Professional Cycling For the Fans - Ha ha ha we won !!!!!

Everyone said karma's gonna get alberto,but looks like it bite andy in the ass for his cobble attack on chavanel !

**VIVA PISTOLERO 2010 TDF**

161323161324
My name on his bike 2010 TDF

whos we?

Race on bicycle for make benefit great nation of Kazakhstan! Great success!

http://blog.fitnessfootwear.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/borat1.jpg

There wasn't too much doubt on this stage, at least not in my mind. El Pistolero is a good TT racer and safe money was on him to maintain his position.
In the end he landed well ahead of Schleck and opened the gap some more. Andy appears to be passing his peak in the last few days. Maybe that's just me.
But if it's so, it couldn't have happened at a worse time. There is a lot to make up, with Paris calling so close. If Contador merely holds out and no catastrophes befall him, AS will have to be happy with the white jersey this year. The next stage will tell.

There were plenty of others to take the TT stage, though; Wiggo, Cavendish, Husovd, etc.. I was half expecting Alberto to be much closer; ditto Cavendish. This just seems to be his stage game. Four so far for Mark. I'm pleased to see Grabsch near the line, too.
I heard someone, somewhere, give the nod to todays stage winner, Cancelarra. I wish I could recall who that was.

we won

Fail

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTRBobzfOMI

No the fail is on you buddy,i'm on the bike,so WE WON FOOL..

No the fail is on you buddy,i'm on the bike,so WE WON FOOL..

If you didn't exist, it would not have affected the results one iota. You did not win, you were not involved, you fail.

No the fail is on you buddy,i'm on the bike,so WE WON FOOL..

My name is on the bike too, and I would never dream of either starting a thread to rub it in, or claim I had anything to do with the success. If I ever do meet Alberto, I might mention it to him, but wouldn't ever say to him "we won".

whos we?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOfJjHozCEc

There wasn't too much doubt on this stage, at least not in my mind. El Pistolero is a good TT racer and safe money was on him to maintain his position.
In the end he landed well ahead of Schleck and opened the gap some more. Andy appears to be passing his peak in the last few days. Maybe that's just me.
But if it's so, it couldn't have happened at a worse time. There is a lot to make up, with Paris calling so close. If Contador merely holds out and no catastrophes befall him, AS will have to be happy with the white jersey this year. The next stage will tell.

There were plenty of others to take the TT stage, though; Wiggo, Cavendish, Husovd, etc.. I was half expecting Alberto to be much closer; ditto Cavendish. This just seems to be his stage game. Four so far for Mark. I'm pleased to see Grabsch near the line, too.
I heard someone, somewhere, give the nod to todays stage winner, Cancelarra. I wish I could recall who that was.
If well ahead is the same amount of time that AS lost from his chain dropping and AC attacking then ya I guess he ended up "well ahead"

Exactly. AC was attacking when AS lost his chain. That "chain of events" had already begun, less than 3km from the finish. Sorry Andy, it sucks that it happened. But no racer would have stopped at that point. Even Schleck said so.

What is the story of the names on Contador's bike?

There wasn't too much doubt on this stage, at least not in my mind. El Pistolero is a good TT racer and safe money was on him to maintain his position.
In the end he landed well ahead of Schleck and opened the gap some more. Andy appears to be passing his peak in the last few days. Maybe that's just me.
But if it's so, it couldn't have happened at a worse time. There is a lot to make up, with Paris calling so close. If Contador merely holds out and no catastrophes befall him, AS will have to be happy with the white jersey this year. The next stage will tell.

There were plenty of others to take the TT stage, though; Wiggo, Cavendish, Husovd, etc.. I was half expecting Alberto to be much closer; ditto Cavendish. This just seems to be his stage game. Four so far for Mark. I'm pleased to see Grabsch near the line, too.
I heard someone, somewhere, give the nod to todays stage winner, Cancelarra. I wish I could recall who that was.

Extremely unlikely.

Haha, Schlecks crappy sram crapped out again today. Hope they use it again next year, i would relish at seeing it fail again, and again, and again, and again. LMAO.
Alberto won, just as he clobbered LA last year. Poor old Contador, nobody wants to see the Spanish succeed, well, now they have the Tour and the Soccer World cup.

What is the story of the names on Contador's bike?

Specialized set up two contests a couple months ago. Put in an application, and if your name was selected, it got put on a bike that would be ridden in the Tour. There was one to be on Alberto's bike, and the other was to be on Andy's bike.

I had all but forgotten this when, the week before the tour, I received an e-mail informing me I was "riding with Alberto", and there were a bunch of photos showing the names. I was a bit skeptical, until I found my name inside one of the chainstays. Then, I received another e-mail telling me he was going to ride the bike on stage 18. He did, but ended up switching the bike out before the stage ended.

Specialized set up two contests a couple months ago. Put in an application, and if your name was selected, it got put on a bike that would be ridden in the Tour. There was one to be on Alberto's bike, and the other was to be on Andy's bike.

I had all but forgotten this when, the week before the tour, I received an e-mail informing me I was "riding with Alberto", and there were a bunch of photos showing the names. I was a bit skeptical, until I found my name inside one of the chainstays. Then, I received another e-mail telling me he was going to ride the bike on stage 18. He did, but ended up switching the bike out before the stage ended.
Sounds pretty cool.
Why did he switch out his bike out of curiosity?
Was it a climbing bike versus a flat stage bike? As in, fitted with deeper wheels and lowered stem or something? Just curious if they still are using two bikes for different stages, or switching out bikes at the top of climbs for descents.
Pantani, Ulrich, Virenque and others used to ride this way. Slightly heavier bikes and different wheels for descents for people like Pantani. He also used 170mm cranks for climbs and switched to 175s for the descents.
Im surprised Contador and especially Scleck dont do this.
As a matter of fact, if I were the team mechanic, I would have waited at the top with a different bike for Scleck on stage 15. Super deep wheels, longer cranks, lower stem and slightly heavier bike.
But then again, what do I know.

Exactly. AC was attacking when AS lost his chain. That "chain of events" had already begun, less than 3km from the finish. Sorry Andy, it sucks that it happened. But no racer would have stopped at that point. Even Schleck said so.

Um when did Andy say that because I saw multiple interviews where he said he wouldn't have attacked in that situation. I did however see LA say that he thought it was okay for him to attack but stupid for contador to lie that he didn't see what happened when he was 50 feet behind schleck.

As a matter of fact, if I were the team mechanic, I would have waited at the top with a different bike for Scleck on stage 15. Super deep wheels, longer cranks, lower stem and slightly heavier bike.
But then again, what do I know.

They changed the rule this year so that riders can only take bikes from the team cars or the neutral support cars, not from the side of the road.

Sounds pretty cool.
Why did he switch out his bike out of curiosity? ...

Wasn't quite sure. They showed him riding it, and switching it for another bike on stage 18 (flat). Evidently something wasn't to his liking (I'd guess set-up, or there was a glitch with a component).

They changed the rule this year so that riders can only take bikes from the team cars or the neutral support cars, not from the side of the road.
I guess thats kinda what I meant, near the top, the car would fly past, stop and take down the downhill bike for him from off the top of the car, thats what they did for Pantani, Ulrich and clan. Maybe there are previsions in the rule that specify that thats not allowed either... ?

Haha, Schlecks crappy sram crapped out again today. Hope they use it again next year, i would relish at seeing it fail again, and again, and again, and again. LMAO. ....

Yeah, with SRAM at the top two spots on the podium this year and the top three last year that must be some really non-functional stuff. :rolleyes:

Um when did Andy say that because I saw multiple interviews where he said he wouldn't have attacked in that situation. I did however see LA say that he thought it was okay for him to attack but stupid for contador to lie that he didn't see what happened when he was 50 feet behind schleck.
It was reported soon after the the stage end. Later, after the etiquette whiners got going, he recanted.

But I see now it was Vino that was right with Schleck, not Alberto. Contador was well behind, starting his as it appeared, back on an uphill drive. He was out of view and honking hard by the look of it, and literally blew by Schleck by the time he got abreast. Is it possible he missed the chain jump? It does seem unlikely.

Should he have stopped, when he was hard on a drive to the finish?

Hmmmm, good question. After watching it about ten times, I say no. He should have done just what he was doing, pounding as hard as he could for the finish, from behind. it was now or never, at that point. Had this happened at km 28, things would be different.
Again, sorry Andy. On occasion, sheet does happen.

Now, IF he had seen the chain fly off and knew it when he went blasting by, he should not have lied when it came up. A simple, "Yes, and I was ripping by at that point, too hard to stop...." would have sufficed.

Yeah, with SRAM at the top two spots on the podium this year and the top three last year that must be some really non-functional stuff. :rolleyes:
The only reason its on the podium is because the sponsor agreements with the top teams. If this is too confusing for you to understand ill explain it. When you have the potential to win the Tour, you require a big budget to run the team and pay good salaries. You would knowingly take crappy equipment because it is attached with a good $500,000 chack to it.
Furthermore when something is said to be proven, it usually means its been through many years, if not decades of use and is widely excepted as fact that it usually works good. Sram hasent even been in the Tour for 5 years, and this year it proved utterly useless. What part of "proven" are you delussional about.
Im really disappointed when I see stupid remarks like this. I guess it takes 2 or 3 years to make something proven these days? This is the problem with marketing, that right there. Just as baseball has advertised world champions, world being new york versus Ohio, I didnt know those two where countries, but then again, you can call anything whatever you want. You can call using something for 4 years, one of which it craps out and is widely known to have problems, proven.

If you didn't exist, it would not have affected the results one iota. You did not win, you were not involved, you fail.


My name is on the bike too, and I would never dream of either starting a thread to rub it in, or claim I had anything to do with the success. If I ever do meet Alberto, I might mention it to him, but wouldn't ever say to him "we won".

Yeesh... lighten up and take it as the tongue-in-cheek comment that it is, guys.

........I did however see LA say that he thought it was okay for him to attack but stupid for contador to lie that he didn't see what happened when he was 50 feet behind schleck.

I think the UCI needs to form a new committee headed by LA to judge all the plays that live under the unwritten law book of cycling. They can fly LA all over the world to call judgment on a situation. Since he is a cancer survivor and a 7 time Tour winner, he knows everything. Not only that, he can tell you what somebody saw or didnt see despite what the actual person saw or didnt see. The greatest part of this idea is that even though LA represents the biggest lie in cycling history, its fitting that he judge anything, kind of a way to make himself feel better at night knowing that he judicated justice

Yeesh... lighten up and take it as the tongue-in-cheek comment that it is, guys.

I didn't know about the "name on the bike" thing

I just thought it was some doofus thinking he had something to do with AC winning...

The only reason its on the podium is because the sponsor agreements with the top teams. If this is too confusing for you to understand ill explain it. When you have the potential to win the Tour, you require a big budget to run the team and pay good salaries. You would knowingly take crappy equipment because it is attached with a good $500,000 chack to it.
Furthermore when something is said to be proven, it usually means its been through many years, if not decades of use and is widely excepted as fact that it usually works good. Sram hasent even been in the Tour for 5 years, and this year it proved utterly useless. What part of "proven" are you delussional about.
Im really disappointed when I see stupid remarks like this. I guess it takes 2 or 3 years to make something proven these days? This is the problem with marketing, that right there. Just as baseball has advertised world champions, world being new york versus Ohio, I didnt know those two where countries, but then again, you can call anything whatever you want. You can call using something for 4 years, one of which it craps out and is widely known to have problems, proven.

Do you now, or have ever, owned SRAM? Have you ever ridden a SRAM equipped road bike in the last year or two? Did you know about 1/3 of the peloton is riding SRAM? Do you *really* think a team would sacrifice wins for an equipment deal for inferior kit?

Oh Howzit, simply in reading your comment history I can just throw you into the 'not quite bright troll' category that is much more bluster than focused thought. You're really quite transparent actually.