Froome and Sky attack a fallen Valverde. Moral bankruptcy take 3 - or "that's racing!"

It's the old story. We've all been there. Sometimes we wait, sometimes we attack. It's a moral and ethical dilemma, sure, but one we decide on the road. A rider punctures, that's unlucky. Could happen to us next time. Maybe we slow down, let them catch up? A rider (or 30) fall, again we sit up. It could have been us. But then again, if we have already attacked and have a plan that we must stick to, well, we can't wait every time, can we? After all, it's the exceptions that prove the rule.

Apparently Froome and Co couldn't wait for Valverde. That's racing. Will we see same the sort of wailing and gnashing we saw when Contador 'attacked' a stricken Schleck? I doubt it.   

Vuelta A España 2012: Stage 4 Results | Cyclingnews.com

Valverde was one of a number of fallers in a crash inside the final 30 kilometres, just as Chris Froome’s Sky team was looking to split the peloton in the stiff crosswinds that buffeted the race on the run-in to the day’s final climb. Although Sky had already begun to set the pace just before Valverde came a cropper, the British team paid no heed to his plight and persisted in their efforts all the way to the foot of the Valdezcaray, in spite of the exhortations of Valverde’s teammate Beñat Inxausti.

One for the Andy-Schleck-loving-Contador-haters: Or Boonen wins again, and other ethical questions

There you go, you Andy-Schleck-loving-Contador-haters, have a go at Big Tom for exploiting an opportunity:

Belgian Road Championships 2012: Elite Men Results | Cyclingnews.com

The race was decided by a move from Boonen at 40km from the finish line, exploiting a mechanical from co-favorite Jurgen Roelandts (Lotto-Belisol).

We don't really know what was in Tom's mind, but he clearly gained advantage from the move. So what is the morality here? Does one wait? Or attack? It is, after all, a bike race, and anyone can have a mechanical, even Tom Boonen. But I'd hate to be his mechanic, post-race. Now if it was clear cut and perhaps enshrined in a universal rule then everything would be cut-and-dried and sweet. We'd probably do the "decent" or "sporting" thing and simply wait. But life - and racing - is not like that.

Sometimes mechanicals are purely random and unavoidable, and at other times it's caused by "rider or mechanic's error". If you contributed to your own demise, so be it. We can't expect everyone to wait whilst you get your act together. I think Andy Schleck's famous chain trouble was probably rider error, myself, and Contador was clearly not 100% sure what had happened. You could say he should have waited anyway, just to be sure; but it's not so cut-and-dried. Racing is complicated. You may wait, others may not. And here with Boonen, how's he to know what has caused his competitors to be delayed? Even if he did know, how is he to judge fault? Why should he assume it wasn't rider error? And if the tables were turned, would they wait for him?

There is no one supreme morality, is there? We all have our set of personal, individual rules, including a sense of what is "fair". And then we apply those rules. If we make our decisions based on our personal moral foundation and it's done "authentically" or in a way true to ourselves, then we have acted "ethically". Which will never stop others questioning our actions, of course. 

All or nothing for Cav and the Brits - and thus they choose nothing

Well it was certainly an interesting race. No radios, small teams, narrow roads and tactics as plain as the nose on Postman Pat's face (my kids like to think Wiggo looks like Postman Pat. Not sure who's the black and white cat, though). Unsurprisingly it all went exactly as expected - everyone attacked the Brits, yet the Brits stuck resolutely, doggedly, determinedly to Plan A. Get Cavendish to the line, first.

So what went wrong? Well David Millar reckons it was Cav's fault, basically, although he didn't say that exactly:  

Millar Left With No Complaints Despite Cavendish Missing Olympic Gold | Cyclingnews.com

With 50 kilometres to race and just one ascent of Box Hill remaining, the British seemed in control. A break had gone clear but after over five hours of racing, the gap was less than one minute as legs began to tire. However new impetus was added when a second contingent of riders attacked on the climb to create a 33-man group.

"We were always working at Mark's pace, so we couldn't react to those things and that was never our plan," said Cavendish's teammate David Millar.

The British team had been clear over its race strategy, telegraphing its tactics in a press conference last week. It was all for Cavendish, with David Brailsford saying, the sprinter was "plan A and all the rest of the letters of the alphabet," too.

My emphasis there, but I would deduce from that quote that Cav's pace wasn't ideal, then?

So what did Cav think went wrong?

Cavendish Misses Olympic Glory In Men's Road Race | Cyclingnews.com

"We did everything we could. The crowd was tremendous the whole way around, but the Aussies just raced negatively. The team were incredible. They left everything out on the road. I am so proud of them. We didn't expect any help. We rode the race we wanted to ride. We couldn't pull the group back on Box Hill. Other teams were content that if they didn't win, we wouldn't win. We expected it. If you want to win, you've to take it to them."

My emphasis, again. It wasn't Cav's fault, nor his one-idea Team of champions. It was the Aussies. Having O'Grady orchestrating the first break and coming, umm, 6th, plus Rogers trying his own attack was clearly not a positive in Mark's eyes, who came, umm, 29th.

And the truth? Well there is more than a little truth in the other teams wanting to negate the Manxman's sprint and thus being prepared to leave their own sprinters stranded, waiting for the Brits to close the gap. But they all wanted a medal, too. Trouble was, no-one wanted to tow Cav (and Greipel) up to the front so they can fight it out for 1st and 2nd, either. It was a stalemate.

And good on Vino for attacking and closing his checkered yet always interesting career with Olympic gold.      

All hail Team Sky. But is Cyclingnews now talking in code? TdF 2012

OK, Wiggins and Froome have set the pace in the mountains and the time trial, indeed they have dominated. But "on another sphere"? It's not a great choice of words, is it? Especially after Wiggins has just so emphatically countered his "anonymous" doubters at a press conference. It's OK on its own, isolated from its context, but anyone who has followed the sport since, say, 2006 or so knows that any reference to other-worldly performances is shorthand for "assisted". Either Cyclingnews is just ignorant of this - possibly - or are grinding an axe of some sort. Oh well. For the record, there is no evidence of untoward activity, just great sport science, hard work and years of planning and training.

Evans's Tour Defence Suffers First Setback | Cyclingnews.com

In spite of his losses in the overall classification, Evans looked to take solace from the fact that he had fared admirably against the pure time triallists, but it won't have escaped his attention that the Sky pair of Wiggins and Chris Froome – first and second on the stage – were on another sphere to the rest of the field.

I.B., The Extra Terrestrial? | Cyclingnews.com

Simoni: "I've never seen anyone dominate [like Basso], never seen any one that strong! He seems like an extra-terrestrial," Simoni said post-stage, his face and words minced with bitterness. Whether the Trentino scalatore was implying Basso was 'assisted' in some way is up for speculation, but Basso wasn't happy when he heard this: "I don't like to be called an extra-terrestrial or a phenomenon," he said.

Yes, Basso later served a suspension for "attempting" to dope.

And whereto from here for Le Tour 2012? Well it's quite a change from last year, where Evans waited until the final TT to take control. You couldn't really wait any longer, in fact. And whilst it looks like a poor tactic for Wiggins and Sky to take yellow so early - week one, after all - it's not bad for team and individual morale, is it? Wiggins has only just won his first stage, after all, and leading Le Tour is something most riders would find hard to knock back. And whilst Team Sky now need to expend additional energy in controlling dangerous attacks and protecting both Wiggins and Froome,  BMC themselves expended a lot of energy in acting as though they were "in yellow" last year. Basically it may be hard but it's doable.

OTOH last year other teams with shorter-term ambitions shared responsibility with BMC for keeping control of breakaways and the like. And whilst the Schlecks (and to some extent Contador) knew they had to take time off Evans in the mountains, Evans himself only had to limit losses and win it back in the last TT. So whilst it looks bad for Evans that already his losses have mounted up, coming about despite his strengths in the TT and prologue, this isn't last year. He must have expected something like this scenario, given recent peformance. So either it really is bad and he has little hope of recovering this amount of time, or he has a plan to address the gap. So which one?

As I said, this isn't 2011, so throw that thought out. But Sky has the box seat here, a big lead with Wiggins and a strong wild card to play in Froome. Most likely Wiggins will be able to match all attacks - and there will be many, as the likes of Nibali and Menchov are just as desperate to win as Evans, and both the RadioShack and Lotto teams have some GC gas in the tank, too. But it may expose weaknesses. It could be that Wiggins gets isolated - unlikely, I know - and loses time on a descent. But he has time up his sleeve, doesn't he. And if he or his team really falters then sending Froome up the road will cure the situation. If they are having trouble defending, why not attack?

It is a long way from from Paris and a tough job to defend from here. But Sky must have thought this through and they must see it as their "Plan A". Equally Evans and Nibali must have expected this scenario, too, so they will be executing their own tactics in the Alps to come. With the Pyrenees in week 3 to consolidate. I expect fireworks and I expect that whoever gets the advantage in week 2 will then have the same problem as Sky has now - how do you defend all the way from here to Paris?

So, fireworks in the Alps, yes, particularly Stage 11 - but with care. Whilst they don't want to leave it too late, they don't want to take control too early, either. But if they do, they'll want it to be a crushing blow that sinks Sky's ship all the way to Paris. Anything less will lead to a win for Sky. And it doesn't need to be a win for Wiggins. 
      

Le Tour 2012: how to lose at the start - or hey, it's only the prologue!

Perhaps this Tour was lost weeks ago, maybe even years ago. As I have your attention now (both of us, me and you) let me explain. Kinda.

This is the hypothesis: what goes around comes around. Simple. When things look extraterrestrial, maybe they are. It's not news to say that there are clouds hanging over some past performances at Le Tour (amongst other races) and - perhaps - it's all coming to a head. Or a beheading. There are riders and managers past and present hoping it all comes to nought. They may have nothing to fear but they still fear it in their bones. Or blood. It still has an effect. It rattles a few things, and focus is lost. And riders make mistakes, or lose form. And then there are aftershocks, pay disputes and general unhappiness. You know what I mean. Morale is damaged.

And there's more to the hypothesis, too: you are where you came from. Wiggins for example is a pursuit guy, a trackie used to smooth, fast velodromes. Yes, as are many other great road cyclists. But some of that basic training hangs around and whilst he's made a huge improvement on the road he still has to match the great descenders and tactical guys. Can he gain enough in the mountains and TTs to give up some time elsewhere?   

So what do I (club-level crit racer that I am) reckon the GC will look like in Paris? Well Wiggo, Evans and Menchov look good but you can't write Nibali out, either. Hesjedal? He'll give it a shot but his best tactic will be to look exhausted (from his Giro win), hang tough, stay close and pull out a surprise or 2 late in the race. But they all know to expect that. Wiggo, as I said, will take time in the mountains and TTs but may lose a bit to opportunists and descenders. Evans will just do what Evans does, hang in there, cling to Wiggo et al and just stay close enough to strike if he can. An opportunistic attack on a wet downhill may be his best tactic. However unless Wiggo cracks his strong TT will not be enough. He's not facing the Schlecks this time, is he? (Well not judging by Frank's performance so far - unless he has a miracle mountain ride up his sleeve.)

Of course it's a long race, of course anything can happen. To survive week one is hard enough, but then to attack or to match the attackers, that is the question. It may come down to who keeps the most energy and best form all the way through 4 weeks. It may depend on crashes, viruses, or one or 2 smart attacks on just the right days. Or it may play out exactly as expected. But I doubt it.  

So on with the show, this is it (summarised and commented, of course):

Tour De France 2012: Prologue Results | Cyclingnews.com

1 Fabian Cancellara (Swi) RadioShack-Nissan 0:07:13  Expected but a pleasant surprise to see confirmation - he's back. Fabian will hang onto the yellow until it makes no more sense for him or the team. He's done good, but where are the 'Shack's GC guys?
2 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Sky Procycling 0:00:07 Expected. On form, done good. Used to be a TT specialist, despite obvious improvements elsewhere it remains to be seen how he copes with mountain descents in the wet, or the pressure of favoritism. Still, deserves to be the GC fave.
3 Sylvain Chavanel (Fra) Omega Pharma-QuickStep Great ride, Chavanel will steal a stage or 2, surely?
4 Tejay van Garderen (USA) BMC Racing Team 0:00:10 Again, rode out of his skin. A boost to BMC and a hopeful sign of strong support for GC man Evans.
5 Edvald Boasson Hagen (Nor) Sky Procycling 0:00:11 Expected. Wiggins has support, too.
6 Brett Lancaster (Aus) Orica GreenEdge Cycling Team Expected.
7 Patrick Gretsch (Ger) Argos - Shimano 0:00:12 Perhaps unexpected? Obviously a good result.
8 Denis Menchov (Rus) Katusha Team 0:00:13 Expected. A welcome return to form, deserves a break this year. Must be counted for the GC podium in Paris.
9 Philippe Gilbert (Bel) BMC Racing Team Coming on strong at exactly the right time. Watch this space. Again a comfort to Evans to have another powerhouse on his side.
10 Andriy Grivko (Ukr) Astana Pro Team 0:00:15 Expected.
11 Christopher Froome (GBr) Sky Procycling 0:00:16 Expected. Another Wiggo support man.
12 Peter Velits (Svk) Omega Pharma-QuickStep 0:00:17 Expected.
13 Cadel Evans (Aus) BMC Racing Team Expected. He's not a TT specialist, although he does great TTs, especially long ones. He's managed his loss to just a few seconds, so he's in the game.
14 Vincenzo Nibali (Ita) Liquigas-Cannondale 0:00:18 Like Evans he's done his job. Expected. Wiggo-Evans-Menchov for the podium, Nibali a close 4th? Maybe. It's a cliche but it's true - anything can happen from here. Expect an exciting week 3 if these 4 are still on the same page.
15 Ryder Hesjedal (Can) Garmin - Sharp Expected. OK, make that 5. It's a tough call to expect Hesjedal to back up after his epic Giro, so I'll say "not this time".
16 David Millar (GBr) Garmin - Sharp Expected.
17 Stephen Cummings (GBr) BMC Racing Team Great ride. More support for Cadel.
18 Jens Voigt (Ger) RadioShack-Nissan 0:00:19 Expected. Always there, isn't he? But he's not the 'Shack leader, is he? Maybe it's the next guy?
19 Andreas Klöden (Ger) RadioShack-Nissan Expected. Definitely in the game and if he's called upon to race like a leader and gets the support he's got the class to surprise... but then again, it's a big ask at the wrong end of a famous career, so maybe not.
20 Nick Nuyens (Bel) Team Saxo Bank-Tinkoff Bank 0:00:20 Expected.
21 Michael Albasini (Swi) Orica GreenEdge Cycling Team Expected.
22 George Hincapie (USA) BMC Racing Team Expected and good to see Cadel's support around him after this short test. But it's the long game that matters.
skip a few
30 Tyler Farrar (USA) Garmin - Sharp Expected, but perhaps he should have been a few places higher. We shall see how he sprints.
skip some more
36 Richie Porte (Aus) Sky Procycling Expected, but again he's not as far up as we might have hoped. Will have saved something for Wiggo's support in the mountains, I suspect.
skip again
41 Mark Cavendish (GBr) Sky Procycling Expected. But a good ride nonetheless. Makes it look a good contest between Cav and Farrar in the sprints, methinks.
43 André Greipel (Ger) Lotto Belisol Team Expected. Make that a 3-way race for Green. 
45 Tony Martin (Ger) Omega Pharma-QuickStep A good ride but he should have won - a bike change drama slowed him down. Revenge will be sweet, later.
53 Peter Sagan (Svk) Liquigas-Cannondale Oh dear, a bit less than expected. Missed a corner, pulled his foot? Whatever, he'll be back. Make it a 4-way race for Green.
61 Michael Rogers (Aus) Sky Procycling Expected. He's not a short TT guy and like Porte he'll be supporting Wiggo later.
69 David Zabriskie (USA) Garmin - Sharp Not that far off but slower than expected.
80 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Omega Pharma-QuickStep First GC guy to miss a trick, perhaps, but he's really here to support VDB... but where's VDB? Still, it's a lot of time to lose in the prologue. 
87 Matthew Harley Goss (Aus) Orica GreenEdge Cycling Team No GC ambitions but can Gossy match it with the 4 sprinters above him? We shall see.
90 Ivan Basso (Ita) Liquigas-Cannondale Ouch. It's OK, he's a support guy for Nibali this year. Calm down. 
Skipping a few more
113 Christopher Horner (USA) RadioShack-Nissan Obviously saving himself.
And the rest. They all have their jobs to do.

Oh, what about Frank? Theory A. is that he's fried after a strong run a month or so back. Theory B is that he's going to pull a surprise. Theory C is that he'll support Andreas instead. They are professionals, they'll get over the dramas. Or not. 

136
Frank Schleck (Lux) RadioShack-Nissan. No chance from this far back, really, unless he is hiding stellar climbing form and cracks the lot of 'em in the mountains. It'll be fun to see him try, anyway. Or will he simply support Andreas?  

On to Stage 1, I guess.

I should mention that a Canadian winning a Grand Tour is pretty special

There you go, I mentioned it. Normally it goes the Italians' way and any "outside" win is special. And Hesjedal winning is extra special as he has stuck with his boss, Jonathan Vaughters, and "believed" for so long. Where others have had Vaughter's blessing and support and blown it, Hesjedal has quietly grown and accomplished his goals. And how he won is special, too, by riding a strong time trial and following the key moves. He stuck at it, yet never appeared overly confident. He kept close. Only in week 3 did he seem to realise that the others weren't foxing. He really was the best rider over 3 weeks.  Does this now mean he gets 100% team support in Le Tour, this year or, perhaps more likely, the next?  Or does he aim for the Vuelta?

Hesjedal creates Grand Tour history in Italy : Cycling Central on SBS

Garmin-Barracuda's Ryder Hesjedal created cycling history overnight when he became the first Canadian to win a Grand Tour at the Giro d'Italia.

Good to see Canberran Rogers getting back to top form. Sky will have a potent stage winning - and perhaps overall GC-winning team at Le Tour 2012, indeed. Wiggins will have to fire with this level of classy support.

Bayern-Rundfahrt 2012: Stage 5 Results | Cyclingnews.com

Rogers said, "It’s great to get the wins here. I haven’t won a field race like on Thursday since 2006. That was a relief but wherever you win it’s always nice. I don’t feel like I’m at my peak yet. I’ve pretty much come straight off a heavy training camp with a few days’ rest. It’s quite exciting times if we can achieve results like this coming off the back of quite an intense camp. I think that’s a sign of the team’s strength. I’m looking forward to hopefully seeing more of Team Sky riding on the front."

Worth noting that Petacchi is firing, too. Coupled with Allan Davis close on his heels and the thought of Goss joining him at Le Tour it looks like a hot green jersey competition this year. Even if Cav is cooked and doesn't finish. 

Crash splits field, GC leaders wait for Contador... uh, maybe not this time

Of course it's different if you drop a chain or make a clumsy, newbie gear-change, then you are expected to wait, aren't you? But if a spectator brings half the field down then it's open slather, apparently. (Armstrong proved that in '99.) And of course Cancellara didn't call a "too dangerous" truce this time either. That nit-picking aside, it's sad to see the competition for stage honours reduced in such a way, let alone Contador losing over a minute. And no I'm not a fan of waiting for riders who have made their own mistakes, but it's a fine line that gets drawn sometimes and a difficult one to be certain about. That's bike racing.

I still don't think the pure sprinters had a chance but a few of the more experienced hands would have played things differently had they been able to get up the front, post-crash. Mind you, Hushovd had a dig, unlike Boonen, Cavendish, Renshaw and Goss who seemed to hit the wall somewhat. At least they were there. Can't blame Greipel, he did a ton of work for Gilbert. In the end it was Lotto's protected rider doing what he does on a hill like this, and Cadel Evans pretty well doing what he does best as well - grinding it out steadily up a hill at a pace few can match. If there had been another 100m to go then Evans may well have passed Gilbert, but it's all in the timing, ain't it?

Tour De France: Stage 1, Route Maps & Results | Cyclingnews.com

when they realised that Contador wasn’t among them, they showed no mercy, driving the group and quickly carving out a forty-second advantage. Behind, Contador seemed isolated.

Racing, radios, HUD, SMS, nano-tech... if they aren't puppets on a string yet, maybe next season

In 30 years of racing I have never used a radio. OK, it was just club racing, I know, but it mattered to us. Nevertheless we always found a way to communicate during a race. Although most of my racing has been as an "individual" rather than in a team, club mates would still magically "coordinate" to be in the right place at the right time, to close down or block as needed. And we usually found out about hazards, too, although the pack of roos suddenly crossing our path during one Canberra 2-Day Tour was an interesting surprise. I doubt a DS on the radio yelling "watch the roos!" would've been of much extra use.

What we didn't always know were gaps, and sometimes - rarely - we missed that a guy had gone "up the road". Until we rolled in later and found out we were only riding for 2nd. Now if we'd had a DS with a radio maybe we'd have ridden harder, earlier, and closed the gap. That's my preamble to this radio debate, anyway. 

Now if I can edit this down to a few key lines, the argument against 2-way rider radios in pro bike races is simply that the riders lose some spontaneity and independence in their actions, leading to greater predictability and "sameness" about the racing tactics and strategy. Big, hairy audacious attacks are less common because one team DS will say "no, don't do it!" or the others will say "chase!".

OTOH as Scott Sunderland has pointed out in his interview in the link below some of that spontaneity has been lost anyway because fewer riders are racing all season and using racing as training. They are now racing less but when they ride they are all racing, almost all of the time. So bold moves are shut down quickly in the modern manner. He also notes that poor communication of hazards, incidents or tactics could jeopardise the chances of a key - and expensive - investment, namely the modern pro bike racer. And in the modern world of sponsored teams that matters.

But others will still say that the sport is suffering and that we will all switch off if it doesn't regain that "heroic" scale of bold move again. If the fans switch off then we'll still lose sponsors. We can't win either way so a compromise is in order, perhaps. And so they (the UCI and the teams) will finally sit down and talk.

But what if we went the other way, and we imposed even greater control? Just as an idea, as a concept, it is becoming plausible that the DS in the car could not only direct the riders tactically but also use wireless technology to control the bike. I'm not saying "let's do it" but it's interesting to ponder as a "what if".  With electronic gearing there's nothing to stop the team from overriding a rider's gear choice - apart from a missing radio link to the gear actuation mechanism, anyway. With that link in place the DS could look at the biological parameters of their star rider - heart rate, power and possibly in the near future core temperature as well - and choose a "better" gear for their rider than they would choose themselves. Or if a rider disobeyed the DS then they could be overridden by a remote gear selection that slowed them down. It's just a thought.

I'm sure it'll never happen, but like miniature electric motors hidden in hubs or bottom brackets, it could be done. (Riders could also swallow nano-scale biological sensors before their race and relay key real-time data to their support staff. Now that I think will definitely happen.) 
 
SBS: Cycling Central : Different battlefield, different weapons

“A lot of the tactics and analysing the race and how it will go – for example, the year that Stuart [O’Grady] won [Roubaix] – my decisions and tactics come into that. But through the events of the day, they knew where they needed to go and I was just giving them information – time gaps, whether they need to go a bit quicker or slower. They still need to make so many decisions: riding in the wind or out of the wind, what gears they’re pushing... No, they’re not puppets on a string.”

Scott Sunderland makes Hushovd's mind up for him over Stage 2. And still we go on about "fairness"

I wasn't there so I don't know - but I have an opinion on the question of "fairness". And it's a saga that goes on and on, regrettably, without a solution. And isn't that the way everything works these days? The tiniest detail gets pounced upon and sides are taken, black or white. If it sticks and goes viral it snowballs out of all proportion but no agreement is reached or solution offered.

Andy Schleck's so-called "mechanical" when he somehow "lost his chain" (when in fact it appeared to jam on his cogs, as if he'd stuffed up a gearchange) is one example, and Stage 2 into Spa is another one. And now in post-race analysis Scott Sunderland appears to be putting his (possibly biased, being an ex member of what was the CSC team) views into Thor Hushovd's mouth. As well as putting Contador in his place for not waiting for Andy when his chain jammed. But what exactly is "fair"? Is it so black and white?

Now on the day into Spa it appeared (on TV and in post-race interviews, anyway) that Thor Hushovd wasn't very pleased about the bullying tactics used by Cancellara and the Saxo Bank team to annul the slippery stage. So to say that Thor wouldn't have wanted to win like that is certainly going a bit far. If Thor has changed his mind, great - let him say that himself. 

Now in principle we probably agree that gaining time by leveraging other riders' misfortune is not how we would like to win a race. But it assumes several things:

• Firstly that only the lucky got through unscathed, which is debatable. Wet, narrow descent with or without a crashed motorbike says "keep clear of other riders, slow down, pick your line" to me
  
• Secondly, a corollary to the first, that skill was not involved. Again, bike handling and the ability to pick your line is paramount
• Thirdly, that all teams played the conditions the same and were equally affected, which is not true. There was a breakaway and a chase group plus a larger group, all playing out different tactics. There are safer ways to play dangerous situations and some teams did better than others by design
  
• Fourthly, that an independent referee is available to assess the conditions and make an informed but unpressured and one-step-removed decision on conditions and actions to address. Which is debatable. The race referee was certainly there but his decision was visibly informed by Cancellara, who had an obvious (and conflicted) role in firstly waiting for the Schlecks and secondly in coercing other riders from other teams into a go-slow agreement.  

Now the other side to the argument is that an unusually large proportion of riders were affected and that several riders reported conditions where "everyone" went down and that even cars couldn't stay on the road. In which case you'd think that the stage should be annulled there and then, rather than let one rider win and take yellow whilst effectively penalising anyone else who'd recovered or avoided the drama.

It's not as if it hasn't happened before. There was for example Le Tour in 1999 when an unusually large proportion of the field went down and lost 6 minutes or more - effectively ending the race for the overall there and then. But Armstrong isn't likely to hand back that Tour win because he didn't wait for Zulle, is he? Indeed his team and others actively exploited the situation. Riders are down, big fall - let's stomp on the gas!

There's always another side, another way to view things. In 1999 you had to get to the front. It wasn't just luck. The same applies in 2010, or perhaps should have applied.

You could say that we must learn for these things, and so we should. But one thing to learn from 2010 is that it isn't appropriate for race officials to appear to do a deal with the yellow jersey where obvious conflicts of interest exist. There must be a better, fairer way to deal with such situations. It isn't necessarily easy but leaving it 'as it is' is inappropriate.

Oh, and jamming your chain is just one of those things that can happen when you make ham-fisted changes on the highly-tuned engineering kludges we call bicycle drivetrains.

Where The Tour Was Won | Cyclingnews.com

Sunderland: "I think the same logic should be applied to the green jersey competition. Thor Hushovd missed out on a lot of points that day but I don’t think he would have wanted to win that way."

1999 Tour de France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1999 edition of Tour de France had two bizarre moments. The first was on stage 2 when a 25 rider pile-up occurred at Passage du Gois. Passage du Gois is a two mile causeway which depending on the tide can be under water. The second bizarre incident was on stage 10, one kilometre from the summit of L'Alpe d'Huez. Leading Italian rider Giuseppe Guerini was confronted by a spectator holding a camera in the middle of the road. Guerini hit the spectator but recovered and went on to win the stage.

The Tour de France At A Glance - 1999

Frankie Andreu: The main difficulty in this completely flat stage was a four-kilometer causeway that crossed a huge river. It's passable during the day with low tide and flooded during high tide. You can imagine that the causeway would be a little slick and wet by the time we arrived.

The race was calm till the first bonus sprint of the day at kilometer 30. After that the attacks started and the battle for good position for the causeway was already starting. It was still 50 kilometers till we arrived there. To make matters worse it was windy and I'm sure every team told their riders to be first into the causeway.

The battle was furious trying to keep Lance in good position to get across this causeway safely. Looking back it was a good thing we did. After the entrance to this four-kilometer causeway there was a huge crash. Guys went down everywhere. You could see riders trying to brake, but they hit the ground instantaneously. Going across the causeway was very, very scary. It was wet, slippery and windy. It felt like a risk to even turn your wheel to change directions. I was scared to ride on the edge of the road because it was too slick.

Coming out of the causeway the group had split - partially because we went fast and partly because of the huge crash. There was a front group of about 40 and immediately ONCE started riding. It took us a few kilometers to figure out why. We didn't know there was a crash at the time and in the rear group there were a few favorites.

Right away Johan told us to go to the front and help ONCE. The reason was that in the second group were Gotti, Belli, Zülle, Boogerd, Robin, and some other favorites in the overall.

In the second group Banesto started to chase immediately. They came within 30 seconds of catching us, but we were in time-trial mode in the first group with about ten guys. It became an 80-kilometer team time trial, trying to increase the gap between the second group and us. We had five ONCE riders, two Casino, two Cofidis, and Christian and I riding full tilt all the way to the finish. We put over six minutes on the guys behind. Lance lost the jersey today to Kirsipu, who won every bonus sprint, but Lance did manage to eliminate some very strong riders for the classement.

In the race today the Spanish guys had a new nickname for Jonathon Vaughters. They called him "El Gato", the cat. He got the name after he flew into a crash yesterday and went flying. Somehow he landed on his feet; he didn't get a scratch on his body. The bad news is that today Jonathon lost his nickname. He was one of the unlucky ones to get caught in the crash on the causeway.

1999- The Clean Tour - RideStrong

So the Tour had an undeniably "clean" winner, though his (Armstrong's) domination was not the unnatural performance that certain sections of the French press tried to accuse him of. Take away the stage over the Passage de Gois, and his lead over Zülle is a rather more mundane-looking 1½ minutes. And the Tour threw up several other imponderables. There were no French stage winners for the first time since 1926. The transition stages saw breaks of minor riders gain huge leads each day, with the big stars seemingly content to have four days off. Yet for all the drug-free culture, the average speed was over 40kmh for the first time ever. Even allowing for the easier route this year (and arguably it was in fact a harder route than some of those in the seventies and eighties), one is left with questions. If a drug-free peloton could ride so fast, what was the point of taking EPO in the past? And if EPO does have an effect, was 1999 really a drug-free peloton?

SBS: Tour de France 2010: Dangerous course or dangerous force?

It’s been a long time since I’ve witnessed this much carnage at the Tour de France.

The last occasion I can recall such circumstances was 11 years ago, at the 1999 Tour.

What was thought to be a relatively innocuous second stage quickly turned into a massacre, when on the Passage du Gois, a two-mile long causeway that depending on tidal conditions can be submerged in water, a 25 rider pile-up eventuated that split the field to itty bitty pieces and left Lance Armstrong’s most noted adversary, Swiss rider Alex Zülle, behind in a frantic chase that never regained contact.

Zülle along with Jan Ullrich were arguably the only two riders to really challenge the Texan during his Tour reign, and Armstrong’s 7’37” winning advantage did not really tell the full story.

I’m not saying Zülle would have beaten Armstrong in the first of his seven straight wins, but had he not crashed, the race would without doubt have played out very differently.

SBS: Tour de France 2010: Dangerous course or dangerous force?

But read this from cycling legend Eddy Merckx, who told Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf after Stage 1: “It’s part of the job. Especially in the beginning of a Grand Tour, you can not blame the organisation. It is the riders themselves who [must] bear the blame. If you do not want to brake and if you are not afraid to go for an opponent who is faster, then do not be afraid of crashing.”

In the end Monday, the Schleck brothers were saved by an entente cordiale initiated by the erstwhile maillot jaune of Fabian Cancellara, who relinquished his golden fleece to perhaps the most popular guy in France right now, Sylvain Chavanel.

Where The Tour Was Won | Cyclingnews.com

Scott Sunderland: "Contador pulled on the yellow jersey in Luchon but when he heard the crowd whistle and boo him, I'm sure he realised he'd unfairly taken advantage of Andy's mechanical problem."

'I know the race was 'on', that everything was decided in split seconds and the other riders attacked too, but Contador was the first to go clear and kept going all the way to the finish thanks to a special 'friendship' with Samuel Sanchez, who guided him down the descent."

I think he should have at least of asked the other riders to wait. I know these guys are competing against each other but there must always be room for some sportsmanship in cycling. The riders share the same road and face the same difficulties. Alberto is a special champion but missed an opportunity to show he has a special sense of fair play."

A blizzard of words on Renshaw's expulsion from Le Tour

Bathurst won't be a happy place this morning, will it? But you can't get into a guy's head and read his thoughts: the judges have to go with what they see. And we all saw what they saw.

addicted2wheels

So 2 strikes against Renshaw, really - headbutting to possibly protect Cav's gap, and then impeding Farrar, intentionally or not. Still I didn't think "exclusion from tour", rather "fine and loss of points". Oh well, I can see both sides... but it does make things more interesting again, doesn't it? (I hope the race judges didn't have that thought, too.)

PezCycling News - What's Cool In Pro Cycling

Carmichael: Instead of continuing forward side by side, the two leadout men made contact with each other. This in itself is not unusual or against the rules. Contact happens, and it’s usually shoulders and elbows pushing against each other. Renshaw escalated this normal situation to one that drew the attention of the race officials by repeatedly hammering his helmet into Dean’s shoulder. One tap with the helmet, OK. You won’t get in trouble for that. It will seem like you’re just keeping the other guy at a safe distance. But leaning on a rider and using your helmet as a hammer is viewed as being aggressive and unsportsmanlike.

Renshaw claims that Dean was moving over in his direction, forcing him closer to the barriers. I know things look and feel different in the heat of the moment, but from the replays I saw – and that the officials were viewing as well – it doesn’t appear that Dean was encroaching on Renshaw. What is more likely is that Renshaw knew that with Dean on his right and Garmin sprinter Tyler Farrar on Dean’s wheel, the only lane Cavendish could use to get to the finish line was to Renshaw’s left. That meant Cavendish was going to have to sprint between Renshaw and the barriers.

PezCycling News - What's Cool In Pro Cycling

Carmichael: Some people are pointing to Renshaw’s move to the left after Cavendish passed him as a second instance of unsportsmanlike conduct, since it impeded Tyler Farrar’s progress toward the finish line. If anything, I’d say that was a more severe infraction than the head butting. As a sprinter or a leadout man, he was supposed to continue in a straight line – or at least if he moved off his line it shouldn’t have been in a manner that impeded another sprinter from challenging for the stage win. Renshaw opened up the lane to his left for Cavendish, and then slammed the door shut on Farrar by moving to the left. Normally I don’t like it when riders take their hands off the bars to push someone out the way, but I think Farrar prevented a potentially very serious crash by reaching out and stopping Renshaw from moving any farther to the left.

PezCycling News - What's Cool In Pro Cycling

With a little head-butting from Renshaw to Dean, this opens the door for Cavendish to go early, Petacchi sees the move too late and can’t get on terms with the flying Manxman who has a bike length in hand.

Dean wanted to close the door on Cavendish to let Farrar come round on the other side, but Renshaw kept it cool and the gap was there with 350 meters before the line for Cav to go for a longer sprint than he would normally want, it worked and no one could get near him.

Robbie McEwen (mcewenrobbie) on Twitter

history will now show that combining the 2 aforementioned tactics will get u sent home...greater than the sum of it's parts

SBS: Tour de France 2010: Renshaw booted from Tour

in the final 500 metres of the 184.5km stage from Sisteron, the normally affable Australian lost his head when he tried to headbutt Garmin-Transitions' Kiwi lead-out man Julian Dean three times.

Cavendish eventually raced on towards his third stage win of the race, and 13th of his career, as Renshaw then produced another blatant blunder by trying to block Dean's sprinter, Tyler Farrar, as the American tried to come up the inside of the barriers.

Top race official Jean-Francois Pescheux said they only needed to look at the television pictures once to make their decision.

"Renshaw was declassified immediately but we have decided to also throw him off the race," said Pescheux.

"We've only seen the pictures once, but his actions are plain for all to see. They were blatant. This is a bike race, not a gladiator's arena."

SBS: Tour de France 2010: Renshaw booted from Tour

"The guy (Dean) came across from me. Either he keeps turning left, puts me in the barrier and I crash, or I try to lean against him," he said.

"I didn't have another option. It's all about sprinting straight."

Although saddened by the decision, Cavendish laid some of the blame on Dean, claiming the Kiwi "hooked his elbow over Mark's right elbow".

"Mark used his head to try and get away. There's a risk when the elbows are that close (that) the handlebars are going to tangle," said Cavendish.

"That puts everyone behind in danger. Mark (Renshaw) gave us a bit of space that kept us upright."

Le Tour 2010 - Stage 1 - Falls take out many, Farrar walks in complaining how hard to ride w/o derailleur

Perhaps a walking tour of France would be safer?

Hansen is already out with a collarbone break, several stars have cuts and bruises and we haven't heard how the dog feels (if it survived). And all of the riders will either wake up with aches and pains or the expectation of the pain to come as roads narrow and steepen on stage 2. Petacchi once again showed how to win through chaos, but most would be pleased just to have made it through the day.

Tomorrow (or tonight, if you prefer) will probably see an early break lasting for two thirds of the stage before the heat is applied. The gap will close as the classics riders and high GC hopefuls look to either capitalise on the tougher course or simply try to minimise losses. The sprinters will try to hang on over the tougher climbs and fight it out for the win, but the peloton will shatter - leaving many  desperate chasers trying to bridge back to the lead. It's probably not tough enough to get rid of sprinters like Freire or even McEwen but it will be fascinating to watch it played out. A solo or small group attack by the likes of Evans, Cunego or Flecha may well succeed. 

SBS: Tour de France 2010: Farrar hits out at Mondory

...in the final 200 metres the Garmin-Transitions fast man was shunted by AG2R rider Mondory, the blow breaking Farrar's gear changer on his bike.

The American was quick to hit out at AG2R after the stage, won by Italian veteran Alessandro Petacchi of Lampre.

"Everything was going great, I felt good and the team was riding perfectly. Then, in the last 200 meters an AG2R rider hit my rear wheel and snapped my derailleur," said Farrar.

"I literally couldn't ride after that and had to walk through the finish and to the bus.

"It's a shame because everything had gone so well and the team worked so hard for me."

Mondory was later identified as the rider who clashed with Farrar in untimely fashion, but the Frenchman was quick to absolve himself of any blame.

He said Belgian Jurgen Roelandts came crashing into him from behind, pushing him uncontrollably towards the American.

"A rider (Roelandts) hit me from behind. I'm sorry for Farrar, but I couldn't do anything about it," he said.

SBS: Tour de France 2010: Taste of classics in tour's second stage

...for some, the undulating 201 kilometre ride from Brussels to Spa is perhaps not tough enough to totally rule out the possibility of a bunch sprint.

It features a total of six punchy climbs, most of which are in the latter half of the course, meaning the 'punchers' like Damiano Cunego and Cadel Evans, and purer climbers like Andy Schleck, could harbour personal ambitions.

Two of those climbs, the Stockeu and the Rosier, are regulars on Liege-Bastogne-Liege, the oldest one-day classic in the world, with the summit of the latter climb around 12 kms from the finish.

The final descent towards the line means that attacks on the last two climbs could go all the way, significantly reducing the chances of the stage ending in a bunch sprint.

PezCycling News - What's Cool In Pro Cycling

With the nervousness of Stage 1 out of the way, the peloton would normally settle down a bit for Stage 2, but the nature of tomorrow’s course means that’s not likely to happen. Instead, the final hour of tomorrow’s stage could be more chaotic than today’s. The short, steep, narrow climbs that punctuate the final 40 kilometers of Stage 2 are more commonly featured in the Spring Classics, including Leige-Bastogne-Liege.

How powerful is the "team effect" in cycling now? Porte claims it kept him going, anyway. Basso/Liquigas proves it

Some of the sadder forum-based armchair critics like to dismiss every winner - and even some 2nd placed riders - as "cheats" based on a vague feeling about what is "possible", or their look or style on the bike. They dismiss them as 'ugly' riders with dysfunctional personalities, or as a rider who should simply give up. But unless you are the athletes themselves - or perhaps incredibly close to them - it's just not possible to know "the truth" about them. But this Giro has certainly underlined for us  that no matter how prepared you are, how fit, skilled and motivated you may be, it's often the team that makes the difference between winner and non-finisher. Plus a little 'right place, right time' luck, of course.   

Richie Porte makes a comment along just those lines, and we can all see how Basso has been protected and aided by his strong team. It doesn't win you the race but it surely helps keep you in the hunt. 

Porte Secures White Jersey And Likely Top-eight Finish | Cyclingnews.com

When he showed up to Città Sant'Angelo at the start of stage 12, he hadn't slept at all that night. "I had diarrhea and a bit of everything," said the man who was up sick all night. "My health was pretty bad, and I didn't really enjoy being in pink because I was suffering badly during those days, but my team decided to keep it quiet so as not to let our adversaries know about my sickness and weakness."

Porte had a hard time again as the race went up to Livigno during stage 20 on Saturday. "I was dead," he said. "I was finished. It was hard to fight up that hill, but my whole team dragged me back, and I was ok later."

He'll be criticised by the anti-everyone mob but Evans weighed the options and missed the win by seconds

There are commentators and armchair critics - I'm one of them, but only 'cause it's hard to type and ride - who will critique the late attack on Passo Tonale by Cadel Evans and suggest he should have gone earlier (probably true, but we'll never know will we?), or even suggest he shouldn't have gone at all (given that the GC was pretty well locked up what was the point, apart from ensuring lesser prizes?). Others may suggest he should have made the break with Vino and Sastre (if only he had that luxury of choosing - 'I'll take that break, thanks'). But none of it really stacks up. We face similar choices every day in our own lives and base our decisions on our own value systems, feelings, skills, talents and experiences. Only Cadel can know exactly what was possible for him personally - and no-one can know what may have happened if he had chosen differently. A stage is an experiment we can run only once, isn't it?     

Evans Fights Back With Late Attack | Cyclingnews.com

Evans jumped away five kilometres from the finish and just failed to catch Johann Tschopp (Bbox Bouygues Telecom). In the final kilometre, he could see the Swiss rider ahead of him but crossed the line 15 second behind him. "I perhaps left it a little bit late. I was there and almost caught him because I could see him with just 300 metres to go," Evans said after pulling on the red points jersey over his rainbow jersey yet again. "It was a complicated situation because there were Vinokourov and Sastre in the break, then there were people going for the stage victory, and I also had to think about the points jersey because Vinokourov could have got it, and there was the overall classification too."

"I had to wait for the end because the longer you wait, the more you've got left in your legs for one last effort. Of course if you wait too long, you don’t have enough to time to pull it off. I tried to calculate things perfectly and it almost came off."