• 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!

Teams & Riders Vincenzo Nibali discussion thread

Page 393 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

The Principal Sheep said:
rhubroma said:
The Principal Sheep said:
rhubroma said:
Don't know what to make of a blockhead, so here it is in no uncertain terms: Nibali won because he was very fortunate Kruijswijk crashed (thus the asterisk). If the cosmos was aligned, or not, for that to happen, I don't know (and don't really care). And even if it was crashing tarnishes the result, for even the gods play a cruel hand in fate (Laocoon). Doesn't make it less of a win, but less of a merit yes.

Why do you struggle so? your opinion on Nibali's victory has been made clear countless times over, what I have asked of you is your opinion on whether you would still apply the asterisk if the time lost by Kruijswijk had been brought about by hunger knock or by illness or by injury?

This was the question I asked on Friday and you have replied to me on a number of occasions with some redundant posts with little to do with my query? I doubt the problem lies with your comprehension but perhaps your reluctance which is baffling as it's only an opinion. Now with a little civility rather than your petulance you may try again if you wish.

Snide remarks are, well, snide remarks.

Your "query" doesn't interest me, since it is neither here nor there. Everything else is just passive aggressive drivel, other than "petulance."

My "opinion?" That's your opinion.

So after half-dozen of your misguided replies over two days you finally muster "I decline" but in a much more crass manner. Very well.

Ok, sheep will be sheep I see.

What's misguided is your query, since it isn't the same thing as discussing what has actually taken place (the only thing of consequence) and here's why. Other than moi being crass...

When a rider get's sick it is a result of not being able to maintain form, either because mentally he can't handle the pressure, as was Landa's case, or else he was overtaxed. Either way we are dealing with an a priori internal cause and, as such, the affected rider owns it. He will simply not able to cut it and that is that. By contrast when a rider is physically well, but then is only hampered a posteriori because of a crash, we are dealing with an external cause during the race that doesn't speak at all of being outgunned by the competition in a direct confrontation - the latter, of course, always being preferable (otherwise Nibali's 2014 Tour win would have the same value, as if he had beaten Froome and Contador still in the race all the way to Paris). Idem for a mechanical. Yes these are also part of the sport, but they qualify the outcome negatively.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
The Principal Sheep said:
rhubroma said:
The Principal Sheep said:
rhubroma said:
Don't know what to make of a blockhead, so here it is in no uncertain terms: Nibali won because he was very fortunate Kruijswijk crashed (thus the asterisk). If the cosmos was aligned, or not, for that to happen, I don't know (and don't really care). And even if it was crashing tarnishes the result, for even the gods play a cruel hand in fate (Laocoon). Doesn't make it less of a win, but less of a merit yes.

Why do you struggle so? your opinion on Nibali's victory has been made clear countless times over, what I have asked of you is your opinion on whether you would still apply the asterisk if the time lost by Kruijswijk had been brought about by hunger knock or by illness or by injury?

This was the question I asked on Friday and you have replied to me on a number of occasions with some redundant posts with little to do with my query? I doubt the problem lies with your comprehension but perhaps your reluctance which is baffling as it's only an opinion. Now with a little civility rather than your petulance you may try again if you wish.

Snide remarks are, well, snide remarks.

Your "query" doesn't interest me, since it is neither here nor there. Everything else is just passive aggressive drivel, other than "petulance."

My "opinion?" That's your opinion.

So after half-dozen of your misguided replies over two days you finally muster "I decline" but in a much more crass manner. Very well.

Ok, sheep will be sheep I see.

What's misguided is your query, since it isn't the same thing as discussing what has actually taken place (the only thing of consequence) and here's why.

When a rider get's sick it is a result of not being able to maintain form, either because mentally he can't handle the pressure, as was Landa's case, or else he was overtaxed. Either way we are dealing with an a priori internal cause and, as such, the affected rider owns it. He will simply not able to cut it and that is that. By contrast when a rider is physically well, but then is only hampered a posteriori because of a crash, we are dealing with an external cause during the race that doesn't speak at all of being outgunned by the competition in a direct confrontation. Idem for a mechanical. Yes these are also part of the sport, but they qualify the outcome negatively.

Perhaps, if the crash was purely bad luck....
 
No, because that doesn't change the a postiori external nature of the negative outcome. Nor does it change how the winner was able to win. Look it doesn't really matter if it was "bad luck" or "bad judgment," the result is the same. Crashes (and mechanicals) are always the worst way for a race to be won or lost. This is why the "unwritten rule" that used to be part of cycling etiquette addressed these issues, but not others. Now I'm not saying Nibali should have waited, but the fact that the peleton contemplated this for the guy in the lead demonstrates an awareness of what I've been saying that isn't casual.

This has become tedious, I know. Nibali's 2014 Tour win should be enough to validate this case. Kruijswijk's fate though was no different than Froome's or Contador's, in terms of how he was physically impared and the impact this had on the race. That is the constant under scrutiny.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
Visit site
A Grand Tour awards the best overall rider: climbing, time-trialing AND descending/bike handling. You think it's luck that Nibali has finished every GT he entered besides the one he was disqualified for?
 
Re:

El Pistolero said:
A Grand Tour awards the best overall rider: climbing, time-trialing AND descending/bike handling. You think it's luck that Nibali has finished every GT he entered besides the one he was disqualified for?

I do not see it that way. I think Nibali was more lucky to have had Contador, Froome and Kruijiwijk crash, than he was bravo in bike handling and descending skills.

Anyone, or course, is free to see things as he chooses. So, no, I don't think Nibali was the best rider in a couple of the GTs he won.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
El Pistolero said:
A Grand Tour awards the best overall rider: climbing, time-trialing AND descending/bike handling. You think it's luck that Nibali has finished every GT he entered besides the one he was disqualified for?

I do not see it that way. I think Nibali was more lucky to have had Contador, Froome and Kruijiwijk crash, than he was bravo in bike handling and descending skills.

Anyone, or course, is free to see things as he chooses. So, no, I don't think Nibali was the best rider in a couple of the GTs he won.

Contador's crash was his own mistake. Froome sucked in 2014, he crashed left and right. That's not being unlucky: that's not being able to handle the pressure. Same happened to Nibali in 2015. Kruijswijk tried to follow Nibali in a descent and paid for it.

Some crashes are really unlucky and unavoidable, but the crashes of Froome, Contador and Kruijswijk weren't... Kruijswijk in fact has quite the history of losing time in Grand Tours because of crashes, poor position in the peloton and what not.
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
rhubroma said:
El Pistolero said:
A Grand Tour awards the best overall rider: climbing, time-trialing AND descending/bike handling. You think it's luck that Nibali has finished every GT he entered besides the one he was disqualified for?

I do not see it that way. I think Nibali was more lucky to have had Contador, Froome and Kruijiwijk crash, than he was bravo in bike handling and descending skills.

Anyone, or course, is free to see things as he chooses. So, no, I don't think Nibali was the best rider in a couple of the GTs he won.

Contador's crash was his own mistake. Froome sucked in 2014, he crashed left and right. That's not being unlucky: that's not being able to handle the pressure. Same happened to Nibali in 2015. Kruijswijk tried to follow Nibali in a descent and paid for it.

Some crashes are really unlucky and unavoidable, but the crashes of Froome, Contador and Kruijswijk weren't... Kruijswijk in fact has quite the history of losing time in Grand Tours because of crashes, poor position in the peloton and what not.

This will be the last time I say anything else about the topic. It doesn't matter the circumstances, what matters are the crashes themeselves. That's cycling, yes. But I value the wins less, because of them. I don't interpret the sport as you do.
 
Re:

El Pistolero said:
The way Froome was riding he'd have lost 2-5 minutes on the cobbles stage, the guy sucked that year.

Nibali had attacked from over 10km out on Hautacam the day before, so he was tired for the TT. And I doubt he took many risks there.

Where did you get that from? Before the Tour, Froome looked a lot lot better in 2014 than he did before the tour in 2015.
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
rhubroma said:
El Pistolero said:
A Grand Tour awards the best overall rider: climbing, time-trialing AND descending/bike handling. You think it's luck that Nibali has finished every GT he entered besides the one he was disqualified for?

I do not see it that way. I think Nibali was more lucky to have had Contador, Froome and Kruijiwijk crash, than he was bravo in bike handling and descending skills.

Anyone, or course, is free to see things as he chooses. So, no, I don't think Nibali was the best rider in a couple of the GTs he won.

Contador's crash was his own mistake. Froome sucked in 2014, he crashed left and right. That's not being unlucky: that's not being able to handle the pressure. Same happened to Nibali in 2015. Kruijswijk tried to follow Nibali in a descent and paid for it.

Some crashes are really unlucky and unavoidable, but the crashes of Froome, Contador and Kruijswijk weren't... Kruijswijk in fact has quite the history of losing time in Grand Tours because of crashes, poor position in the peloton and what not.

Try controlling your bike with a broken wrist.

Froome crashed left right and centre on the tarmac before the cobbles on the cobbled stage because he broke his wrist the previous day
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
Perhaps, if the crash was purely bad luck....

There's a difference. Kruijswijk had no bad luck for his crash. But Nibali was lucky that his competitor made such a massive mistake.

A bit like bowling a knee high full toss in cricket is a terrible ball in cricket, and should be hit for six runs, but sometimes the batsman messes up, skies it, and gets caught. So while the batsman really f***ed up, the bowler got super lucky
 
Apr 2, 2013
769
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
The Principal Sheep said:
rhubroma said:
The Principal Sheep said:
rhubroma said:
Don't know what to make of a blockhead, so here it is in no uncertain terms: Nibali won because he was very fortunate Kruijswijk crashed (thus the asterisk). If the cosmos was aligned, or not, for that to happen, I don't know (and don't really care). And even if it was crashing tarnishes the result, for even the gods play a cruel hand in fate (Laocoon). Doesn't make it less of a win, but less of a merit yes.

Why do you struggle so? your opinion on Nibali's victory has been made clear countless times over, what I have asked of you is your opinion on whether you would still apply the asterisk if the time lost by Kruijswijk had been brought about by hunger knock or by illness or by injury?

This was the question I asked on Friday and you have replied to me on a number of occasions with some redundant posts with little to do with my query? I doubt the problem lies with your comprehension but perhaps your reluctance which is baffling as it's only an opinion. Now with a little civility rather than your petulance you may try again if you wish.

Snide remarks are, well, snide remarks.

Your "query" doesn't interest me, since it is neither here nor there. Everything else is just passive aggressive drivel, other than "petulance."

My "opinion?" That's your opinion.

So after half-dozen of your misguided replies over two days you finally muster "I decline" but in a much more crass manner. Very well.

Ok, sheep will be sheep I see.

What's misguided is your query, since it isn't the same thing as discussing what has actually taken place (the only thing of consequence) and here's why. Other than moi being crass...

When a rider get's sick it is a result of not being able to maintain form, either because mentally he can't handle the pressure, as was Landa's case, or else he was overtaxed. Either way we are dealing with an a priori internal cause and, as such, the affected rider owns it. He will simply not able to cut it and that is that. By contrast when a rider is physically well, but then is only hampered a posteriori because of a crash, we are dealing with an external cause during the race that doesn't speak at all of being outgunned by the competition in a direct confrontation - the latter, of course, always being preferable (otherwise Nibali's 2014 Tour win would have the same value, as if he had beaten Froome and Contador still in the race all the way to Paris). Idem for a mechanical. Yes these are also part of the sport, but they qualify the outcome negatively.

I thought we concluded our discussion when you pleaded indifference?

So the only thing that matters is what actually takes place yet you use an asterisk for what might have been. You generalise when it suits and place the responsibility on the rider for his body and well being but not his handling of the bike and you place the effect of pressure and mental tiredness as a cause of illness but not for a rider who’s pushed to his limit by his competitors and makes a mistake.
 
Apr 2, 2013
769
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Jspear said:
Perhaps, if the crash was purely bad luck....

There's a difference. Kruijswijk had no bad luck for his crash. But Nibali was lucky that his competitor made such a massive mistake.

A bit like bowling a knee high full toss in cricket is a terrible ball in cricket, and should be hit for six runs, but sometimes the batsman messes up, skies it, and gets caught. So while the batsman really f***ed up, the bowler got super lucky

Nibali and Chaves applied the pressure which put Kruijswijk on his limit which caused his error and crash, that's not luck, that's a result of their hard riding.
 
Re: Re:

Their crashes were the result of pure pressure, and their inability to handle it.

Some posters just don't want to face the truth, and live with it.
El Pistolero said:
Some crashes are really unlucky and unavoidable, but the crashes of Froome, Contador and Kruijswijk weren't... Kruijswijk in fact has quite the history of losing time in Grand Tours because of crashes, poor position in the peloton and what not.
The Principal Sheep said:
Nibali and Chaves applied the pressure which put Kruijswijk on his limit which caused his error and crash, that's not luck, that's a result of their hard riding.
 
Re: Re:

I thought we concluded our discussion when you pleaded indifference?

So the only thing that matters is what actually takes place yet you use an asterisk for what might have been. You generalise when it suits and place the responsibility on the rider for his body and well being but not his handling of the bike and you place the effect of pressure and mental tiredness as a cause of illness but not for a rider who’s pushed to his limit by his competitors and makes a mistake.

I will contradict myself (really do so this time) just once here.

No, I was indifferent to the fanciful speculations you made when posing your inquiry in light of illness, or a mechanical problem. As these didn't address what I brought up. Thus I only dealt with what actually occured, nothing else. I simply decided it was worth while to respond to your speculations. Whereas I have never made generalizations, but do assess crashes under a different criteria than getting sick. Furthermore, I have always made it quite clear that I was discussing these specific crashes and how they came to determine these particular cycling outcomes (2014 Tour and 2016 Giro), which haven't been fortuitous as I see them.

I also explained that a rider's lack of performance when internally related to a priori circumstances, gets viewed by me in a different light as those from the a posteriori effects of a crash. This seems reasonable to me. If the only way one wins, is because the other guy was forced into making a mistake and falls then it becomes a win by default, not legs. Granted I'm valuing fitness over technique, otherwise I'd watch BMX. That you see things differently is your business. But don't accuse me of poor reasoning.
 
Sep 29, 2013
252
0
0
Visit site
Re:

El Pistolero said:
A Grand Tour awards the best overall rider: climbing, time-trialing AND descending/bike handling. You think it's luck that Nibali has finished every GT he entered besides the one he was disqualified for?


Totaly agreed. In a grand Tour, even if normaly is the best climber or the best TT that wins, the truth is that to win, you have to finish, and the bad lucks are part of a race, and there are many riders that every years have " bad lucks" and others no... That´s the big diference between the top class riders and the others. Nibali has luck? Perhaps, but his luck is fruit of his capacity to fight and finish the grand tours he participate, without crashing, get sick, etc...

You just win a grand tour if you understand that the race has 20 or 21 days, and all are important, in a diferent way. Like it or not, he has 4 GT, and Just Contador has more actually in the world tour riders :). Lucky!!! Oh yeah.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Dekker_Tifosi said:
Ha now we are attributing Kruijswijks fall to Nibali's greatness? That's hilarious.

Kruijswijk has admitted that Nibali's form was already causing him difficulty in keeping up. Nibali attacked, forcing Kruijswijk to take risks he would not otherwise have had to on a difficult descent. If Nibali had just sat on Kruijswijk's wheel all day, he would not have crashed. It is as simple as that.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Visit site
Why wasn't he focussed? Because he was trying to follow Nibali, who was simply too good for him both going up the hill and coming back down it. I'm not guessing this, you understand, I'm going off Kruijswijk's words in interviews.
 
Re:

Dekker_Tifosi said:
kruijswijk crashed because he was thinking about getting something to eat and underestimating the corner. He wasn't focussed. Had nothing to do with that

He made a decisive mistake because he was put under pressure by Nibali and don't forget Chaves who followed the speed of the descent. If Nibali is not able to put pressure, Chaves follows wheels, Kruijswijk wins the Giro. In other words Kruijswijk cracked under pressure making bad decisions which led him to the crash. Simple as that.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
Visit site
Re:

Dekker_Tifosi said:
Ha now we are attributing Kruijswijks fall to Nibali's greatness? That's hilarious.

Would Kruijswijk have won the Giro if Nibali had an off-day on stage 19? The answer is most likely yes and you know it.

Nibali saw Kruijswijk was breathing heavy on the Coll d'Agnello, so he attacked near the top and Kruijswijk was on his limit (as he admitted in an interview) and he cracked under the pressure of Nibali's descending prowess. Nibali was the strongest on stage 19 and 20, that's what won him the Giro. That and his attitude of willing to risk everything for the victory. Not caring for second or third place.
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
Dekker_Tifosi said:
Ha now we are attributing Kruijswijks fall to Nibali's greatness? That's hilarious.

Would Kruijswijk have won the Giro if Nibali had an off-day on stage 19? The answer is most likely yes and you know it.

Nibali saw Kruijswijk was breathing heavy on the Coll d'Agnello, so he attacked near the top and Kruijswijk was on his limit (as he admitted in an interview) and he cracked under the pressure of Nibali's descending prowess. Nibali was the strongest on stage 19 and 20, that's what won him the Giro. That and his attitude of willing to risk everything for the victory. Not caring for second or third place.

Reality summed up nicely! Still the whining continues.......