort of 'accidental' trouble", exist in the minds of anyone who follows bike racing for a while.
.
Either way. As race fans, it IS our place to judge, to discuss, to formulate positions on these issues. So you are quite wrong about that.
.
 
dgodave said:
"the standards about when its OK to attack an opponent whos in some sort of 'accidental' trouble", exist in the minds of anyone who follows bike racing for a while.
.
Either way. As race fans, it IS our place to judge, to discuss, to formulate positions on these issues. So you are quite wrong about that.
.

"the standards about when its OK to attack an opponent whos in some sort of 'accidental' trouble", exist in the minds of anyone who follows bike racing for a while.

Then they are not standards by definition, because they surely exist in different forms in each mind in which they exist.

So, again, there are no such standards.

Your inability to state what these alleged standards say, exactly, much less in a manner with which others would agree, only serves to make my point.

I mean, look at the poll questions. Is the standard to which you allude, "one should wait on the maillot jaune when he has a mechanical?" Is that a standard? Really? Well, less than half answering this poll agree.
 
Jul 15, 2010
16
0
0
Visit site
Fourier said:
maybe AC did notice that AS had a mechanical but then it was to late and he was only reacting to Sanchez and Menchov's move. though I highly doubt it.
I couldn't tell, did Vino wait? he was looking strong on Andy's wheel but then got dropped like a brick.

It was AC's move, not Menchov or Sanchez, they were just following AC. The acceleration of AC happened after he saw that AS was having trouble and was nearly stopped in the middle of the road. He saw the problem and then attacked, claiming otherwise is a complete lie, not even a misunderstanding, a lie.
 
Mar 12, 2010
305
0
0
Visit site
All crap from a bunch of losers. If you are riding to win a race, and your competitor has a problem, AFTER he attacked you, and you only followed, then that's just too bad.

If Thor loses a wheel in Paris in the last 100m, AleJet does not wait...that's the same if you are going FULL BLAST up a HC climb, you don't STOP! Sorry! Go cry in your beer Andy for not knowing how to shift...real ametuer stuff. He desereved to lose it.

Go Alberto!:mad:
 
Bob Sanders said:
It was AC's move, not Menchov or Sanchez, they were just following AC. The acceleration of AC happened after he saw that AS was having trouble and was nearly stopped in the middle of the road. He saw the problem and then attacked, claiming otherwise is a complete lie, not even a misunderstanding, a lie.
Incorrect. You can clearly see at :04 in this clip that Schleck has no problem yet and AC is already attacking. At this point he had moved from the back of the group (where he was when AS initiated his attack) to the front of the group. AS is still standing. AC is at the far left of the image. At :06 you can see AC is out in front of this group, separated from AS only by Vino. Schleck's gears slip 3 second later, at :09. Can't see AC at that moment, but undoubtedly he had already closed significantly on AS. At :12 Vino blows by AS and AC's wheel enters the frame from the right. At :13, a mere 4 seconds after AS's gear slipped, AC passes him.

To say that The acceleration of AC happened after he saw that AS was having trouble and was nearly stopped in the middle of the road is a lie.
 
Ninety5rpm said:
"the standards about when its OK to attack an opponent whos in some sort of 'accidental' trouble", exist in the minds of anyone who follows bike racing for a while.

Then they are not standards by definition, because they surely exist in different forms in each mind in which they exist.

So, again, there are no such standards.

Your inability to state what these alleged standards say, exactly, much less in a manner with which others would agree, only serves to make my point.

I mean, look at the poll questions. Is the standard to which you allude, "one should wait on the maillot jaune when he has a mechanical?" Is that a standard? Really? Well, less than half answering this poll agree.
Your point was that Contadors freedom to act somehow invalidates our judgements on the matter.
.
Thats absurd. Our judgements (right or wrong) stand independent of his "rights" as a competitor. They do not conflict in any way whatsoever.
.
So the right answer to the poll is: whichever answer you think is right, if there is one.
.
 
Jul 27, 2009
680
0
0
Visit site
Ninety5rpm said:
Incorrect. You can clearly see at :04 in this clip that Schleck has no problem yet and AC is already attacking. At this point he had moved from the back of the group (where he was when AS initiated his attack) to the front of the group. AS is still standing. AC is at the far left of the image. At :06 you can see AC is out in front of this group, separated from AS only by Vino. Schleck's gears slip 3 second later, at :09. Can't see AC at that moment, but undoubtedly he had already closed significantly on AS. At :12 Vino blows by AS and AC's wheel enters the frame from the right. At :13, a mere 4 seconds after AS's gear slipped, AC passes him.

To say that The acceleration of AC happened after he saw that AS was having trouble and was nearly stopped in the middle of the road is a lie.

This is what I see as well. In addition, Contador goes around a bend in the road and AS moves out of view very soon thereafter. Contador looks around a lot, so I cannot tell what he saw, but the first time I see that he looks back is when Andy S is not in view.