Tour 2014 Route Rumours

[barmaher]

I just looked on youtube, and Schleck lost 32 seconds due to the chain slipping. That is the time it took for him to get off his bike, take two attempts to fix the chain and get pushed uphill.

 

[veji11]

I just looked on youtube, and Schleck lost 32 seconds due to the chain slipping. That is the time it took for him to get off his bike, take two attempts to fix the chain and get pushed uphill.

And then he got himself in the red zone by going full full full blast with the adrenaline to try to get back before the descent and he was quite spent in the descent which combined with poor technique clearly doesn't help.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Andy's ride that stage was amazing. For a skinny climber to hold on to a break with Cancellara, Hushovd and Thomas (three classics specialists), Evans and Hesjedal(Former MTB pros and Evans in awesome form until his crash) is something you rarely see and was certainly underrated. It was Andy's behaviour off the bike that annoyed a lot of people and lost him fans.

Agree. Check out Hesjedal back in 2010:

very meaty compared to now.

 

[Ferminal]

Still managed a good Tourmalet.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Still managed a good Tourmalet.

yea, it was a competitive GC performance.

Just an observation.

 

[Ferminal]

What I mean is that his weight doesn't necessarily correlate negatively with climbing performance.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

What I mean is that his weight doesn't necessarily correlate negatively with climbing performance.

got it. Most GC riders took the skeleton route this year, including Hesjedal. Giro '13 lineup:

 

[sensations]

By the while - is there any other information the Chamrousse stage?

Because St. Etienne-Chamrousse alone is at least 170km on either of the two shortest routes - so they'd have to stretch it well past 200km to add in another climb (possibly through the Chatreuse or the Vercors). And I kinda don't see ASO going there if they're really going for the 210km Pau-Hautacam stage.

The other option - and unfortunately almost likelier one for that - is a Valdengo-Montecampione redux with an almost entirely flat 170km+ run-in as far as I see it.

 

[The Hitch]

got it. Most GC riders took the skeleton route this year, including Hesjedal. Giro '13 lineup:

Looks like I was wrong. Gesink has actually gotten quite close to a grand tour gc trophy

 

[LaFlorecita]

Looks like I was wrong. Gesink has actually gotten quite close to a grand tour gc trophy

Lol good one

 

[Lupetto]

Andy Schleck rode for VC Roubaix in U23. So he is used to the cobbles.

 

[theyoungest]

Looks like I was wrong. Gesink has actually gotten quite close to a grand tour gc trophy

So close, yet so far away.

 

[Christian]

Andy was not stationary for 39 seconds. Much like the Cadel puncture on Sierra Nevada, it's been exaggerated in the re-telling because the chase from behind is more dramatic than the surge from in front (Cadel lost the Vuelta by more than he lost on that stage anyway so it's a moot point, but that didn't stop it being brought up time and again as the cause of the defeat). Andy lost 22 seconds on the descent because he's a rubbish descender. Andy wouldn't have been in that position if Fabian Cancellara wasn't a huge great whopping hypocrite anyway, because Cancellara would have neutralised stage 3 as well, and Contador would have been 1'13 further up than he already was. If crashes and accidents are just racing incidents, Andy loses time to Contador in stage 2 (how much, we don't know, as the Contador group was a minute or two behind when the neutralisation occurred, and the Schleck group over 4 minutes, but I don't recall who was in which group in terms of engines. Menchov was in the front group though, as miraculously he of all people had stayed upright when everybody else was falling over!!!). If they aren't, Contador should have the time he lost on stage 3 back. Saxo picked and chose which incidents were fair game and which weren't that year. Even if you argue that the crash of Martin and Fränk wasn't a justification, they didn't wait when Chavanel - in the maillot jaune - punctured. Hypocritical to then expect Contador to wait when you slip your chain two weeks later, huh? Even if Chavanel wasn't likely to be GC relevant after three weeks, there's more than enough intrigue to have hours of debate from the 2010 Tour. It was its only hope to compete with the 2010 Giro.

It's also impossible to extrapolate what would have happened as, had the chain incident not occurred, they wouldn't have had their little bromance on the Tourmalet and they might have attacked each other. I don't recall who was strongest that day or if we ever got to find out since they were joined at the hip.

Libertine I am not argueing with your conclusion, Andy and Cancellara may very well be hypocrites, I know I am, I get annoyed when people cross the street at a red light but then when I'm walking I do it myself. Contador later blatantly lied about having neither heard nor seen the incident. Hypocrite, thy name is - you get the idea.

But one of the arguements you used is clearly wrong. Andy did not lose time because of a bad descend, the sole reason was Contador taking advantage of the chain incident - regardless of how you divide it up in hindsight. The second is most likely also wrong, or at the very least impossible to prove, thus rendering it moot.

I can think of one comparable incident, namely when Ullrich was riding for Bianchi and Armstrong ran into that kid on the side of the road. I do not remember whether Ullrich specifically waited for him or not, but what I do remember very clearly is Ullrich saying in a ZDF (this was back when ZDF was still broadcasting the Tour) post-race interview: "I did not want to attack after that". At the time that had impressed me a lot. Ullrich, the human who never stood a chance against the machine, was offered the chance of a lifetime on a silver platter and refused to take it for moral reasons. All he had to do was attack, but he didn't do it. Contador did it and lied about it afterwards, it's his choice and it's well within his rights. All I'm trying to say is that not every rider would do it, or as Andy put it - "I would not want to win this way". You can apply this situation to many situations that may arise in our daily life. If you want to get ahead you have to make choices. People choose differently - you'll forgive me for choosing Ullrich over Contador.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

No, it is clearly correct that Andy lost time because of a bad descent. He was further down at the end of the stage than he was at the summit. We can argue with each other until we're blue in the face about the ins and outs of what would have happened if he hadn't been in the position of being behind at the summit, it's straight up untrue to say that he didn't lose time because of a bad descent, because he did.

There are a few comparable situations. Team Sky got upset at Movistar pushing the pace in Paris-Nice last year on a descent, which caused Levi Leipheimer to crash. They felt it was unfair to attack on a descent, when they were already attacking when Leipheimer crashed; their express purpose was to distance poor descenders, and by crashing Leipheimer got himself distanced; it's then morally ambiguous whether to continue as that was a consequence or to hold up as a contender had crashed. When Valverde crashed in the Jersey Rojo in the Vuelta, Team Sky got on the front and drove it hard to distance him: pure hypocrisy (I'd have called it score-settling, but Movistar never punished Sky in Paris-Nice, and OPQS got their own back on Valverde in Catalunya). In the 2010 Giro in the mud stage, Vincenzo Nibali crashed in the maglia rosa; there was a bit of consternation at the front about what to do in the group with Evans, Vino and Garzelli, but eventually two stage-hunting Milram riders decided that while the GC men may be unsure about waiting for a crashed GC leader, they were not GC men and were interested in a potential stage win; once they started attacking, Vino and Evans covered them, and Nibali eventually lost nearly 3 minutes.

Cases are different, sure, but it's not a totally unique situation. It can be - and has been - argued that Andy slipped his chain shifting (I don't recall the details exactly and can't be bothered to consult youtube right now) and was therefore to blame for his own misfortune, therefore isn't as unfortunate as, say, Chavanel, who punctured in the maillot jaune on the cobbles and was left behind like the GC irrelevance he ultimately is in a three week race by the unrepentant Saxo boys.

Besides, Contador obviously felt some remorse for his actions, or he wouldn't have been sprinting for the line in the TT in Bordeaux to try to ensure his victory was by more than 39".

 

[Christian]

Besides, Contador obviously felt some remorse for his actions, or he wouldn't have been sprinting for the line in the TT in Bordeaux to try to ensure his victory was by more than 39".

Not sure if serious...?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Not sure if serious...?

He sure didn't roll across the line like somebody who just knows they've done enough to secure victory in a GT, that's for sure. Not sure of actual reasons.

Anyway, it's a moot point since the record books say Andy Schleck won that race now. I actually wouldn't mind the hypocrisy if he hadn't made such a song and dance of Contador's actions, same as I lambasted Sky for taking advantage of Valverde's crash in La Rioja not because I saw what they did as necessarily wrong, but because they themselves had specified they thought it was wrong when somebody else did it. By taking advantage of crashes and misfortune suffered by the yellow jersey early in the race, Schleck forfeits the right to complain about others taking advantage of misfortune suffered by the yellow jersey later in the race.

Saxo wanted to have their cake and eat it in that race. That's fine, we would all like the best of both worlds. The world has a habit of coming back to bite you, though.

 

[Christian]

No, it is clearly correct that Andy lost time because of a bad descent. He was further down at the end of the stage than he was at the summit. We can argue with each other until we're blue in the face about the ins and outs of what would have happened if he hadn't been in the position of being behind at the summit, it's straight up untrue to say that he didn't lose time because of a bad descent, because he did.

We must also consider that there was a sizeable flat part as a run in to the finish after the descend. I do not remember how long it was though and what the exact constellation of the groups was - i.e. did Andy have help from a domestique (I doubt it), and did other riders contribute to the pace-making in Contador's group? This stretch must have played in the final 39 seconds, however you did not factor it in in your calculations.

It can be - and has been - argued that Andy slipped his chain shifting (I don't recall the details exactly and can't be bothered to consult youtube right now) and was therefore to blame for his own misfortune

I'd be very careful when using that arguement - I think it does not fulfill a necessary standard, much like the "Fränk Schleck caused the stage 3 crash due to poor bike handling" arguement. These are explanations that people with strong opinions regarding the Schleck brothers use, but you'll notice of course how they fit perfectly for the point that they are trying to make (i.e. Andy is an idiot therefore he shifted while attacking and the fact that he shifted while attacking proves that he is an idiot). Rigurously speaking they lack empiric foundation. The fact is that Andy said he did not shift while attacking - you are of course free to believe this or not, but this is the only testemony that we have to go on. As far as I know it is impossible to see anything from the video.

 

[Christian]

That's fine, we would all like the best of both worlds. The world has a habit of coming back to bite you, though.

Ultimately it came back to bite Contador too in a way...

 

[The Hitch]

Libertine I am not argueing with your conclusion, Andy and Cancellara may very well be hypocrites, I know I am, I get annoyed when people cross the street at a red light but then when I'm walking I do it myself. Contador later blatantly lied about having neither heard nor seen the incident. Hypocrite, thy name is - you get the idea.

Thats a very weak defence of hypocrisy. For one its not a good example, but even if it were or if there were a better one, admiting yourself to being a hypocrite in no way excuses Schleck, at worst you just admit to being not a nice person yourself.

I don't care how much you try to minimize it, it is a big deal. If someone holds one set of principles for themselves and one for everyone else, then they have failed the simplest test of character there is. No way around that.

I don't agree with Libertine that these things come back to bite you, the world has never balanced itself in favour of the righteous.

But you are blatantly defending Schleck based on emotion rather than judgement. And it seems, considering your openness about your background, like nationalistic bias and nothing else.

You seem outraged at Contador for saying he didn't see Andy's chain slip, as seen by your little snipe about him getting what was coming. It was a lie, wrong but in that he chose the wrong thing to say because at the end of the day he was 100% in the right to attack in the first place. Yet with Schleck, who to any fair minded observer comes off the ******* from the whole chaingate thing, you seem reluctant to give much criticism at all.

At the end of the day, **** Schleck, **** Contador, and **** any biases.

Anybody who looks at it from a cycling point of view rather than a I must defend my favourite rider POV can see it one of two ways. Either

1- it is ok to attack opponents when they are forced to a stop, in which case Schleck did nothing wrong on stage 3 and Contador did nothing wrong on stage 15 and Schleck is wrong to complain about it.
Or
2 It is not ok to attack riders in which case Schleck was in the wrong on stage 3 and Contador is within his right to take back the time that was stolen from him. Just like self defence in the eyes of the law.

Contador's lie reveals his lying nature, perhaps, perhaps he was shook at having just been booed. I've had my goes at Contador as my status as PEN1 from the Contador fangirls on this forum during this summer, demonstrates, and Ive seen him lie many times before, but to say that this of all things warrants him deserving of the 2 year ban, the loss of the 2 titles and everything else that came with that, reeks of spite towards the guy and the fangroup, who's only crime was being the opponent of "my guy".

 

[uphillstruggle]

No, it is clearly correct that Andy lost time because of a bad descent. He was further down at the end of the stage than he was at the summit. We can argue with each other until we're blue in the face about the ins and outs of what would have happened if he hadn't been in the position of being behind at the summit, it's straight up untrue to say that he didn't lose time because of a bad descent, because he did.

He lost more time through bad descending. I doubt he would've been dropped on the descent had he been in contact with Contador and friends at the summit. He's not that bad of a descender

All in all I think the strongest rider won in 2010 so people cant have too many complaints about the result.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Besides, Contador obviously felt some remorse for his actions, or he wouldn't have been sprinting for the line in the TT in Bordeaux to try to ensure his victory was by more than 39".

No, that was because Astana fed him misinformation during the race. He thought he was only a few seconds ahead.

 

[Eshnar]

Can we stop the OT, thanks.

Any new rumours?

 

[RownhamHill]

Can we stop the OT, thanks.

Any new rumours?

No rumours from me, but does anyone know if there's any more detail about the last stage in the UK - Cambridge to London via Epping Forest? Depending on what way the come down from Cambridge to Epping Forest there's a lovely big hill they can take, and I'm interested to see what they're going to do with it! (Will also affect where I might watch the stage!)

 

[Volderke]

OK, some rumours (or more fact than rumour):

They are going to start in Ypres and finish in (possibly) Arenberg with some cobbled sections in between. Last time this happened, it made for some good racing (Hushovd winning the stage, Schleck distancing Contador and Armstrong).

I would like to remind the Schleck vs. Contador people that Contador lost 20 precious seconds on his group with team mate Vino in that stage because of a flat in the last 3kms.

 

[The Hitch]

He has a flat before 3k as I recall, but thought it would be better to stick with the group as long as possible even with the flat, rather than chase on his own.