Schumacher By Name, Schumacher By Nature?

TheFredJ

Stefan Schumacher appears to have displayed striking tactical similarities to his F1 namesake, Michael. In the final stage of the Tour of Benelux, Schumacher "took out" race leader George Hincapie in the final sprint of the final stage, gaining 4 seconds in time bonifactions, turning a 3 second defecii going into the stage into a 1 second lead at the end of it. Hincapie, as well can be imagined, is reportedly not best pleased, but his appeals have fallen on deaf ears. More from the beeb.

da_deadman

What? "tactical similarities" - what do you mean? Stefan Schumacher was hit on the left arm by a spectator leaning over onto the road and as a result he swerved to the right, this caused Hincapie's front wheel to touch Schumacher's rear wheel and the American fell.
Sure, this was bad luck for Hincapie and he can feel hard done by, but this was hardly a tactic by Schumacher. Did he plan for the spectator to be there? Was it an ingenious tactical plan to get a spectator to lean dangerously far out into the road just so that he could 'take out' Hincapie and try to take the overall victory? Seems unlikely to me.

And why should this incident be mentioned in relation to Michael Schumacher, the most successful Formula One driver of all time?

TheFredJ

satire is wasted on some

Ghost Rider

The title of this thread confused me. I was hoping to read about a cyclist whose race tactics included making shoes.

TheFredJ

it's actually really about pastry. but you're not supposed to know that.

Ghost Rider

Don't worry. I don't.

TheFredJ wrote:

it's actually really about pastry. but you're not supposed to know that.

Morgan

Ghost Rider wrote:

The title of this thread confused me. I was hoping to read about a cyclist whose race tactics included making shoes.

In the 1913 Tour de France the shoes of Eugene Christophe fell apart in the Pyrenees. He ran barefoot for 10 miles before finding a cobbler. Due to the race rules had had to make his own shoes from some pieces of leather but was still penalized due to a small boy operating the sewing machine.

Tackleberry

Whatever about namesakes and all that crap, I think Hincapie was very hard done by yesterday, fair enuff nobody could suggest that it was schumachers fault, but similarily, it wasn't Hincapie's fault that he crashed, so if the jury can say that it wasn't Stefans fault, why can't they equally say it wasn't Hincapies fault either, and nullify the results of the incident?

Its as if they are recognising Stefans incident and rewarding him, but saying tough **** to Georges incident and reprimanding him.

Thats not to mention the 1 second jump Stefan made at the prologue start that the commissaires agreed happened.

Ghost Rider

You manage to work around some seriously unsympathetic race rules only to get done for child labour! Quel bummer!

Morgan wrote:

In the 1913 Tour de France the shoes of Eugene Christophe fell apart in the Pyrenees. He ran barefoot for 10 miles before finding a cobbler. Due to the race rules had had to make his own shoes from some pieces of leather but was still penalized due to a small boy operating the sewing machine.

TheFredJ

the christophe incident had nothing to do with shoes. he broke his forks. the pastry was tougher than he imagined and they just snapped.

Ghost Rider

Quel pain!

TheFredJ wrote:

the christophe incident had nothing to do with shoes. he broke his forks. the pastry was tougher than he imagined and they just snapped.

icom

Cycling is a tough sport.
Remember when Fignon was beaten by Lemond in 1989 by 8 seconds on the last stage when he was expected to win.
Lemond was using some odd looking components on his time trial bike, I think they were called "aerobars" or something like that!! (He took 58 seconds out of Fignon)
Then in the 1994 TDF Jalabert fell on his face in a sprint, promised his wife he would give up sprinting and came back and won nearly everything.
I think Hincape will come back strong too, he can't be unlucky all the time.:)

GP

**** happens. People fall all the time in racing. If they look the other way for George then everyone who falls and MAY have had a chance to get bonus points in a finishing sprint will want the same treatment.

They already give anyone who falls in the last 3km the same time as the finishing bunch. That, surely is enough.

TheFredJ

re jaja's "miraculous" comeback. drugs did play a large role in that.

and before anyone jumps to jaja's defence and points - do remember what was said in the freddy sargent trial this year. jaja (joy though he was) was a junkie.

icom

TheFredJ wrote:

re jaja's "miraculous" comeback. drugs did play a large role in that.

and before anyone jumps to jaja's defence and points - do remember what was said in the freddy sargent trial this year. jaja (joy though he was) was a junkie.

I don't recall Jaja ever testing positive during any races?
Maybe you have some insider information?

I must admit, some of his performances were indeed "superhuman" !!

It's easy to say that x and y were doping. But where is the proof, for example Landis had a positive A and B sample....:)

TheFredJ

icom - did you actually read the bit where i pre-empted exactly such a response by mentioning the recent feddy sergeant trial? are you not familiar with that trial? are you not familair with the evidence offered by fabien roux?

During the first day of hearings in the "Cahors" trial, Laurent Roux's younger brother Fabien testified that it was former professional and current French TV consultant Laurent Jalabert who first introduced him to "pot belge". "I was initiated to using pot belge during a party with Laurent Jalabert in 2001," the 24 year-old said. "Together with other professionals, I've seen him injecting himself in the garage of his house that evening. It was a party organised by his fan club. It's frequent in the cycling world. These parties take place during the off-season. I came with my brother, who was a professional. The whole team of the cyclist who was hosting participated in these parties - from mechanic to soigneur."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jun06/jun20news2

and you don't need a postive test to prove you were a junkie - david millar never once tested positive in his life, yet it's unarguable that he too was a junkie.

justfortherecor

TheFredJ wrote:

and you don't need a postive test to prove you were a junkie - david millar never once tested positive in his life, yet it's unarguable that he too was a junkie.

No, but Millar was caught with his doping equipment in his personal apartment by the French Police which is pretty different altogether. There was never anything so concrete around jalabert. As much as we suspect things, I always want to see conclusive evidence of doping. Jalabert does not fulfill my criteria of a 'junkie'.

Trojan

Millar *admitted* it.

From what I remember, the equipment was 1 used syringe, which they weren't able to prove anything off.

TheFredJ

trojan - spot on about the "equipment".

and millar's comment on his admission was that it took about two days of stewing in police custody, and even then he considered getting a lwayer on the case and probably getting away with it.

the truth about millar and a lot of the other junkies caught in recent years is that they are being caught by the police and judicial authorities - not the uci's testing regime.

justfortherecor - so you are dismissing fabien roux's evidence? saying he perjured himself?

come on, there was more than enough evidence for people to at least supect he was a junkie - roux's evidence is hardly a shock. look at jaja's response to the festina scandal, just for starters.

icom

When jaja admits himself that he was doping (just like Millar), then I will believe it.
As far as I'm concerned he was clean and never failed a test during a race.

If he has a joint at a party during the off season, then that's his business.
Everyone is entitled to a bit of enjoyment now and again?

TheFredJ

icom wrote:

When jaja admits himself that he was doping (just like Millar), then I will believe it.
As far as I'm concerned he was clean and never failed a test during a race.

If he has a joint at a party during the off season, then that's his business.
Everyone is entitled to a bit of enjoyment now and again?

given jaja's current media career, i doubt if an admission is likely to surface in the near future.

as for having a joint at a party in the off-season - roux claims he was injecting pot belge, which is something entirely different than a spliff.

if you don't mind me saying, you do have a rather head-in-the-sand view of the issue of doping in cycling - do you really mean to suggest that you refuse to believe it's going on until that rider is actually caught and forced to admit they were a junkie?

icom

TheFredJ wrote:

do you really mean to suggest that you refuse to believe it's going on until that rider is actually caught and forced to admit they were a junkie?

Yes.