Professional Cycling For the Fans - Stage 18 Annemasse - Lons le Saulnier

July 23 166.5 km

.....

.....

I didn't realize there were a couple more hills on this stage. It looks like Lance will be able to put a few more nails in the coffins of his rivals. Or will the sprinters come back from the dead on this long downhill finish? Stay tuned ;)

Speeling edited for smartasses :p

I didn't realize there were a couple more hills on this stage. It looks like Lance will be able to put a few more nails in the coffins of his rivals. Or will the printers come back from the dead on this long downhill finish? Stay tuned ;)

If the printers win that will really be the story of the tour. I didn't even know any were participating. :) These aren't really serious hills after the Cote de Lajoux so Armstrong or his rivals won't try anything, but a decent climbing sprinter like Zabel or O'Grady could have a good chance at a sprint. That's if the escape group doesn't stay away.

"13 H 56 - Armstrong Contributing To Tempo...
The yellow jersey is cooperating with the seven others at the front of the stage. This group is now 1'50" ahead of the peloton.
Lance Armstrong chased down the counter-attack from Simeoni and together these two caught the six escapees at the 36km mark."

haha... truely The Boss. Forced Simeoni to go back to the peloton, ruining any chance of a stage win.

Is Lance a Padrone or what?
that move looked like Merckx, or Hinault, I'm really glad to see it
Lance has been too laid back before.
Talk about a smackdown.
Simeoni has been "making statements" all tour. I think Lance just
had the final word.

marty

Simeoni has been "making statements" all tour. I think Lance just
had the final word.


What's the deal with these two? I heard something about Simeoni suing Lance? Anyone have the scoop here? I was just shocked that the other teams would let Lance go that far ahead. Did they know he was just stopping Simeoni? This whole thing confused me.

Yeh, I'd like to know too, those two have a little animosity, on this stage Lance went out just to chase Simone just to prove a point.
Who knows the scoop?
Corsaire

Simeoni testified against Dr. Michele Ferrari in a trial and Lance called him a liar. Now Simeoni is suing him for slander.

Is Lance a Padrone or what?
that move looked like Merckx, or Hinault, I'm really glad to see it
Lance has been too laid back before.
Talk about a smackdown.
Simeoni has been "making statements" all tour. I think Lance just
had the final word.

marty

Uhhh, I think the "statements" that Simeoni has been making are in response to media inquiries about his lawsuit against LA for defamation of character.

Armstrongs actions today bore no resemblance to anything I ever saw Merckx or Hinault do. It looked more like a petty vendetta against someone who has had the audacity to speak out against LA.

Perhaps you can refer me to an incident where Merckx or Hinault rode down a low placed rider and prevented him from working in a breakaway?

I kinda wish it would've been Robbie who was in Simeoni's position. I would've loved to have seen Robbie's reaction to that intimidation.

Yeah, Lance can be a pretty ornery bastard if you aren't on "his side." Has anyone seen the new piece that ESPN is running? It has interviews with a bunch of people who said things in the press which could have been construed as anti-Lance. They all received calls from Lance in which he threatened them.

Uhhh, I think the "statements" that Simeoni has been making are in response to media inquiries about his lawsuit against LA for defamation of character. This bore no resemblance to anything I ever saw Hinault do.

You mean like lie to Greg LeMond?

You mean like lie to Greg LeMond?

Help me out here. I think you're trying to say that Hinault was a patron and he lied(alledgedly :) ) to Lemond and Armstrong is a patron and he ruined Simeoni's chances for a stage so there is some kind of parallel between LA's actions today and Hinault's actions? (insert emoticon for confused here.)

I don't see the connection, unless you're saying that neither case was an example of a rider acting as a patron but rather each was displaying a base side to their personality that was better left unexposed. With the latter I would agree.

Or you could just be showing your own bitterness towards Hinault....well, ok. :)

It seemed like several of the riders in the Peleton were glad that Lance went up and pulled Simeoni back. He got quite a few pats on the back from other riders. I assume that the other leaders in the GC knew that he was just going up to pull Simeoni back. I would really like to hear the real story behind everything that happened.

It seemed like several of the riders in the Peleton were glad that Lance went up and pulled Simeoni back. He got quite a few pats on the back from other riders. I assume that the other leaders in the GC knew that he was just going up to pull Simeoni back. I would really like to hear the real story behind everything that happened.

Is it any wonder? Simeoni goes into a courtroom and tells what we must assume is the truth(he hasn't been charged with perjury and his lawsuit hasn't been thrown out of court as frivolous ;) ) and his testimony incriminates other riders, and he suffers backlash.

Lance was party to this kind of ostracism and blackball techniques before with a French rider, Basson I think it was, who exposed drug use in the peloton, so this is nothing new. But when he feels threatened by others doping, he is the first to tattle(letter to UCI with allegations of doping among Spanish riders) and suffers no backlash because he is a winner.

Lance's comments quoted at www.cyclingnews.com today are that Simeoni is a rider who is trying to destroy cycling. Does he really think that ***** floats with thinking people?

No matter what the individual rider's motives, any expose of drug use that is not fabricated is good for cycling, especially from a fan and sponsor perspective.

Lance is losing me here.

My memories of Hinault as patron include him policing riders who attacked on days the riders had agreed to take it easy- either as a protest, or as recuperation. He took his responsibilities- as they were agreed back then- seriously, negotiating on behalf of the peloton, riding on the front in defiance of the organisation, etc.

I don't know how much personal animosity was involved in, for example, deciding which breaks were allowed to leave the peloton back then. At a guess, I'd say quite a bit- as Bernard was every bit as testy a bastard as Armstrong. That's how you get to be Patron, by dominating, not just with your legs and team, but by force of willpower. Merckx was (but his nasty streak was much smaller), but the likes of Roche, or Indurain wasn't ( the Patron idea was in disrepute in the 90's; I'd say it made a comeback!).

USPS ride with the metronomic efficiency and adherence to the plan of Banesto at the height of Indurain's powers. They are as single-minded and loyal as Merckx's Molteni squads. Armstrong is as disciplined as Indurain, with the nasty streak of Hinault and aggression of Merckx.
The difference is Armstrong's freshness, that's why he is on the threshold of a sixth Tour win. When Merckx was winning Milan-San Remo (remind me- seven times?)Armstrong is training. When Hinault was racing the Giro to win, Amstrong is reconnoitring Alpe D'Huez. When Merckx and Hinault were charging around in the falling leaves of Lombardy, lance has his feet up(metaphorically, comparatively).

He's a great champion, but he's broken the mould that Lemond cracked.

If there's one thing i've never understood about professional cycling it's this expectation of gentlemanly behavior. I think it's great seeing a rider put the smack down on another ride. :o

Help me out here. I think you're trying to say that Hinault was a patron and he lied(alledgedly :) ) to Lemond and Armstrong is a patron and he ruined Simeoni's chances for a stage so there is some kind of parallel between LA's actions today and Hinault's actions? (insert emoticon for confused here.)

I don't see the connection, unless you're saying that neither case was an example of a rider acting as a patron but rather each was displaying a base side to their personality that was better left unexposed. With the latter I would agree.

Or you could just be showing your own bitterness towards Hinault....well, ok. :)

I interperet "petty vendetta" as a question of character. Same as promising something to someone and then not delivering. Call it what you want.
Bitterness toward Hinault?...kinda a leap across the universe, eh? When I met him, he was very nice to me. But even HE admitted to "changing his mind"...

Patron? Sounds like the Godfather... :eek:

FWIW...Cipo did not want Simeoni on the team before the Tour started. Now I am seeing that the Director is raving about his not wanting Cipo on the team to start with.
Their dinner table was pretty interesting, I am sure.
:D

My memories of Hinault as patron include him policing riders who attacked on days the riders had agreed to take it easy- either as a protest, or as recuperation. He took his responsibilities- as they were agreed back then- seriously, negotiating on behalf of the peloton, riding on the front in defiance of the organisation, etc.

I don't know how much personal animosity was involved in, for example, deciding which breaks were allowed to leave the peloton back then. At a guess, I'd say quite a bit- as Bernard was every bit as testy a bastard as Armstrong. That's how you get to be Patron, by dominating, not just with your legs and team, but by force of willpower. Merckx was (but his nasty streak was much smaller), but the likes of Roche, or Indurain wasn't ( the Patron idea was in disrepute in the 90's; I'd say it made a comeback!).

USPS ride with the metronomic efficiency and adherence to the plan of Banesto at the height of Indurain's powers. They are as single-minded and loyal as Merckx's Molteni squads. Armstrong is as disciplined as Indurain, with the nasty streak of Hinault and aggression of Merckx.
The difference is Armstrong's freshness, that's why he is on the threshold of a sixth Tour win. When Merckx was winning Milan-San Remo (remind me- seven times?)Armstrong is training. When Hinault was racing the Giro to win, Amstrong is reconnoitring Alpe D'Huez. When Merckx and Hinault were charging around in the falling leaves of Lombardy, lance has his feet up(metaphorically, comparatively).

He's a great champion, but he's broken the mould that Lemond cracked.

extremely well put. thanks.

-mark

My memories of Hinault as patron include him policing riders who attacked on days the riders had agreed to take it easy- either as a protest, or as recuperation. He took his responsibilities- as they were agreed back then- seriously, negotiating on behalf of the peloton, riding on the front in defiance of the organisation, etc.

This is what a patron has always been, more of an advocate or voice for the peloton. If Lance was acting as a patron today, the peloton is saying something I don't want to hear them say. :)

This is what a patron has always been, more of an advocate or voice for the peloton. If Lance was acting as a patron today, the peloton is saying something I don't want to hear them say.

That's quite possibly it. It's not just LA saying he was congratulated for the move. The other members of the break wanted Simeoni gone. Of course that's probably b/c they wanted LA gone before USPS/T-Mobile/CSC showed up too. Simeoni's DS confirmed the abuse his rider took from others in the peloton as well as his team (Cipo). In fact the D-V DS managed to turn the conversation into an anti-Cipo tirade even though Cipo's been gone for 2 weeks and is probably sitting on a beach somewhere.

Apparently any rider talking about doping is risking ostracism. Whether that's good or bad, I'm not certain.

:beer:

PS: I'm still not getting the QUOTE function right, could someone give me easy directions?

PS: I'm still not getting the QUOTE function right, could someone give me easy directions?

It looks right to me. What am I missing?

I'm still perplexed by the squabbling between LA and Simeoni. It seems that Simeoni has been "blacklisted" amongst his colleagues by breaking some unwritten "code of silence", i.e., snitching on his fellow riders? Simeoni ISN'T allowed to catch a break and possibly win a stage just because fellow riders dislike him; he might as well QUIT this sport. I'm just really surprised to see Lance so worked up over a small-player like Simeoni. Enough of this petty peloton politics already and just COMPETE!!!

Don,

from Eurosport July 13


On his feud with Lance Armstrong: "I attacked for personal pride today. I love cycling and I've dedicated my life to cycling but I've been unfairly treated and so there's a lot of anger and desire for revenge in my heart.

"I wanted to show that today at the Tour de France by riding well and winning a stage. Unfortunately it didn't come off but I'll try again."There are a few other quotes (I can't seem to find them) basically saying he
wanted to win a stage to prove that a "clean" rider could do so.

Thats what I was referring to.

Walter, I concur the quotes look fine. If you want to quote someone specific
put in Brackets no spaces [ quote=walter (or whoever) ] and at end [ / quote ]
if not quoting someone leave out the =username.

Marty

It's the adding of the username I'm quoting that I can't get.

A test


There are a few other quotes (I can't seem to find them) basically saying he
wanted to win a stage to prove that a "clean" rider could do so.

That'll work, thanks.

:beer:

I'm still perplexed by the squabbling between LA and Simeoni. It seems that Simeoni has been "blacklisted" amongst his colleagues by breaking some unwritten "code of silence", i.e., snitching on his fellow riders? Simeoni ISN'T allowed to catch a break and possibly win a stage just because fellow riders dislike him; he might as well QUIT this sport. I'm just really surprised to see Lance so worked up over a small-player like Simeoni. Enough of this petty peloton politics already and just COMPETE!!!

Well, Simeoni is a small player who has sued Lance for libel, whether it is a valid charge or not. I know that if I was Lance and someone had sued me for libel, I would probably be pretty unhappy with them.

Simeoni testified in court against Dr. Ferrari, saying Ferrari taught him how to dope and not get caught.

Lance called him a "liar" in a newspaper article.

Why Lance is defending Ferrari is beyond me. There are Dozens of former pros who have talked about getting "medically prepared" by Ferrari, he is the most notorious of them all. Even guys from the U.S. peleton have go to Italy for "studies" before big events.

There are many who feel that simeoni is singing, and needs to be silenced.

At the risk of being flamed as an idiot... :D
Am I to understand that Lance chased Simeoni down, denied him the stage win, and when Simeoni dropped back, the peloton ostracized him because Sim had alleged that there was rampant doping in the peloton? Hmmmm. IF I have this correctly, I can see two sides:

(1) Lance was pissed because he doesn't dope and doesn't appreciate the allegations. If someone accused me of something similar, I'd do everything I could to cut them out of any victory in an event in which I competed, even if it meant working doubly hard and maybe losing a bit myself. I think most of you would do the same ( I know, sweeping allegation)... Just think what you would do if your nextdoor neighbor called the police on you for stealing cable when it was really a few people further down the block and he just assumed you did it too. I'd be pretty hot, espcially if a news crew was there filming the cops showing up at my door...

(2) No one likes a snitch. Though we may need them, it's a tough road. If I were in the peloton and Simeoni made a blanket statement that could possibly include me, I'd shun him whether I doped or not (more so if I didn't than if I did).

So, DO I have it correctly? Is Simeoni's allegation of doping what led to all this? I think if you're gonna be a whistle-blower, you need some proof. Just "seeing" someone do it doesn't really count (at least not in court) and assuming really doesn't cut it. I dunno. Am I just completely off base here? Does Simeoni maybe have more proof or is he just swinging a cat over his head assuming he'll hit a doper? How do we know he doesn't dope? If it's so rampant...

PS This look would scare the crap out of me...

The good Dr. is on record saying "EPO is no more dangerous than orange juice." W/o implying or insinuating that LA dopes I'm still a bit uncomfortable that LA did this to, at least in part, defend Ferrari.

No one does like a snitch and Simeoni is paying the price for that but when it comes to Ferrari, he's not the only one singing.

BTW I'm drinking some OJ right now getting ready to go to the gym, think it'll help my workout?

:beer:

From the coverage this morning, it sounds like Simeoni has been saying unflattering things about the other Italian cyclists for most of the Tour.

The coverage seemed to show the rest of the peloton smiling at Lance's actions. I think Lance made some more friends and annoyed only one guy.

-murray

Gotta admit, the drama of all of it is very interesting. And the politics therein can be incredibly complex. So many Americans dismiss cycling as a silly race where men in tights just have a free-for-all for a few hours and someone wins. It's much more complicated than that, and in this case, if Lance was motivated by his disdain, and I think he was, then the absolute value of his actions is....entertaining! Yes, I said it. Almost as good as Shakespeare, sans all the murdering. And they said this stage would be totally dull.

Let's be real here, not a single person on this forum really knows if Lance or Sim are telling the truth.

At the risk of being flamed as an idiot... :D
Am I to understand that Lance chased Simeoni down, denied him the stage win, and when Simeoni dropped back, the peloton ostracized him because Sim had alleged that there was rampant doping in the peloton?

Simeoni testified in a court of law that HE doped, and that HE went to Dr. Ferrari and that HE was instructed by Dr. Ferrari on the methods to properly use drugs so as to avoid detection. He did not, to the best of my knowledge, name any other rider names. He told HIS experience.

Lance came out in a newspaper article and called Simeoni a liar. He said that Simeoni was lying about Simeoni's experiences, even though Lance wasn't there, and has no knowledge of Simeoni's experiences.

Simeoni is suing Lance, not for libel, not for slander, but for defamation of character.

Lance has a well known and long established relationship with Dr. Ferrari. Lance's calling Simeoni a liar and in effect defending Dr. Ferrari has caused some people to look at Lance kinda like a dog looks at it's owner when it's puzzled with that "head cocked, what the he!! are you doing" look. As Walter said above, Ferrari has championed the use of EPO.

Now Simeoni is being ostrasized by certain members of the peloton. You can read what you want into that. Not all members of the peloton are united on this though. David Etxebarria came out in the media today and said that many members of the peloton thought what Lance did was wrong. T-Mobile has insinuated that they didn't chase the break with any committment because they thought what Lance did was wrong.

see www.cyclingnews.com

Curiously, Virengue is not ostracized by the peloton, but then he didn't name Lance's doctor as the source of his drugs.




(2) No one likes a snitch.

This is interesting. The code of silence. The idea that you don't support what's right, but rather support your clique. To me, this is one of the most insidious evils that has crept into human social life.

When people support what is right first and the group second, right will rule instead of the mob. But fear of rejection and ostracizing are powerful tools of coercion, especially when ones economic survival is at stake.

I applaud those who have the strength of character to stand up to this cowardly code of silence and defy it.

I think don d. should become the international cycling czar since he is the all informed know it all!

I think don d. should become the international cycling czar since he is the all informed know it all!

Cycling czar? Me? awe shucks :o :o ..... :rolleyes:

I can't though, Laggard is the official cycling czar. You'll have to take it up with him.

Don,

I didn't see the Etxebarria or T-Mobile comments.

Here is a letter from Lance Armstrong to the San Francisco Chronicle from Sunday March 21st, 2004. I think this letter has some interesting insight into doping, Dr. Ferrari and cycling.

The article that prompted a response from LA is here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/02/SPGOI5C0RH1.DTL

Lance Armstrong replies

Gwen Knapp on March 2 authored a piece that I believe was unfair in its treatment of me, my fellow athletes who believe in drug testing, and my long-time trainer, Chris Carmichael. In my opinion I was portrayed as a drug cheat aligned with a drug-pushing trainer.

Ms. Knapp stated: "His trainer (mine) just happens to be charged with distributing performance-enhancing drugs."

My trainer for the past 15 years has been Chris Carmichael. He discovered me as a young athlete, convinced me to focus on cycling, stood by me during my cancer treatments, orchestrated my comeback, and has been by my side every winter in between my five Tour (de France) wins. Chris has never been under any sort of investigation for distributing drugs.

In her column, Ms. Knapp states that Dr. Michele Ferrari is my trainer, and she relies on that statement to build her case. The truth is that Chris has been my coach, my trainer and my primary source of daily training schedules for many, many years. I believe it was irresponsible of Ms. Knapp to ignore that fact. I would like to thank The Chronicle for printing a clarification.

The fact is that Dr. Ferrari is among a number of people who consult with Chris and me on issues like diet, hypoxic work and recovery. To say that Michele Ferrari is my trainer is like saying that your nurse is your "doctor" just because he or she may provide support to your doctor.

It is true that Dr. Ferrari has been on trial in Italy for a number of years for allegedly providing drugs to athletes. I have been clear about this issue. First, I have never seen anything that would lead me to believe that Dr. Ferrari would do such a thing and, second, I continue to believe that he deserves the benefit of a simple presumption: innocent until proven guilty. Finally, I have said that if Dr. Ferrari is found guilty I will immediately re- evaluate his role as a consultant to Chris and me.

Furthermore, Ms. Knapp states that my association with Dr. Ferrari was "revealed" in a 2001 article in the Sunday Times of London. The truth is that my association with Dr. Ferrari has never been a secret. I have never denied my association with him or intentionally attempted to hide it. Beyond that, dating back to 1996, there have been a number of respected journalists aware of our association. It is my belief that they chose not to write about it because they did not find it sensational or particularly newsworthy.

Last year I was drug tested more than 24 times. That's twice a month. Ms. Knapp claims that "savvy fans know that the tests are unreliable." Really? If that's the case, then I know a lot of professional cyclists who are not very "savvy." The truth is that we believe the current tests do work and we are proud that our sport has led the way to create cutting-edge testing and forced that testing on ourselves. I would ask Ms. Knapp if she called someone like Dr. Don Catlin head of the IOC-accredited UCLA testing lab, to ask him if he thought that drug testing was "unreliable" or if, specifically, the test for EPO does not work.

I would challenge her to do a little homework on the EPO test and reconsider her view.

I believe in the importance of organizations like the U.S. and World Anti- Doping Agencies. I sincerely hope they are enforcing "reliable" drug testing. And I've put my money where my mouth is. I have donated my own money to speed research into improved drug testing.

Beyond the obvious clarification of who my trainer is, I would also like to clarify a few other statements:

1. She stated that my sport has been spared of investigations into drug taking. Are you kidding? There have been any number of government investigations into our sport. In fact, my own team suffered through a two- year investigation by the French government that, in the end, concluded that we had taken no drugs or done anything wrong. Yes, we have had our problems. But we have joined together in the fight against doping and our sport should be proud of that. I challenge anyone to find a sporting event that has more doping control than the Tour de France.

2. She called my performances, post-cancer, a "stunning improvement." She makes it sound as if I came out of nowhere and won the Tour de France (with the hidden implication being that I did that with the aid of drugs). The facts are that I was winning professional triathlons at age 17, that I am still the youngest-ever world road cycling champion, and that I was the youngest ever Tour de France stage winner at age 21.

When I found out I had cancer at age 25, I was on my way to maturing as a professional and was just beginning to have the sort of experience that could have allowed me to make an overall win at the Tour a goal. When I did win the Tour, there were a number of journalists, mainly French, who questioned my accomplishment. They even insinuated that the chemotherapy I was administered may have enhanced me physically and permanently, thus explaining my Tour win in 1999.

I suppose I could just sit back and say nothing when I'm attacked like this. Life is short, and I know that from my own personal experience. I have said it before and I will say it again: I believe that I am the most tested athlete on this planet, I have never had a single positive doping test, and I do not take performance-enhancing drugs.

Don,

I didn't see the Etxebarria or T-Mobile comments.

They are in First Edition News for June 25. :)

Fascinating Don d. Thanks for the info. As for my "No one likes a snitch" you left off the follow-up sentence: "Though we may need them, it's a tough road." There are reasons "snitches" aren't liked. No matter what spin a person puts on it, a "tattle-tale" IS one person accusing another of something. Again, it may be necessary, but at its very core it is one person being so preoccupied with another's actions (or perception thereof) that they feel the need to take it to a "higher authority" instead of placing faith in the fact that "Cheaters never win...". I would argue that this "evil" of not supporting snitches never "crept in". It's a visceral reaction to one person's decision to make your personal affairs public without being invited. I believe "tattling" is kind of two wrongs making a right. Unless a person's actions immeditately jeopardize the well-being of another, a snitch is crossing the line in my book. Now, I'm not necessarily arguing that tattling is this horrible thing that deserves ostracision (that a word?). What I AM arguing is that to do so means you are inviting that reaction from your peers, especially should you be proven wrong. I also think there's a difference between maintaining a code of silence and simply taking the energy it requires to snitch and instead putting towards beating the cheater. On numerous occassions I've done this. Someone was cutting corners and I didn't appreciate it. However, instead of going to the boss, I simply took the extra time and effort to do it right and do it better. So far, my efforts have been rewarded and the cheater has lost. For some, this may not happen, but it has for me.

NOW, if the "code if silence" is that you dope but don't confess, I would agree with you. If I kill someone and everyone pressures me to stay silent, but I turn myself in, that's not snitching. That's courage and honesty at their finest and I totally agree with your stance. If that's what Simeoni did, then I think Lance and the peloton are 110% wrong for what they did yesterday (unless Simeoni is possibly still doping and we just don't know it and they do).

Again, thanks for clarifying the situation with Simeoni...


Kula, thanks for posting that excellent article...

In conclusion if LA did this b/c Simeoni had called him a Poofer or had been going around saying Sheryl Crow is butt-ugly I wouldn't care. It might still be a bit petty but it'd be people taking care of personal business and that'd be that. It's the connection to the Ferrari deal that makes me uncomfortable.

I see the Etxebarria point but LA did let the 6 other "little fish" have their shot after he pulled Simeoni out of the break.

:beer:

In conclusion if LA did this b/c Simeoni had called him a Poofer or had been going around saying Sheryl Crow is butt-ugly I wouldn't care. It might still be a bit petty but it'd be people taking care of personal business and that'd be that. It's the connection to the Ferrari deal that makes me uncomfortable.

I see the Etxebarria point but LA did let the 6 other "little fish" have their shot after he pulled Simeoni out of the break.

:beer:

I'm perplexed as to why Simeoni didn't stick with the breaking riders even if it meant they all were drawn back into a chasing peloton. Why should Simeoni let the breaking riders who were so willing to drop him at Lance's desire advance without Simeoni?