Tour de France 2015 Thread

by Azabache Wed Jul 01, 2015 10:21 am

First topic message reminder :

1st - A. Contador fully "prepared", just too good and combative on the climbs, TT superb
2nd - C. Froome wonderful tryer, no disgrace
3rd - N. Quintana just found wanting
4th - V. Nibali not quite right

But could all pass to a new generation!

Cavendish wins only a couple of stages (beaten by a couple of beasts always)

by LuvSports! Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:14 pm

So you think that I, a Brit, only go after Froome because he is a Brit?
I don't like LA one bit, he's not a Brit.

Kohl came 3rd in the tdf in 08 and won the mountains comp on the gear. More than a lot of guys who have been caught doping.

by LuvSports! Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:17 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I do love it when people try googling a few facts to try and make out they have an understanding of doping, I always forget that doping turned Armstrong from a nobody into superman.

Ad hominem attacks? So you have an understanding of doping? You are just offering your opinion with no stats, at least I can remember some.
I know this because I've gone over it a lot in the past.
I did a dissertation on drugs in sport and follow it as part of my work.

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:18 pm

LiamB wrote:Any suggestions on 2moro's stage, I feel like a bet

It's the same route as they took on the Dauphine this year, whereby Bardet blitzed the descent & won, so he's worth a shout. Can see another breakaway win, I'm inclined to go for Rolland on one of these stages, he's chomping at the bit. Simon Yates could also go for the stage win tomorrow, having impressed on this route earlier in the year.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:20 pm

Nibali had equally superhuman power outputs in last years tour and has never been close to replicating those kind of numbers while Contador has been caught. Quintana excels at an unusually young age, Valverde was also banned but no do carry on throwing accusations at a guy who's never failed a test, leave the known dopers alone.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:23 pm

LuvSports! wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:I do love it when people try googling a few facts to try and make out they have an understanding of doping, I always forget that doping turned Armstrong from a nobody into superman.

Ad hominem attacks? So you have an understanding of doping? You are just offering your opinion with no stats, at least I can remember some.
I know this because I've gone over it a lot in the past.
I did a dissertation on drugs in sport and follow it as part of my work.

What stats are those then?

Getting grand tour placings off wikipedia and basing an opinion on that doesn't really mean a lot nor does ignoring the vast evidence out there that road cyclists peak in their late 20's, it's not a young mans sport.

by LuvSports! Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:25 pm

Pleonasm at its finest. Agree to disagree. Civility lacking.

by Big Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:20 am

The only person who knows whether Chris Froome is doping or not is Chris Froome, and (if he is doping) whoever is supplying him.

I will admit that when I saw him tearing away from all his rivals, my heart sank a bit with thoughts of 'here we go again'. But - and it's a big one - there's a world of difference between scepticism based on years of being lied to, and accusing him outright of being a cheat. Physiology isn't my field and I'm not going to pretend to have any expertise, but I do have a PhD in engineering and know all about applying science in the real world. And while I have some scepticism about great cycling performances, I have rather more about any analysis done with limited data (quality and quantity).

Despite my caution I do feel for Sky. They really are on a hiding to nothing. Even if they release every bit of data they have (and frankly I don't see why they should if potentially their rivals might get some advantage from it), I'm sure they would just be accused of doctoring it if it didn't back up people's pre-conceived ideas (not least because it would be easy for them to do so).

It is the UCI that turned a blind eye to doping for years and allowed mistrust to build, so any response needs to come from them. The anti-doping regime needs to continually evolve, and that is their responsibility. That's the only way to catch cheats, and even better put people off doing it in the first place. So if any of the critics want to push for that (and Sky themselves have asked to have an anti-doping official planted in the team) I will fully back them. But if people just want to wildly throw accusations without trying to add anything constructive they can urine off as far as I am concerned - especially if they are part of the crowd that gave cycling a bad name in the first place.

With regards to today - I am going for a speculative punt on Nibali. Yes, Nibali. I know on the face of it, it is a day for the breakaway, but there's a lot of good riders with a lot of time to make up - and I think that may result in a high speed race that catches the break before the finish. Probably more heart than head in that call, but I'm sticking with it.

by LuvSports! Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:03 am

Good post.
For me a big thing is transparency. This is something Sky lack in spades.

When you set out for a 'zero tolerance' policy but have doping doctor Leinders (now banned for life), Julich, Yates, Knaven and Tiernan-locke for instance (failed a test when he won the tour of britain I believe?), it raises a great deal of suspicion.

How can you not know about these people's past? Kimmage hammers home this point brilliantly in many of his interview's on "off the ball" - really recommend it.
(People will probably say he's a bitter man who's judgement is clouded, but this guy is so on it.)

The work of Dr ROss Tucker (http://sportsscientists.com/2015/07/great-power-great-responsibility-less-power-greater-speeds/) and Antoine Vayer also brings their performances into disrepute.
Is that constructive?

by **seanmichaels** Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:52 am

Tiernan-Locke wasn't riding for SKY when he failed the test.

by **seanmichaels** Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:55 am

Something I've always wondered is why they don't publish race times of current riders in comparison with those riders who were doping. I know the routes are rarely identical but it would give an idea. I did hear someone say when Wiggins won times were much slower but no real facts with that.

by Fernando Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:27 am

Tejay Van Garderen pulls out of TDF due to Illness.

by LuvSports! Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:51 am

My bad.

by LuvSports! Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:52 am

I hear Contador attacked but for some reason Movistar rode him back?
Would it not make more sense to not help Sky and close it down and send Valverde up instead?

by whocares Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:42 am

LuvSports! wrote:I hear Contador attacked but for some reason Movistar rode him back?
Would it not make more sense to not help Sky and close it down and send Valverde up instead?

Valverde did catch contador but did not want to cooperate so both were caught by Sky after.

by Lowlandbrit Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:43 am

seanmichaels wrote:Something I've always wondered is why they don't publish race times of current riders in comparison with those riders who were doping. I know the routes are rarely identical but it would give an idea. I did hear someone say when Wiggins won times were much slower but no real facts with that.

You can find times for various climbs out there, https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily usually puts up a comparison after stages with big finishing climbs.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:12 am

What a stage!

by Mad for Chelsea Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:22 am

well that was fun, shame about Contador as he looked in good form and would have certainly been attacking up that last climb. Quintana and Froome confirm they're the two strongest climbers this year though, thought that was a great show of strength from Froome given he was isolated all the way up there.

Another fine ride by Gerraint Thomas, dropped on the penultimate climb when Nibbles accelerated but still clung on and now up into fourth place overall?

Also, shout out to the stage winner Geschke, great ride from him and a great win for his team!

by Hammersmith harrier Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:55 pm

Sky are the most transparent team out there and climb times mean nothing in isolation, context is everything. You seem to be concentrating on Team Sky but ignoring the teams who arouse far more suspiscion and have far more chequered pasts.

Drip feeding links does nothing to alter my opinion you know nothing about Cycling, anyone with a first clue would use Kimmage as their first source.

by LuvSports! Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:47 pm

. That first line.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:53 pm

Which pro cycling is more transparent than Sky then?

I presume you also have suspicions over Contador, Nibali, Valverde, Quintana and basically anyone who places in the top ten of a GC?

by LuvSports! Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:07 pm

Imo Garmin are as they don't cancel all access journo coverage, like Sky did. So you are ok with them hiring Leinders (especially him), Julich, Knaven, Yates etc? Zero tolerance my mutton like buttocks.

Well top 10 can be hazy depending on times but those guys you mentioned yes.
Contador and Valverde for me aren't clean. Valverde is having his best tour performances (bar the vuelta win) in his early to mid 30's. Contador is still winning grand tours. Unless you are like that biathlete who had astronomical, natural production of epo - i can't see a clean rider beating a doper.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:18 pm

Hesjedal and Danielson aren't exactly a plus for Garmin, having two known dopers on your roster is ok as far as their concerned as long as they've confessed whereas Sky sacked Tiernan-Locke straight away.

by LuvSports! Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:27 pm

You keep dodging my points on who they hired. Why?

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:28 pm

So at what age are people allowed to perform well?

by LuvSports! Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:34 pm

I don't believe you can win the tour clean. That should clear things up.

Btw my views in general is that cycling is the best for anti-doping.
It is not well, imo, but at least it admits it.

Other sports don't even admit it and that is beyond a joke. Sport is a business. Win at all costs. Simple.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:34 pm

Lowlandbrit wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:Something I've always wondered is why they don't publish race times of current riders in comparison with those riders who were doping. I know the routes are rarely identical but it would give an idea. I did hear someone say when Wiggins won times were much slower but no real facts with that.
You can find times for various climbs out there, https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily usually puts up a comparison after stages with big finishing climbs.

So for example on stage 14 Froome and Quintana were 30 seconds slower on the cote de la Croix than Armstrong and co were 20 years ago - this despite all the advances in sports technology and physiology.

But don't let these facts get in the way of a few hires of people who did doping in the past - because obviously guilt by association is more solid than actual stats

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:35 pm

LuvSports! wrote:I don't believe you can win the tour clean. That should clear things up.

Btw my views in general is that cycling is the best for anti-doping.
It is not well, imo, but at least it admits it.

Other sports don't even admit it and that is beyond a joke. Sport is a business. Win at all costs. Simple.

I agree on the comment regarding other sports as well btw

by LuvSports! Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:12 pm

Thinly veiled reference to me. If you are ok with Sky hiring these people, championing 'zero tolerance' - you set yourself to be shot down. What they did was honourable but imo it's inexcusable to hire a known doping dr at Rabo.

by Guest Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:27 am

Fully expect Rodriguez to go for the stage win today, held back yesterday. Samuel Sanchez is now free of baby sitting Teejay, so could be unleashed. Still waiting on Rolland to spark, although yesterday he fell away, maybe saving himself for today or tomorrow.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:32 am

Fancy Contador today - now too far away to challenge Froome, he'll want a stage win

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:48 am

Quote from Sallet on BBC made me chuckle....

"It could be a unique profile, classical doping - using haematological drugs, like EPO - or mechanical doping which is using a motor in your bike. People need to know."

by whocares Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:24 am

good breakaway group after only 24km . already 4 mins ahead of peloton. 29 cyclist including Pierre Rolland, Romain Bardet, Jan Bakelants, Thibaut Pinot , Roman Kreuziger et Michael Rogers , Jakob Fuglsang, Joaquim Rodriguez , Simon Yates , Ryder Hesjedal, Andrew Talansky and Daniel Martin etc
good chances it will go all the way. liek to think Bardet has his chances.

by LastDamnation Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:26 am

Olly wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's showing a real lack of understanding to suggest Froome came from nowhere anyway, doping doesn't turn an average cyclist into a great one in the first place, the biggest misconception out there. Rightly or wrongly Armstrong was a special athlete with or without doping, the doping made him marginally better, we're not talking great big leaps in performance here.

This is the point Armstrong did it to beat out other dopers. Froome is just better than the others, who may I also add don't dope because the sport is actually beginning to clean up quiet well.

Quite frankly it'd be stupid to dope in this day and age in cycling with all the testing and hoops they go through.

This is quite naive - people only get caught if they do something stupid. It's been well documented how easy it is to pass the tests through the timing of blood transfusions, both from when Kohl was caught and the Armstrong fallout. Almost all top riders who've been caught have either been through admission or when they've done something desperate (e.g. Landis).
IMO the cycling bodies realise they can't stop people doping, and all the testing is designed is to stop people doping to a level which is dangerous to the point that they are risking their health. The same is true with the biological passport - it's their to stop ridiculous movements in blood levels but at an "acceptable" level of doping the levels won't be suspicious.
I think it's impossible to compete for a GC clean, but there are obviously various degrees. I think out of the last 10 years the 2008 and 2011 editions were relatively clean, where the results after victory from Evans/Sastre suggest that they were microdosing when they were competing (and those years their rivals were scaling back), and that after their one victory they were happy to ride clean and merely have respectable results.
I personally think Froome has always been suspicious - his rides in 2012 after being an also-ran for years (even being on a doped team at Barloworld) made me think he had gone OTT and would get caught, and his 2013 ride up Ventoux was just absurd. He's getting a lot of flak not because he's winning the race but because of the manner of it - I think journalists and scientists are all aware that doping is prevalent but when it looks like an individual is doing it in a much more extreme way such that the race becomes uncompetitive it takes away from the excitement.
I think after stage 10 we won't see any more ridiculous times from Froome given that he doesn't need to ride away from anyone, and Sky will simply be able to present it as him having a really good day/rivals struggling, but 6.1 W/kg for over 40 minutes isn't believable to sports scientists so I think people have every right to be suspicious.

by whocares Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:49 am

surprisingly it is trek who is making the peloton speed up and gap has now reduced to around 3 minutes. am not sure what for unless it's to keep Mollema in the top 10!

by Guest Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:22 am

Just thrown £10 on Rolland, see what happens.

by Guest Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:27 am

De gendt has had enough and attacked. You better hope Rolland can do something.

by LuvSports! Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:47 am

LastDamnation wrote:
Olly wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's showing a real lack of understanding to suggest Froome came from nowhere anyway, doping doesn't turn an average cyclist into a great one in the first place, the biggest misconception out there. Rightly or wrongly Armstrong was a special athlete with or without doping, the doping made him marginally better, we're not talking great big leaps in performance here.

This is the point Armstrong did it to beat out other dopers. Froome is just better than the others, who may I also add don't dope because the sport is actually beginning to clean up quiet well.

Quite frankly it'd be stupid to dope in this day and age in cycling with all the testing and hoops they go through.

This is quite naive - people only get caught if they do something stupid. It's been well documented how easy it is to pass the tests through the timing of blood transfusions, both from when Kohl was caught and the Armstrong fallout. Almost all top riders who've been caught have either been through admission or when they've done something desperate (e.g. Landis).
IMO the cycling bodies realise they can't stop people doping, and all the testing is designed is to stop people doping to a level which is dangerous to the point that they are risking their health. The same is true with the biological passport - it's their to stop ridiculous movements in blood levels but at an "acceptable" level of doping the levels won't be suspicious.
I think it's impossible to compete for a GC clean, but there are obviously various degrees. I think out of the last 10 years the 2008 and 2011 editions were relatively clean, where the results after victory from Evans/Sastre suggest that they were microdosing when they were competing (and those years their rivals were scaling back), and that after their one victory they were happy to ride clean and merely have respectable results.
I personally think Froome has always been suspicious - his rides in 2012 after being an also-ran for years (even being on a doped team at Barloworld) made me think he had gone OTT and would get caught, and his 2013 ride up Ventoux was just absurd. He's getting a lot of flak not because he's winning the race but because of the manner of it - I think journalists and scientists are all aware that doping is prevalent but when it looks like an individual is doing it in a much more extreme way such that the race becomes uncompetitive it takes away from the excitement.
I think after stage 10 we won't see any more ridiculous times from Froome given that he doesn't need to ride away from anyone, and Sky will simply be able to present it as him having a really good day/rivals struggling, but 6.1 W/kg for over 40 minutes isn't believable to sports scientists so I think people have every right to be suspicious.

Good to see someone agrees with me. Good post.

by LuvSports! Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:18 am

Will be difficult to take time out of each other today with the two descents and still a big group together as they near the top of this monster climb.

by LuvSports! Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:28 am

Berty not far off a minute ahead of peleton now. Shame about his crash yesterday, he would have attacked on the alst climb yesterday.

by LuvSports! Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:35 am

Great attacking so far!

by Guest Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:37 am

Bardet

by Mad for Chelsea Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:38 am

You have to wonder at Quintana sometimes though, why wait until the last few metres of the climb to attack? doesn't make much sense really...

by LuvSports! Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:02 am

What a stunning climb les lacets de montvernier is! Fantastic. Only the 1st time in le tour?!

by LuvSports! Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:14 am

Running out of miles is Quintana. Can't see him making inroads on Froome, I reckon the opposite.

by whocares Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:23 am

John wrote:Just thrown £10 on Rolland, see what happens.

good shout , close but no cigar

by Guest Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:32 am

Had Rolland each way, so not too bad. Congrats Bardet, superb.

by Guest Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:39 am

The attacks on Froome have been woeful all tour. Anti climax & everyone knows that tomorrow Froome will actually just turn the tables & show them how it's done & will blow them away.

by SecretFly Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:02 pm

Proposed Tour de France changes to make it much more interesting again:

Too many tours have become processions for the Yellow Jersey as he passes by crowds in the midst of his team protectors, often minutes behind the day winners.

The overall winner should be the rider with the best combination of overall timing PLUS number of stage wins. Too many stages exist where the 'star' riders just cruise through, looking at each others' butts and 'waiting' for perhaps one or two moments in an entire tour to put in a Tour 'winning' performance or attempt.

So if these guys are the super athletes they declare themselves to be, then prove it stage by stage by stage - themselves - not their team mates - them; ... and take the risks (every day) that stage by stage full blooded honesty would require. So a guy with let's say three stage wins and only 5 minutes behind his nearest challenger should overall beat that challenger if the challenger only has one stage win. Stage Wins to be held in higher regard than overall time and a system brought in to recognise so.
That would add new flavour to the title of Tour Winner especially among that special sect of the usual four or five riders in overall-timing contention. Right now, it's not worth the risk to even close challengers to Froome, as if they win a stage and Froome is a few bikes away, it means nothing. It's been a waste of energy. The incentive for Froome is to watch challengers, the incentive of Challengers seems to be to watch Froome - the incentive should be first across the line...each day. It's called racing.

The other change that should be brought in is the ending of radio communication. Earpieces gone - banned; an let elite riders once again prove themselves elite not just in fitness and stamina levels but also in brain capacity. Let riders fight it out and plot it out amongst themselves rather than always having the umbilical tactical cord between them and their behind the scenes team of timing scientists and watchdogs keeping an eye on all competitors.
Teams should be forced to go back to the old way, when the road was a battle of wits, alertness and good intelligence between teammates. They mostly had to do their own observations and keep challengers in view lest the challenger stole away without being initially noticed. In the old days those situations were often the most exciting, a real dynamic that made road racing so appealing. On occasions competitors could often rush off after rounding a bend and not be noticed missing until some seconds or minutes later. Now, the 'special' modern riders get kept informed about every little move and who it is that's making it.
So if these riders are so good then drop the earpieces and let's see how road teams fend for themselves in pacing out their races and in observation of competitors.

If I can only pick one of those two, I'll take the banning of radio linking.

by Guest Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:21 pm

I agree on the star performers just ambling through many of the stages & just performing heroically on the mountain top finishes, that give them the time in hand to just relax elsewhere. Not sure on the radio's, sometimes that communication is key in helping develop a race & strategy for teams & riders. Without it, there is also a safety risk, a race might be abandoned mid way or a rider might need warning of an approaching risk it he himself might need to call for emergency aid.

by Lowlandbrit Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:30 pm

Fun, semi-related fact: Robert Gesink has only finished outside the top 30 in two stages so far (he was 31st both times).

by Sponsored content