Voigt's Response after Stage 3

[hrotha]

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?

No, I understand that Jens is angry so I'm not saying he's a whiner or a sissy, or that I'm disappointed in him or that he's not a tough guy anymore. However, I disagree with him. I don't think the cobbles are random, and I don't think they're more dangerous than your average tricky-but-not-outrageously-so descent.

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!)

By "people" I was referring to those who complained about the stage, not all of whom are pro cyclists. Note also not all pro riders at the Tour agree with Voigt, and many have said they have no problem with the stage. Are their opinions less valuable?

Again, I don't think the cobbles are particularly dangerous, so there goes your hyperbole. Taking your logic to the extreme, let's have nothing but flat stages on highways. And let's implement a 35 Km/h speed cap while we're at it.

Also I don't know why you'd imply I'm a lard-*** sitting at home watching with a beer and chips. For all you know I could be Lance Armstrong. And I don't even like beer.

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.

See, that's what I meant. People don't like them because they're unusual, not because of any inherent quality of the cobbles.

 

[Broken Spoke]

Wow, imagine if it had been wet...

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Perhaps but everyone in the race had to ride the same course just like a windy stage. Even LA was discussing how the Shack made numerous mistakes with positioning, riding the sides of the roads leading to punctures, etc. It's not as if the race course was suddenly detoured to the stones. Stages that run near the coast are predictable for wind. Should they too be avoided?

It's a bike race. It was a beautiful stage.

 

[Anonymous]

No, I understand that Jens is angry so I'm not saying he's a whiner or a sissy, or that I'm disappointed in him or that he's not a tough guy anymore. However, I disagree with him. I don't think the cobbles are random, and I don't think they're more dangerous than your average tricky-but-not-outrageously-so descent.

By "people" I was referring to those who complained about the stage, not all of whom are pro cyclists. Note also not all pro riders at the Tour agree with Voigt, and many have said they have no problem with the stage. Are their opinions less valuable?

Again, I don't think the cobbles are particularly dangerous, so there goes your hyperbole. Taking your logic to the extreme, let's have nothing but flat stages on highways. And let's implement a 35 Km/h speed cap while we're at it.

Also I don't know why you'd imply I'm a lard-*** sitting at home watching with a beer and chips. For all you know I could be Lance Armstrong. And I don't even like beer.

See, that's what I meant. People don't like them because they're unusual, not because of any inherent quality of the cobbles.

OMG. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Spare Tyre]

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

I'm with you on this one. I think you have expressed it more clearly than I'd have managed, so thank you.

I have mused on various arguments about the dangers and the randomness etc and I keep coming back to the idea that the TTT eliminates contenders too, and crashes can happen anywhere. I'd rather a cobbles stage every year than a TTT stage.

 

[hrotha]

OMG. WTF is wrong with you?

Beer killed my parents and burned down my village.

 

[Cobblestones]

Beer killed my parents and burned down my village.

I prefer wine.

 

[Hawkwood]

I think the worst example of this came in the 1999 Tour with the Passage du Gois. Before the race everyone said there would be crashes and lo and behold there were. The Passage is covered by the sea twice a day and can be like an ice rink.

 

[Dominar]

See, that's what I meant. People don't like them because they're unusual, not because of any inherent quality of the cobbles.

If by "unusual" you mean "arbitrary," then I will agree. But if you mean "unusual" in the sense that poor, lowly, non-rider "people" like me aren't familiar with them, then I disagree. I know all about P-R, etc. I, like everyone else, knew going into St.3 that riders were going to go down, both physically and competitively. It was only a question of who and how badly. Where people apparently differ is whether or not that's an acceptable sporting risk. I happen to think it's not for a GT because the degree of arbitrariness is too high. It's not because they're "unusual."

 

[hrotha]

If by "unusual" you mean "arbitrary," then I will agree. But if you mean "unusual" in the sense that poor, lowly, non-rider "people" like me aren't familiar with them, then I disagree. I know all about P-R, etc. I, like everyone else, knew going into St.3 that riders were going to go down, both physically and competitively. It was only a question of who and how badly. Where people apparently differ is whether or not that's an acceptable sporting risk. I happen to think it's not for a GT because the degree of arbitrariness is too high. It's not because they're "unusual."

You're getting things confused. I'm saying people (including pro riders, so no, I'm not implying anything about you or your cycling knowledge) think they don't belong in a GT because they're unusual for GTs. When the first real climbs were included in the Tour, people complained too. They said they were inhumane. Now we're all used to them.

I don't see how "unusual" could mean "arbitrary". I don't think they were arbitrary. Obviously luck is involved, but at the end of the day I'd say the final positions corresponded pretty well to who the stronger riders on the cobbles were.

You may disagree, that's fine, but regardless that's not the point I was making.

 

[la.margna]

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.

Yes, Zülle and Escartin both lost the Tour that day, losing 6:03 to be exact.

Similar like Rominger losing 1993's Tour due tu hail.

This is cycling. Last year Cadel had a puncture at the worst moment during a hard Vuelta climb, losing a bit more than a minute until he could continue.

Cycling is outdoor sports. Often, random events impact races. A champion should still be a winner over three weeks no matter what random impacts come and if not... hey, it's the Tour de France!

if you don't like cobbles, descents, climbs, rain, hail, dogs, etc... go for billard, tabletennis or track racing

 

[rhubroma]

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!)

Well we have progressed since the Dark Ages.

In any case, I'm interested in seeing the bigest engine (doped-up or otherwise) win. Not in having circus acts and plubicity stunts falsify the event.

Cheers

 

[STODRR]

Maybe they shouldn't have descents because they might get wet. Maybe they should not ride on roads with traffic strips in the corners because they might get wet

 

[Christian]

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

+1.

(I'm not going to say anything more on that for fear of being called biased or a "pansie")

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.

Fränk did everything he could, he was in 4th position when Martin crashed - what can you do.


Someone said earlier that cobblestones are like russian roulette and I agree with that - ultimately, it all comes down to luck, not skill.
Contador, Armstrong, Chavanel and above all Schleck had bad luck, while A. Schleck and Cadel got lucky and didn't have punctures, broken spokes or someone else crashing ruin their stage or even their TdF.

I know that in a three week GT luck plays a big role, but ultimately I think it should be decided because of who was the strongest and best, and not who got lucky and didn't crash or puncture.

 

[131313]

In any case, I'm interested in seeing the bigest engine (doped-up or otherwise) win. Not in having circus acts and plubicity stunts falsify the event.

Cheers

I'm not. I think it should be more than just 'the biggest engine'. Otherwise, let's just hook up the guys to ergometers and pass out jerseys and prize money based on the results.

Contador showed he's a true champion by taking what the race threw at him, so good on him.

When did the TDF simply become a contest of climbing and time trialing and nothing else? I understand that the cobbles add an element of chance, but so what? What is inherently wrong about adding a small element of chance? It's one day out of 21 days of racing? It's the Tour de France, there are cobbled roads in France. Me, I don't consider racing on cobbles a circus act or a publicity stunt, I consider it racing.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Exactly! Imagine if some of these wusses had to go back and race in the early TdF's. 30lb bikes, dirt and cobbles, stages that took all day to ride, and I mean ALL DAY. What a bunch of privileged, whining little divas. It was a great stage. I wonder how many will want to exclude descents. They have caused farm more serious injuries and deaths over the years.

 

[Mr.DNA]

Exactly! Imagine if some of these wusses had to go back and race in the early TdF's. 30lb bikes, dirt and cobbles, stages that took all day to ride, and I mean ALL DAY. What a bunch of privileged, whining little divas. It was a great stage. I wonder how many will want to exclude descents. They have caused farm more serious injuries and deaths over the years.

That's the way I see it. And wasn't it Henri Desgrange who said that there would be a perfect winner if only one man survived? Then FSchleck, Christian VDV, et al. have done their part to select the perfect winner.

 

[woodburn]

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.

Passage du Gois is part of Stage 1 of next year's tour so we'll see what might happen.

Don't think JV and Saxo are trying to have it both ways. They'd prefer no cobbles, but if they have to be in the race then they are going to do everything to take advantage. Still, it is obvious that he did not consider it a good day for the team because Frank crashed.

It is easy to brush off a broken collarbone from home when you don't have to go to the hospital and have surgery and lose your entire focus for the last 12 months.

 

[scribe]

They should contest this race on trainers

 

[Anonymous]

They should contest this race on trainers

Brilliant!!! Set the climate control to 72 degrees F, put in some ionizing fans (to keep the dust down) and to simulate wind and keep the little darlings cool, and have one waiter per rider there with a silver tray, clean towels, and chilled, filtered mountain spring water. Some ferns would be nice too...

 

[scribe]

I have this vision of their faces in pain and agony as they ascend mont d' frictione

 

[flicker]

Why not run the tour on a glassy smooth 4 mile NASCAR type oval. TT riders riding 100km per day at 5 minute intervals. Full body padding to cushion falls.(In case a rider falls asleep during the race.) 3 100km races per week for one month.
Full faring recumbent bicycles. That is what I would call a challange.

 

[Christian]

Imagine if some of these wusses had to go back and race in the early TdF's. 30lb bikes, dirt and cobbles, stages that took all day to ride, and I mean ALL DAY. What a bunch of privileged, whining little divas.

I wish people would stop comparing the Tour 1910 with the Tour 2010. It's such an utterly inaccurate comparison in every single aspect and does not prove anything.

What the riders did 100 years ago was great, and what riders do today is great too. There were many things wrong and a lot of cheating 100 years ago, just as there is today.

The heroic stories from back in the day are nice for elementary school textbooks, but over a century later it is impossible to distinguish what really happenend and what was added to make a good story. The story of François Faber packing two raw beefsteaks for lunch on every stage is nice, but he surely didn't win the Tour in 1909 on raw beefsteaks alone, and no one knows exactly how far he rode on a female spectator's bike when his was broken, etc.

Plus you have to consider that at that time cobbles and dirt roads were pretty much all they had, so they really didn't have a choice. I'm sure if they had had better roads, they would have prefered to ride on those too.

 

[Captain_Obvious]

I agree with Jens. It was stupid to have the cobbles stage. Got to love that ADHD headcase, he speaks his mind. I admire him.

Everything for the sake of entertainment right.

Also: a Grand tour in 2010 isn’t the tour from 190whatever. And: You have to be a complete fool to think that a grand tour is anything but hard, without a cobbles section.

 

[Thee_chisa]

That's the way I see it. And wasn't it Henri Desgrange who said that there would be a perfect winner if only one man survived? Then FSchleck, Christian VDV, et al. have done their part to select the perfect winner.

yes, degranges designed it as a test of character, a war of attrition. many new to the sport without knowledge of this history (especially riders) a little biatches and HdG should descend and give em a slap