Tour de France 2013 - Page 10
Forum Index > Sports |
Gorsameth
Netherlands20769 Posts
| ||
fusefuse
Estonia4644 Posts
On July 18 2013 21:09 Gorsameth wrote: I would assume there are already broadcasts. There is over here anyway. http://nos.nl/dossier/515430-tour-de-france-2013/tab/730/live/ Donno if it works outside of the netherlands and you wont understand a word there saying but its live. Yeah thats exactly why Im waiting for the broadcast to start on local tv ^^ Internet also pretty shit here for watching streams @Naz - Yeah, I heard its pretty scary :0 tight roads, old tarmac & very technical fast descent between the two climbs to d'Huez D:! Especially after seeing Peraud crash for the second time yesterday, looked so painful with an already broken clavicle :S | ||
fusefuse
Estonia4644 Posts
hindering everyone, especially the peloton, having to funnel through drunk halfnaked overly attached foreigners | ||
Fabozi
Slovakia336 Posts
On July 18 2013 22:39 fusefuse wrote: this crowd :/ hindering everyone, especially the peloton, having to funnel through drunk halfnaked overly attached foreigners As heard on Eurosport. "Its like splitting the waves but its not Moses its Porte". | ||
fusefuse
Estonia4644 Posts
pretty ridiculous though its already annoying me as a spectator at a tv cant imagine what its like for the actual competitors | ||
Prog
United Kingdom1470 Posts
Edit: I just got another source confirming it. We'll see how that effects Froome. | ||
Copymizer
Denmark2075 Posts
| ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands20769 Posts
On July 19 2013 00:32 Prog wrote: I just heard that it is not allowed to get food from a team-car in the last x km. Can anyone with more knowledge confirm this? Edit: I just got another source confirming it. We'll see how that effects Froome. Should be just a cash penalty. Shouldnt have any effect on his standings. | ||
Asha
United Kingdom38056 Posts
Time penalties are a must for stuff like that, if it's just money any team with cash will take the hit if it means faster riders. | ||
DaCruise
Denmark2457 Posts
On July 19 2013 00:34 Copymizer wrote: All in all terrible tactic from saxo bank tinkoff today. Glad to see Quintana doing so well tho Driving offensively is a terrible tactic? They gambled and lost but at least they tried. Tour De France wouldnt be half as exciting without Saxo/Tinkoff driving the way they do. | ||
fusefuse
Estonia4644 Posts
| ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands20769 Posts
Especially with the big time difference between Froom and the rest there isnt a lot of places to succesfully attack either. Its not about winning 10-20 seconds anymore. He is just to far behind to overcome against a stronger opponent. | ||
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
I read that the team car broke down and couldn't get nutrition to Froome, dunno if that's true or not. Still exciting stage overall, nice to see a Frenchman finally win xD And would the armchair doping scientists have a read of this, thanks: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/tour-de-france-french-investigation-appears-show-froome-104948218.html | ||
Otolia
France5805 Posts
On July 19 2013 01:27 Klive5ive wrote: And would the armchair doping scientists have a read of this, thanks: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/tour-de-france-french-investigation-appears-show-froome-104948218.html The article is nice and all but there is just far too much incentives for runners to take drugs throughout the year to game the system. If you want to base your reasoning on facts, more power to you but it won't take away the fact that many have done it before and if I had the chances to trade a possible worsened health when I'm older for the recognition of fans, I probably would too. Until the incentives are too low in comparison to the risks, doping will continue. It's just how things are. | ||
petered
United States1817 Posts
Also, we aren't "armchair doping scientists" we are rightfully skeptical fans of a sport with a remarkably dirty past. Were we still armchair doping scientists when we were skeptical of Armstrong's dominance of the tour? nah we were right. Within the very article that you have linked, it mentions that in order to produce the power that Froome does, he must have a VO2 max "that is close to the known limits of man" (quote straight from the article). So this doesn't disprove that he is doping, just like his dominant performance from the tour doesn't prove he is doping. I personally would like to see his VO2 max tested now. If it isn't close to the known limits of man, well guess what I am still suspicious. If it is, then I am convinced he is clean since he is simply a freak. Oh and the analyst who is proclaiming Froome to be clean? Frederic Grappe, who in 2001 wrote this about armstrong He then commented on the accusations that have been made against Lance Armstrong regarding 'impossible' power outputs. "Certain people say silly things. When we are told that a rider is not able to put out 420 - 430 Watts in a time trial, that is false. Not so long ago, one of the riders with whom I was involved climbed Mont Faron at a power of 400 Watts for 20 minutes, and he is far from being Armstrong. Consequently, I am not astonished that Armstrong or others can produce 460 or 470 Watts on a mountain. It is not impossible." In addition, a cadence of 80-90 rpm to produce this power on climbs is also not impossible, according to Grappe. "It is the result of many days of hard work. With what has happened in the past 10 years, many riders are using bigger gear ratios. Some have lost the suppleness, i.e. they are not able to utilise higher pedalling frequencies...a high pedalling frequency makes it possible to relieve the muscles," said Grappe who expressed his annoyance of people's poor analysis of the data. Grappe also commented about the inaccuracy of hematocrit testing, which he said can change by up to 5 percent depending on the status of the rider (upright, lying down, dehydrated, previously active etc.). "We see riders who can reach 50% naturally, and that can move to 51%. That does not mean doping." I mean, it is fine to be a fanboy and all (your profile states you are from the UK), but cycling fans have every right to be suspicious given the sport's past. I want Froome to be clean (and quintana and rodriguez and contador). Doesn't mean I'm not going to give extreme performances a very long look before I buy into it. | ||
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
It's barely an insult but I seemed to have pushed a button somehow. However, if sticking up for a man I see to be rather obviously innocent makes me a "fanboy" then I gratefully accept the slur - although actually it's not the case. Usain Bolt didn't have a room full of reporters ruining his world record by jabbering on about doping. What Froome has achieved in this Tour has been nothing short of spectacular and yet his incredible performance have been marred not because of what he has done but because of the wrongdoing of others. | ||
petered
United States1817 Posts
On July 19 2013 07:16 Klive5ive wrote: Despite your claim otherwise you sound exactly like an armchair doping scientist to me. It's barely an insult but I seemed to have pushed a button somehow. However, if sticking up for a man I see to be rather obviously innocent makes me a "fanboy" then I gratefully accept the slur - although actually it's not the case. Usain Bolt didn't have a room full of reporters ruining his world record by jabbering on about doping. What Froome has achieved in this Tour has been nothing short of spectacular and yet his incredible performance have been marred not because of what he has done but because of the wrongdoing of others. Being a fanboy isn't a bad thing, but it can affect your judgement. It was hard for me to accept that Contador doped because I am a fanboy. It seems to me you are a fanboy of Froome which means that you aren't coming into the situation with an open mind. You are correct that it is unfair to Froome personally that he has to suffer because of the history of the sport, but that is the sad fact of cycling, and considering cycling's history it is the only option. Look at the last couple of decades of cycling champions: Riis - doper Armstrong - doper Pantani - doper ullrich - doper landis - doper contador - doper And countless more. It is only healthy to have a fair amount of skepticism, even though froome hasn't done anything personally to deserve it. And guess what, I am not doing any of my own science/calculations. So I couldn't possibly be an armchair doping scientist. I read up on what other experts say and decide for myself. Just because you blindly accept a man's innocence and only highlight someone's opinion when it agrees with your own doesn't mean I have to. I am the one with an open and fair mind in all of this, because I am allowing my mind to be swayed one way or the other based on evidence. If you want to lock into one opinion based on very limited evidence, be my guest, but it is dumb to criticize me for withholding judgement until there is a clearer picture. | ||
Otolia
France5805 Posts
On July 19 2013 07:16 Klive5ive wrote:Usain Bolt didn't have a room full of reporters ruining his world record by jabbering on about doping. He is more likely doped anyway. Thing is, cycling bears a huge stigma with past history of doping including past winners like Armstrong or Landis, or past stars like Zabel, Pantani or Ullrich. Every low skill ceiling sports flooded with money is bound to have doping issues, there is nothing you can do to avoid that. | ||
Boblion
France8043 Posts
I can write a list with 50+ names with just the very best. Hell even Evans was linked to a shady doctor at some point in his carreer and he was probably one of the most "legit" top guys (i.e: a fairly boring and "mediocre" winner without the "omg this guy isnt human" kind of performances). | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20821 Posts
I can understand why that is the case. Cycling and athletics suffer by being sports purely decided by physical capabilities, on the most part it's the key thing that differentiates competitors. Sports like tennis and football, where rumours abound of doping issues to me get less scrutiny for this because the additional skillsets and techniques also come into play. I mean no matter how much you dope, you're unlikely to have the exquisite control running with the ball at pace that Lionel Messi does, or the artistry of a Roger Federer. | ||
| ||