Fuck You George
DA74
rest for second...and all you can do is bitch? This can only mean you
are not happy with Levi winning.
You should have been jumping for joy yesterday (you know, like Levi at
the Tour when he realized Contador had pulled out a huge TT and
salvaged the Yellow).
In the larger scheme of things you'll be remembered as a mediocre top
pro. A couple moments of brilliance and some great support work but
you just don't have the goods for greatness. And just remember that
It's not Levi's fault that Discovery management didn't think you could
carry a Pro Tour team. It's your fault because you can't.
And your statement after the race yesterday only serves to validate my
point.
Deal with it. And oh yeah, fuck you.
Thanks,
DA74
bre...@gmail.com
> Your teammate wins in dominating fashion and you smoke the best of the
> rest for second...and all you can do is bitch? This can only mean you
> are not happy with Levi winning.
>
> You should have been jumping for joy yesterday (you know, like Levi at
> the Tour when he realized Contador had pulled out a huge TT and
> salvaged the Yellow).
It'd be nice to have a link so I can get worked up, too.
Thanks,
db
http://infospigot.typepad.com/re_cycling/
unforg...@juno.com
> On Sep 3, 11:49 am, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:> Your teammate wins in dominating fashion and you smoke the best of the
> > rest for second...and all you can do is bitch? This can only mean you
> > are not happy with Levi winning.
>
> > You should have been jumping for joy yesterday (you know, like Levi at
> > the Tour when he realized Contador had pulled out a huge TT and
> > salvaged the Yellow).
>
> I'm sorry ... *What*, precisely, touched off this tirade of yours?
> It'd be nice to have a link so I can get worked up, too.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
> > In the larger scheme of things you'll be remembered as a mediocre top
> > pro. A couple moments of brilliance and some great support work but
> > you just don't have the goods for greatness. And just remember that
> > It's not Levi's fault that Discovery management didn't think you could
> > carry a Pro Tour team. It's your fault because you can't.
>
> > And your statement after the race yesterday only serves to validate my
> > point.
>
> > Deal with it. And oh yeah, fuck you.
>
> > Thanks,
> > DA74
>From www.cyclingnews.com:
Speaking of the defending champion, Hincapie did not seem very happy
with his second place behind his teammate's win. "This year was a lot
more negative racing," he said. "When Levi went up the road it was up
to the other teams to chase and they just sat there and watched
everyone else. If I tried to go they would come after me. I had to
play my cards from the back, there wasn't much cooperation, but the
team worked well today. Last year was a lot faster and more aggressive
racing."
You can't let a break go and expect your opponents to make your race
for you. I wonder if he threw the trophy out the bus window again.
Dan Connelly
> Speaking of the defending champion, Hincapie did not seem very happy
> with his second place behind his teammate's win.
Why do you assert he should be happy with Levi's riding? Do you know what the team plan was going into the race?
Tom Kunich
news:nE2Di.52378$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Are you suggesting that it is a team tactic for the man out in front to give
up a win so that the team leader could POSSIBLY win? Just cause George got a
second doesn't mean that he could have won a sprint for first. When the win
is on the line a lot of guys get bigger legs.
Dan Connelly
I suggest nothing. The accusation was against George. My response was that there are circumstances in which one can justifiably be disappointed at a race result, even if a teammate wins. Once Levi was off the front, obviously he had to go for it. The issue is how he got there.
This can go multiple ways. Don't judge Hincapie without knowing the facts.
Dan
DA74
wrote:
> My response was that there are circumstances in which one can justifiably be disappointed at a race result, even if a teammate wins.
I completely disagree. This is a team sport. If your team wins then
everything went perfectly given the circumstances of that particular
race. Period.
> Once Levi was off the front, obviously he had to go for it. The issue is how he got there.
He bridged up to the leaders in a two man move. I don't really see how
this is relevent though, unless you are suggesting that he shouldn't
have gotten in a move to bridge in the first place. And if that is
what you are suggesting then George's second place negates the
argument.
> This can go multiple ways.
Of course it can, but when your teammate wins and you take second have
some fucking class and congratulate your teammate. Save the bitching
for your wife and kids and then kick the dog or something. It's a team
win before first and foremost.
billyroll
>
> Of course it can, but when your teammate wins and you take second have
> some fucking class and congratulate your teammate. Save the bitching
> for your wife and kids and then kick the dog or something. It's a team
> win before first and foremost.
DA, normally you're a total douchebag. But this time, you're right.
Especially when Levi gave the win to him last year. I'm not saying
Levi would have won last year if they weren't working together, but
Levi made sure Bajadali wasn't going to win. George shouldn't bitch
when Levi assured him of a Stars and Stripes 12 months ago.
-BR-
Bob Schwartz
> My response was that there are circumstances in which
> one can justifiably be disappointed at a race result,
> even if a teammate wins.
While this is true, it should never be apparent to the
press.
I am thinking this does not bode well for George. If he
isn't willing to chase down a teammate how will he ever
fit in with T-Mobile?
Bob Schwartz
Donald Munro
> Your teammate wins in dominating fashion and you smoke the best of the
> rest for second...and all you can do is bitch? This can only mean you
> are not happy with Levi winning.
Perhaps he would have been less inclined to bitch if they
were still going to be teammates next year (unless of course
Leipheimer goes to T-Mobile).
Tom Kunich
news:6KcDi.23884$eY.1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>
> I am thinking this does not bode well for George. If he
> isn't willing to chase down a teammate how will he ever
> fit in with T-Mobile?
That was a pretty low blow. I like it!
Dan Connelly
> On Sep 3, 7:35 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> wrote:
>
>> My response was that there are circumstances in which one can justifiably be disappointed at a race result, even if a teammate wins.
>
> I completely disagree. This is a team sport. If your team wins then
> everything went perfectly given the circumstances of that particular
> race. Period.
A team arranges a leadout train. A leadout man intentionally boxes his sprinter in, going for the W himself, which he takes.
All's well that ends well?
Another situation: your GC leader is on the final climb in a stage race, and it's your job to protect him. That's not your style. You drop him, leaving him isolated, then take the W for the stage. He hangs on to keep the jersey.
No problem?
It's easy to come up with scenerios where the final result isn't the whole story.
Dan
P.S. Each of these examples is strictly hypothetical.
Dan Connelly
> On Sep 3, 9:28 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course it can, but when your teammate wins and you take second have
>> some fucking class and congratulate your teammate. Save the bitching
>> for your wife and kids and then kick the dog or something. It's a team
>> win before first and foremost.
>
> DA, normally you're a total douchebag. But this time, you're right.
> Especially when Levi gave the win to him last year.
George, after missing the classics, worked hard for 3 weeks to help Levi and Alberto podium at the Tour. Debt payed, with interest. George owed Levi nothing.
crit...@yahoo.com
DA74 wrote:
> Of course it can, but when your teammate wins and you take second have
> some fucking class and congratulate your teammate. Save the bitching
> for your wife and kids and then kick the dog or something. It's a team
> win before first and foremost.
So, you know for a fact that he didn't congratulate Levi, wasn't happy
about his win, and that there's no chance that the interviewer simply
didn't include that in the article, and instead, put in his comment on
how the strategy of the race played out? You've deduced his true
attitude and meaning from that short paragraph that was quoted?
You almost-real-pro's are a bitter lot. No wonder pro bike racing is a
dying sport in the US.
DA74
wrote:
You're right, they are hypothetical and yes, it's easy to come up with
scenarios and yes, individuals may not be personally satisfied with
how things played out but you're missing the point. This is a TEAM
SPORT. A team win trumps all, period. End of story. The rest is moot
and has no room in the press. Period. The rest of the story is for the
guys who are unhappy about themselves.
There is zero reason to complain about a teammate winning and
following that up with a second placing. It's a perfect example of
success on every level in this sport for a given race. The only reason
you'd complain is if you're unhappy for the winner.
Thanks,
DA74
DA74
wrote:
>
> George, after missing the classics, worked hard for 3 weeks to help Levi and Alberto podium at the Tour. Debt payed, with interest. George owed Levi nothing.
Wrong again. This is a TEAM SPORT. There are no debts accrued or paid
when you are designated as a domestique and you are working for the
team leader(s). George is and always has been a domestique at the
Tour. That is what he's getting paid to do.
Last year at USPRO was a completely different situation because Levi
was on Gerolsteiner and George was on Discovery. Levi gave a gift. Big
difference.
Thanks,
DA74
DA74
What is an almost-real-pro? Is that like you're mom when she services
me and I don't pay her but rather throw her my t-shirt to wipe her
mouth and then say "no, go ahead and keep it"?
With that said, let me further expound on my original point. It
doesn't matter what was or wasn't said subsequently, concurrently or
prior to the offending remark. There is no reason to say anything
negative to an interviewer after taking second place to a teammate.
Everything worked out perfectly unless you are unhappy that your
teammate won. Period.
Thanks Again,
DA74
crit...@yahoo.com
DA74 wrote:
> With that said, let me further expound on my original point. It
> doesn't matter what was or wasn't said subsequently, concurrently or
> prior to the offending remark. There is no reason to say anything
> negative to an interviewer after taking second place to a teammate.
> Everything worked out perfectly unless you are unhappy that your
> teammate won. Period.
I guess such absolutism is easy when nobody ever interviews you.
Geraard Spergen
And he missed the Classics because he crashed while helping Levi win
ToC. This negative interview he gave is out of character; he usually
bites his tongue. Compare Ronde 2006.
DA74
Such naivete is natural since you've never been there. You are
excused.
Bitterly Yours,
DA74
DA74
> And he missed the Classics because he crashed while helping Levi win
> ToC.
No. He missed the classics because he crashed doing the job for which
he is handsomely paid:
Being a domestique in stage races for the Discovery Channel Team.
This is starting to get annoying. You guys do understand the "team"
concept right?
Thanks,
DA74
Mike Jacoubowsky
> scenarios and yes, individuals may not be personally satisfied with
> how things played out but you're missing the point. This is a TEAM
> SPORT. A team win trumps all, period. End of story. The rest is moot
> and has no room in the press. Period. The rest of the story is for the
> guys who are unhappy about themselves.
Except that it's not the team that wears the national championship jersey,
it's the rider.
Beyond that, "teams" lately have been built around elevating a single rider
to the podium, and the big picture dictates that, even when that rider is
having an off day, the rest of the team sacrifices, when required, to help
the designated leader to minimize losses and maximize the change to win. The
team interest is often best looked after with a plan that doesn't allow for
individual rider initiative.
> There is zero reason to complain about a teammate winning and
> following that up with a second placing. It's a perfect example of
> success on every level in this sport for a given race. The only reason
> you'd complain is if you're unhappy for the winner.
That would depend on the team's objectives for the year, wouldn't it? If
you're trying to instill a sense of sacrifice towards a single person (as US
Postal did so well), little is done without explicit permission from the DS.
Yes, you may need permission to go with a break. This isn't news.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
>
> > There is zero reason to complain about a teammate winning and
> > following that up with a second placing. It's a perfect example of
> > success on every level in this sport for a given race. The only reason
> > you'd complain is if you're unhappy for the winner.
>
> That would depend on the team's objectives for the year, wouldn't it? If
> you're trying to instill a sense of sacrifice towards a single person (as US
> Postal did so well), little is done without explicit permission from the DS.
> Yes, you may need permission to go with a break. This isn't news.
>
Huh, no wonder they don't win classics then. I don't
have a huge problem with what George actually said about
negative racing, just the way it sounds foro him to be griping.
Remember when Servais Knaven went off the front at
Paris-Roubaix and George had to sit there knowing he'd
only tow Museeuw back up if he chased? Knaven won,
even though he's hardly the star (it is kind of an
outlier on his palmares), and I don't remember Museeuw
bitching at George or anyone else afterward.
Ben
Dan Connelly
> That would depend on the team's objectives for the year, wouldn't it? If
> you're trying to instill a sense of sacrifice towards a single person (as US
> Postal did so well), little is done without explicit permission from the DS.
> Yes, you may need permission to go with a break. This isn't news.
>
There is no team sport, of which I am aware, in which individual initiative is fully justified by the result, Teams have chains of command, which if ignored, there's a long-term problem.
The same applies to cycling.
The simplest explanation of all of this is the quote was out of context, stripped of intonation, and is being misinterpreted. But the point remains valid: winning is not a self evident indicator that there was no problem. There are longer-term issues.
Dan
Jim Flom
>
> There is no team sport, of which I am aware, in which individual
> initiative is fully justified by the result, Teams have chains of
> command, which if ignored, there's a long-term problem.
Cross country skiing.
Downhill skiing.
Ski jumping.
Aerial.
--
JF
http://velominator.spaces.live.com/
DA74
> it's the rider.
Yeah and it's not the team that gets the cobblestone trophy at Roubaix
or a
silver fucking chalice at Lombardia either. USPRO is like any other
race on
the calendar. The bottom line is that this "rider" competes in a team
sport
and rides for a team that wants to win a race which happens to award
a national championship jersey. I could see you guys making an
argument for
Worlds which really does confound the whole team concept and always
makes for some interesting tactical decisions (see Squadra Azzurra).
> Beyond that, "teams" lately have been built around elevating a single rider
> to the podium, and the big picture dictates that, even when that rider is
> having an off day, the rest of the team sacrifices, when required, to help
> the designated leader to minimize losses and maximize the change to win. The
> team interest is often best looked after with a plan that doesn't allow for
> individual rider initiative.
You're confusing one day races with stage races. We've been talking
one day
racing here. In one day racing nothing else matters but the win.
Period end of
story. No one can disagree with me here.
Now if you want to expand the discussion to stage racing then yes,
concessions have
to be made for individual stages if you're going for the GC placing.
Otherwise it's
about stage wins which really is just a bunch of one day races strung
together.
That is a whole other discussion.
>
> > There is zero reason to complain about a teammate winning and
> > following that up with a second placing. It's a perfect example of
> > success on every level in this sport for a given race. The only reason
> > you'd complain is if you're unhappy for the winner.
>
> That would depend on the team's objectives for the year, wouldn't it?
Are you sniffing Schlauchreifenkitt? What does an "objective for the
year"
have to do with a rider complaining after taking second place to his
teammate
that just won a single day race?
Thanks,
DA74
DA74
wrote:
> There is no team sport, of which I am aware, in which individual initiative is fully justified by the result, Teams have chains of command, which if
> ignored, there's a long-term problem. The same applies to cycling.
Wrong again. For the sake of argument let's say that in the first race
of the season Rider A breaks the "chain of command" and wins the race
while his teammate, Rider B, the protected rider, places second. This
is a perfect result as far as the team is concerned. Now let's move to
the second race of the season. Rider A again breaks the "chain of
command" and wins the race while Rider B, again the protected rider
places second. Another perfect scenario where team objectives are
reached with the best possible outcome. If the team wins then the race
unfolded perfectly. Period.
The only argument is that Rider A didn't follow the chain of command.
But this point is moot given the result. I'd argue that the chain of
command was not flexible enough in the first place or simply wrong
given the conditions and tactics for that particular race on that
particular day. Again, the win trumps all. That is my only point here
and there is no argument against it.
Thanks,
DA74
Mike Jacoubowsky
I take it Patton is one of your favorite movies?
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> > following that up with a second placing. It's a perfect example of
>> > success on every level in this sport for a given race. The only reason
>> > you'd complain is if you're unhappy for the winner.
>>
>> That would depend on the team's objectives for the year, wouldn't it?
>
> Are you sniffing Schlauchreifenkitt? What does an "objective for the
> year"
> have to do with a rider complaining after taking second place to his
> teammate
> that just won a single day race?
The winner in bike racing, as in most other sports (perhaps all?), isn't
determined by the person who's in the best-possible physical condition on
the start line. Differences upstairs (rider thinking/mentality) are likely
to be the deciding factor more often than not, all things being equal (and
it can be argued that, physically, the top guys are pretty darned close).
Sports becomes a chess game, not just against the other teams, but within
your own ranks as well. Ego comes into play. If you can't see the long-term
ramifications of that (even for a one-day event)...
But this isn't a black & white scenario. There are lots of reasons why the
#2 (or even #6 or whatever) guy might be in a position to win the race for
the team, with the support, or at least the understanding, of the rest of
the team (including the designated leader). But one of those reasons would
not be, for example, to attack your designated leader when he's hanging onto
your wheel by a thread. Or to abandon him early in the race if he crashes.
But you know all that. You're just arguing because you feel you're the
designated leader here and unwilling to give up a point to anyone else.
Frank Drackman
"DA74" <davida...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
No one can disagree with me here.
I think that the above says it all...
DA74
> "DA74" <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> No one can disagree with me here.
>
> I think that the above says it all...
Truth trumps. And yes, it's good to be the king,
if that is what you are suggesting.
Thanks,
DA74
Donald Munro
> Truth trumps. And yes, it's good to be the king,
> if that is what you are suggesting.
King of rbr is like ?
DA74
> >> > There is zero reason to complain about a teammate winning and
> >> > following that up with a second placing. It's a perfect example of
> >> > success on every level in this sport for a given race. The only reason
> >> > you'd complain is if you're unhappy for the winner.
>
> >> That would depend on the team's objectives for the year, wouldn't it?
>
> > Are you sniffing Schlauchreifenkitt? What does an "objective for the
> > year"
> > have to do with a rider complaining after taking second place to his
> > teammate
> > that just won a single day race?
>
> The winner in bike racing, as in most other sports (perhaps all?), isn't
> determined by the person who's in the best-possible physical condition on
> the start line. Differences upstairs (rider thinking/mentality) are likely
> to be the deciding factor more often than not, all things being equal (and
> it can be argued that, physically, the top guys are pretty darned close).
> Sports becomes a chess game, not just against the other teams, but within
> your own ranks as well. Ego comes into play. If you can't see the long-term
> ramifications of that (even for a one-day event)...
I don't see you disagreeing with me here but also don't see the
relevance.
But I don't disagree with what you are saying here. My point remains
that
everything worked out perfectly and there was no room for complaining
by
the second placed rider, regardless of how the race shook out.
The team's goal, to win, was reached with icing on the cake with
second.
> But this isn't a black & white scenario. There are lots of reasons why the
> #2 (or even #6 or whatever) guy might be in a position to win the race for
> the team, with the support, or at least the understanding, of the rest of
> the team (including the designated leader). But one of those reasons would
> not be, for example, to attack your designated leader when he's hanging onto
> your wheel by a thread. Or to abandon him early in the race if he crashes.
If you attack your designated leader when he's hanging onto your wheel
by
a thread then win the race and he follows up with second then as far
as the
team is concerned the race was a complete success. If that happens ten
times in a row then it is still success and no one can complain. It
just means
you may have the wrong cyclist as the team leader and should share
the
designation with the guy who keeps winning.
You guys are getting hung up on ego, nuance and noise. The team unit
is
like a corporation, whose only goal is to maximize shareholder value.
The cycling team unit's goal is to win which maximizes sponsor value.
It doesn't matter how the actual race transpires in it's myriad
permutations.
That's all just noise. What matters is the W at the end. If you slot a
teammate
in second place, all the better.
> But you know all that. You're just arguing because you feel you're the
> designated leader here and unwilling to give up a point to anyone else.
No, actually I'm trying to explain the "team" concept to guys who
don't
"really" understand it because their emotions cloud matters.
You're welcome (again),
DA74
Geraard Spergen
>
> No, actually I'm trying to explain the "team" concept to guys who
> don't
> "really" understand it because their emotions cloud matters.
>
> You're welcome (again),
> DA74
Thanks, I speak for all of UseNet when I commend you on your knowledge
and willingness to share it.
If the team is moribund though, and the two team mates in question are
racing their last shot at winning anything of substance for the season
(I assume you'll agree that neither will fare well in Lombardia), team
goals might be supplanted by individual greed. No?
crit...@yahoo.com
> Such naivete is natural since you've never been there. You are
> excused.
You mean your "there"? The minor leagues? You're right, I haven't been
there, thanks.
Frank Drackman
> On Sep 4, 9:58 am, critpo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> DA74 wrote:
>> >
> Is that like you're mom when she services
> me and I don't pay her but rather throw her my t-shirt to wipe her
> mouth and then say "no, go ahead and keep it"?
I think that you meant "your" instead of "you're." You're is a contraction
of "you are."
unforg...@juno.com
Possibly, but if you're a DS do you tell the domestique up the road to
hang back and wait for the designated leader even if the possible
outcome is that neither of them will win the race? If everyone else
knows that your guy up the road is holding back to wait for his
leader, there's no way they're going to put any work into the chase.
It would defeat the purpose of sending someone off the front in the
first place.
DA74
> DA74 wrote:
> >it's good to be the king,
> King of rbr is like ?
Being a Kindergarten teacher at a school for "special" children.
Thanks,
DA74
DA74
Wait, are we talking baseball?
DA74
> "DA74" <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Thanks for wasting bandwidth highlighting an obvious typo in my sea of
literary and logical genius.
Is that the best you can do? I expect more from you in the future
Frankie.
Thank's,
DA74
DA74
This is an excellent point, which gets at the heart of the matter.
In the eyes of the team this result was perfect but in the eyes
of riders with egos, agendas, expectations etc (which we all
have) things may not have gone according to plan. These
are natural feelings to have, but a true professional will keep
them close to the chest, and out of the press.
With that said, this is a team sport as I've stated ad nauseum.
Team goals are never supplanted as long as a team is intact,
no matter the circumstances. That is the nature of the sport.
As my NBA contemporaries have relayed over the years,
"hate the game, not the player" - and this is a team
game where winning is all that matters at the end of
the day.
Thanks,
DA74
Donald Munro
>> >it's good to be the king,
Donald Munro wrote:
>> King of rbr is like ?
DA74 wrote:
> Being a Kindergarten teacher at a school for "special" children.
You win:
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/463c5922
Frank Drackman
Just trying to help.
I would not want to have any of the wisdom that you dispense be dismissed
because of a error in grammar.
Howard Kveck
DA74 <davida...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Again, the win trumps all. That is my only point here
> and there is no argument against it.
Teams are sponsored by corporations for publicity reasons. Do you believe that a
win by Benjamin Noval has the same publicity value as a win by LANCE?
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
SLAVE of THE STATE
> ...
> These are natural feelings to have, but a true
> professional will keep them close to the chest,
> and out of the press.
I see we have run the full circle to porridge, which, if I remember
correctly, is in the panache family of breakfast nutrition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
Tom Kunich
news:wGqDi.1654$Sd4....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
Excuse me Mike but I'm getting pretty tired of this. Here's the way this was
supposed to work - Levi hasn't any sprint but he has a lot of climb. His job
was to get out in front and ride like hell. This would force the rest of the
teams to close him down burning out most of the sprinters who aren't nearly
as all-around as George. Then on the sprint George would have a great
advantage and a great chance for a second year in the Stars and Stripes.
The problem was that the teams didn't chase. They all sat back figuring that
George would be foolish enough to chase himself. What sort of absolute
idiots would do that?
So the fact is that George wasn't complaining about Levi who was doing
EXACTLY what his team orders were. He was complaining that the pack didn't
ride like professionals and indeed they didn't. No one believed they could
beat George in a sprint and in fact no one could.
I suggest that the pro championship ONLY be open to pros from now on.
Carl Sundquist
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:13dutuc...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Excuse me Mike but I'm getting pretty tired of this. Here's the way this
> was supposed to work - Levi hasn't any sprint but he has a lot of climb.
> His job was to get out in front and ride like hell. This would force the
> rest of the teams to close him down burning out most of the sprinters who
> aren't nearly as all-around as George. Then on the sprint George would
> have a great advantage and a great chance for a second year in the Stars
> and Stripes.
>
> The problem was that the teams didn't chase. They all sat back figuring
> that George would be foolish enough to chase himself. What sort of
> absolute idiots would do that?
>
T-Mobile?
Ewoud Dronkert
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> The problem was that the teams didn't chase. They all sat back figuring
>> that George would be foolish enough to chase himself. What sort of
>> absolute idiots would do that?
>
> T-Mobile?
And the Italian national team.
--
E. Dronkert
Carl Sundquist
"Ewoud Dronkert" <firs...@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:n5pvd3ti60oscp1c6...@4ax.com...
George will be racing for them, too?
Ewoud Dronkert
>>> T-Mobile?
>>
>> And the Italian national team.
>
> George will be racing for them, too?
[Insert link to the shoes]
--
E. Dronkert
Donald Munro
>> George will be racing for them, too?
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> [Insert link to the shoes]
Now that you mention it, Adidas's R&D department is going to
have to go into overdrive to outfit Hincapie with some appropriate
eyewear. He should have gone to Astana instead, now that Vino won't
be using his vividly coloured ones anymore.
Bob Schwartz
Geraard Spergen
> The problem was that the teams didn't chase. They all sat back figuring
> that George would be foolish enough to chase himself. What sort of
> absolute idiots would do that?
> So the fact is that George wasn't complaining about Levi who was doing
> EXACTLY what his team orders were. He was complaining that the pack
> didn't ride like professionals and indeed they didn't. No one believed
> they could beat George in a sprint and in fact no one could.
>
> I suggest that the pro championship ONLY be open to pros from now on.
>
Could you rephrase this? You seem to be arguing both sides of the coin.
How is chasing down a break, knowing you'll lose the sprint, acting like
professionals?
How is capitulating to the perfect team tactic and execution by
Discovery acting like idiots?
William R. Mattil
Game Set and the Match to Mr. Sundquist <g>
Bill
Tom Kunich
news:012b4f6b$0$20321$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Do you REALLY believe that out of 50 Pros none of them could outsprint
George who is NOT a particularly fast sprinter? If Chris Horner was there
he'd have smoked them all.
Kurgan Gringioni
> On Sep 4, 9:49 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > George, after missing the classics, worked hard for 3 weeks to help Levi and Alberto podium at the Tour. Debt payed, with interest. George owed Levi nothing.
>
> Wrong again. This is a TEAM SPORT. There are no debts accrued or paid
> when you are designated as a domestique and you are working for the
> team leader(s). George is and always has been a domestique at the
> Tour. That is what he's getting paid to do.
>
> Last year at USPRO was a completely different situation because Levi
> was on Gerolsteiner and George was on Discovery. Levi gave a gift. Big
> difference.
Dumbass -
I really don't have a strong opinion either way on this situation, but
your info isn't quite right. At this time last year Levi was hired by
Dicovery. The Gerolsteiner jersey was just a formality of filling out
the fiscal year.
On paper they were rivals, but in reality they were riding like
teamates.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Steven L. Sheffield
1189150131.0...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
So unless LL is also going to T-Mobile next year, on paper they are
teammates, but in reality they were riding like rivals THIS year.
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash
Geraard Spergen
No, I was restating one of your own points "No one believed they could
beat George in a sprint and in fact no one could."
I inferred that you thought anybody who might otherwise have had a
chance in a sprint was too knackered or otherwise out of contention to
organize a chase.
Kurgan Gringioni
wrote:
> On 09/07/2007 01:28 AM, in article
>
>
>
>
>
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 4, 1:15 pm, DA74 <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 4, 9:49 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> George, after missing the classics, worked hard for 3 weeks to help Levi and
> >>> Alberto podium at the Tour. Debt payed, with interest. George owed Levi
> >>> nothing.
>
> >> Wrong again. This is a TEAM SPORT. There are no debts accrued or paid
> >> when you are designated as a domestique and you are working for the
> >> team leader(s). George is and always has been a domestique at the
> >> Tour. That is what he's getting paid to do.
>
> >> Last year at USPRO was a completely different situation because Levi
> >> was on Gerolsteiner and George was on Discovery. Levi gave a gift. Big
> >> difference.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > I really don't have a strong opinion either way on this situation, but
> > your info isn't quite right. At this time last year Levi was hired by
> > Dicovery. The Gerolsteiner jersey was just a formality of filling out
> > the fiscal year.
>
> > On paper they were rivals, but in reality they were riding like
> > teamates.
>
> So unless LL is also going to T-Mobile next year, on paper they are
> teammates, but in reality they were riding like rivals THIS year.
Dumbass -
After the contract is signed, ya.
You think they would've been giving each other favors last year if LL
didn't have the contract? The whole thing is obvious.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> George who is NOT a particularly fast sprinter? If Chris Horner was there
> he'd have smoked them all.
Tom: I'm a huge fan of Chris Horner. Great guy. But do you really think he
could smoke George in a sprint?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:13e1gc3...@corp.supernews.com...
DA74
> You think they would've been giving each other favors last year if LL
> didn't have the contract?
Jagoff -
I don't recall George doing Levi any favors last year. It was a gift.
thanks,
DA74
Howard Kveck
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> > Do you REALLY believe that out of 50 Pros none of them could outsprint
> > George who is NOT a particularly fast sprinter? If Chris Horner was there
> > he'd have smoked them all.
>
> Tom: I'm a huge fan of Chris Horner. Great guy. But do you really think he
> could smoke George in a sprint?
Fred Rod, yeah. Horner, no. I think it'd be close but doubt that Horner could
smoke GH.
--
tanx,
Howard
Fabergé eggs are elegant but I prefer Fabergé bacon.
Mark Fennell
>> > Do you REALLY believe that out of 50 Pros none of them could outsprint
>> > George who is NOT a particularly fast sprinter? If Chris Horner was
>> > there
>> > he'd have smoked them all.
No doubt Horner would have done well if he focused on it (and actually raced
it) but certainly it wouldn't be a slam dunk.
Mike wrote:
>> Tom: I'm a huge fan of Chris Horner. Great guy. But do you really think
>> he
>> could smoke George in a sprint?
No way. He'd have to get away from him.
Howard Kveck wrote:
> Fred Rod, yeah. Horner, no.
Fred got 4th. He was even beaten by Neil Shirley, who had the most
remarkable result of all of them. Cool guy, and hopefully good things happen
to him next year so he gets out of California where he's been inflicting way
too much pain lately!
Mark
http://marcofanelli.blogspot.com
Kurgan Gringioni
Dumbass -
Of course you're right. The fact that they were gonna be teamates in
the upcoming year had absolutely nothing to do with it.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Fred Fredburger
That was perfect. Couldn't have been cleaner if you'd typed both sides
of the thread yourself.
Howard Kveck
"Mark Fennell" <marco_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > Fred Rod, yeah. Horner, no.
>
> Fred got 4th. He was even beaten by Neil Shirley, who had the most
> remarkable result of all of them.
I was thinking of it happening in a straight up mass sprint, which didn't appear
to have happened here. It looks like the group fell apart near the line and guys
trickled in. Great finish by ("and stop calling me...") Shirley, though. I do think
Fred would beat George in a straight sprint.
> Cool guy, and hopefully good things happen to him next year so he gets out of
> California where he's been inflicting way too much pain lately!
I take it you've had to race him a few times this year?
Dan Connelly
> In article <qsIEi.32803$L_7....@newsfe16.phx>,
> "Mark Fennell" <marco_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>> Fred Rod, yeah. Horner, no.
>> Fred got 4th. He was even beaten by Neil Shirley, who had the most
>> remarkable result of all of them.
>
> I was thinking of it happening in a straight up mass sprint, which didn't appear
> to have happened here. It looks like the group fell apart near the line and guys
> trickled in. Great finish by ("and stop calling me...") Shirley, though. I do think
> Fred would beat George in a straight sprint.
It was reported Fred did not contest that sprint.
Dan
Tom Kunich
news:p1nEi.2252$7P7...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>> Do you REALLY believe that out of 50 Pros none of them could outsprint
>> George who is NOT a particularly fast sprinter? If Chris Horner was there
>> he'd have smoked them all.
>
> Tom: I'm a huge fan of Chris Horner. Great guy. But do you really think he
> could smoke George in a sprint?
In that sprint of course. George hung on to the pack expecting them to do
the work so he was fresh as a daisy. Horner would have been up there vying
with Levi for the win.