Procycling thread

[buddie06smfc]

Is this a dig at me?

Also why shouldn't you be allowed to criticise the sport and riders?

I quoted you for a reason. I never said you weren't allowed to criticise the sport or riders or to be more specific Team Sky. As far as I can see you aren't criticising either but instead making accusations which you have no proof of. Froome is tested after each stage and to my knowledge is yet to test positive for drugs.

Again, if the sport is being ruined by drugs, why watch it?

[Mr. Brightside]

I quoted you for a reason. I never said you weren't allowed to criticise the sport or riders or to be more specific Team Sky. As far as I can see you aren't criticising either but instead making accusations which you have no proof of. Froome is tested after each stage and to my knowledge is yet to test positive for drugs.

Again, if the sport is being ruined by drugs, why watch it?

Where have I mentioned it being ruined?

Right, so from his ridiculous times that are pretty much the same as Armstrong and faster than Landis when both were doped up to the eyeballs, I can't suggest he is doping? Trot on you idiot.

[buddie06smfc]

Where have I mentioned it being ruined?

Right, so from his ridiculous times that are pretty much the same as Armstrong and faster than Landis when both were doped up to the eyeballs, I can't suggest he is doping? Trot on you idiot.

If, as you believe, Froome is doping then surely you believe the sport and competition is being ruined. A team cheating would usually imply that the Tour is being ruined. He is not Lance Armstrong nor is he Floyd Landis. You can suggest that he is doping and believe that but that would ruin your enjoyment of the sport which makes it strange that you continue to watch it.

[Mr. Brightside]

If, as you believe, Froome is doping then surely you believe the sport and competition is being ruined. A team cheating would usually imply that the Tour is being ruined. He is not Lance Armstrong nor is he Floyd Landis. You can suggest that he is doping and believe that but that would ruin your enjoyment of the sport which makes it strange that you continue to watch it.

That's really cool that you know how I feel about cycling, thanks for letting me know.

[hirop]

The doping has never stopped me watching or enjoying it for 20 years or whatever - we can have suspicions but that's all they are, even against empirical evidence and data access like what we do now. We just don't know and won't until someone fails a test. It's a double win, we get to marvel at the spectacle and then call out a doper as a cheating rat a few years later. It's a really great spectacle of sport, dirty or not, and thought of the suggestion of doping is just not enough to not enjoy it. My opinion, I guess, has always been cyclists, like athletes, are always using something, seeking that advantage, and its just a case of how close to the line they stray in terms of current list of banned substances.

Edited July 15, 2013 by hirop

[Compliment Sandwich]

It's difficult to believe that Froome could be so dominant in the mountains, while at the same time being just a few seconds behind Martin in the time trial. Is he doping or is he a genuine freak of nature? I don't know.

But if he is doping, does that mean the other main contenders aren't, since they're nowhere near him? And if they are as well, then presumably Froome is still a freak of nature?!!

These are the points that confuse me - I could understand if he was an exceptional climber or an exceptional time trialist, but he seems to be formidable at both.

Again, I assume they're all competing off a level playing field (one way or another) so why is he still so much better?

Either way, at least he's attacking. Everyone moaned last year when Wiggins sat back and defended.

[T_S_A_R]

These are the points that confuse me - I could understand if he was an exceptional climber or an exceptional time trialist, but he seems to be formidable at both.

Again, I assume they're all competing off a level playing field (one way or another) so why is he still so much better?

Either way, at least he's attacking. Everyone moaned last year when Wiggins sat back and defended.

there is a suggestion that his blood disease helps him beat the passport.

[Compliment Sandwich]

there is a suggestion that his blood disease helps him beat the passport.

That's an interesting suggestion, although I've no idea how credible it is or how that would work - perhaps the UCI don't either!

[AberdeenBud]

Tour de France 2013: race leader Chris Froome cannot escape shadow of disgraced Lance Armstrong The most pertinent observation on the plight of Chris Froome came from one of Lance Armstrong’s old team-mates.

Face the media: Chris Froome during Monday's second Tour de France rest day

By Ian Chadband

Sometimes, I look at Sky and think: ‘Holy s---, what a horrible year to be winning the Tour de France,’ ” laughed Jonathan Vaughters, the reformed doper who now heads the Garmin-Sharp team.

How true. This feels like the Tour that Froome just cannot win. The bigger his margin of victory, the more glorious his stage wins, the more fantastic his mountain climbs, the more cynicism that will be dumped his way by those who have been betrayed by cycling’s elite too often. Armstrong hovers over the 100th feast like Voldemort.

If you believe in Froome, then it is very easy at the moment to feel he has almost been the subject of a witch hunt here.

For every Twitter loudmouth crying ‘foul’, throwing around power data figures with abandon and insisting that the Briton’s dazzling climbs up Ax 3 Domaines and Ventoux show he must be on something undetectable, it is also possible to note a genuine, growing sympathy within the sport for the way he is being treated.

Intriguingly, L’Equipe, the French sports bible, came up with a front-page headline following the Ventoux tour de force blaring “Froome Naturellement” – Froome Naturally – a double meaning which suggests this august newspaper maybe trusts in him.

Greg Lemond, the former three-time champion, insisted he was convinced the Briton was clean. Then there was an endorsement which Froome might have been a little less enthusiastic to receive, from his rival Alberto Contador, who has a chequered history with doping.

“There is no reason to doubt Froome,” the Spaniard said in Avignon. “I think that his results are the fruits of the work he puts in and nothing else. I fully believe that he is clean. That is why the doping controls are there, isn’t it?”

Sports scientist Frederic Grappe, who analyses the performances of top cyclists, also concluded: “Intellectually speaking, it would be wide of the mark to attribute [Froome’s] performances to doping.”

Still, if you wear yellow now, you are seen as fair game here. Charly Wegelius, the former English climbing domestique and now Garmin’s manager, admitted feeling sympathy for a bloke who can only keep offering the same protestation of innocence ad nauseam.

“He’s paying the price, as all riders of this age are, of cycling’s past, a past he’s not involved in. I think that’s only understandable after everything the sport has been through,” Wegelius said.

He and Vaughters are among many who believe in Froome but how can anyone prove his innocence here and now? The answer: no one can.

“The solution is ‘you have to let time pass’,” says Vaughters. “In 10 years, my hope and belief is that we’ll look at this period and say ‘OK, it was true’. Just like we look back 10 years now and say ‘it was false’.”

The new craze for examinations of power data to offer solutions? Vaughters is totally unimpressed. “Who is going to analyse it? As of today, the research doesn’t exist. You can say ‘the guy increased 10 per cent, isn’t it suspicious?’

“But is it due to natural physiological change induced by training, maturity, getting better? It could be. Is it doping? Could be too. The science does not exist to definitively condemn someone.”

It is not stopping Froome being condemned daily now. Ten years is a long wait for vindication. For the moment, it may be understandable but it still feels cruel that his burgeoning greatness is being drowned in a sea of scepticism.

Edited July 15, 2013 by AberdeenBud

[Shuggie_Murray7]

Who is the last man to win two mountain top finishes in the same Tour?

[Desert Nomad]

Who is the last man to win two mountain top finishes in the same Tour?

Andy Schleck off the top of my head in 2010.

[FlyerTon]

The last climb on today's stage (just before the finish) is the little used 'Col De Manse' It was last used in the Tour in 2003 and before that the amazing 1989 Tour where it was part of an individual time trial.

In the 2003 Tour, not long after passing the Col De Manse, Lance Armstrong went off road when a rider skidded on melting tarmac:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtZhG2kWVLY&hd=1

[ICTChris]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/other-sports/although-graeme-obree-has-found-some-peace-from-his-demons-he-still-has-his-eye-on-life-in-the-fast-lane.2160

[T_S_A_R]

Andy Schleck off the top of my head in 2010.

the tourmalet was a gift from contador which diminishes it slightly imo.

[T_S_A_R]

euskatel miss the break again.

it's just well they have the best kits or they'd be a total laughing stock.

edit - astraloza is there, hopefully he gets the win.

Edited July 16, 2013 by T_S_A_R

[Desert Nomad]

 

the tourmalet was a gift from contador which diminishes it slightly imo.

Michael Rasmussen then 2007

[T_S_A_R]

Michael Rasmussen then 2007

leinders experiment 1.0

how fitting.

[Desert Nomad]

Cracking ride from Costa here. Contador and Kreuziger trying to stir things up in the yellow jersey group.

ETA: Froome hardly endearing himself to the fans saying Contador was at fault because it was stupid to attack on the descent. As Boardman said, Froome chose to follow him.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Desert Nomad

[Shuggie_Murray7]

Is Froome seriously upset that Contador dare to attack him, on a descent or orherwise? What a knob. It's a bike race, he's entitled to attack where he likes. If he thought he was being wreckless why was he right on his wheel?

[Desert Nomad]

Cant seem to find a record of times for each ascent, (or Froomes from yesterday for that matter), just that the record is 55'51" by Mayo which was a Time Trial in the Criterium Dauphine about 10 years ago from Bedoiun to the Summit.

edit to add,

After a lot of searching

NEW TOP 50

1. 2004: 55:51 Iban Mayo 23.10 km/h

2. 2004: 56:26 Tyler Hamilton 22.86 km/h

3. 1999: 56:50 Jonathan Vaughters 22.70 km/h

4. 2004: 56:54 Oscar Sevilla 22.67 km/h

5. 1999: 57:33 Alexander Vinokourov 22.42 km/h

6. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h

7. 1999: 57:34 Wladimir Belli 22.41 km/h

8. 2004: 57:39 Juan Miguel Mercado 22.38 km/h

9. 1999: 57:42 Joseba Beloki 22.36 km/h

10. 2004: 57:49 Lance Armstrong 22.31 km/h

11. 1999: 57:52 Lance Armstrong 22.29 km/h

12. 2004: 58:14 Inigo Landaluze 22.15 km/h

13. 1999: 58:15 Kevin Livingston 22.15 km/h

14. 1999: 58:31 David Moncoutie 22.05 km/h

15. 2004: 58:35 José Enrique Gutierrez 22.02 km/h

16. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h

17. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h

18. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h

19. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h

20. 1999: 58:51 Unai Osa 21.92 km/h

21. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h

22. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h

23. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h

24. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h

25. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h

26. 1994: 59:02 Luc Leblanc 21.85 km/h

27. 1994: 59:02 Miguel Indurain 21.85 km/h

28. 1994: 59:02 Roberto Conti 21.85 km/h

29. 2009: 59:03 Franco Pellizotti 21.85 km/h

30. 2000: 59:05 Marco Pantani 21.83 km/h

31. 2000: 59:05 Lance Armstrong 21.83 km/h

32. 2009: 59:05 Vincenzo Nibali 21.83 km/h

33. 1994: 59:07 Pascal Lino 21.82 km/h

34. 1999: 59:08 Tyler Hamilton 21.82 km/h

35. 1999: 59:08 Roberto Laiseka 21.82 km/h

36. 2009: 59:10 Bradley Wiggins 21.80 km/h

37. 2004: 59:12 Levi Leipheimer 21.79 km/h

38. 2004: 59:24 Michael Rasmussen 21.72 km/h

39. 2004: 59:27 Stéphane Goubert 21.70 km/h

40. 2013: 59:29 Nairo Quintana 21.69 km/h

41. 2000: 59:30 Joseba Beloki 21.68 km/h

42. 2000: 59:34 Jan Ullrich 21.66 km/h

43. 1999: 59:35 Txema Del Olmo 21.65 km/h

44. 1999: 59:43 Kurt van de Wouwer 21.60 km/h

45. 2009: 59:46 Jurgen Van Den Broeck 21.58 km/h

46. 2004: 59:47 Oscar Pereiro 21.58 km/h

47. 2006: 59:47 Denis Menchov 21.58 km/h

48. 2006: 59:47 Christophe Moreau 21.58 km/h

49. 2009: 59:49 Andreas Klöden 21.57 km/h

50. 2004: 59:50 David Moncoutie 21.56 km/h

Important mentions:

In 1999 and 2004, Mont Ventoux was climbed in a 21,5 km individual time trial.

The top 50 doesn't include time ascents from 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2007 editions of the Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré because of the lack of the data

Hmm I`ve seen other figures that show Froome`s time is on a par with Armstrong in 2002. All the 1999 and 2004 times on that list are ITT times, not at the end of a 240km+ stage.

Kimmage still sticking to his guns: http://www.newstalk.ie/player/listen_back/10/2637/16th_July_2013_-_Off_The_Ball_Part_1

From 45 mins.