cfblakeman

or...

New people don't join forums to say the sun is yellow or grass is green

or...

Big events attract new people and a forum should be ready to welcome them with open arms

or...

The person actually had an opinion they wanted to express

or...

You disagreed with the person and was looking for a way to attack them

or...

You didn't do your homework, got lazy and chopped somebody off at the knees because it was easier than doing the hard work of running a forum

or...

a dozen other less suspicious reasons for someone to join a forum...


A man's character is revealed when he doesn't have time to think about his actions (which is also part of my observation about Contador).

cfblakeman

I disappeared because it was obvious the administrators on this site are going to let people be welcomed the way I was - there are enough hater forums around for me to join another one.

Interesting how you try to make it my problem simply because I decided not to respond to a childish attack devoid of opinion. The person responding did NOT have an opinion, only a personal attack. As an administrator you should be aware of the difference and try to keep the discussion about people's opinions, not whether they live under a bridge.

cfblakeman

Oh, and by the way, what was inflammatory about my post? The fact that I had an opinion? Should I have called someone a troll instead to be less inflammatory?

USAZorro

You seem to have no shortage of chips with which to adorn your shoulders. At this point, I see six angry posts from you in six total postings. How would you wish to be received here? Perhaps if you softened your tone, the result would be different.

cfblakeman

Hmmm...how would you respond to an environment that received you by personally attacking you, and having that be allowed to stand by the administrator?

I see a half dozen posts by you and other senior members accusing me of being a troll or similar and spreading nothing but suspicion about me. Where's the post that welcome's me and says thanks for joining, jump in and have an opinion? It's okay for you and other senior members to flame me a half dozen times without any reason other than paranoia (being paranoid of your customers is not a great way to run a business), but I have a chip on my shoulders because I'm trying to get you to agree that calling people names is not good fodder for a forum.

I stayed away for a week to see if others would pick up on the ridiculous troll comment and you say I'm responsible for that personal attack devoid of opinion because I disappeared. Now that I'm responding, I'm apparently still a troll because I think it's wrong to call people names instead of engaging them in a discussion about opinions.

And having the forum defend the troll attack and continue to beat me up for trying to defend myself only confirms that disappearing was the best option. So sorry for showing up again.

This is the place where a good company issues an apology and says: "ooops, we were wrong to let people spread personal attacks without any valid opinion whatsoever and welcome a new member this way. We'll do it differently going forward."

Hey, guys! Here's a newbie that doesn't like Contador! He must be a spy - let's get him!!

I'm a really nice guy when I'm not having to fend off people who are suspicious of so much as a mild breeze.

USAZorro

ok - inflammatory was a bit strong, but it did bear the hallmarks of what I have seen here, time and time again over the years - a provocative and reactionary statement, and then no further posting the forum. That is something that a troll, or someone who has no intention of returning to the site tends to do. I apologize for engaging in a bit of profiling, but without your feedback, what am I to think? You seem more than capable of expressing yourself, and either reporting the post, or sending me a PM, or further posting in the thread would have addressed this very quickly. Posters get called trolls quite frequently, all over the internet, and quite frequently, the naming is appropriate. That was as much the 2nd poster's opinion, as your initial opinion was. Your record of no prior posts, and no follow up at all, left me in agreement with their assessment at the time. Unfortunately, my psychic powers have diminished with age.

At this point, I think everyone is willing to accept that we misinterpreted your initial actions. I apologize for you not feeling welcome. Hopefully we have both learned something.

cfblakeman

Thank you for the apology. I appreciate it. However, we'll have to agree to disagree that the 2nd poster had an opinion. If I'm going to post on this forum, I have to know that we all understand the difference between personally attacking someone because we DON'T have an opinion, and actually having an opinion.

The 2nd poster did not have an opinion, unless this forum does not differentiate between calling people names and disagreeing with their stance. The 2nd post should have never been let stand, period. And when it was, it was a signal to me that this was going to be another boorish cat fight forum where intelligent people are not welcome because they keep wanting to talk about issues.

And seeing your defense of that attacker, what was I supposed to think?

Romans8:28

Maybe in his opinion your are a troll?

Just like in your opinion Alberto is a "perpetrator of cowardly acts".... I am pretty sure that Alberto would view "your opinion" as a "personal attack", no?

hopsing08

well now that the tour is over and we all know who won I have to say that the whole mechanical thing sucks and its a bit ironic that he won by the same margin he gained from the mishap. As for the OP, AC is a champion, even if you hate him, he is. ( I hate the Yankees and i think they get calls that favor them, but they are Champions)
During the time of LA and Ullrich I think there was a sense of having to earn it and taking advantage of a mishap was not their idea of earning it. I agree with Kloden that Its just a different Tour now days. If AC chose to attack, that is his choice. The sportsman like conduct unwritten rule is for people who would rather get 2nd place and know that they played fair than win at all cost.
What happened is exactly this. AS put AC in the hurt locker this whole tour. AC was nervous that it was getting so late into the tour and he wasnt in yellow. he saw an opportunity and went for it whether we think it was fair or not he didn't actually break any rules.

But I have to say that I prefer the LA/ Ullrich era myself.

OrionKhan

Well, what is you feeling about Andy taking advantage of a crash situation and going out a break when Contador and the yellow jersey got held up by the crash? That's how Andy got a minute on AC in Stage 3. The statement that "AS put AC in the hurt locker the whole tour" is crap. They both were able to drop the other guy in the mountains to gain 10 seconds. Then you have Andy taking advantage of crash situation. And AC taking advantage of Andy dropping his chain. So it came down to the prologue and ITT. AC won them both. Its perfectly okay to want Andy Schleck to win. But be objective in watching the race. Don't play the sportsmanship card for only one rider. It goes both ways. In fact, Andy benefited more from his little transgression than Contador did. AC had no control over the crash that occurred. Andy got over a minute from being able to break away from the peloton due to the crash. AS pretty much caused his mechanical situation while he was on the attack. All we've heard from the Saxo team is that Andy was shifting when it happened (i.e. rider induced). So AC is supposed to sit there and wait for Andy to pick up his chain after just getting attacked by the guy?

You and the OP have a right to you're opinion. The problem is that its wrong. You're either viewing the race with a complete bias towards Andy Schleck or you're simply not watching the race and basing you're opinion upon a few highlights and selective reporting. Because to those that objectively watched the stages of the tour, either both AS and AC were in the wrong on stages 3 and 15 or at least in a gray area. Or both incidents were simply the happenstance of racing and were okay. Both Andy Schleck and Alberto Contador viewed the incidents in the later light. They're both okay with it. So what's your hang up with it?

BluesDawg

'zactly

hopsing08

My opinion is wrong? I believe you mistook my comment as bashing on Contador. Although i disagreed with the attack I also feel that if AS should have done more to earn the yellow jersey. I think at the end of the day they right man won. AS put him on the ropes, but AC was still better. AS did not wait for ANYONE on the cobbles and nobody waited for lance when he crashed twice. overall i would have rather seen them wait. There was a short period of time when some people "Ullrich" would rather sit up, wait, and lose the stage than attack or LA would rather wait and take his chances than to attack after a mishap. I am just saying that i prefer that type of racing. I hardly think that is a Hangup
i was happy with the end result. the only thing i wanted to come out of the race is for it to be close and not as one sided as it was last year.
Who objectively watches the tour. Everyone has favorites. i wanted Fabian Cancellara to kill it in the TT, I wanted Thor to win the green Jersey, i wanted LA to reach the podium. I wanted Levi to fail, But I was very happy to see Chris Horner get 10th, and I not necessarily wanted AC to win, but i knew he would. what was great is how close it was.
WHO ISNT BIAS? your telling me you watched the TDF and didn't have a favorite?

OrionKhan

You are correct. There's nothing wrong with have a favorite. But when these "incidents" occur, one needs to set aside that bias when forming an opinion. I would venture to say that most of the people that felt AC was in the wrong, conveniently ignored the situation in Stage 3 because that worked to the benefit of their boy. Then they roll into BF and start blasting AC like he's the anti-Christ for not waiting in Stage 15. And in almost every instance they ignore the fact that Menchov and Sanchez went on the attack as well. Look at the mere title of this thread "Contador a winner, but never a champion". It begs the question, would the original poster have been okay with Schleck winning? Would he be a more worthy champion? Its that kind of blind lack of objectivity that I'm referring to. Most of the people who dislike Alberto Contador, do so because of the situation with Lance Armstrong last year. They're blind LA fanboys who dislike AC. They see Andy Schleck as their savior in that he's the only guy lurking out there who can possibly stop Contador, who is on a run that could challenge Armstrong's throne of having the most TdF wins.

FogVilleLad

I'm amazed that people continue to criticize AC, particularly when AS botched a shift. You've been so patient with them. I can understand not knowing that AS boogied on down the rode in Stage 3 - not everyone paid close attention to every stage - but I'm wondering whether some of these folks even bothered to read other posts before posting their attacks.

Keith99

I'm not. With a few exceptions people made their decisions totallly based on which riders they like or dislike, nothing else.

Stage 3 is s total non-issue, save to illustrate the main dividing line.

Was the race on before the incident.

Stage 3 is a slam dunk, THE RACE WAS ON.

Stage 2 is an interesting case. The splits were caused by a crash involving a camera bike. One could argue that the race was on at the time of the crash, there were riders off the front. Riders could feel very differently about this.

GC contenders (for Yellow in Paris) were pretty much not racing before the crash.
GC contenders in terms of Yellow right now arguably were.
Riders concerned about a stage win and sprint points definatly were.

One huge factor was that the current Yellow Jersey was in the first large group, it seems no long term contenders were. AC was in the second group and AS in the third. When Cancellera slowed his group he lost Yellow.

Arguing points, but once the first large group waited it weas set, wait until all the contenders are there.

Stage 15 comes down to one decision, was the race on? There is room for disagreement here. BUT that very room makes the idea that the actions of any rider was unsporting unsupportable. Looking at just the isolated footage starting with the attack by AS one could decide that the race was borderline as to On or not. Looking at more extensive coverage before that point it gets harder to take that position.

I can respect someone who thinks AC should have waited. at least momentarilly. I can not respect someone who thinks he should have waited irrespective of what Sanchez and Mencolov did. I can not respect anyone who thinks the actions of any of the 3 was unsporting.

OrionKhan

In my mind there was no doubt that the race was on. Mountain stage only the very elite contenders left. Deep into the overall race. They were on the last big climb. Andy Schleck's attack was no sorting out. He went out to drop everyone. Clearly, Andy thought the race was on right up until he dropped his chain. I don't see how anyone could not view it as "race on."

kleinboogie

The problem with "well, AS didn't wait first" argument is for that to have any affect on tactics on stage 15 is if AC thought, "Okay, if AS has a problem. Screw him. I'm going anyway." That's just trash. I agree with hopsing08, I like the Lance/Ulrich era (but without one of them getting busted for doing Ecstasy).

paperbackwriter

The "problem" with unwritten rules is that people who never have been (and probably never will be) in situation in which you have to seriously decide how to take an attitude towards them (or generally how to act, sometimes maybe not even thinking about them) are first to judge. And preferring to go on without imagination and flexibility, they don't care about circumstances, the fact that every case is different. They chose the example which suits them, like 'Ullrich waited for Lance, Lance waited for Ullrich', add few quotes for better effect(Klöden, Vroomen)- and are perfectly happy with their superficial view.
You can't say that Lance knows his fairplay better just because he waited for Ullrich- he already had a secure position and huge advantage, not to mention that the accident was a bit more serious. And it's not like he was equally nice all the time, and like the stage during which Ullrich waited is the best example of this 'golden era'- if it really had been so perfect then, we wouldn't have had Armstrong not wanting to admit that Ullrich waited.

And of course, it's not like 'Andy did it first!' is a good way to justify Alberto's actions- but it is an argument when someone says that he didn't deserve to win. It's not like anything needs justifying though. All four riders (during stage 3 and 15) did what they thought was right in the heat of the moment- I find it really funny that someone blames them and even more when someone wonders 'was the race already on in both situations?'. You can't put a definite border, it's for them to decide (of course I mean when the case is controversial).

Thankfully, it's not like that's really a problem, as it only concerns people on forums and blogs, and all four riders seem okay with that, just like ex winners and pretty much everyone who knows what he's talking about from experience (Armstrong and Riis included).

What's interesting for me is (of course, purely hypothetically)- had the yellow jersey been someone else (and who could that be), would the others have waited? I mean, I can imagine others waiting in similar situation, but to be honest only under one condition- that the person in MJ, who has the mechanical, is the extemely charismatic one, with huge respect in the peleton. And Andy IMO isn't for many reasons (and I'm not saying I don't like him)- he's disproportionately arrogant, not the main candidate for winning, too nervous in such situations (who would want to lose time to anyone because of him fixing his chain for far too long?). Honestly, I would be totally surprised if Menchov or Sanchez cared the slightest about what's happening with his bike after he said that "they aren't rivals for him".
(And I wasn't also trying to say that riders would have waited for Contador, just wondering if there's someone for whom they would... I'd say that most probably for Cancellara, even though he won't ever be the main candidate for the triumph in GC.)

boniek1982

Andy = Arrogant? That's interesting....

So what does that make Contador and the ultimate definition of arrogance and egoism, Mr. Lance Armstrong? I dont think Andy lacks charisma either. Contador is the one with no charisma and that is why people have a hard time liking him. The guy is just plain vanilla.

Andy and Frank are actually very cool guys and that is why I am a big fan whatever team they end up with. To be a peloton leader - that is a tough task for a guy who's young enough to compete for the white jersey. Give Andy enough time. Respect is earned with age.

As for Menchov and Sanchez. Ef those guys. I believe if AC would have told them to wait for Andy, they would have waited, but he didnt, so we will never know....

Bacciagalupe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkaT_Vo1IGk

paperbackwriter

I'm not saying that Andy and Frank aren't cool, that I don't like them or whatever. But in my opinion- and I guess it's too subjective to spend time arguing about this, especially considering that I don't really know any of them- they're both arrogant. Andy kept saying that he's in the form of his life, that he can beat Contador who's not so strong anymore, that Alberto's nervous, that Sanchez and Menchov aren't rivals for him- generally stuff which made him look like he's super confident and if nothing else, like he will actually try hard to win. And then the whole "Alberto should be more afraid than me" thing, really? Frank after Tour de France mentioned in the interview that he believes he would make a difference and that he could even win- and maybe it's only me, but I find saying it quite stupid and pointless.
As for being the leader of the peloton when you're still competing for white jersey- sure, I'm far from saying he won't mature, he just hasn't yet and yeah, that's okay.

And about Contador, again, I don't find him arrogant or insipid, but I accept someone can see him in different light, it's not like he's my best friend and I could tell what kind of person he really is. He seems extremely careful with what he says about other riders and about himself too- maybe that's the reason why some people don't find him interesting, but I like it. Being charismatic on the bike is one thing, everything else is an addition.

Sorry, I know it's over and I guess it was senseless to go through it one more time.

colombo357

What paperback books have you written?

mindundi

Had been Contador who miss the gear shift, the whole world just thought of bad luck for him, not one word about Schleck's behaviour. But is not the whole world against Contador, just for been him, in Spain there are a lot of idiots and stupid people that not only hate him as a cyclist, they dare to attack him as a person. Well, I think it's the same case as with Fernando Alonso. We spaniards are just the worst of the worst, we think human condition it's what it's important, not their professional value, but the fictitious human condition, what they think of the person in their interests, because they obviously don't know any of them in the intimacy.