Le Tour De France 2009

[B Cantona]

He didn't win fewer points overall, he had his points for a stage disqualified after he'd led the peleton home

That's the whole crux of the matter. My argument is that he should never had had them taken, many agree and according to Cavendish Hushovd apologised to him and said he didn't cheat. And without those points being taken, if results thereafter had been the same, Cavendish would have been points jersey winner

The fact Hushovd won the jersey by less points than Cavendish had questionable stripped from his tally is enough to ensure this years green jersey is somewhat sullied

 

[B Cantona]

The funny thing is, you think that we don't know how tactics would have panned out if Cavendish wasn't penalised. Well, I can tell you that Hushovd will have tried to escape again in the mountains - maybe that would have worked, maybe not. and he would have tried a lot harder on the Champs Elysees, coming a lot higher than where he was (6th? 10th).

The penalty is part and parcel of the race. It's like saying Hushovd will have won by a greater margin if his leadout men had been better.

He did attack the mountains thereafter, and picked more points up on them

Cavendish would also likely have changed his tactics. He wouldn't get anything in the mountains, but he may have challenged for more intermediates. He conceeded the green jersey the stage he was disqualified

As for 'tried harder on the Champs Elysees (!!!) you don't think he was trying for the stage win for the glory of leading home the tour?!?! He found himself in bad position that got himself cut off from Cavendish, and he ended up coming home 6th

Yes its a leap of faith to say Cavendish definitely would have won green had he not been disqualified, but you can't assume Hushovd would have put more effort in, and assume Cavendish wouldn't have either

However you look at it, Cavendish's expulsion was questionable and controversial, and without it the result may and most likely would have been different, as highlighted by the fact Hushovd won it by less points than Cav had wiped from his total

 

[spinoza]

He didn't win fewer points overall, he had his points for a stage disqualified after he'd led the peleton home

That's the whole crux of the matter. My argument is that he should never had had them taken, many agree and according to Cavendish Hushovd apologised to him and said he didn't cheat. And without those points being taken, if results thereafter had been the same, Cavendish would have been points jersey winner

The fact Hushovd won the jersey by less points than Cavendish had questionable stripped from his tally is enough to ensure this years green jersey is somewhat sullied

He did attack the mountains thereafter, and picked more points up on them

Cavendish would also likely have changed his tactics. He wouldn't get anything in the mountains, but he may have challenged for more intermediates. He conceeded the green jersey the stage he was disqualified

As for 'tried harder on the Champs Elysees (!!!) you don't think he was trying for the stage win for the glory of leading home the tour?!?! He found himself in bad position that got himself cut off from Cavendish, and he ended up coming home 6th

Yes its a leap of faith to say Cavendish definitely would have won green had he not been disqualified, but you can't assume Hushovd would have put more effort in, and assume Cavendish wouldn't have either

However you look at it, Cavendish's expulsion was questionable and controversial, and without it the result may and most likely would have been different, as highlighted by the fact Hushovd won it by less points than Cav had wiped from his total

Brad, this sounds like a lot of iffing and butting just to assuage your feeling that Cavendish should have won green.

He didn't, and he wasn't good enough. The penalty is what it is. The green jersey is what it is. To win it you need a good strategy. Cavendish had one, it didn't work, he didn't have another. It's telling that you say he conceded the green the moment he was disqualified - well, you want to win something, you don't concede it.

That's what the Tour is about - winning, and with style. And that's why people dope. I can see why you don't understand that bit either, because it's two facets of the same thing.

 

[B Cantona]

How can you possibly say he wasn't good enough, and that his strategy wasn't good enough, when he won 6 stages, and actually on the track amassed more points than the actual winner?!

He conceeded because it was impossible to win it back from the position he was in losing so many points. He still won 2 stages thereafter mind you, including the blue ribboned final stage into Paris

Crazy

 

[spinoza]

How can you possibly say he wasn't good enough, and that his strategy wasn't good enough, when he won 6 stages, and actually on the track amassed more points than the actual winner?!

He conceeded because it was impossible to win it back from the position he was in losing so many points. He still won 2 stages thereafter mind you, including the blue ribboned final stage into Paris

Crazy

He's not on the track, he's in the Tour. The Tour has its own rules, not all of which are written down.

As Lance Armstrong will tell you, nothing is impossible. Cavendish had a mathematical chance of doing it even after the penalty, but he physically (and perhaps tactically) wasn't capable. That's why he didn't win the green jersey. He will though - next year perhaps.

 

[King_Eric]

You should know that nothing ever taints the winners, in the end. Even Floyd Landis. Does anyone remember straight off who was awarded the win in his place? Does anyone remember that Tom Simpson died on the Ventoux because he was drugged to the gills? Does anyone remember that Greg LeMond was 10 seconds away from being second? Does anyone remember that Richard Virenque owes 5 of his 7 polka dot wins to EPO?

The green jersey is only tainted in the mind of Brit supporters who badly wanted Cavendish to win. Before you go on I support the British riders too - I don't think Cavendish deserved to win this year is all.

I think most people who really follow cycling will be able to tell you who won the Tour that year.
But your point is a valid one in my opinion. First place gets to be in the history books and gets to be remembered. Circumstances and whoever comes after that gets forgotten by the general public.