Precedents for waiting for a competitor?
 

I jumped in on another thread asking if there was much ethical difference between Contador's attack during Schleck's chain slip was much different than Schlecks charge at the end of Stage 3. The consensus so far is 'no'. I thought I'd start my own thread to ask a follow up:

What precedent(s) are there for waiting for a competitor who's delayed?

I know about Armstrong and Ullrich, but are there other examples from the TDF or another major race?

There are plenty of incidents of this. But there are different circumstances for each case. There are a few instances that go both ways in this very tour. There lies the big issue. There isn't a handbook that dictates when to go and when not to. What is competitive courtesy and what isn't. There are many people upset over stage 15. But two that are not are Andy Schleck and Alberto Contador. (http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/...hatchet_130287) For me, that's an indication that Contador was not nearly as in the wrong as people are building it up to be. Both riders in this tour have gotten advantages at the other's misfortune. At the end of the day, they are separated by 8 seconds. So everything is pretty much even.

I'll disagree with most that have commented on this issue and say there is a distinct difference between Andy not waiting on stage 3 and AC leaving on stage 15. After the end of stage 2, Andy was 4:06 back and AC was 3:24 back. Now folks can say what they want, but at that point, no one could have said who the actual contenders were going to be. Andy could not simply have waited thinking that AC would have been his only competition losing time to others in the process. That would have made no sense. Now moving on to stage 15, much later in the race, we have AS and AC clearly racing each other for the top spot. Throw in the fact that AC attacked AS during the mechanical and you have some pretty clear differences.

Personally, I didn't think it was such a good move on Andy' part to attack when he did right before he dropped his chain. Any gains he might have made would have surely been lost on the descent.

Let's see here. You'd argue that a two time Tour winner, and the guy who finished 2nd last year, and who has consistently been one of the top competitors have no idea who is going to be a chief competitor later on in the race, and who they need to put time on?

I have to quote Keyshawn Johnson here - "Come on, Man"

I'm arguing that at that point in the race, one is still racing against anybody that might be considered a contender and not just one or two and in this case AC. Sure, you could say that AS and AC were the favorites but there are no givens relative to who will be at the top late in the race. Even the best have bad days, crash out or whatever.

"Presumption first blinds a man, then sets him a running." -- Ben Franklin

So given that logic, one could consider the attack on stage three to be even less sporting, since it disadvantaged numerous riders.

fwiw - I'm not suggesting either rider did something inappropriate.

I don't how to be any clearer but I'll try one more time. Given my logic, AS could not presume AC
to be the only rider he'd have to contend with late in the race and accordingly was working to get
time on anyone who may later have proven to be a threat. I only fault Contador for attacking
during the time Andy dropped his chain. Had Menchov or Sanchez attacked, well yeah, he'd of
had no choice but to go with them. He attacked so they had to go with him.

Seems quite plain. I simply don't ascribe to either your logic, or to your conception of when the "don't attack" ethic is supposed to apply. You don't attack the yellow jersey out of the peloton when he has a mechanical, or when he's taking a nature break, or when in a feed zone. When he's no longer in the peloton, that is generally out the window.

Props to Neal Rogers for remembering this one from the Vuelta last year.

Rubbish, at that point everyone except you and some poor guy watching for tjhe first time who only had a video feed, but no sound, knew who the contenders would be.

If there was a snowballs chance in hell that a rider who is off the front might be a contender then they will not wait.

Did you hear when Lance was interviewed about this on the vrs. coverage? I thought he had the only valid criticism of AC. He said 'The race was on' so AC was fine doing what he did, he just should not be insulting us saying he did not see it.

But to be fair to AC, since what he did was fine why should he have to defend the action?

That bears repeating...
The
.....Race
............Was
..................On.

[QUOTE=Keith99;11150696]Rubbish, at that point everyone except you and some poor guy watching for tjhe first time who only had a video feed, but no sound, knew who the contenders would be.
\
Dude, don't make me get rude, you just made my point and even outlined it. Wanna try again?

So Lance says it, it must be true. Why the hell did he attack with Sanchez and Menchov right behind him and with the descent so close as if he was going to get any time on them? He pounced on AS during an opportune time just about as plain as day.

You can ascribe to whatever you wish; we'll just have to agree to disagree.

OK, IMO the Stage 15 issue is pretty much over, done, finished, beat to death.


That said, by *cough* sheer coincidence *cough* :D I am working my way through a book on the history of the Tour de France (by Bill & Carol McGann). Among other things from ancient history:

In the earliest days of Le Tour, riders often cheated by catching trains and/or car rides. A bit more understandable considering that a stage might take 2-3 days to complete. ;)

Also in the early days, riders were required to do ALL their own maintenance, and were penalized for accepting help, and had to use the same exact bike from start to finish. If you had a mechanical or a crash, it didn't matter if you were in the lead; you were on your own. There were no quick-releases or clincher tubes or maintenance crews; if you got a flat -- by, for example, unruly spectators who sided with your rival, and littered the ground with nails -- you had to fix it.

One infamous story is from the 1913 tour. During Stage 6 (326km crossing Aubisque, Tourmalet, Aspin and Peyresourde (!)), Eugene Christophe started the day in 2nd place, 5 minutes behind the leader. On the slopes of the Tourmalet, and 5 minutes behind the leader, his fork breaks. He had no choice but to carry his bike (probably 25+ llbs), get to a nearby town on foot, find a blacksmith, and repair the fork himself. He had someone operate the bellows for a few minutes, and for that received a 10 minute penalty -- an insult to the 3-hour injury it took him to fix the bike. Although he was clearly out of contention, he still finished the stage and beat 15 riders.

Later in the same tour, the leader (Buyesse) crashed, screwed up his bike, got help fixing it (30 minute penalty) and also ended up 3 hours behind. The next year, the leader and winner of the 1913 tour (Thys) busted a wheel, bought a new one, took the 30 minute penalty (which shrank his lead to less than 2 minutes), and barely managed to win.


Skipping ahead, what happened in 2001? Ullrich and Armstrong were descending alone on Peyresourde, when Ullrich miscalculated and went over the barriers and into a ravine. Considering that Ullrich could have been gravely injured, riding off would have been unacceptable (assuming of course that the competitor actually picked up on what happened). This is rather obviously a different class of issue than a chain drop in the middle of a pack of highly placed rivals.

Similarly in 2003 (the same year Ullrich waited for Armstrong after he crashed), Ullrich hit the deck in the final time trial, which tanked his chances of winning. Did Armstrong win that year, fair and square? Menchov faced a similar situation with the Giro D'Italia in 2009, when he crashed in the final kilometer of the final stage (also a TT). At the start he had about 2 minutes on DiLuca, and managed to win anyway. If he had lost, would DiLuca have surrendered the Pink Jersey? Should he have given it up if that had occurred?

Clearly, the "tradition" of stopping for the MJ (or anyone else) is a gray area, and started some time after World War I. If I can figure out when that "tradition" started, I'll let you know. :D

Here's another precedent - Lemond waited for his opponent Hinault in 1985; the Badger was in yellow and crashed because he hadn't yet figured out how to use his newfangled clipless pedals. Cost Lemond his first Tour win but the good will from that gesture still bestows him with honor wherever he goes.

Nope, Lemond waited for his team leader. I have heard reports that the team manager lied to Lemond about just how far back Hinault was, Lemond expected a short wait that became pretty long.

The tradition would ahve started not long after we got the Peloton as we know it today. Going back to pre WW I the gaps were huge because riders pretty much rode alone. I have seen reports that say that there was a time when riding together was in fact prohibited.

Again the tradition related to riding in a pack, especially the Peloton and making the first attack when there is a mechanical, nature stop or feed zone. It realtes to STARTING the racing only after these. It generally does not apply to continuing.

Without drafting benefits there would be no such tradition.

[QUOTE=whitemax;11150928]No, I highlighted your error.

Those of us who think he should have slowed and believe he has some growing up to do hope he takes something from this. I really hate hearing about past tours in the media and the asterisks they always add that helped define that tour. How many times have we seen Lance fall or the look, Beloki break his leg, Ulrich topple over, etc. Unfortunately for Contador, and all of us, this situation is his asterisk and we all get to be reminded of it every frickin' year.

But his team leader WAS his opponent. I'm having some fun here.

Hinault never recovered from the humiliation of being GIFTED Tour #5.

Now this makes sense. I was a bit confused seeing that post from you.

Its not a question of truth. It's a matter of opinion. And whether you agree with Armstrong or not, you have to give a decent amount of weight to the opinion of a 7 time Tour de France winner, who has seen both sides of this issue.

Add the fact that Armstrong has a history with taking digs at Cantador, which makes the fact that Armstrong more or less gives Contador a pass that much more significant.

As for another precedent Uhlrich did not attack Armstrong when Armstrong was taken down by a spectator's bag on the Luz Ardiden in 2003.