Voigt's Response after Stage 3

[eljimberino]

http://player.sbs.com.au/tdf#/tdf_08/interviews/interviews/playlist/Jens-Voigt-post-race-Stage-3/


What does everyone think?

Personally I think these guys want to have their cake and eat it too. All the teams have known about the pave' for months. Saxo Bank were the ones driving the pace, Voigt and O'Grady especially. Drawing the long bow to blame the organisers for Frank's crash. Seemed to me he crashed of his own fault.

Didn't see Voigt blaming the race organisers for the rider withdrawing the day before with a broken collarbone.

As a fan I rather watch that stage then a first week of straight sprints. I hope they include a cobblestone stage every year now.


Teams these days: have a bad day, blame it on the organisers.

 

[Roland Rat]

I hereby propose a motion that Jens Voigt relinquish his "hardman of cycling" title.

All those in favour please raise your hands.

 

[Chef_Vodnik]

Seemed to me he crashed of his own fault.

No he didn't. Martin crashed in front of him and took him down.

Although I do agree it's a silly thing to do, to rant about this even though they profited the most from it (crash withholding)

 

[Cerberus]

http://player.sbs.com.au/tdf#/tdf_08/interviews/interviews/playlist/Jens-Voigt-post-race-Stage-3/


What does everyone think?

I'm going to take the minority opinion and agree with him, Cobbles are to random for a GT.

Personally I think these guys want to have their cake and eat it too. All the teams have known about the pave' for months. Saxo Bank were the ones driving the pace, Voigt and O'Grady especially.

Driving the pace is a necessary condition for getting to the front, and getting to the front is how you stay relatively safe.

Drawing the long bow to blame the organisers for Frank's crash. Seemed to me he crashed of his own fault.

As Chef_Vodnik said Martin crashed in front of him, very little can be done to prevent something like that, staying near the front helps, but as we saw it's no guarentie.

Didn't see Voigt blaming the race organisers for the rider withdrawing the day before with a broken collarbone.

I saw the entire peleton, headed by Saxon Bank neutralizing the stage (which I don't agree with BTW, but that's another matter). What makes you think that Voigt disagreed with that? Obviously he's more upset when it's someone he knows, but that's hardly a surprise, everybody cares more about those they care about, it's practically tautological.

As a fan I rather watch that stage then a first week of straight sprints. I hope they include a cobblestone stage every year now.

I can definitely see your perspective and it was exciting, but it's also fairly random, which IMO is bad for a GT. I'd rather watch the spring classics knowing that a rider who crashes one day can still, if he's not hurt to badly contest the next classic and that the people riding at the front are the specialists who are probably less likely to crash.

 

[rhubroma]

http://player.sbs.com.au/tdf#/tdf_08/interviews/interviews/playlist/Jens-Voigt-post-race-Stage-3/


What does everyone think?

Personally I think these guys want to have their cake and eat it too. All the teams have known about the pave' for months. Saxo Bank were the ones driving the pace, Voigt and O'Grady especially. Drawing the long bow to blame the organisers for Frank's crash. Seemed to me he crashed of his own fault.

Didn't see Voigt blaming the race organisers for the rider withdrawing the day before with a broken collarbone.

As a fan I rather watch that stage then a first week of straight sprints. I hope they include a cobblestone stage every year now.


Teams these days: have a bad day, blame it on the organisers.

Frankly, I think you miss the point. The cobbles of Paris-Roubaix belong to a spring classic which has its raison d'etre in that race alone and for its participants on that day. Not in a Grand Tour.

Because the specialists of a three week event already need to overcome the normal dangers of week one crashes, then the tests in the mountains, time trials, etc. Such a stage needlesly and unjustly, placed them in serious danger. The Tour should be won or lost in the montains first and in the time trials second. Not on the pave. I think the organizers were thinking with their egos and not in terms of the well being off the racers. For, as I had predicted, the stage has falsified the event. In the first place for eliminating one of the principle contenders, F. Schleck and, in the second place, because of the time gaps it has created between the leading contenders and not all due to their own lack of capacity, but mechanicals.

I'm all for Paris-Roubaix in April. Not in July.

 

[la.margna]

cobbles are part of the game. like mountains, descents, ITT's, TTT's... so i think it would be great to include such a stage every year in the Tour. A champion should be able to win a Tour under all circumstances.

What I think is ridicolous, that bike changes on the pavés were only allowed from the team car because of e.doping concerns. They should check and mark additonal bikes that could be given to riders on the road, like in the classique's.

But let's be realistic, it will probably last another four or five years for such a great spectacle.

I agree that it is a random factor to a certain degree, but what about hail, rain, roundabouts, etc.? Again, part of the game. Liked it a lot!

 

[TRDean]

I personally don't think the stones belong in a GT...but that being said, it was really fun to watch. Very impressed with some of the climbers. The big looser on the day was of course Frank...but also Chavanel. Through no fault of his own he lost the yellow. He should still be in yellow in my humble opinion.

 

[Cerberus]

I personally don't think the stones belong in a GT...but that being said, it was really fun to watch. Very impressed with some of the climbers. The big looser on the day was of course Frank...but also Chavanel. Through no fault of his own he lost the yellow. He should still be in yellow in my humble opinion.

Well he got the yellow due to a bunch of crashes so there is a certain - I don't want to say poetic justice, because the crashes weren't his fault - but let's say irony, in him loosing them for similar reasons.

 

[Bellkicker]

The inclusion of the pavés this year reminded me of 1999, the first year Lance won. The organizers had included a ride across the Passage du Gois, a slippery, narrow trail that floods when the tide is in. Alex Zülle lost 7 minutes, as I recall, on that day because he was caught behind a crash. He kept gaining time on Armstrong but could never make up the seven minutes.

Did it make that tour more interesting? Yes. Was it fair? Probably not. If Contador had lost five minutes Tuesday, it would probably have made for a more interesting tour but I, personally, don't think chance should be such a major factor in a GT.

Now, the strassa bianca in the Giro I thought was a pretty fair inclusion.

 

[auscyclefan94]

The route has been known for ages. HTFU Jens or go home you ****!

 

[movingtarget]

Cobbles are part of road racing. Another hissy fit from Saxo Bank riders. I suppose if Schleck fell on the unpaved stage in the Giro which was one of the best stages in the race, that would not have been correct either. I actually think it improves Andy Schleck's chances by keeping his mind on the job and not wondering where his brother is all of the time. About time Jens retired I think. I don't like to see riders fall but it's part of the sport. Dogs on the loose, spectators on the road, I remember a horse got loose on the road one year. Amazing no one was killed. Jens should just ride on the front and make people suffer. He is good at doing that !

 

[hrotha]

Jesus Christ, listening to Jens you'd think Fränk died.

Agree with the majority here. People only have a problem with cobbles because they're unusual.

 

[Cerberus]

Jesus Christ, listening to Jens you'd think Fränk died.

Agree with the majority here. People only have a problem with cobbles because they're unusual.

Come on, at least acknowledge that there is another side to the argument. The cobbles are dangerous and they are random.

Frank got fairly seriously hurt and Jens didn't know exactly how bad it was (collarbone broken 3 places as it turns out). Are you really telling em you wouldn't be upset if one of your colleagues and friends fell and hurt himself badly due to what you considered unnecesarilly dangerous work conditions?

 

[Sophistic]

I gotta agree with Voigt, some action is fine but this is just nonsense, the tour should be decided by strength and not by luck, which is what is probably the most important thing on such a stage, especially when you have more than 190 riders attacking the paves at the same time.
Btw, i think this also showed that the peloton is simply too big, they should reduce it to 8 or may be just 7 riders per team, would make the race also more interesting if a single team has a lower chance of controlling the race alone.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Come on, at least acknowledge that there is another side to the argument. The cobbles are dangerous and they are random.

Frank got fairly seriously hurt and Jens didn't know exactly how bad it was (collarbone broken 3 places as it turns out). Are you really telling em you wouldn't be upset if one of your colleagues and friends fell and hurt himself badly due to what you considered unnecesarilly dangerous work conditions?

Cobbles are apart of cycling as safe work conditions are apart of work places. It would be dangerous if we made riders ride into a twenty km pitch black tunnel but cobbles are apart of the sport so **** Sie jens!

 

[Broken Spoke]

Frankly, I think you miss the point. The cobbles of Paris-Roubaix belong to a spring classic which has its raison d'etre in that race alone and for its participants on that day. Not in a Grand Tour.

Because the specialists of a three week event already need to overcome the normal dangers of week one crashes, then the tests in the mountains, time trials, etc. Such a stage needlesly and unjustly, placed them in serious danger. The Tour should be won or lost in the montains first and in the time trials second. Not on the pave. I think the organizers were thinking with their egos and not in terms of the well being off the racers. For, as I had predicted, the stage has falsified the event. In the first place for eliminating one of the principle contenders, F. Schleck and, in the second place, because of the time gaps it has created between the leading contenders and not all due to their own lack of capacity, but mechanicals.

I'm all for Paris-Roubaix in April. Not in July.

It's the Tour de France!!! The first edition was conceived as a publicity stunt, a circus of men performing incredible feats on bicycles. It's as much theatre as sport and I sure hope it stays that way. Why do so many people want to sanitise and control it? No cobbles, no traffic islands, no narrow streets or tight corners... If you want to watch a safe, fair, predictable contest feel free to go start your own - I'll be watching the Tour.

 

[Anonymous]

Jesus Christ, listening to Jens you'd think Fränk died.

Agree with the majority here. People only have a problem with cobbles because they're unusual.

JV is not "people"he is a seasoned rider who puts his body and career on the line every day he rides. The lard-asses sitting at home watching with a beer and chips are the ones who think the cobbles great. I agree with JV. In a three week race where riders are expected to go the distance cobbles are a disproportionate risk. I think the problem is that the three GT organizations are all trying to out-do each other with more-better-harder-stranger spectacles. Why not just have all the riders jump a canyon? The ones who fall into the abyss are out, the others ride on.... (Versus could get behind something like that!)

 

[Cobblestones]

I hereby propose a motion that Jens Voigt relinquish his "hardman of cycling" title.

All those in favour please raise your hands.

Aye. ..........

 

[auscyclefan94]

I hereby propose a motion that Jens Voigt relinquish his "hardman of cycling" title.

All those in favour please raise your hands.

*Raises hand*

 

[ErmOkk]

The inclusion of the pavés this year reminded me of 1999, the first year Lance won. The organizers had included a ride across the Passage du Gois, a slippery, narrow trail that floods when the tide is in. Alex Zülle lost 7 minutes, as I recall, on that day because he was caught behind a crash. He kept gaining time on Armstrong but could never make up the seven minutes.

Did it make that tour more interesting? Yes. Was it fair? Probably not. If Contador had lost five minutes Tuesday, it would probably have made for a more interesting tour but I, personally, don't think chance should be such a major factor in a GT.

Now, the strassa bianca in the Giro I thought was a pretty fair inclusion.

Zülle only gained 10 seconds on Armstrong in one stage, the other ones it was equal or the other way around....

I thought the stage was exciting, and certainly something they should do every 4-5 years, but maybe 15 km of pave is a bit too much...

 

[Anonymous]

There's a fine line when the organizers are designing a course. The cobbles were quite a spectacle, no doubt. Arguably a better stage than the dirt roads in the Giro.

Not sure I agree with Jens. There's a lot of carnage in stages where there are cross-winds... gutter-ball... crashes... those conditions create random selections too. Saxo (CSC) are usually the team that drops the hammer in those conditions. I guess the organizers should avoid stages that have the possibility of wind.

 

[Dominar]

You don't see them playing the World Cup on a field strewn with rocks, do you? Wouldn't errant ball bounces and slipping players make the game more "interesting"?

I think the organizers were not happy with last year's tedious first weeks, so they introduced the cobbles early for the express purpose of "shaking things up." They do not seem to have considered the physical risk it would pose to riders, or the fact that it would likely not only "shake things up," but effectively knock real GC contenders out of the race early on. So, now, we will have to see if it actually produces more exciting stages where riders like LA and CS have to attack or, as I'm afraid, we'll continue to have boring stages, albeit with fewer GC contenders marking pace. If the latter is true, then the mountains could actually be less interesting than if there were more GC contenders close in time to each other!

Bottom line, IMO: cobbles = Russian roulette. Fine for P-R, where the whole point of the race is to survive them, but not a GT. Either take them out or put them early enough in the stage that riders will have a fighting chance to make up for any bad "luck".

 

[nvpacchi]

Agree with Jens to a degree, however its part of bike racing and he knows that a crash could happen anywhere at anytime.

If organizers want to dabble with cobbles, either include a pave stage every year or don't do it at all. Adding the cobbles whenever they feel like it is like it gives GC guys very little time to alternatively prepare. Shlecks or Contador doing one pave practice session during the spring is nowhere near enough preparation. But if GC guys knew it was coming year in and year out, they could be cognizant of what it takes to train on cobbles and make it a focal point of their yearly preparation.

Either allow the GC guys to prepare for the pave round by including it every year, or just get rid of it entirely.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

I want to see cobbles remain in the Tour although I doubt it will happen if JV is moaning

It was a great spectacle and a huge improvement on the tedious TTT. You still have the strong team element in a stage like this as Saxo demonstrated but a strong skillful individual rider like Evans can also do well and isn't necessarily badly handicapped by riding on a weaker team

I don't see the cobbles as disproportionally too dangerous. We see numerous crashes every year in the first week and inevitably some big name riders leave the race often through no fault of their own. Has everyone forgotten this ? The stage the day before was much more dangerous as it turned out - does this mean the race should never visit the Ardennes again ?

As to the "lottery" argument - again it's similar to any other 1st week stage in that bad luck can always hurt you. But you can certainly put things in your favour to improve your chances (e.g. preparation, riding the course in advance, riding in similar races, riding hard to put yourself in the right position). Frank Schleck was unlucky that Tony Martin fell in front of him but if he hadn't lost Andy's wheel coming into that section he'd still be in the race. Armstrong was unlucky to puncture especially at the time he did but if you ride in the gutter you increase the chances of a puncture. Overall the stronger riders on the flat did the best as you would expect but the climbers also acquitted themselves well I thought. In future years everyone would be better prepared and more experienced

 

[Dominar]

There's a fine line when the organizers are designing a course. The cobbles were quite a spectacle, no doubt. Arguably a better stage than the dirt roads in the Giro.

Not sure I agree with Jens. There's a lot of carnage in stages where there are cross-winds... gutter-ball... crashes... those conditions create random selections too. Saxo (CSC) are usually the team that drops the hammer in those conditions. I guess the organizers should avoid stages that have the possibility of wind.

Yes, but those can happen on most any stage and are the normal, unpredictable and unavoidable risks of the sport. They're like a bad call by a referee, or bad weather that favors one team over another. Cobbles are not normal for a GT, and the carnage they caused was both predictable and avoidable.