De Andrés and Perico's tactical analysis is worth less than nothing.The Hitch said:Dont know if you watched the stage on TDP or elsewhere, but Perico was saying the same every time Nibali attacked, that this is not the way to ride Angliru.
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
De Andrés and Perico's tactical analysis is worth less than nothing.The Hitch said:Dont know if you watched the stage on TDP or elsewhere, but Perico was saying the same every time Nibali attacked, that this is not the way to ride Angliru.
Especially De Andréshrotha said:De Andrés and Perico's tactical analysis is worth less than nothing.
Von Mises said:What exactly is your point? You took Ferrari-Nibali connection as a matter of fact, I showed that this is not proven. I am not saying that you cannot bring up this story, but in sake of fairness it is nice to add: it is just one story, not proven, Nibali has denied, there is no single piece of of other direct or indirect evidence linking Nibali to Ferrari.
I don't think it would.Frosty said:Am not suggesting this is the case here at all for a number of reasons but i have a query about this sort of situation. What would happen if someone's third missed test occurred early in the morning after a race? Would the result of a race just finished be in jeopardy or not?
hrotha said:De Andrés and Perico's tactical analysis is worth less than nothing.
Eshnar said:The problem is that for Nibali staying with Horner was not sufficient. He had to gap him. And I see no evidence he could have made it with a single attack.
Furthermore, his attacks were also meant to try to catch the breakaway so if he couldn't drop Horner he had still the possibility to take the bonus on the sprint. And in order to do so he had to get rid of Purito and Valverde too.
The Hitch said:Front page of what?
The Hitch said:If they had kept Tiralongo out front they could have had bonus second options.
With which all Nibali would have neeeded to do would be outsprint Horner at the finish. Wouldnt need to drop him at all.
huh? How?The Hitch said:If they had kept Tiralongo out front they could have had bonus second options.
Eshnar said:huh? How?
Ok. But if Nibali hadn't attacked they would have never caught all the rest of the break.The Hitch said:Bonus seconds are 10-6-4 right?
Nibali was 3 seconds back right?
10-6=4.
6-4=2
4-0=4
That means if Nibali beats Horner in a sprint he gets the jersey so long as they finish 1st and 2nd or 3rd and 4th, because 3-4 =-1.
IF they finish 2nd and 3rd Horner keeps the jersey because 3-2=1.
They didnt know whether they would catch the break in the end or not. The way it turned out, the gt contenders caught all but Ellisonde meaning the bonus seconds up for grabs were 6 and 4 which is not enough for Nibali.
But if they had kept Tiralongo with Elissonde Tiralongo would have crossed 2nd, thereby taking the 6 bonus seconds meaning Nibali would win the Vuelta by taking the 4 second bonus on the sprint.
Eshnar said:Ok. But if Nibali hadn't attacked they would have never caught all the rest of the break.
They barely caught them in the actual stage. I really don't think they could have gone faster without those early attacks.The Hitch said:Don't know that for sure.
thehog said:He'll probably win the Vuelta!
Eshnar said:They barely caught them in the actual stage. I really don't think they could have gone faster without those early attacks.
PosterBill said:6 times in 15 years is not exactly a great sample size. Heck I don't see how anyone could use comparative times unless it was a time trial and even then I wouldn't feel comfortable with it because of weather. And how do you factor in racing strategy, attacking on different parts of the climb or having a comfortable enough lead that one wouldn't need to go all out.
Felgen said:As.com has updated the story to say that AEA (Spanish ADA) actually went to the right hotel after first going to the wrong one, but couldn't find Horner there either. It is unclear whether they got there within the time window.
They also say he has been targeted by USADA for some months.
http://ciclismo.as.com/ciclismo/2013/09/16/vuelta_espana/1379326260_077120.html
B_Ugli said:They were never going to get to the 2nd hotel in time. As another poster pointed out in the comments section, the 2nd hotel is 35km outside of the city in the opposite direction to the airport.
He might have played by the rules in notification but the odds were stacked against those testers getting to the 2nd hotel before 7 am. In fact I am amazed that they did.
coinneach said:.....strange to see tactics discussed in the clinic: surely to post here you have to believe that its ONLY drugs that make a difference?
Dekker_Tifosi said:what wonders me most is, the people who think Horner is doped, but Nibali is somehow clean.
Yes Horner beats previous dopers times on Angliru and Pena Cabarga. But Nibali, only 25 seconds slower on Algiru, beats MANY doper era times as well, including 2008 Contador. So did Valverde.. hell Valverde is faster than before his suspension
And that's somehow possibe then..
If you condemn Horner on base of his climbing times, then you should condemn Nibali and Valverde as well..
No prejudices