# TdS Stage 8 - Mollema/Leopark Trek controversy



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

so, what did everyone think of it?
Leopark TREK was among key teams driving the peloton after they realized Mollema (who was 2nd overall in GC at the time) was dropped. Mollema stopped due to the flat tire, got a wheel from teammate and tried to rejoin, when Andy Schleck, Voigt and Monfort put the hammer down. Major beneficiary was Frank Schleck who moved up to 3rd place overall.

I know it is tempting to compare this to Andy Schleck's dropped chain, but there are several major differences:
1. Mollema was dropped from the pack for unknown reasons - for all we knew, it could have been poor tactics or lack of form on that day. 
2. The reduced group of 30 (Hushovd group) was driving fast pace already, well before Mollema flatted, to eliminate Cav, Greipel and others, and they still had to catch the breakaway. In other words, they simply kept the momentum (from previous efforts of Garmin) going, rather than dropping the hammer the moment Mollema flatted, which is a big difference.
3. The third, HTC lead group on the road was only 20-something seconds behind Leopark TREK group, slowing down to let Mollema catch on would also likely result in Cavendish, Greipel and others catching up as well.

At the same time, it was clear Leopard TREK were working only for one reason - move Frank one spot up. They had no interest in sprint, even though Frank did try to go up the road in the final kms, I think.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Rabo needs to HTFU.

Basic racing rule: if one of the contenders is dropped, don't let him back on.


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

I think some of the "gentlemens' agreements" racers have on the road really define professional cycling. The idea of sitting up because your competitor has a problem is pretty unique.

That said, it is a race. I'm okay with Leopard/Trek putting the hammer down.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Opus51569 said:


> I think some of the "gentlemens' agreements" racers have on the road really define professional cycling. The idea of sitting up because your competitor has a problem is pretty unique.
> 
> That said, it is a race. I'm okay with Leopard/Trek putting the hammer down.


Most of those "gentlemen's agreements" involve situations where the race leader comes into some misfortune.

Mollema was not the race lead, so tough luck to him.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Leopard/Trek definately chose poorly. Rabbobank is a huge team that took notice of their poor tactic. Gaining Frank one placing at the expense of what it could cost them down the road is a bad choice. Come tour time, that is one team you might want in your corner. That is really the only thing it cost them by doing it.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Another major difference is that Andy attacked before he dropped his chain. As Ryder said, "if you draw your sword and drop it, you're dead."

Putting aside the thing with Andy, if the peleton was driving already, I don't think Rabo can complain about which teams kept the pressure up. Leopard didn't attack Mollema, they just kept going once he got dropped. I don't see the problem there.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

55x11 said:


> 1. Mollema was dropped from the pack for unknown reasons - for all we knew, it could have been poor tactics or lack of form on that day.
> 2. ....was driving fast pace already, well before Mollema flatted.


Was he dropped for unknown reasons, or do we know he flatted?


----------



## mtrider05 (Aug 8, 2009)

Jesse D Smith said:


> Was he dropped for unknown reasons, or do we know he flatted?


As far as it's been reported, or what I can glean from reports is that he missed the cut on the climb then was chasing back and got a flat. Rabo needs to quit crying.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Jesse D Smith said:


> Was he dropped for unknown reasons, or do we know he flatted?


we now know he flatted, but I don't think leopard TREK knew it at the time


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

55x11 said:


> we now know he flatted, but I don't think leopard TREK knew it at the time


Doubtful. These guys are professionals. They have managers in car who know exactly where the first, second, and third place GC riders are at all times when they are hoping to get Frank on the podium. 150 race radios in the peloton ensure the message gets forwarded too.


----------



## JohnHenry (Aug 9, 2006)

TREK Leotard is morally superior to all teams; so, they are mainly in the right.


Had Cancellara known about this...he would've neutralized the stage.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Hindsight is a b!tch. All of that contorversy so Frank could drop 3:06 in the ITT.


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

Bad choice as it focused negative attention on Andy Schleck and makes him lose a lot of respect. One can afford to lose some respect if they actually win races, but this isn't even the case here.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

55x11 said:


> so, what did everyone think of it?
> Leopark TREK was among key teams driving the peloton after they realized Mollema (who was 2nd overall in GC at the time) was dropped. Mollema stopped due to the flat tire, got a wheel from teammate and tried to rejoin, when Andy Schleck, Voigt and Monfort put the hammer down. Major beneficiary was Frank Schleck who moved up to 3rd place overall.
> 
> I know it is tempting to compare this to Andy Schleck's dropped chain, but there are several major differences:
> ...


Is there a link?

I can't find any articles on it.


Edit: Found an article on it!


----------



## mtrider05 (Aug 8, 2009)

spookyload said:


> Hindsight is a b!tch. All of that contorversy so Frank could drop 3:06 in the ITT.


Thanks for the unnecessary spoiler, truly appreciated.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

spookyload said:


> Leopard/Trek definately chose poorly. Rabbobank is a huge team that took notice of their poor tactic. Gaining Frank one placing at the expense of what it could cost them down the road is a bad choice. Come tour time, that is one team you might want in your corner. That is really the only thing it cost them by doing it.


I reiterate, since you have a bit of a "bad attitude:"

If you're not in the race lead, stop crying like a little b*tch, man up and realize that mechanicals are part of racing. Unless you're the race leader, you get no gentlemanly special treatment.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

spookyload said:


> Leopard/Trek definately chose poorly. Rabbobank is a huge team that took notice of their poor tactic. Gaining Frank one placing at the expense of what it could cost them down the road is a bad choice. Come tour time, that is one team you might want in your corner. That is really the only thing it cost them by doing it.


I think it was a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of situation. L/T really needs Frank and Andy to come up with some goods for the sake of their sponsors. But, as you point out, it caused some bad blood, which may or may not come back to bite them. If Rabbobank decides that it was just racing, L/T won't have to worry about. But there is not allot of time for Rabo to forgive and forget b/4 the tour.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

spookyload said:


> Doubtful. These guys are professionals. They have managers in car who know exactly where the first, second, and third place GC riders are at all times when they are hoping to get Frank on the podium. 150 race radios in the peloton ensure the message gets forwarded too.


Riders know second place on GC doesn't simply get dropped or suddenly have a "bad day" in the final 15k of a sprint finish.


----------



## erj549 (Jul 26, 2008)

mtrider05 said:


> Thanks for the unnecessary spoiler, truly appreciated.


I'm not really sure Frank losing gobs of time in the TT is a spoiler. Another non-spoiler: Cancellara won the TT. And I'll go ahead and give a spoiler for the TT at the TDF: Cancellara wins.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Jesse D Smith said:


> Riders know second place on GC doesn't simply get dropped or suddenly have a "bad day" in the final 15k of a sprint finish.


So what?

Where down the order do we stop giving gifts when someone has a mechanical? 3rd place? 5th? 10th? Maybe we should just neutralize the entire stage so nobody can have a mechanical?

A puncture, a mechanical, a crash....very rarely do these circumstances warrant a gift from the peloton, so why whine about it now? If Mollema was in yellow, I can see the protest as valid, but from the second row, I don't buy it.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

erj549 said:


> I'm not really sure Frank losing gobs of time in the TT is a spoiler. Another non-spoiler: Cancellara won the TT. And I'll go ahead and give a spoiler for the TT at the TDF: Cancellara wins.



:lol: :lol:


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

erj549 said:


> I'm not really sure Frank losing gobs of time in the TT is a spoiler. Another non-spoiler: Cancellara won the TT. And I'll go ahead and give a spoiler for the TT at the TDF: Cancellara wins.


hehe... maybe the spoiler sticky can me amended - spoilers are allowed *after* the event airs, or *before* it commences.

I think what L-T riders did was legit, but questionable for a different reason entirely. Why did they choose to practice their TTT skills instead of saving it for actual ITT the next day, letting other teams with interest in sprint (Liquigas, Garmin) lead it out and save the legs for TdF, as most of their team was doing already anyways.

I have to say, the form of Schleck brothers is somewhat questionable to me. I know Andy had similar history last season - no major accomplishments, struggling in June, then blowing everyone but Contador away in July - but I would be a little concerned if I were Schlecks.


----------



## MattSoutherden (Jun 24, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> So what?
> 
> Where down the order do we stop giving gifts when someone has a mechanical? 3rd place? 5th? 10th? Maybe we should just neutralize the entire stage so nobody can have a mechanical?
> 
> A puncture, a mechanical, a crash....very rarely do these circumstances warrant a gift from the peloton, so why whine about it now? If Mollema was in yellow, I can see the protest as valid, but from the second row, I don't buy it.


Really? it's my reading of sportsmanship that you don't *attack* the contenders if they puncture.

If Garmin had kept riding at the front as they were before Mollema had his flat, then yes, unfortunate. but Leotard Trek put everyone they had on the front to take advantage of Mollema's misfortune. Bad form.

Hopefully Rabo will wait until Andy is back at the car, or taking a p155 in the tour, and put all 9 guys on the front and rip it.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

MattSoutherden said:


> Really? it's my reading of sportsmanship that you don't *attack* the contenders if they puncture.
> 
> If Garmin had kept riding at the front as they were before Mollema had his flat, then yes, unfortunate. but Leotard Trek put everyone they had on the front to take advantage of Mollema's misfortune. Bad form.
> 
> Hopefully Rabo will wait until Andy is back at the car, or taking a p155 in the tour, and put all 9 guys on the front and rip it.


It's my reading of sportsmanship that you don't attack the *race lead* when misfortune hits. 

By your estimation, the entire peloton should have sat up during Milano-San Remo when Cav, Thor, Farrar et al were stuck behind the crash on Le Mànie.

It's racing, not a Saturday no-drop club ride.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I saw the point and purpose of the tactic, but a lot of good it did in the long run. Had it been a huge split, I could have seen the point.


----------



## MattSoutherden (Jun 24, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> By your estimation, the entire peloton should have sat up during Milano-San Remo when Cav, Thor, Farrar et al were stuck behind the crash on Le Mànie.


No, not sat up, just carried on as-is. At the time of the problem, the peloton was going hard with Garmin on the front. LT weren't on the front putting the hammer down.

They specifically went over the top of Garmin and upped the pace, willingly destroying all their domestiques, just to take advantage of the puncture.

Hopefully it bites them in the @ss. What goes around...


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

It was a legit tactic but also kinda BS considering Frank and Andy own goodwill to others for waiting for them after they fell off their bikes on stage two of the tour last year. If something like that happens in this years tour L-T may find that others are not so willing to ease up and wait for them - you build goodwill or burn it and LT burned some up for no reason.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Is Phillipe Gilbert riding the Tour this year?

I hope so. Frank Schleck does not appear ready to do battle with Contador at this point if he can't time trial any better than that. Obviously Schleck is not yet peaking, but getting absolutely flogged like that in a time trial is not a good sign. I've got no confidence that Leipheimer will show up for all the big mountain stages. 

I hope there is someone who can challenge Contador. If not it may be a relatively boring 3 weeks. He'll gain some time on his climbing rivals the first chance he gets, then can sit just back and play defense knowing that he'll smoke all the serious climbers in the time trial.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

MattSoutherden said:


> No, not sat up, just carried on as-is. At the time of the problem, the peloton was going hard with Garmin on the front. LT weren't on the front putting the hammer down.
> 
> They specifically went over the top of Garmin and upped the pace, willingly destroying all their domestiques, just to take advantage of the puncture.
> 
> Hopefully it bites them in the @ss. What goes around...


So. What?

Leopard Trek was trying to put Frank on the podium. Knowing that his TT abilities are not too great, they had to take time where they could.

The members of this forum claiming that "well, they should have waited even though he wasn't the race leader" is beyond absurd and tactically stupid.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> So. What?
> 
> Leopard Trek was trying to put Frank on the podium. Knowing that his TT abilities are not too great, they had to take time where they could.
> 
> The members of this forum claiming that "well, they should have waited even though he wasn't the race leader" is beyond absurd and tactically stupid.


It neither abusurd or stupid when you look to last years tour and the fact that Cancellara asked everyone to wait for F&A to come back after falling down thy could have reasonably been ridden out of the overall that day (and fabian out of the jersey as he would have had to go back and help chase), but the other teams decided that they would build some good will and wait as Saxo bank is a big team and they might need that goodwill later. What LT did was piss off a big team for little or no gain.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

32and3cross said:


> It neither abusurd or stupid when you look to last years tour and the fact that Cancellara asked everyone to wait for F&A to come back after falling down thy could have reasonably been ridden out of the overall that day (and fabian out of the jersey as he would have had to go back and help chase), but the other teams decided that they would build some good will and wait as Saxo bank is a big team and they might need that goodwill later. What LT did was piss off a big team for little or no gain.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but about 60% of the peloton was involved in that crash?

One simple fact remains:
Mollema was not the yellow jersey. It's not necessary to wait for "contenders" if they have an issue, only the race lead.

There's too damn much whining in cycling nowadays.

Zomegnan was right a couple of years back when he said the peloton was getting soft.


----------



## JohnHenry (Aug 9, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> Most of those "gentlemen's agreements" involve situations where the race leader comes into some misfortune.
> 
> Mollema was not the race lead, so tough luck to him.


Please note the former reasoning from the previous FC/Schleck actions in the TdF....


http://velonews.competitor.com/2010...peloton-as-green-jersey-fight-heats-up_125965

“Cancellara came to see me to tell me there had been enough injuries in the peloton today,” Pescheux said on French TV. _“(He said) there were (*potential*) leaders stuck _behind and that no one wanted to sprint for second place. It was a tacit agreement.”
Where was the tough luck, then?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

JohnHenry said:


> Please note the former reasoning from the previous FC/Schleck actions in the TdF....
> 
> 
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2010...peloton-as-green-jersey-fight-heats-up_125965
> ...


Again, how many "potential" leaders were down in that crash? Velonews cites 4, I'm just going to hazard a guess that a few other big names crashed as well:



> The crashes came behind, and when big favorites such as Alberto Contador (Astana), Lance Armstrong (RadioShack) and the Schleck brothers (Saxo Bank) hit the deck, there was a reluctance among those teams to continue driving the front group toward Spa.


You can pretend to justify Rabobank's complaining all you want. If 60% of the field along with most of the favorites hit the deck, then I can see asking them to wait:



> “It was the right thing to do to wait, so everybody comes together to the finish line together,” Cancellara later explained. “When you have *everybody on the ground and people five minutes behind because they can’t find their bike* then it’s only normal. I think fairness comes before being selfish. That was the reason why I spoke with Pescheux.”


Mollema had a puncture and got a wheel from a teammate. Far different from being sprawled across the road with a bike 200 meters down the hill in the ditch, lying amongst a bunch of other crashed riders.

I don't see the parallel between the two situations that you're suggesting.


----------



## JohnHenry (Aug 9, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> Again, how many "potential" leaders were down in that crash? Velonews cites 4, I'm just going to hazard a guess that a few other big names crashed as well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 If the Schlecks are in trouble and not in the race lead, then stopping is the right thing to do. 
If another potential race leader is in trouble, then all's fair in love & war.

We dont agree and I respect that.
All teams use the "gentlemens agreement" to their advantage, justification route.

That's why the, uh, agreement is crap.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but about 60% of the peloton was involved in that crash?
> 
> One simple fact remains:
> Mollema was not the yellow jersey. It's not necessary to wait for "contenders" if they have an issue, only the race lead.
> ...


Yeah 60% of the peloton was involved in that but Andy Frank and CVV were the only GC favs that were not able to rejoin on their own or with teammates, so Cancellara asked everyone to wait for them (instead of going back for them as their teammate) and everyone did had Astana or Cervelo (both of whom had numbers and their GC guys safely in the group) ridden F&A would have been out of the GC on day two.

In you haste to prove to everyone that your right you missing my point. Im not arguing that what LT did was wrong or right Im saying you need goodwill from the other teams at times and LT burned some up that could cost them in the future esp when they had been shown some in the past (as Saxo bank). Its not wrong or right, it just is and if they have an issue at the wrong time there is now a chance that Rabobank might choose to not wait. 

Personally I don't really care one way or another except it might make for some exciting cycling.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

32and3cross said:


> Yeah 60% of the peloton was involved in that but Andy Frank and CVV were the only GC favs that were not able to rejoin on their own or with teammates, so Cancellara asked everyone to wait for them (instead of going back for them as their teammate) and everyone did had Astana or Cervelo (both of whom had numbers and their GC guys safely in the group) ridden F&A would have been out of the GC on day two.
> 
> In you haste to prove to everyone that your right you missing my point. Im not arguing that what LT did was wrong or right Im saying you need goodwill from the other teams at times and LT burned some up that could cost them in the future esp when they had been shown some in the past (as Saxo bank). Its not wrong or right, it just is and if they have an issue at the wrong time there is now a chance that Rabobank might choose to not wait.
> 
> Personally I don't really care one way or another except it might make for some exciting cycling.


I'm not debating the issue of burning up some goodwill. I'm basically saying that I don't think LT care about goodwill from Rabobank. I'm guessing that they see Gesink as a second tier contender and aren't afraid to throw caution to the wind come Tour time. They've really got nothing to lose since they haven't hardly shown up to races this year...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

It was just a jerk move as much as AS has complained about AC not waiting for him after Chaingate. Then we see him drop it during the prologue. 

I understand the tactic completely, but LT basically drills it on the front without even having a sprinter. Sure, it got FS a few seconds, but all of those (and then some) were lost the following day. It was a risky move in terms of the perception, but it's better to make friends than enemies and this move didn't do them any favors.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

robdamanii said:


> I'm not debating the issue of burning up some goodwill. I'm basically saying that I don't think LT care about goodwill from Rabobank. I'm guessing that they see Gesink as a second tier contender and aren't afraid to throw caution to the wind come Tour time. They've really got nothing to lose since they haven't hardly shown up to races this year...


Steven Kruijswijk has done some good things this year for Rabo. He might be what Gesnick needs to push him over the top this year. I would even go as far as to say he will contend for the white jersey as he did in the Giro.

Scratch that...just read he isn't racing the tour. Roman Kreuziger should breath a little easier.


----------



## dcfan40 (Aug 3, 2008)

JohnHenry said:


> TREK Leotard is morally superior to all teams; so, they are mainly in the right.
> 
> 
> Had Cancellara known about this...he would've neutralized the stage.


You make a great point here. Sometimes it's not who is the leader (as in Yellow Jersey) but who is a leader in the peloton. Cancellara proved last year how much leadership he holds. We also saw that Lance didn't last year. I am sure there are others in the peloton that hold some leadership as well besides who is in the Yellow Jersey. I am sure during the Tour if Rabo has a chance they can try as much as they want but I am willing to bet Cancellara will make them pay. 

Overall I am pretty indifferent about what happened. I am not losing sleep over this. But you can bet if we hear that AS has any problem during the tour on say some 'boring flat stage' where only the last few KM's matter.... You better believe I will get on the edge of my seat and will be looking for Rabo to try and make them pay.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

JohnHenry said:


> If the Schlecks are in trouble and not in the race lead, then stopping is the right thing to do.
> If another potential race leader is in trouble, then all's fair in love & war.
> 
> We dont agree and I respect that.
> ...


when Schleck the elder crashed out on pave nobody waited and nobody argued that they should have waited. Same goes for Armstrong having mechanical. Each situation is a bit different from Schleck's mishap - you have to take into account what was the race situation before incident and after.

The real question is not whether they should have stopped for Mollema, the real question is whether the front group drove it much harder once he flatted. Hard to say - they were driving it pretty hard before (by Garmin), and the gap to HTC group was basically similar at the end. Had they waited, they would have been caught by HTC group as well.

It was still a stupid move by Leopard-TREK though, but for another reason - it didn't get them anything for it, and it may have cost them some relationship with Rabobank. Boneheaded - yes, unethical or hypocritical - not really.

Somewhat similar to boneheaded moves by Garmin - like chasing down Hincapie to prevent HTC from taking yellow.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> So what?
> 
> Where down the order do we stop giving gifts when someone has a mechanical? 3rd place? 5th? 10th? Maybe we should just neutralize the entire stage so nobody can have a mechanical?
> 
> A puncture, a mechanical, a crash....very rarely do these circumstances warrant a gift from the peloton, so why whine about it now? If Mollema was in yellow, I can see the protest as valid, but from the second row, I don't buy it.


So what? My point was that they knew damn well what they were doing. I made no judgment concerning the wisdom or ethics of it. 
So if second warrants no consideration, why does fourth warrant going out of your way via iffy sportsmanship?
But on the subject of ethics, cyclists know it's a damn hard sport even when all goes well, so traditionally, the peloton honored a code that rewarded hard earned placings and avoided actively taking advantage of hard luck. In classics like PR, punctures are par for the course, expected. But in the final 15k of a sprint stage, where the GC placings will be decided in an upcoming time trial, it's a BS to cover up a rider's true weakness by with a BS move like that.
This idea that anything goes, every man/team for himself is false machismo practiced and defended by those who view ethics as a barrier.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

dcfan40 said:


> You make a great point here. Sometimes it's not who is the leader (as in Yellow Jersey) but who is a leader in the peloton. Cancellara proved last year how much leadership he holds. We also saw that Lance didn't last year. I am sure there are others in the peloton that hold some leadership as well besides who is in the Yellow Jersey. I am sure during the Tour if Rabo has a chance they can try as much as they want but I am willing to bet Cancellara will make them pay.
> 
> Overall I am pretty indifferent about what happened. I am not losing sleep over this. But you can bet if we hear that AS has any problem during the tour on say some 'boring flat stage' where only the last few KM's matter.... You better believe I will get on the edge of my seat and will be looking for Rabo to try and make them pay.


for the record, Mollema is far from being a household name like Schleck or Cancellara or Contador or Armstrong - he is basically a no-name rider, and he had no shot at podium even if he hadn't flatted. Maybe that's why he didn't get no respect.


----------



## MattSoutherden (Jun 24, 2009)

55x11 said:


> for the record, Mollema is far from being a household name like Schleck or Cancellara or Contador or Armstrong - he is basically a no-name rider, and he had no shot at podium even if he hadn't flatted. Maybe that's why he didn't get no respect.


Sure, my mum might not know who he is, but if you're trying to tell us that the pro peloton don't know who's got it and who hasn't, you're living in fairyland. They knew exactly what they were doing going to the front and taking advantage.

As for not getting the podium, he lost 50 seconds in the split and he ended up 1 minute off 3r place. So that doesn't wash either.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

mtrider05 said:


> Thanks for the unnecessary spoiler, truly appreciated.


A Schleck blowing a TT is HARDLY a spoiler.

Sorry....bad joke. 

And yet another story of yet another cyclist whining becuase the other teams had the audacity to try and win the competition at their expense. 

"Misfortunes" that would trigger a peloton slowdown under the "gentleman's agreement" used to be a freally freak accurrance of some sort. You dont want to see someone win a Grand Tour becuase a dog wandered on the tarmac, or a crash that wipes out half the field. But lately, it seems every flat, every mis-shift, every hangnail a rider gets falls under the guise of a "misfortune" that everyone else needs to address. Stupid.

Yes...its a brutally hard sport at times and yes, they all have to help each other out occasionally. But this "expecation" by the riders that their problems are _everyones _to deal with, and the subsequent whining when these things pop up are becoming a bit much.


----------



## MattSoutherden (Jun 24, 2009)

I am in absolute agreement that it shouldn't have triggered a peloton slowdown. The race was already on with the split in the group. Before Mollema got the flat, Garmin had a couple of guys driving the front group, and HTC were leading the chase. If that situation continued, and Mollema and the guys that dropped back to help him couldn't bridge back to the _Garmin driven_ front group, then too bad*. But that wasn't what happened.

I don't think you used to hear about it, simply because teams didn't take advantage so there wasn't any controversy to talk about. 

* Allowing that when it gets to the final k then it's every man for himself when teams start setting up the sprint. I don't expect all the other teams to let Garmin lead it over the line.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

RkFast said:


> A Schleck blowing a TT is HARDLY a spoiler.
> 
> Sorry....bad joke.
> 
> ...


I think Adam Hansen from HTC was taken out by a dog last year now that you mention it. Granted he wasn't a contender, but that just jarred a memory loose. I get where you are going though. The year Lance was taken out on the climb by the boy with the mussette bag or when he did his super off road ride to avoid Joseba Beloki's crash with broken femur would also be good examples of what you are speaking of. Come to think of it, lance really had some bad luck in those days!


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

55x11 said:


> for the record, Mollema is far from being a household name like Schleck or Cancellara or Contador or Armstrong - he is basically a no-name rider, and he had no shot at podium even if he hadn't flatted. Maybe that's why he didn't get no respect.


Arn't you the same guy that thought Nick Nuyens was a no name rider?


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

32and3cross said:


> Arn't you the same guy that thought Nick Nuyens was a no name rider?


he still is.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spookyload said:


> I think Adam Hansen from HTC was taken out by a dog last year now that you mention it. Granted he wasn't a contender, but that just jarred a memory loose. I get where you are going though. The year Lance was taken out on the climb by the boy with the mussette bag or when he did his super off road ride to avoid Joseba Beloki's crash with broken femur would also be good examples of what you are speaking of. Come to think of it, lance really had some bad luck in those days!


Remember what Lance did after he went down from snagging that bag?

He restarted his attack on Jan; then he landed on the TT when his right cleat came out; continued the attack dropping Mayo (again); and going on and winning the stage. 


Ah; the memories.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

MattSoutherden said:


> Sure, my mum might not know who he is, but if you're trying to tell us that the pro peloton don't know who's got it and who hasn't, you're living in fairyland. They knew exactly what they were doing going to the front and taking advantage.
> 
> As for not getting the podium, he lost 50 seconds in the split and he ended up 1 minute off 3r place. So that doesn't wash either.


I think Mollema mom might know who he is, and that is about it.  

So even if he didn't lose 48 seconds (not 50) and then didn't suck as badly in ITT, all it would mean is that one Rabobank rider (Kruijswijk - I will bet 99% of RBR folks who watch Versus religiously can't spell his name either) is replaced by another Rabobank rider - Mollema. Big whopping do!

This is precisely my point - Rabobank is all upset, but they never had a shot at 1st or 2nd, and one of their riders (does it matter which one?) could place 3rd, in a tune-up race where nobody cares about who finished 3rd. Quick - who finished 3rd in TdS last year? And in 2009? I have no idea either, I had to look it up - Fuglsang and Kreuziger.

At the same time Schlecks are even more stupid to sacrifice their team (and threaten Cancellara's chances at ITT win the next day) for Frank's 7th place or whatever it was in the end. He had no chance at podium to begin with. Maybe they worked for Fuglsang all along? Even then, epic fail, and stakes are so low...


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

cda 455 said:


> Remember what Lance did after he went down from snagging that bag?
> 
> He restarted his attack on Jan; then he landed on the TT when his right cleat came out; continued the attack dropping Mayo (again); and going on and winning the stage.
> 
> ...


Bio Chemistry Engineering is a wonderful thing.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

55x11 said:


> he still is.


Only to you, because you seem only to be able to follow the bigger names to anyone who follows cycling with any seriousness Nick was a legit outside winner of Flanders (BTW after you win a classic it pretty hard to be a no name). BTW repeating things over and over again with no facts to back you arguments up don't make you right. You still fail to understand cycling tactics and nuances from almost everything I have seen you write.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

32and3cross said:


> Only to you, because you seem only to be able to follow the bigger names to anyone who follows cycling with any seriousness Nick was a legit outside winner of Flanders (BTW after you win a classic it pretty hard to be a no name). BTW repeating things over and over again with no facts to back you arguments up don't make you right. You still fail to understand cycling tactics and nuances from almost everything I have seen you write.


Nick Nuyens is chumbawamba of cycling. He is a lucky one-hit wonder (so far, let's see if he can prove me wrong), still an obscure figure who is well-known only to bike dorks like you and me. Would you bet that he will repeat at Flanders next year? Probably not. If I saw him on the street wearing regular clothes I would not be able to recognize him, would you?

If you want facts - what do you think Nuyens' UCI ranking was at the end of 2010?
He wouldn't make a list of top 30 or even 50 recognizable cyclists and therefore he is a no-name.

If you insist that Nuyens was a big name before his Flanders win (or even after), so are about 100 other cyclists the majority of even avid cycling public who watch Versus and visit cyclingnews periodically never heard of. Who is a "No-name" then? Or is everyone a famous cyclist to you because you are such an expert?

Relax, I am picking on "NO-NAMES" like Nuyens and Mollema partly because it irritates guys like you so much, but just like my exaggerated anti-Garmin hype/performance ratio rants, there's some truth to it.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

55x11 said:


> Nick Nuyens is chumbawamba of cycling. He is a lucky one-hit wonder (so far, let's see if he can prove me wrong), still an obscure figure who is well-known only to bike dorks like you and me. Would you bet that he will repeat at Flanders next year? Probably not. If I saw him on the street wearing regular clothes I would not be able to recognize him, would you?


He has been a contender at Flanders before (2nd in 2008 I believe) people hwo follow the classics know who he is even if he is not a A list favorite. When he made the final selection at this years race everone I was watching the race with knew who he was. And yeah I prolly would recognize him if I saw him walking around say, Interbike. I doubt, out of a cycling context, I would recognize most top cyclists like Fabian (say if I saw him in a local coffee house).

QUOTE=55x11;3412763]If you want facts - what do you think Nuyens' UCI ranking was at the end of 2010?
He wouldn't make a list of top 30 or even 50 recognizable cyclists and therefore he is a no-name.[/QUOTE]

Bullshit he was the classic leader at Saxo Bank and mentioned quite alot in the Euro covage of the race when he made the front group who cares what ranking he was its the ability to win that race. In a grand tour context he would not get a mention and would be a "no name" rider in the pack, but in classic he's a name claiming he isn't off UCI ranking further proclaims your ignorance.

QUOTE=55x11;3412763]If you insist that Nuyens was a big name before his Flanders win (or even after), so are about 100 other cyclists the majority of even avid cycling public who watch Versus and visit cyclingnews periodically never heard of. Who is a "No-name" then? Or is everyone a famous cyclist to you because you are such an expert?[/QUOTE]

Not everyone I do tend know who the teams are riding for in races like that tho and if they happen to be riding for a rider like Nick who had finsihed on the podium in the past and been winning recently one would put that rider down as an outside threat to win should the race come together just right (as it did). I have never said he was "famous" or a favorite to win but he is known to lots of people who follow the sport. You seem to only know about 10 cyclists everone else is a no namer to you thats a shallow read IMO.

QUOTE=55x11;3412763]Relax, I am picking on "NO-NAMES" like Nuyens and Mollema partly because it irritates guys like you so much, but just like my exaggerated anti-Garmin hype/performance ratio rants, there's some truth to it.[/QUOTE]

You give yourself to much credit as a troll. You hardly irritate me its just fun to point how little you know vs how much you write.


----------



## MattSoutherden (Jun 24, 2009)

55x11 said:


> ..he is basically a no-name rider...


Bauke who?


----------

