's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

New Rules-Team Time Trial-2004 Tour De France, SO UNFAIR!(28 posts)

New Rules-Team Time Trial-2004 Tour De France, SO UNFAIR!CARBON110
Jan 31, 2004 6:19 PM
Not sure how many know but starting with the 2004 TTT at this years Tour there can only be a MAXIMUM loss of 2.30 minutes regardless of your time. This essentially gives a "day off" for teams that are relying solely on their climbers like Euskaltel and Cofidus to name a few. I have no idea WTF Leblanc was thinking.

Why don't they get rid of the time limit for that matter or drug inspections as well if they are going to unbalance the competitive nature of a bike race. Esentially if you look at last years Tour times and see how many were more then two and a half minutes it would reorganise the entire GC!

What motive is their for half the teams to exhaust themselves if they know anyway they are going to lose close to that amount of time?

Total BS!
That's entertainment!Len J
Jan 31, 2004 6:31 PM
Where you been? This is old news.

The truth is that the TDF is entertainment. The organizers are most interested in keeping France's (and the world's) attention as long as possible in the race. Keeping the GC closer by not eliminating some riders in the TTT makes for a more competitive race, and one that is more entertaining.

Just one more obstacle to overcome.

That's French entertainment!Spoiler
Jan 31, 2004 8:49 PM
If it's entertainment, they'd let Cippo in regardless of his climbing ability.
If they want to keep the GC close, why did they reinstate the TTT in the first place? What is the purpose of the TTT? Last year, the TTT didn't hurt any of the GC contenders. Less than half the teams lost more than 2 minutes.
Of the ten teams that lost two minutes, four of them were French. Interesting.
Euskaltel-Euskadi will love the change also. Haimar Zubeldia and Iban Mayo lost three minutes last year.
I, for one, like it...AFrizzledFry
Jan 31, 2004 7:01 PM
not all teams have the budget of a team like Postal, so i believe it evens the playing feild. plus, it makes for a much more exsighting race. nothing but good can come of this, if you ask me. i one did. but oh well.
^^^^ agree with this guy (nm)Frith
Feb 1, 2004 8:07 AM
re: New Rules-Team Time Trial-2004 Tour De France, SO UNFAIR!rogue_CT1
Jan 31, 2004 7:38 PM
I like it. It means guys like Ulrich last year are not put in a giant hole because of their weak team. It evens the playing field for the weaker teams with smaller budgets.
Jan 31, 2004 8:53 PM
Ullrich lost only 43 seconds last year. How would a 2 minute limit have helped him?
And next year, he'll be on a strong TTT team. It will hurt him. The Tour isn't about evening the playing field. The TTT's purpose was to let the stronger teams shine.
Of course the ASO is a charitable organization!BergMann
Jan 31, 2004 9:47 PM
Take a look at the ASO's wildcard nomination process: the mission is clear: stack the race with mediocre French teams and the odds of a Frenchman winning (something) go up!
It's the same line of thinking with the TTT: so what do we do if our GC "contenders" like Moreau don't have a cold chance in hell of winning the race? Change the rules to fetter the strong, maybe a Frenchman will get lucky and podium.

This is a desperate attempt by the French to try and make things hard for Armstrong in his final year.

The nation with that lingering Napoleon complex just can't bear the thought of Armstrong eclipsing Hinault and Antequil!

As for those who say this will make for a more exciting race, I assume you're not talking about the TTT itself, which will have been completely _gutted_ of any significant drama - there is no drama without the prospect of tragedy!
Of course the ASO is a charitable organization!Spoiler
Feb 1, 2004 2:03 AM
I can't say that I blame them. They see how cycling in their own country is declining because of doping scandals, other rising national powers, and their own weakening riders. They're just trying to give their riders support and exposure to insure a future. I'm not sure how much the time gain limits will hurt Armstrong. Like I said, most of his challengers also have strong TTT teams, which he wouldn't get more than 2 minutes on. It might help Heras though.
43 seconds? What??cyclopathic
Feb 1, 2004 7:07 AM
if you recall TTT Bianchi finished with 6 riders, and if Jan wouldn't pull team to finish they'd loose 2-3min. No wonder he lost 1.5 min up Alpe d'Huez a couple days later. Besides given better TT team like ONCE or Telekom Jan could turn tables and steamroll Postal.

Agree, 2min limit wouldn't help him, and TTT is bogus anyways they should have excluded it from tour entirely. Giro doesn't have TTT and noone complains.
Gee, how come nobody's complaining about...torquecal
Jan 31, 2004 7:40 PM
the KOM points change doubling the points for the final hills on climbing finishes?

It should kinda eliminate the long breakaway KOM leaders. It'll probably end up making one of the GC contenders wear the polka dots into Paris.
Come on, since when does the best climber actually win the KOM?BergMann
Jan 31, 2004 9:55 PM
Let's face it, if the KOM jersey really went to the best climber in the race, guys like JaJa and the post-Festina Virenque would never have worn it.

Yeah, it will definitely cut down on the hero factor of suicide breaks in the high mountains, but the ostensible _idea_ of the KOM jersey is that it is to be worn by the best climber, right?

Let's see if Roberto, Lance, or Mayo actually wins it this year!
Jan 31, 2004 10:00 PM
but if the TDF rulers were really going to pure entertainment, then I don't think they would've changed this rule.
Too many rulescrankset
Feb 1, 2004 1:39 AM
Let them race and let things happen on their own. Why not a time limit on individual TT's? That way climbers won't be at a disadvantage....just doesn't make sense. If anything they should make whatever team comes under the time limit dress as clowns for the next stage. Now THAT'S Entertainment!!!!
lol ! (nm)bicycle268
Feb 1, 2004 6:39 AM
Too many rulesThe Human G-Nome
Feb 1, 2004 2:40 PM
"Too many rules" but then another rule: "Why not a time limit on individual TT's?"

seems to me that people are only in favor of rules that give advantage to the riders they root for. you can bet that if it were a French rider that stood to lose by limiting the TTT damage, they would have never made the rule. if they don't want strong teams to be such a factor, then why have teams at all? it is OBVIOUS that they changed the rules for a certain few individuals.
Too many rulescrankset
Feb 1, 2004 9:41 PM
Re-read my post: "Why not a time limit on individual TT's?...just doesn't make sense" It's a little sarcastic comment, get it?.....
you're right they should have excluded TTT from tour entirely!cyclopathic
Feb 1, 2004 7:13 AM
Total BS!

After all TTT is relatively resent to tour and not all grand tour have it. It would have been more fun to watch another flat stage for sprinters.
Not relatively recent.Asiago
Feb 2, 2004 8:47 AM
Only relatively recently did they bring it back.

I think 1996 was the first year after many, many years that did NOT have a TTT.

Watch coverage to the '96 Tour, and you see all of the big contenders lamenting the fact that they took out the TTT.

What do you expect from a bunch of namby pamby sociaists?Shylock
Feb 1, 2004 9:49 AM
...More "level the playing field" crappola from people who are bent on conflating the issues of inequality with inequity .


feel the gin
Show some respectSpoiler
Feb 1, 2004 2:43 PM
These same socialists were able to keep the greatest sporting event in the world alive and thriving, with international competition, while our country, with many times more roads and area can't even put on a single national tour, much less tolerate any sport where we don't completely dominate all other nations.
show some brains...philippec
Feb 2, 2004 9:37 AM
France is curently governed by the conservative UMP party... not the socialists. Oh, and over the past 100 years you will find that the tour was run much more often under the watch of a right-wing government than the socialists. Rack up one more point for your complete ignorance of world history/events....
ROFLMAO --------------------------->CARBON110
Feb 2, 2004 10:06 AM
That was a post worth reading Phillippec!

""Rack up one more point for your complete ignorance of world history/events....""

I'm guessing this was not directed at a general audience but more specificly to a specific poster....meaning not Americans but a psuedo intellectual RBR member whos post your responding to

Indeed, but how -- and by whom-- a country is "governed" has little to do...Shylock
Feb 2, 2004 3:04 PM
...with its overall socio-political sentiment. No "conservative" would abide an unelected body exercising centralized control over the economies of sovereign nations, for example.
The fact is, the French have shown little appreciation for "conservatism" or, better put , "classical liberalism" since the revolution. As Tocqueville himself has pointed out, the French have always had an unhealthy affinity for equality that has led them to eschew the arguably primary component of liberal societies: freedom.

So, in other words, without getting into the details of French politics ( in which right and left have so often switched polls -- especially during the EU debate) I reject your assertions as irrelevant to the point I originallly made, as socio-political affinities generally have little to do with the party to which one belongs, and monikers are poor predictors of behaviour.

Feel the gin
Not quiteCARBON110
Feb 2, 2004 3:18 PM
""as socio-political affinities generally have little to do with the party to which one belongs, and monikers are poor predictors of behaviour""

IS this some kind of oxymoron here? Do I even have to to explain this statement and it's severe demonstation of no logic, no clarity, and nonsense. Bringing up Tocqueville is unecessary not to mention several other irrelevant references you made that are at best, just name dropping. Revolution? Which? The French Rev. from the 1800s or 1790s? LOL!

Would you say the "Conservative" Chirac....Shylock
Feb 2, 2004 4:45 PM
...has behaved like a conservative? Would you say a country like France in which the socialist and communist parties are taken seriously is a conservative country? Are you saying the French people are conservative because the party in power is the "Conservative party?"

As to the quote you believe to be so oxymoronic, perhaps I should have said that socio-political affinities and political parties are not inextricably linked. Afterall, we generally know how a Republican and Democrat will behave..usually.... My apologies. But tell me, Does Zell Miller behave like a Democrat? Does Olympia Snow behave like a Republican? Does Jacques Chirac behave LIKE A CONSERVATIVE? (Hell, does George Bush? -- another topic, I suppose) Party affiliations are so often for the purpose of product differentiation, and often say very little about how a person tuly thinks or governs. And so many so-called conservatives and liberals betray their camps in the most alarming ways.

Now,Tocqueville is hardly irrelevant to the topic, as much of his thesis ( in Old Regime, Democracy, letters etc etc.) revolves around his concern for a French people seemingly obsessed with equality. This penchant has driven France's politics regardless of who has been in power. Just look at how influential the socialist party has been in effecting policy in recent years.

So, to be frank, what really is irrelevant, is the fact/deduction that you so smuggly asserted originally : that the conservative party is currently the party in power in France, and that somehow this precludes the socialistic tendencies of its people.... I can't say as I know why I've induged such an obtuse brand of pedantry.

feel the gin
who cares?Woof the dog
Feb 1, 2004 11:56 PM
oh my god, Lance is gonna lose the tour!

Its the end of the world!
They have changed the rules!
My life is ruined!


While we are at it, lets get rid of the designated hitter. nmMB1
Feb 2, 2004 2:46 PM