Tour de France 2017 stage 9: Nantua > Chambéry - 181,5 km

flatty

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

Any good highlights shows?

The itv 4 highlights show at 7 is an absolutely outstanding production if you want to follow the major ebbs and flows and some of the nuances of the whole shakesperean drama that is the Tour de France.

Tigerandahalf

Surprised that Dan Martin continues to make those little breaks on the mountains. He is always pulled back within 30 seconds and then gets spit out the back clinging on after the next attack. He did a lot of it in the Tour last year as well.

Looking at the gc now there is a good chance for Martin to be up at the pointy end. Sky look much weaker this year.

Macy0161

flatty wrote: »

I find this "we are so lucky to have him" very odd. He's as irish as peaky blinders. He cycles for Ireland under a flag of convenience. Started out with British cycling, but their aims didn't coincide so he switched.

Apart from the fact his mother is Irish, obviously. He'd still be better off on a British Licence, and could've switched back. He'd have a lot more off the bike earning potential, if he really only saw it as solely a flag of convenience when making a start.

manwithaplan

I know it was acknowledged but just to be clear that I don't believe they should have waited for Dan (nor could they have) and I also think Aru's attack on the yellow jersey was well outside the bounds of what is decent. Crashes on descents when everyone is on the edge are a part of racing. As was pointed out, no one would have waited for even the yellow jersey in those circumstances.

I'm not too bothered about how Dan fell into our lap and I know there is much more to it than a sudden epiphany of Irishness. He races under our flag now and that's enough for me. In fairness also, apart from the Roche connections, his Dad has been active on the Irish scene.

1bryan

Daroxtar wrote: »

https://twitter.com/carltonkirby/status/884113062235602944?s=09

Could have been much worse tbh.

https://twitter.com/gemmanicoleb/status/884120796645470209

Leroy42

flatty wrote: »

Froome lost a pedal I think.

Ah here, he did nothing of the sort. He was a blatant shoulder charge. He knew exactly what he was doing.

I find it amazing that nothing is being said about it. So on one hand people want everyone to wait if the yellow jersey wearer gets into any bother from mechanical etc but said yellow jersey is allowed intimidate and physically attack other cyclists?

It clearly crossed a line. Whilst the outcome is less damage that Sagan incident, I would count this as actually worse. This appears to be premeditated and designed to intimidate another competitor.

Remember, Froome is the guy that wanted to attacked his own team leader when team leader was in yellow

Brian?

Froome stopped for a pee last year immediately after 2 of his team mates crashed. Allowing the race to come back together for them.

After that, he should get zero respect. He used the unwritten rules blatantly to his advantage. I say attack him any time after that.

happytramp

^^^ 100%

How anyone is buying the unclipped pedal excuse is beyond me.. So he coincidentally just happened to un-clip and bash into the guy who he was really angry at?

flatty

Hi jinks.

Somedude9

I don't think it was intentional, just clumsy on Froome's part. He appeared to have apologised to Aru shortly after the incident.

MPFGLB

manwithaplan wrote: »

I know it was acknowledged but just to be clear that I don't believe they should have waited for Dan (nor could they have) and I also think Aru's attack on the yellow jersey was well outside the bounds of what is decent. Crashes on descents when everyone is on the edge are a part of racing. As was pointed out, no one would have waited for even the yellow jersey in those circumstances.

I'm not too bothered about how Dan fell into our lap and I know there is much more to it than a sudden epiphany of Irishness. He races under our flag now and that's enough for me. In fairness also, apart from the Roche connections, his Dad has been active on the Irish scene.

Dan Martin has considered himself Irish since forever..well growing up in Birmingham to be precise ...His Dad has been part of the Irish road race team management staff ...at Olympics & Worlds..and has been for ages and I think there is Irish ancestry on that side as well

Also He would not earn more riding for UK....He is now paid based on ability and I would say has a great salary at Quick Step Floors...And could have an even bigger one next year if he could find a better team to support him in the Tour...maybe Trek need someone

He has a very good chance this year of doing a great Tour ...but remember he probably also thrives from lack of expectation and pressure ...so maybe doing his on thing has its advantages

Darkglasses

Brian? wrote: »

Froome stopped for a pee last year immediately after 2 of his team mates crashed. Allowing the race to come back together for them.

After that, he should get zero respect. He used the unwritten rules blatantly to his advantage. I say attack him any time after that.

If Aru himself had simply decided not to attack, I would understand. He's a young rider who at some point in future might look for the same favour done to him. But rather, it seems that all of the other main competitors decided to essentially stop Aru from going on the attack, once he had made the move. Even though all of the "blame" would have been on Aru, and they all would have benefited.

They made the decision themselves though, I don't remember there being any Sky rider in a position to influence them. Wish they had continued the attack for the sake of drama though.

irishrover99

The problem now is that Aru said he hadn't noticed Froome putting his hand up for assistance whereas Nibali said during the Giro that he didn't care as nobody ever waited for him.
At least if Aru had admitted it then everyone would know where they stand.
And since i didn't see Froome slowing down for Uran when he had his problems then the gloves should be well and truly off if that was the case.

1bryan

Darkglasses wrote: »

If Aru himself had simply decided not to attack, I would understand. He's a young rider who at some point in future might look for the same favour done to him. But rather, it seems that all of the other main competitors decided to essentially stop Aru from going on the attack, once he had made the move. Even though all of the "blame" would have been on Aru, and they all would have benefited.

They made the decision themselves though, I don't remember there being any Sky rider in a position to influence them. Wish they had continued the attack for the sake of drama though.

Aru has Riccardo Ricco levels of popularity in the peloton though. Even a lot of his own team can't stand him. Remember the little incident he had with Greg Henderson..... The Secret Pro wrote about him around that time too.

ThisRegard

godtabh wrote: »

No front brake after the 1st crash may explain the 2nd

https://twitter.com/DanMartin86/status/884093158446989314

He was on the Mavic bike at the time too wasn't he, not a good advertisement for them.

MPFGLB

Aru is not liked at all in the peloton...and it is to do with what Greg Henderson said

Shedite27

Realize I'm late to the debate on this and has probably been debated to death by now, but what happened Sunday really made me question why I follow cycling. For years I've listened to mates comment on how "sure aren't they all drugged up", but there was something that I could accept as being outside of what anyone could control. Like it for what it is.

But this whole "unwritten rule" sits very badly for me. If we're living by those rules, what is the point in watching this? Sky get Froome into Yellow on stage 4, then for the rest of the race he can take breaks whenever he wants? Would the peleton have stopped if it was Porte that broke a pedal Sunday? What if it was Thomas still in Yellow who broke a pedal? When Dumoulin needed a comfort break in the Giro, Sky bust on and contested the sprint finish.

This is a sport that is becoming ruthless, there is no place for these unrwitten rules. If Sky aren't playing by them, the rest of the cycling world needs to level the playing field and stop obeying them too. Not to mention that there's people betting on these events, it's essentially fixing a result (keeping Froome in contention). Any other sport there'd be bans for that.

The stages that end after a descent then are another thing that is ruining my enjoyment. What purpose do they serve? Riders hate them, and no TV cameras seem to be able to follow the key moments, so essentially we get to watch the ass of the last cyclist of the group from a struggling motorbike, totally oblivious to what's happening up front. Give me the exciting mountaintop finish that Aru won over the long drawn out "sprint" finish between a bunch of knackered rivals any day.

The tour should be the time of year you see the best cyclist claiming the title, not the best cyclist who's managed to avoid a wet leaf on a descent.

I'm over the fact that nobody was stopping for Dan.

/rant

rtmie

May be reading this thread wrong, but to me it sounds like a lot of complaints about unwritten rule is more about people not liking Sky/Froome.
From my PoV I like the Pirates of the Caribbean nature of it , "they be more like guidelines".
Riders faced with balancing opportunism with possible consequences of others working against them later. All part of the wonderful variations. It's always been variable and some riders e.g. Lemond have always had a nature to disregard it.
There appears no doubt this year and last that Froome has arrived at patron status much like Hinault had even though it manifests in a less overt way.

neris

Can't really see froome though getting of the bike and throwing punches at anyone blocking the road.

rtmie

neris wrote: »

Can't really see froome though getting of the bike and throwing punches at anyone blocking the road.

No, for sure :-).
But most rivals are as much riding for podium as win and pissing him/sky off could have a material effect on that.

Macy0161

rtmie wrote: »

May be reading this thread wrong, but to me it sounds like a lot of complaints about unwritten rule is more about people not liking Sky/Froome.
From my PoV I like the Pirates of the Caribbean nature of it , "they be more like guidelines".

There's two things for me.
1) they have the best of the best equipment and make choices based not necessarily on robustness. That's part of the choice they make themselves - the electronic gears fail - well they could've used a cable groupset for more reliability! Puncture - could've used heavier tyres or the gunk stuff for tubs.
2) the rank hypocrisy even on the same stage. Don't wait for Dan. Don't wait for Uran.

I initially thought it was wrong for them to attack dumoulin in the giro. However, turned out it was too many gels. So no, I don't think it's anti froome/ sky thing. For me its realising many of these incidents are not accidents but consequences of choices riders themselves make and as such are fair game!

WinnyThePoo

The race was on and they where climbing. I had no problem with aru attacking.

rtmie

I neither have a problem with Aru attacking or the rule. It's the whole moral duality/tactical evaluation of the options - like a Raymond Chandler novel! But that's just me I guess.

dastardly00

Shedite27 wrote: »

When Dumoulin needed a comfort break in the Giro, Sky bust on and contested the sprint finish.

/rant

I was going through my unread threads... and came across your post Shedite.

I have to call bullsh*t on the bit that is quoted above.

When Dumoulin needed a comfort break, it was Zakarin who attacked, not Sky. There wasn't even any Sky riders in the Maglia Rosa group at the time. Mikel Landa was in the breakaway, and he wasn't even contending for the GC since he had lost too much time earlier in the race due to a crash.

Shedite27

dastardly00 wrote: »

I was going through my unread threads... and came across your post Shedite.

I have to call bullsh*t on the bit that is quoted above.

When Dumoulin needed a comfort break, it was Zakarin who attacked, not Sky. There wasn't even any Sky riders in the Maglia Rosa group at the time. Mikel Landa was in the breakaway, and he wasn't even contending for the GC since he had lost too much time earlier in the race due to a crash.

Ooooh, good lad. I get one 2 month old detail wrong in a 350 word post and ya call bull****.

My point is the GC group went on without Dumoulin, and stopped for Froome.

And yes, Sky did contest the sprint finish.

But no doubt I've spelt his name wrong or something else for you to call bull**** on :rolleyes:

dastardly00

Shedite27 wrote: »

Ooooh, good lad. I get one 2 month old detail wrong in a 350 word post and ya call bull****.

My point is the GC group went on without Dumoulin, and stopped for Froome.

And yes, Sky did contest the sprint finish.

But no doubt I've spelt his name wrong or something else for you to call bull**** on :rolleyes:

Where did I call bullsh*t on your entire post
I referred to one point that you made, which was not true. I specifically didn't quote your entire post so as not to infer that it was invalid.

To strengthen your argument that Sky are 'not playing by the unwritten rules', you stated that Sky attacked Dumoulin in the Giro when he needed the comfort break.

What has Landa contesting the sprint finish got to do with anything? He was in the breakaway up ahead of the Maglia Rosa group and he wasn't a GC contender. Are you suggesting that Landa/the rest of the breakaway should have waited for Dumoulin?

I don't know why you have gotten your knickers in such a twist. You could have just replied and said 'Yep I got that wrong about Sky attacking Dumoulin, but I still think my overall argument is well supported'.

Lusk_Doyle

Was that the stage where Nibali won after the savage downhill effort where he caught Landa? Hardly a "sprint finish" when there was only two men in it!