Question about Race Tradition

[Posted and mailed]

In article ,
"Nick Burns" writes:

"Stewart Fleming" wrote in message
...
TdF tradition in recent years is that the final stage into Paris is a
procession and that no serious racing takes place until the
Champs-Elysees. I'm writing this before the Luz-Ardiden stage, but...

...if the prime German Sausage doesn't lose time up the final climb on
stage 15 and is sitting 15s down on Lance, then takes a few seconds more
in the last ITT on stage 19, what could happen on the last stage? Would
US Postal break with tradition and force the race on the last stage?


Many of these traditions that people keep referencing have no reason behind
them other than history. Historically there has usually not been sufficient
reason to attack on the last days because the GC has been firmly
established. For example, the yellow jersey going back to get water is
against tradition only because historically it would have been a back
strategic decision.



Any time there is a reasonable doubt as to the complete resolution of the
general classification, then that becomes sufficient reason to attack the
current leader.



In this case of 3 riders all within 1 minute of the lowest GC time, it would
be expected that any of the 3 would attack in order to become the final GC
winner. In other words, the expectation that Lance would launch an attack to
secure the jersey is as strong as the expectation that the other 2 would
attack in order to defeat him. This expectation remains until one of the
riders is firmly established as the GC leader or the end of the race, which
ever comes first.

On a historical basis this begs the question, how will Lance Armstrong be seen,in years to come, for allowing the maillot jeune to tote water?

Wes

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Nick Burns" wrote:

"Stewart Fleming" wrote in message
...
TdF tradition in recent years is that the final stage into Paris is a
procession and that no serious racing takes place until the
Champs-Elysees. I'm writing this before the Luz-Ardiden stage, but...

...if the prime German Sausage doesn't lose time up the final climb on
stage 15 and is sitting 15s down on Lance, then takes a few seconds
more
in the last ITT on stage 19, what could happen on the last stage?
Would
US Postal break with tradition and force the race on the last stage?


Many of these traditions that people keep referencing have no reason
behind
them other than history. Historically there has usually not been
sufficient
reason to attack on the last days because the GC has been firmly
established. For example, the yellow jersey going back to get water is
against tradition only because historically it would have been a back
strategic decision.



Any time there is a reasonable doubt as to the complete resolution of
the
general classification, then that becomes sufficient reason to attack
the
current leader.



In this case of 3 riders all within 1 minute of the lowest GC time, it
would
be expected that any of the 3 would attack in order to become the final
GC
winner. In other words, the expectation that Lance would launch an
attack to
secure the jersey is as strong as the expectation that the other 2 would
attack in order to defeat him. This expectation remains until one of the
riders is firmly established as the GC leader or the end of the race,
which
ever comes first.

Very astute. The other problem, though, is that winning the
Champs-Elysee stage is the most prestigious non-jersey accomplishment
you can manage at le Tour. Since the stage profile is always flat and
short (just over 150 km this year), every team in the race is willing to
attack and nail breakaways in order to neutralize the race until the 10
laps.

It's possible that if the GC is close, there will be an early attack,
but there is little chance it will succeed, unless USPS or Bianchi is a
stronger team than I think.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club



In that case you may see a breakaway that has one of the 3 working with
others that want a shot at the stage win. The GC contender would agree to
not dispute the stage in exchange for hauling ass in the break along with
support from whatever the team can do to slow the chase. However, as you
point out they would be working against any teams that are left out and
especially teams with sprinters that hope to take the stage. Combine that
with any other teams shooting for additional green jersey points and this
hypothetical break is doomed. Still, my point is that anything goes when the
jersey is not well established.

"Nick Burns" wrote in message
...

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Nick Burns" wrote:

"Stewart Fleming" wrote in message
...
TdF tradition in recent years is that the final stage into Paris is
a
procession and that no serious racing takes place until the
Champs-Elysees. I'm writing this before the Luz-Ardiden stage,
but...

...if the prime German Sausage doesn't lose time up the final climb
on
stage 15 and is sitting 15s down on Lance, then takes a few seconds
more
in the last ITT on stage 19, what could happen on the last stage?
Would
US Postal break with tradition and force the race on the last stage?


Many of these traditions that people keep referencing have no reason
behind
them other than history. Historically there has usually not been
sufficient
reason to attack on the last days because the GC has been firmly
established. For example, the yellow jersey going back to get water is
against tradition only because historically it would have been a back
strategic decision.



Any time there is a reasonable doubt as to the complete resolution of
the
general classification, then that becomes sufficient reason to attack
the
current leader.



In this case of 3 riders all within 1 minute of the lowest GC time, it
would
be expected that any of the 3 would attack in order to become the
final
GC
winner. In other words, the expectation that Lance would launch an
attack to
secure the jersey is as strong as the expectation that the other 2
would
attack in order to defeat him. This expectation remains until one of
the
riders is firmly established as the GC leader or the end of the race,
which
ever comes first.

Very astute. The other problem, though, is that winning the
Champs-Elysee stage is the most prestigious non-jersey accomplishment
you can manage at le Tour. Since the stage profile is always flat and
short (just over 150 km this year), every team in the race is willing to
attack and nail breakaways in order to neutralize the race until the 10
laps.

It's possible that if the GC is close, there will be an early attack,
but there is little chance it will succeed, unless USPS or Bianchi is a
stronger team than I think.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club



In that case you may see a breakaway that has one of the 3 working with
others that want a shot at the stage win. The GC contender would agree to
not dispute the stage in exchange for hauling ass in the break along with
support from whatever the team can do to slow the chase. However, as you
point out they would be working against any teams that are left out and
especially teams with sprinters that hope to take the stage. Combine that
with any other teams shooting for additional green jersey points and this
hypothetical break is doomed. Still, my point is that anything goes when
the
jersey is not well established.



Could be the best one-day race ever....

benjo maso wrote:

Although my name isn't Masso, I can answer the question. In the history of
the Tour it happened only three times: in 1989 (TT), 1968 (also a TT) and
1947, when Robic (3d in the GC at 2'58") attacked 120 km before the finish
in Paris depriving poor Pierre Brambilla of the yellow jersey.

Follow-up question then:

Who is/are the senior riders or the senior team that would prevent or
discourage this from happening? Sort of the Duclos-Lassalle role...

McEwen would be beside himself if it didn't come down to the usual sprint.

"Stewart Fleming" wrote in message
...


benjo maso wrote:

Although my name isn't Masso, I can answer the question. In the history
of
the Tour it happened only three times: in 1989 (TT), 1968 (also a TT)
and
1947, when Robic (3d in the GC at 2'58") attacked 120 km before the
finish
in Paris depriving poor Pierre Brambilla of the yellow jersey.

Follow-up question then:

Who is/are the senior riders or the senior team that would prevent or
discourage this from happening? Sort of the Duclos-Lassalle role...

McEwen would be beside himself if it didn't come down to the usual sprint.


There has never been some "grand old man" who tried to prevent it or
something like that. In 1914 Pélissier attacked Philippe Thys and in 1979
Zoetemelk attacked Hinault in the last stage because they hoped to win and
nobody blamed them. Of course teams with a good sprinter will do everything
to impede such actions, but only because they want to win themselves, not
because it's against some etiquette.

Benjo Maso

"benjo maso" wrote in message

yeah, and before that it must of been a very long time. I will leave
that
one for Masso.


Although my name isn't Masso, I can answer the question.
Benjo Maso


We understand.

Mr. LVM-L Stalker/Name Butcher seems to think the second five-time TdF
winner was Merck.

"Nick Burns" wrote in message
...

"phantom" wrote in message
. ..
[Posted and mailed]

In article ,
"Nick Burns" writes:

"Stewart Fleming" wrote in message
...
TdF tradition in recent years is that the final stage into Paris is a
procession and that no serious racing takes place until the
Champs-Elysees. I'm writing this before the Luz-Ardiden stage,
but...

...if the prime German Sausage doesn't lose time up the final climb
on
stage 15 and is sitting 15s down on Lance, then takes a few seconds
more
in the last ITT on stage 19, what could happen on the last stage?
Would
US Postal break with tradition and force the race on the last stage?


Many of these traditions that people keep referencing have no reason
behind
them other than history. Historically there has usually not been
sufficient
reason to attack on the last days because the GC has been firmly
established. For example, the yellow jersey going back to get water is
against tradition only because historically it would have been a back
strategic decision.



Any time there is a reasonable doubt as to the complete resolution of
the
general classification, then that becomes sufficient reason to attack
the
current leader.



In this case of 3 riders all within 1 minute of the lowest GC time, it
would
be expected that any of the 3 would attack in order to become the
final
GC
winner. In other words, the expectation that Lance would launch an
attack to
secure the jersey is as strong as the expectation that the other 2
would
attack in order to defeat him. This expectation remains until one of
the
riders is firmly established as the GC leader or the end of the race,
which
ever comes first.

On a historical basis this begs the question, how will Lance Armstrong
be
seen,in years to come, for allowing the maillot jeune to tote water?

Wes

It is a non-issue to everyone but Usenet users.



I can just see the Lotto guys yelling "Hey - you are breaking tradition! Get
back here!"

I am sure that USPS, Telekom and Bianchi will give a **** about what
everyone else thinks.

This all assumes that Robbie McWhiner doesn't push everyone into a ditch
along the way.

"Corey Green" wrote in message
...
Very astute. The other problem, though, is that winning the
Champs-Elysee stage is the most prestigious non-jersey accomplishment
you can manage at le Tour. Since the stage profile is always flat and
short (just over 150 km this year), every team in the race is willing
to
attack and nail breakaways in order to neutralize the race until the
10
laps.

It's possible that if the GC is close, there will be an early attack,
but there is little chance it will succeed, unless USPS or Bianchi is
a
stronger team than I think.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club



In that case you may see a breakaway that has one of the 3 working with
others that want a shot at the stage win. The GC contender would agree
to
not dispute the stage in exchange for hauling ass in the break along
with
support from whatever the team can do to slow the chase. However, as you
point out they would be working against any teams that are left out and
especially teams with sprinters that hope to take the stage. Combine
that
with any other teams shooting for additional green jersey points and
this
hypothetical break is doomed. Still, my point is that anything goes when
the
jersey is not well established.



Could be the best one-day race ever....



Goddam, you guys are dreamers.

It's a FLAT, short stage.

The sprinters will want to win it, their teams will help keep it together.
And all 1st place has to do is sit on 2nd place's wheel the entire day. Him
and his whole team. 2nd place would have no chance of getting away.

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in
message ...

"Corey Green" wrote in message
...

Could be the best one-day race ever....



Goddam, you guys are dreamers.

It's a FLAT, short stage.

The sprinters will want to win it, their teams will help keep it together.
And all 1st place has to do is sit on 2nd place's wheel the entire day.
Him
and his whole team. 2nd place would have no chance of getting away.


Yes, short stage, but a short stage with 3 intermediate sprints, and a final
sprint. Each of these sprints have time bonuses, which would be huge to each
team in contention IF the GC is very close.

Of course there are sprinters in the field, but anyone in contention is
going to be willing to take the risks necessary for these time bonuses. Of
course each of these GC contenders will be watched extremely close, but that
doesn't mean they won't try. And yes 1st place simply has to sit on the
wheel of 2nd place, but that doesn't guarantee him outsprinting him to the
line.

If am down 15" to the leader and I know that I can gain 20" by winning the
stage, I am going to do absolutely everything in my power to win that damn
stage. Doesn't mean it is possible, but damn it there is a full year to
recover from stage 20.

Armstrong, Ullrich, and Vinokourov aren't necessarily very good sprinters,
but they also don't typically give a **** about sprints because they are
meaningless when you can gain 30 minutes on a sprinter in the mountains.
Time bonuses alone will make the stage interesting.

"Bruce Johnston" wrote in message
...

"Carl Sundquist" wrote in message



Mr. LVM-L Stalker/Name Butcher seems to think the second five-time TdF
winner was Merck.

Stalker nah, name butcher not true. Merckx and Maso wasn't intentional.
Second five time winner... I don't where you get this stuff but if you got
anymore problems with me I guess we could get together and sort it out.




Are you offering to be bottom?