The Yellow Jersey : Worn by the current leader of the race, represents general time classification
The Green Jersey : Worn by the leader of the General points classification. A sprinters ranking.
The Polka-Dot Jersey : The jersey affiliated with the Best Climber Classification. More commonly known as "The King of The Mountains." It is very rare though that the best climber actually wins this classification though.
The White Jersey : For the Best Young Rider of the race. Basically the yellow jersey for 25 y.o. and younger. It is possible to win both the Yellow and White Jersey.
This Tour de France is the 105th edition, it is 3540km long with 21 stages, and two rest days
General Info for new followers: GC stands for general classification and refers to riders who are competing to win the overall tour. Generally too be a good GC rider one must be a respectable individual time trialist (a solo ride against the clock), as well as someone with very good power to weight ratio, as that determines how fast one climbs. Almost every bike tour features many summit finishes, meaning that the last climb of a summit finish is a very important opportunity to gain time on rivals.
For those unfamiliar, in a time trial, which tends to be one flatter routes, bigger guys that put out more raw power (watts) are generally favored over lighter riders that might have better power/weight (w/kg) ratio. The reason for is that weight is a small penalty on flat ground, with the big player being air resistance. At typical time trial speeds, well over 90% of your power is spent overcoming air resistance. With good position on the bike, a riders drag coefficient does not become significantly larger even if the rider is a little bigger...which means that with similar amounts of drag the rider putting out more raw power will go faster.
Peter Sagan - Don't think I need to say anything else. Sagan doesn't crash, and no else is going to get the jersey from him. Honestly, there are a realistic 11-12 stages in which Sagan *could* win. 7 are likely to be bunch sprints, which usually Sagan just lacks the top speed to beat the absolute fast men of the Tour, but there are more question marks surrounding those guys than usual. The other stages are all punchy stages which Sagan is normally a threat on. That said, he'll have some seriously stuff competition in both Philip Gilbert and Greg van Avermaet, who has been on the form of his life thus far.
For this new to the Tour, the green jersey is basically the "sprinters" point competition. Only a handful of guys can actually win overall, but there are other different styles of riding and most of these riders target wins on individual days (stages). The sprinters jersey awards points for high stage finishes, and at some intermediate points in stages. Sagan is basically unbeatable here because he is a top 10 sprinter outright on a flat stage, but can get over some serious hills (but not long alpine climbs) that the other sprinters have no chance on. So Sagan does okay on flat sprint stages, and then mops up crazy points along all the other hilly or medium mountain type days.
This year teamliquid is doing a fantasy league run like last year over on velogames. Anyone is welcome, and encouraged, to join the team. Format is pretty simple, you get 100 pts to pick 8 riders: 2 GC/All Rounder guys, 1 climbers, 1 sprinter, 3 domestique/breakaway guys, and one wildcard. Points are scored for stage places, GC placings, Green Jersey standings, Mountains standings, top positions over all Cat 1 and HC climbs, and then some other small points for being in breaks and 'assisting' riders.
Details can be found on the website.
If you wish to join the team it's pretty simple:
1)Head to www.velogames.com 2)Create an account and make your team 3)Go to SignUp and enter our league code, 664666514 4) Hit submit
On July 04 2018 15:50 Laurens wrote: Salbutamol Superstars has joined the game.
Now Froome better be allowed to start lmao.
He already is ASO said yesterday they now have no reason to bar him.
Still not sure what to think about the Froome case. I'll just throw my thoughts down for fun:
Just a little odd how ASO said "No Froome" and then almost right away UCI goes "Froome is OK to go". Just a bit suspicious. Just a bit. If they at least released their statement and justification that would go a long ways.
Would love to know the justification in general. My sense is that Froome probably woke up in the Vuelta, realized he was sick/not breathing well, freaked out and ended up taking more than he should have in a semi-panic. If this is the case, I think two years would have been ridiculous, but I do feel he should have been stripped of his Vuelta.
If his defense was actually legiitmate and not a result of big money being thrown around, then all apolagies to Froome
Not sure what to think of Froome overall. Take Sky being shady + salbutamol incident and it's not a good picture. Moreover, the fact that he has won 4 tours and 2 other GTs inherently makes me suspicious. If you put a gun to my head, I'd probably have to say I think Froome dopes in some manner. That said, I'm not in the "convinced Froome is a dirty cheater" camp. We just don't know how good people can be, and I don't doubt for a second that the legal, but still ethically shady, things Sky does certainly help him. Froome does not put out numbers or do things where you roll your eyes and go "no fucking way" the way you did 15 years ago watching Lance launch attacks averaging 7w/kg up alpine climbs at the end of 4 hour stages
I like watching Froome race. I don't root for him, but he's a fantastic bike racer. If he was a convicted, clear doper I would feel differently but I'm a big one for innocent until proven guilty.
Also signed up for the fantasy league. I spent too much time on it this year, but I'm feeling really good about it, gl all.
I think people were a bit biased with Froome because they don't like him, or wanted to see the cycling world shaken up a bit. At the end of the day, I think the decision is fine. I tend to agree with you that I'm pretty sure they do some kind of micro-doping, as some other teams, I don't think some severe punishment was appropriate here. Imo he shouldn't have been allowed to race for the duration of the investigation, and I also don't like how inhalers are so prevalent in the peloton.
My prediction for this TdF is that even though team sky has a brutally strong team, Chris Froome will bomb out, and Geraint or Bernal will get a podium for Sky.
As always, my Slovak pride shines through, and hoping for big things for Sagan even though he's had a disappointing post-classics season. I'd also be happy to see Kittel or Demare win a bit, but my prediction is it'll be a Sagan + Gaviria show all day long for the sprinters. Also, Cavendish wont win a single stage.
I miss the university days, where during the summer I wouldn't have classes and could wake up in the morning to watch TdF every day, but I'll still be watching as many highlights as there are on steephill.tv .
On July 05 2018 13:53 FiWiFaKi wrote: Also signed up for the fantasy league. I spent too much time on it this year, but I'm feeling really good about it, gl all.
Hehe I'm excited. I like my team overall.
My prediction for this TdF is that even though team sky has a brutally strong team, Chris Froome will bomb out, and Geraint or Bernal will get a podium for Sky.
It depends on what you mean by bomb out. Providing no actual crashes, I think Froome will finish at a minimum top 3, but giving high odds to a podium. I'm about 50/50 on Froome winning. We've seen Quintana ride to a top 5 here after the Giro, and there are two differences here. Number one is Froome is much better, and number two is that there was an extra week to recover.
My big questions about Froome winning are:
1) What kind of shape is Landa going to be in? 2) What kind of shape is Quintana going to be in? 3) Will Porte stop having comical levels bad luck? 4) Will Adam Yates look anything like his brother in the giro?
Vintage Landa, Vintage Quintana, and Porte could all mount a legitimate challenge to a weakened Froome. Possibly so could Yates, as we saw that Simon was better than weakened Froome through the first part of the Giro. I don't really think any of the other guys whether that's Nibali, Bardet, Dumoulin (also Giro tired), etc. can realistically challenge even a weakened Froome.
The question is...how weakened will Froome be. Every other guy trying Giro-Tour double has looked like a shadow of their usual self, not really able to hang on long climbs and basically forced to be like Dumoulin and just ride threshold and hold on. Froome is better than all of those guys though, and they still were all in the running for Top 5-10 or better. He also had an extra week, which is absolutely worth something.
As to the bolded. Watch out for this guy. He is EXTREMELY good. McNulty rode 420w (68kg or so) for the penultimate climb at ToC, and Bernal put well over a minute into them over the last 1/3 of the climb. Same again with the Gibraltar climb. He was going over 13mph up a 10% grade the last 6 minutes, something like 7.5-8w/kg. He may not have the endurance to go for the tour yet, but the guy is insanely talented and just 21. Smashed Porte, Roglic and others are Romandie earlier in the year as well.
As always, my Slovak pride shines through, and hoping for big things for Sagan even though he's had a disappointing post-classics season. I'd also be happy to see Kittel or Demare win a bit, but my prediction is it'll be a Sagan + Gaviria show all day long for the sprinters. Also, Cavendish wont win a single stage.
I'm with you on Cav. His train isn't that great and he is past his prime. I'll eat crow if he does win a stage. Just don't think he is realistically fast enough any more.
Kittel will probably take a stage or two unless he gets in his head or something which can happen with him, but I'm definitely hoping for some solid Sagan + Gaviria action.
Hey guys, nice to see new Tour thread. This tour has everything to be a fantastic race, with possibly the strongest startlist of recent times. There's so much to say, I'll share some thoughts based on what happened this year so far:
- I'm glad the Froome case is finished and that he was cleared. I'm definitly not his fan, but it strikes to me that being busted for a substance that has at best a residual doping effect, in the least important grand tour, on a fairly inocuos stage while being the leader of the race and knowing you are going to get tested makes 0 sense, period. I believe that the peloton is cleaner than ever, although I admit that some microdosing doping may occur. On the sport side, I don't think Froome will win this due to the amount of candidates that are fresh and appear to be in good shape, though his team is the strongest on paper. - Thomas doesn't seem to be a 3 week reacer, I predict he will fade same as other years (though he's had some bad luck sometimes). Bernal is such an incognit. Started the year pretty strong in TDU, then only lost to Valverde and Roglic, which were the 2 best 1 week racers this year, and they only beat him barely and relying on their key strenghts, uphill sprint for Valverde and itt for Roglic. - Movistar is in a weird spot. Landa will do his thing despite what he and his team say. Quintana has been low profile but seems to be doing good, though he hasn't really raced hard at all this season. Valverde supposedly is there to help, but Movistar tactics have always been bad with multiple leaders so I have no idea what to expect from this team, they can definitly win, but also disappoint on all levels. - Porte is the pinacle of bad luck and consistently being inconsistent. He has tremendous potential and I can see him podium and even winning if somehow he finds the 3 week consistency. His team is crazy strong for the ttt and flat stages but seem a bit weak on the mountains, which can be a negative factor for him. - Nibali is a pure racer, he can look weaker than his opponents and somehow still win. Can see him podium and even win, while attacking a lot. - Other notable mentions are Dumoulin, Roglic, Uran, Fuglsang, Zakarin, Daniel Martin and Yates, expect most to top 10 and maybe even someone sneak a podium, though its harder to see them win. - For the sprints the top 3 are Gaviria, Sagan and Groenewegen. Kittel and Cavendish have been a spectators so far and Greipel, Demare and Kristoff seem to be a step below the 3 I mentioned. - Excited for the Roubaix stage, hope it is very aggressively raced. It can turn give a huge advantage to some GC contenders. - The TTT will make the weaker team's leader lose quite a bit of time, though the stronger candidates all have good to great TTT squads.
Will do my fantasy team tomorrow, also curious about everyone's picks, gl to all.
It's still wierd to me that Landa went to Movistar when he expressly left Sky because he wanted to lead GTs.
I still think Porte is a pretty clear "best of the rest" if Froome isn't on his game, especially given his TT credentials...if he can not crash or run afoul of his comically bad luck. If he doesn't crash or have some bizarre mechanical timeloss Porte will at a minimum podium and should contend for the win.
I forgot Roglic is here too, he's pretty good and a definitely podium threat. Valverde will probably do same as always and help a little in the mountains while grabbing a stage win or two.
I'm not sure they will, but I rather hope they turn Bernal lose on a stage or two to do his own thing...
Ya, pretty lame. This little fantasy league was always surprisingly fun. Hope they can reach some sort of agreement but seems like ASO (presumably?) are just being dicks.
Wow, can't believe the damage this stage already did. Quintana may very well be out of contention already. Quickstep on the other hand dominated the finish and Gaviria finished it off perfectly.
Edit: Ok, Quintana not totally out but lost 1:15. Froome, Porte (lol), Yates all lost 51s.
On July 07 2018 22:42 HolydaKing wrote: Sagan only 2nd. I dunno the guy who won, but then again I only watch (some) Tour de France.
Pretty much as good as Sagan can ask for on a flat stage! At the moment Gaviria is far and away the best sprinter in the world.
I dunno. Gaviria looked great outside Europe but that was weaker competition overall. He also has full QS backing, which is worth a lot. To me Gaviria looks like the best of the bunch, but not dominant. Vivani has looked impressive as well not backed by QS power.
2nd is great for Sagan who just isn't a pure sprinter.
On July 08 2018 02:11 Skynx wrote: Porte wasn't in the crash (?) how did he lose that much??
And yeah Gaviria is looking beastly, he started wayyyy too early but it didn't matter at all lol
Gaviria took about 11s to cross the line after he launched. At 40mph that should be roughly 200m, which isn't a terrible place to launch. Was is early? Yea I'd say so. But I wouldn't say it was ridiculously early either.
On July 07 2018 22:43 Gjhc wrote: Wow, can't believe the damage this stage already did. Quintana may very well be out of contention already. Quickstep on the other hand dominated the finish and Gaviria finished it off perfectly.
Edit: Ok, Quintana not totally out but lost 1:15. Froome, Porte (lol), Yates all lost 51s.
I don't know what to say. This guy is either just obscenly, almost cruel joke unlucky or he does some weird shit with his racing to have all these things happen to him.
The good news is that almost all of the major players took a hit. Froome, Porte, Quintana, Yates. The only other top contender that didn't lose time are Landa and Bardet
Nibali, Roglic, Kruijswijk (not sure if he is supporting Roglic or not), Dumoulin, Uran also didn't lose time; but all of those guys in my mind would have to seriously surprise to be in contention to win the thing even with a free 1:00.
If Landa or Bardet (worried about cobbles for him) are properly prepared they are now serious threats. Vintage either one of those guys could be difficult to take back 1:00 on. Watching carefully for stages 5 and 9 now.
FUCK I'm so pissed it was Bernal and not Thomas that got caught out. Bernal as a Froome back up is a million times more interesting than Thomas, but now there is almost no chance they turn him lose unless it's to stage hunt or something. Grrr....
Dunno why Gaviria was in like 15th-20th wheel there, but it cost him. Looks like he got up quick, but he did hit is shoulder. We shall have to see if it affects his form.
Haha, damn Quickstep, you were supposed to do 5s slower! It was incredibly close between top5, any could have won. Also big surprise EF lost so little.
Gaviria and Sagan seem to be the top sprinters, but I think Greipel is going to win one eventually.
Katusha..... let their leader lose 1 min..... ridiculous, especially for a team that has had no results. I'd be furious and questioning continuity on that team if I was Zakarin.
Edit: It seems the team didn't know Zakarin was held in the crash and that he didn't tell them either.
On July 11 2018 04:42 Gjhc wrote: Gaviria and Sagan seem to be the top sprinters, but I think Greipel is going to win one eventually.
Katusha..... let their leader lose 1 min..... ridiculous, especially for a team that has had no results. I'd be furious and questioning continuity on that team if I was Zakarin.
Edit: It seems the team didn't know Zakarin was held in the crash and that he didn't tell them either.
LOL wat?!
If that's true I can only be smh. I realize it might be the FIRST thing you think about, but after you've got one guy back there and you're smashing it to try and get towards the peleton you're going to be screaming for help.
In fairness though, I don't know if they have the manpower since I'm sure several of their guys are committed to Kittel. Speaking of which...what is up with that dude. No crashes, no known injuries, somehow how goes from utterly dominant to two mediocre stage wins this entire season and irrelevant so far here. Yea being part of QS train is a ridiculous advantage...but Kittel is almost massively better physically than every other sprinter in the peleton. I guess his lack of confidence and bike handling just f*cks him over to bad and it's being exposed now that he doesn't have god tier leadout train.
On July 11 2018 04:42 Gjhc wrote: Gaviria and Sagan seem to be the top sprinters, but I think Greipel is going to win one eventually.
Katusha..... let their leader lose 1 min..... ridiculous, especially for a team that has had no results. I'd be furious and questioning continuity on that team if I was Zakarin.
Edit: It seems the team didn't know Zakarin was held in the crash and that he didn't tell them either.
LOL wat?!
If that's true I can only be smh. I realize it might be the FIRST thing you think about, but after you've got one guy back there and you're smashing it to try and get towards the peleton you're going to be screaming for help.
In fairness though, I don't know if they have the manpower since I'm sure several of their guys are committed to Kittel. Speaking of which...what is up with that dude. No crashes, no known injuries, somehow how goes from utterly dominant to two mediocre stage wins this entire season and irrelevant so far here. Yea being part of QS train is a ridiculous advantage...but Kittel is almost massively better physically than every other sprinter in the peleton. I guess his lack of confidence and bike handling just f*cks him over to bad and it's being exposed now that he doesn't have god tier leadout train.
Thing is I can see it being true. Zakarin is extremely shy, and although everyone says he's an excelent guy he seems to have 0 leadership and maybe even uncomfortable/afraid to ask anything. Still, the team HAD to make sure where he was after a big crash and not seeing him in the peloton.
Kittel, yea he suffers more than anyone without a perfect train. That and for some reason not achieving top form is really hurting his results, because he is defintitly the guy with the most speed if things go right for him. He is completely the opposite of Sagan.
Excited for tomorrows stage. Can't tell exactly how hard it is, but I hope it's classics esque difficulty and gets raced that way. Could definitely cause some nice splits. Would be very much in Valverde and Nibali's favor is it went that way.
Wow, Michael Matthews already out due to sickness? I didn't pick him at Fantasy but I expect some people did as he was pretty good last time! (yes Fantasy is death this time, I know)
Wow, no comments today. Light so far in general. Suprising for what is well set to potentially be one of the best, most competitive TdFs in a long time!
Garbage luck for Dumoulin today. Normally he would be one for a top 5 on a stage like today, but mechanical with 6km to go or w.e. it was is GGNORE. Rough for Bardet as well. Froome was maybe a bit weak, but usually these super punchy stages aren't his domain. Two thoughts on Dan Martin. First, he was damn impressive today. Porte tried to pull him back, then peeled off and Thomas tried, neither of them got anywhere. Good to see him back in form after being TAN last TdF and finishing with a freakin broken back! Secondly, damn what happened to this guy. He's not very attractive to begin with, but man watching that podium presentation his skin and appearance looked legit 45.
Not sure if anyone was watching yesterday...but Bernal was REALLY impressive. He did a huge pull from like 2km to 1km at the front of the peleton, and then still finished more or less with the group on the little punch to the finish. Was up there today after working too. This guy has almost a stupid amount of raw talent.
It's hard not to like a Dan Martin win. His acceleration was fantastic, and he kept that insane pace for 1.2km with the best peloton the WT has to offer chasing and still made it, amazing!
It's funny how most gc candidates are separated by so few seconds because almost everyone lost time due to bad luck. And the Roubaix stage is yet to come!
Great sprint by Groenewegen today. Really looked top class and the lead up to the sprint was interesting. Dimension Data had a good lead out by Cavendish seemed to lose Renshaw's(?) wheel in the last KM. Ended up getting 10th. Kittel also MIA again. Yikes.
Groenewegen clearly the strongest today. Gaviria didn't have the same legs. Sagan looked sluggish, but admittedly he used a ton of energy in the finale yesterday.
Damn those boys have some power though. They claimed a headwind on yesterdays stage and Porte from his strava averaged just shy of 19mph up 7%. That's roughly 9-10 w/kg for about 3:30 or so. With a little sitting in that might drop to 8 w/kg but for a guy like Martin who went pretty early, have to think that was at least 550w+ for that time. Must be fun having a 400w threshold combined with a 25kJ FRC
One more sleeper tomorrow...then onto the real fun Sunday. In some ways I'm more excited for that stage than the mountains. If it doesn't get raced aggressively I'm going to be so triggered!
Groenewegen... Put 3 bike lengths on gaviria, who was 2 bikes ahead of sagan, most dominant sprint so far. I'd bet he wins at least 1 more stage.
You may also find interesting Valverde's data from fleche wallone, 513W for 3:14, peaking 716W for 17s when he almost catched alaphilippe. Martin numbers should be close to these.
I wouldn't worry, the stage is hard enough that even if most teams try to be defensive I think it'll blow anyways, no way there arent going to be many splits
On July 14 2018 08:09 Gjhc wrote: Groenewegen... Put 3 bike lengths on gaviria, who was 2 bikes ahead of sagan, most dominant sprint so far. I'd bet he wins at least 1 more stage.
You may also find interesting Valverde's data from fleche wallone, 513W for 3:14, peaking 716W for 17s when he almost catched alaphilippe. Martin numbers should be close to these.
I wouldn't worry, the stage is hard enough that even if most teams try to be defensive I think it'll blow anyways, no way there arent going to be many splits
That's somewhat what I've always guessed it is, interesting to hear the actual numbers. Tbh in his dominant wins I've estimated it to be closer to 600w. Which is nuts. That's 600w for 3'....at the end of 6 hours of racing. I'm pretty fit and if you dropped me in there fresh I could only do that power for 2'...and I'm at least 5% heavier that Valverde when fit.
Looking forward to tomorrow's stage!... seeing the shameful stuff they are doing with the breakaways this year they will probably ride easy for like 75-80% of the stage. However, they only need 2 or 3 cobblestones sectors to be riden hard to make huge differences with some featherweight climbers.
Phew. What a stage. I am reminded how much I love cobble stages that allow for seperation.
That said, I'm still a little torn about how I feel about hard cobbles in the TdF. In general, I'm completely on board, I think it's fine to test GC riders over varied parcours. The TdF is not purely a race to see who is the absolute best climber, or at least it shouldn't be in my opinion. Stages like this help determine that.
However, the obnoxious number of punctures, other mechanicals, and poor draws being caught out if really a bummer. I dislike heavily that aspect is an issue. Tejay and Bardet at a minimum suffered hugely as a result of back luck punctures. Aside from those two however, plus Landa, there were no major changes to the GC pecking order with most everyone making it through unscathed.
Porte - Damn. Just brutal. He is probably doing something wrong with his bike handling and tactics to have that kind of luck (but then again it's odd it doesn't really seem to happen in one week races), but it's a cruel joke at this point. We are at what, about 3 years of Porte not being able to actually finish a grand tour. I think last one I remember is two or three years ago where their was a TTT and then the next day a flat day with a single climb, maybe Plateu de Bailles or something like that where Froome won and Porte finished second while still on sky. Feel for the guy. This one was just a routine crash where someone in front of him fell and so did he, but looks like he landed on his collarbone.
Quintana looked really good. Not usually a guy for a stage like this he seemed well positioned and never in difficulty. If this is partially a result of better strength, then watch out in the hills
Landa - Ouch. He looked like he went down hard, and to me eye appeared to be hurting pretty bad. He will have a rest day, but most guys that have crashed seem to have at least one, sometimes two days where it seems like the body just shuts down for recovery. I think he will lose between 1-3 minutes on either stage 10, 11, or 12.
Sagan doesn't seem to be at full capacity this tour. Wonder if it's mild illness or something else. He was dropped in the TTT, couldn't move up on Stage 6, and then today was largely inactive and eventually dropped. Oh well, he will have 4 or 5 days no to figure it out. Still has two wins so it's been a decent tour already, but I'm sure he would have liked todays stage and a couple more.
I seriously doubt Froome won't win TDF at this point already. Sky is super strong, and I just don't see anyone strong enough right now. Also think Sagan winning Green is pretty much safe too, although you are right I would've thought he'd win today.
I'd be very happy to be wrong about the first thing though and hope the mountain stages are going to surprise ne.
On July 16 2018 01:52 HolydaKing wrote: I seriously doubt Froome won't win TDF at this point already. Sky is super strong, and I just don't see anyone strong enough right now. Also think Sagan winning Green is pretty much safe too, although you are right I would've thought he'd win today.
I'd be very happy to be wrong about the first thing though and hope the mountain stages are going to surprise ne.
Froome looks decent now. Given his position + the loss of a serious challenger in Porte, it looks good for him. There is a BIG question mark though, and that is Giro fatigue. Froome may race well next week, have a solid or even dominant looking position, and then collapse over the final week. Oddly, that makes Geraint Thomas something of a threat to Froome depending on G's 3 week ability.
The bolded part I find confusing. I'm not sure what you mean since we haven't had any displays of strength yet. To me, the biggest threats right now seem to be Quintana (the way and ease with which he raced on the cobbles suggests he is very strong, if that's the case watch out big time in the mountains) and Yates (assuming his form is similar to Simon's, and it may well be). Also, although his 3 week potential is slightly unknown, Roglic is an incredible time trialist and has won several stage races this year. He's a legitimate threat.
Nibali can't be discounted either. Good as he is, I'm kind of writing of Dumoulin. The TT is very lumpy, which will limit his gains over GC riders, and it was clear there were other guys climbing better than him at the Giro and he will have same fatigue concerns as Froome. Landa also can't, but I'm badly worried about that crash. If he doesn't abandon I still think he will lose major time on one of the first three mountain stages.
All of those guys are guys who could threaten a sub 100% Froome, and there is a good chance we will see subpar Froome in the final week of the race.
Well today again it seemed to me the Sky team including Froome was ahead of the rest. Maybe you misunderstood, I'm just doubting Froome can be bested this year but it will happen eventually, maybe even this year. I have some hopes in Adam Yates, but we'll see how good he is in the mountains this time around.
It's possible he is out of power in the last week, but he's Froome so I doubt it. He has the best team to back him which helps greatly.
It was a nice and intense stage, although I'd have liked if there'd been some more gaps.
Quintana did indeed look really good, but Movistar as a team was phenomenal. Just compare them to EF: At one point Landa and Uran groups were 10s apart, Landa had 2 teammates (Erviti and Amador) while Uran had 4. In the end Landa lost 7s (could have lost none but let a gap open to the rider in front) while Uran lost 1:25.
I don't understand why people are saying Sagan doesn't seems to be at 100%. The guy has won 2 stages, 3 second places and one third place behind only behind Gaviria, Groenewegen and once Greipel, and his worst result in 8 stages was a 8th place on mur de Bretagne which is a really though hill absolutely not suited for Sagan. Today he missed the winning move although he attacked/followed moves quite a few times before and had 0 team. To me he's exceptional so far.
As far as GC goes, everyone is really close together, and the mountains are yet to come so can't really read anything yet. Too bad Porte is out (again, seriously) but it looks like the GC is going to be exciting.
On July 16 2018 02:47 Gjhc wrote: It was a nice and intense stage, although I'd have liked if there'd been some more gaps.
Quintana did indeed look really good, but Movistar as a team was phenomenal. Just compare them to EF: At one point Landa and Uran groups were 10s apart, Landa had 2 teammates (Erviti and Amador) while Uran had 4. In the end Landa lost 7s (could have lost none but let a gap open to the rider in front) while Uran lost 1:25.
I don't understand why people are saying Sagan doesn't seems to be at 100%. The guy has won 2 stages, 3 second places and one third place behind only behind Gaviria, Groenewegen and once Greipel, and his worst result in 8 stages was a 8th place on mur de Bretagne which is a really though hill absolutely not suited for Sagan. Today he missed the winning move although he attacked/followed moves quite a few times before and had 0 team. To me he's exceptional so far.
As far as GC goes, everyone is really close together, and the mountains are yet to come so can't really read anything yet. Too bad Porte is out (again, seriously) but it looks like the GC is going to be exciting.
His results are good. His form is a little suspect. If you look at the stages he won they were just flat stages. Sit in the peleton and sprint at the end. Doesn't take any form to do that. Any good bike handling Cat1 or Cat2 rider could sit in and be around in the bunch of a sprint like that.
He was terrible on TTT stage. Sagan never gets dropped from stuff like that, and was struggling from the start. Bretagne is a smidge long for Sagan, but vintage Sagan has won harder finishes than that. He wasn't weak, but he wasn't top form. Then today he made a few tentative attacks (Avermaet did much more on that front) and was absolutely gassed when the key move came, despite no bike problems and generally sitting in most of the day.
For most any other rider named Sagan, this would be great form. But no way top Sagan gets dropped from a lumpy TT, is too gassed to follow key move, and is struggling to stay in on a finish like Mur de Bretagne. It's just a testament to how damn good Sagan is that "B game" Sagan wins too stages and is at least in the picture in others.
On July 16 2018 02:17 HolydaKing wrote: Well today again it seemed to me the Sky team including Froome was ahead of the rest. Maybe you misunderstood, I'm just doubting Froome can be bested this year but it will happen eventually, maybe even this year. I have some hopes in Adam Yates, but we'll see how good he is in the mountains this time around.
It's possible he is out of power in the last week, but he's Froome so I doubt it. He has the best team to back him which helps greatly.
Dumoulin looked as good. Which we would expect. Froome will always look good on these stages because he is a larger, more powerhouse TT esque rider. A guy like Quintana today looked definitively better than form given expectations. Froome on point should be just fine with a stage like this. A Quintana rider just doesn't have the power needed for these flat aggressive stages.
No doubt Froome has still looked good though. So has Sky. They always have the best team, and their classics specialists are exceptional. This all matters less in the mountains as the speeds drop and drafting becomes less relevant. It will help Froome, but if Froome begins to struggle his teammates can only help a small amount in the mountains, especially on the long hard days.
When you remember that Froome is a bigger rider that climbs well, him looking MUCH better than other GC guys on flat stages is expected. If he didn't, that would be concerning. Moreover, given the Giro we would expect Froome to look strong at the start and weaken over the course of the tour.
We won't really know form though until we get to stage 11 or 12 though. We've just had some hints to go off. To me, no one looks amazing (except maybe Quintana), and nobody looks terrible.
All went as expected: the bunch riding easy with a couple of attacks from GvA, also a couple of serious crashes, and another missed opportunity for Movistar. GC teams trying to save the day instead of pulling hard after Bardet, Froome and Landa's crashes.
They all look pretty even so far... Dumo and Froome should suffer given they rode the Giro, but Froome doesn't follow normal human physiological rules, so who knows. Quintana should be the strongest in the mountain... let's see if Movistar use the brain or if they wait until the last day to take back all the time Quintana is gonna lose in the ITT. Also, they have 4 domestiques to support 3 leaders (2 real ones)....
I was unable to see much of the mur stage but it seems Quintana didnt finish greatly there. In addition to yesterday being able to follow the others and power by a hard stage due to his size and weight, has Quintana showed any sort of form recently?
I feel I haven't seen much of him during this year, thus he still is a wild-card in my eyes.
Since there is no velogames this year Im playing the oficial fantasy game and it is fun. THe ability to swap riders during rest days is very helpful….although with my usual luck having Matthews and Porte I can only replace one of them today T_T
On July 16 2018 17:13 Elmonti wrote: All went as expected: the bunch riding easy with a couple of attacks from GvA, also a couple of serious crashes, and another missed opportunity for Movistar. GC teams trying to save the day instead of pulling hard after Bardet, Froome and Landa's crashes.
They all look pretty even so far... Dumo and Froome should suffer given they rode the Giro, but Froome doesn't follow normal human physiological rules, so who knows. Quintana should be the strongest in the mountain... let's see if Movistar use the brain or if they wait until the last day to take back all the time Quintana is gonna lose in the ITT. Also, they have 4 domestiques to support 3 leaders (2 real ones)....
Hmm....they did 28mph/47kph from first cobble secteur to finish into a headwind. That's some pretty hard riding. Lots of guys over 300w NP. This stage was not raced easily.
Fun stage, GvA and Alaphilippe made this stage interesting, while the GC fight was almost unexistent. Only thing of notice was Valverde seemingly struggling a bit at the top of the last climb. Lets see if the summit finishes open the race more. Tomorrow is a short stage with 100k, but with 2 HC, one 1st Cat and one 2nd Cat, this type of stages have always been great.
Watching Avermaet smash it and Alaphillipe get his first Tour win was fun though. As predicted at least two or three GC guys had bad days. With all the crashed Sunday and then the rest say you knew it would happen. Expecting at least one or two more GC guys to have bad days and lose 2+ min tomorrow.
Speaking of tomorrow...should be interesting with the shortened stage. Unfortunately final climb is easy averaging just 5.5%. Is long though at I think 25km. Hopefully fresh legs from short stage = action
On July 19 2018 00:43 darthfoley wrote: Geraint Thomas aka Mikel Landa 2.0
Except Landa never had the lead. And was allegedly never a co leader.
I don't think G looked better than Froome today, but he looked damn good. Better than the rest, even if his initial gain was due in part to some looking around.
Going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. Looks like our three guys in play at the top should win. They have the gaps and looked to be the best. Big question mark for Froome and Dumoulin is Giro fatigue and the last week. They may falter in the Pyrenees, but I think tomorrow Froome and Thomas will gain time on most of the others. Dumoulin might cede a bit to those two.
Sets up a good battle. I think Froome will continue to chip away at G's time but we shall see. If G is able to take time on Froome tomorrow then he becomes the mega favorite. If Froome takes back 20-30s I'd say it still looks like Froome's Tour to lose. Tomorrow will be interesting, but given who we have in play it's really all going to be down to who falters in the final week.
As expected, there were a few cracks as well. Yates and Fuglsang being the big ones. Zakirin less so, and limited his losses well.
Landa looked a little rough as expected, but better than I thought he would. He's still in it for a podium. Still keeping my eye on Bernal, not for a high finish, but just in general. Looked shaky today, but he had a hard crash on cobble day just like Landa. Will be interesting to see if they turn him lose to hunt a stage or not.
The quintana from 2015 seems so far away. Too bad for the race, only Dumoulin seems to be a potential threat but still, I might be the only frenchman who will cheer for Froomey's victory :D
On July 19 2018 03:43 stilt wrote: The quintana from 2015 seems so far away. Too bad for the race, only Dumoulin seems to be a potential threat but still, I might be the only frenchman who will cheer for Froomey's victory :D
Yea Quintana never even tries to attack at this point. Also is Uran's super disappointing for just cuz of his crash? Cuz yikes...
Wow, not even US Postal dared to do this kind of things... they just don't care about anything xD
Well, lets see the fight for the second/third place, maybe (hopefully) in a few years he will become champion. Nice strat from Movistar, but Nairo just wasn't strong enough, it looks like he isn't that good in mountains anymore. Dumoulin so brave, did a fantastic ride. Roglic holding with the best climbers yet again. But well, what can you do when the cobblestone specialist Kiatkowski climbs as good as the best climbers...
Fun/Sad stage at the same time. Alpe d'Huez tomorrow.
On July 19 2018 04:47 Elmonti wrote: Wow, not even US Postal dared to do this kind of things... they just don't care about anything xD
Well, lets see the fight for the second/third place, maybe (hopefully) in a few years he will become champion. Nice strat from Movistar, but Nairo just wasn't strong enough, it looks like he isn't that good in mountains anymore. Dumoulin so brave, did a fantastic ride. Roglic holding with the best climbers yet again. But well, what can you do when the cobblestone specialist Kiatkowski climbs as good as the best climbers...
Fun/Sad stage at the same time. Alpe d'Huez tomorrow.
Kwiatek was an ardennes specialist before trying the cobbles. kwiatek was also left behind completely empty today.
Quintana´s peak seemed to be 2015, Dumoulin is strong but he will have the gas to fight against Sky?,and Sky ...well they have the best "academy" team, just get there and you will be a world class climber.
On July 19 2018 04:47 Elmonti wrote: Wow, not even US Postal dared to do this kind of things... they just don't care about anything xD
Well, lets see the fight for the second/third place, maybe (hopefully) in a few years he will become champion. Nice strat from Movistar, but Nairo just wasn't strong enough, it looks like he isn't that good in mountains anymore. Dumoulin so brave, did a fantastic ride. Roglic holding with the best climbers yet again. But well, what can you do when the cobblestone specialist Kiatkowski climbs as good as the best climbers...
Fun/Sad stage at the same time. Alpe d'Huez tomorrow.
Kwiatek was an ardennes specialist before trying the cobbles. kwiatek was also left behind completely empty today.
The double standards in your post are amazing.
Being an Ardennes specialist doesn't mean you can ride with the best 15 climbers in the Tour. Kwiato is not a climber, just as Gilbert, Alaphilippe or Gasparotto are not climbers. He might be good at short climbs that require more power than w/kg, but today's stage was not like that... not even close. He is not supposed to set the pace for the best 10 climbers in the Tour de France. Just like Boasson Hagen or Mark Cavendish were not supposed to set the pace of the bunch in mountain stages in the 2012 Tour de France, or Geraint Thomas, a pistard becoming a top10 climber when he is 30 years old.
If you could explain to me the "double standards" thing, I would thank you.
On July 19 2018 03:43 stilt wrote: The quintana from 2015 seems so far away. Too bad for the race, only Dumoulin seems to be a potential threat but still, I might be the only frenchman who will cheer for Froomey's victory :D
Yea Quintana never even tries to attack at this point. Also is Uran's super disappointing for just cuz of his crash? Cuz yikes...
Yea, Uran's knee is fucked up.
Quintana I don't think it's that he doesn't try, I just don't think he can. He doesn't seem to have his prime form from a few years back, not sure what's off about his training or preparation but he isn't at that level.
On July 19 2018 04:47 Elmonti wrote: Wow, not even US Postal dared to do this kind of things... they just don't care about anything xD
Well, lets see the fight for the second/third place, maybe (hopefully) in a few years he will become champion. Nice strat from Movistar, but Nairo just wasn't strong enough, it looks like he isn't that good in mountains anymore. Dumoulin so brave, did a fantastic ride. Roglic holding with the best climbers yet again. But well, what can you do when the cobblestone specialist Kiatkowski climbs as good as the best climbers...
Fun/Sad stage at the same time. Alpe d'Huez tomorrow.
Dared? If you're good enough, you do it. Nothing sad about the stage at all.
Kwaitkowski. Kwaitkowski wasn't remotely close to "climbing as good as the best climbers". He was hopelessly outclassed. He couldn't even go as fast as Dumoulin, who had been out on his own for a long time, for the mere 15' or so he was pulling the train. He looked exactly how you'd expect a smaller classics star to climb.
I don't know if you watched it, but Dumoulin gained time when Kwaitkowski was on the front. So, for about 15' Kwaitkowski was marginally worse than Dumoulin, who is far and away from the best climber. He's a top 10 climber in the world at best, who gets better results against better climbers sometimes because they attack each other and he just rides steady while they waste energy.
So anyway, you've got Kwaitkowski going on the front for 15' going a little slower than Dumoulin. That's for 15'. You can do a crapton more over 15' than you can over 30' or over 45'. HUGE difference. Especially for a punchier guy like Kwaitsowski. Moreover, the GC guys behind Kwaitkowski were just chillin. G took off. Froome, Bardet, and the other others started ripping attacks. The pace wasn't that hard. Moreover, Kwaitkowski dug in very deep for that and came to a complete stop afterwords. He probably would have dropped 2-3' earlier had Bernal not been struggling with his injuries.
Finally, from a wattage perspective, Kwaitkowski went 12.1mph up a 8.2% grade. He is listed at 67kg, which is 400w absolute full gas, for 15'. Not shocking. Ordinary. Expected almost for a smaller, classics specialist.
Morevoer, I don't know if you were watching yesterday, but GVA outclimbed Robert Hesink. Robert Hesink. Multi time stage winner. This is GVA we are talking about. A true classics specialist that's a mountain of a dude compared to tiny Kwaitkowski.
Sky is obviously a strong team, and has stacked talent. The performance we saw from them today was strong, and also totally believable. Especially when you consider there budget comically dwarfs the others in the peleton allowing them to but the best riders.
On July 19 2018 04:47 Elmonti wrote: Wow, not even US Postal dared to do this kind of things... they just don't care about anything xD
Well, lets see the fight for the second/third place, maybe (hopefully) in a few years he will become champion. Nice strat from Movistar, but Nairo just wasn't strong enough, it looks like he isn't that good in mountains anymore. Dumoulin so brave, did a fantastic ride. Roglic holding with the best climbers yet again. But well, what can you do when the cobblestone specialist Kiatkowski climbs as good as the best climbers...
Fun/Sad stage at the same time. Alpe d'Huez tomorrow.
Kwiatek was an ardennes specialist before trying the cobbles. kwiatek was also left behind completely empty today.
The double standards in your post are amazing.
Being an Ardennes specialist doesn't mean you can ride with the best 15 climbers in the Tour.
Kwiato is not
He set the pace for them for 15'. He didn't ride with the 15 best climbers in the tour. Dumoulin was taking time from Kwaitko out on his own. The other decent climbers behind were riding chill tempo. Kwaitko was doing like 5.8 w/kg for a mere 15'. That's as ordinary and believable as it gets for a decent pro.
He might be good at short climbs that require more power than w/kg
I don't think you understand the kind of rider Kwaitkowski is. He isn't some giant powerhouse like a GVA. He's a tiny, punchier guy that is a fantastic racer with a good kick. The guy weighs 67kg. And Kwaitkoski is MUCH better at short climbs. That's the case for those kind of riders. Kwaitkowski is sort of like an in between between a Valverde and a GVA.
He can't long climb like Valverde, and he can't smash vicious attack and run a huge engine like GVA; but he can do both of those things respectably.
Just like Boasson Hagen or Mark Cavendish were not supposed to set the pace of the bunch in mountain stages in the 2012 Tour de France
Are you really comparing Mark Cavendish to Michael Kwaitkowski? They are two TOTALLY different riders with wildly different power profiles.
Geraint Thomas, a pistard becoming a top10 climber when he is 30 years old.
Also not a shocker. A track pursuits with great 4-5' power gradually loses weight and works on extending his ability to handle fatigue and FTP for longer periods and becomes a good climber. Not surprising. No more surprising than Hamish Bond switching from rowing to cycling, dropping weight gradually, and becoming a world stage competitive time trialist.
If you have the physiology to smash it for 5' like a Thomas, it means you have killer anaeoribic power and punch, along with a strong threshold. Bring up that percentage of VO2 you can hold at threshold and drop some weight and you now have a tour contender that can survive the long, hard climbs; and be in it to win it on easier climbs or shorter climbs.
A good number of riders can't drop weight and keep good power, but a percentage can, and do. Guys like Thomas and Bond can.
Relax on Sky dude. There is of course a good chance they are cheating, simply based on the fact they have won 4 of the last 5 years and do a remarkable job developing talent. That said, their performances are believable, especially when you consider the depth of their team is purely a function of a massive budget. Not one climb has a sky rider ever laid down a performance where one could lack at the data and say "hmm, that's suspicious".
They are suspicious, but not because individual rider performances. It's the consistency and continued dominance that's suspicious.
On July 19 2018 16:01 Ghostcom wrote: Please define "believable"
First way is I'm not incredulous or suprised watching the performance. In no way am I thinking "drugs" or god forbid "motor".
Or another way: The performance is ordinary and not at all something that would surprise you the rider could do. Today was not some insane, exceptional ride by Kwaitkowski. It was a good ride, but by no mean an exceptional one.
Kwiatkowski, a light weight, capable time trialist; did 5.8 w/kg for a mere 15'. Shrug. Tony Martin could do that if he wanted. GVA could do that if he wanted. Sagan HAS done that (better actually, 6w/kg for 30') when he has wanted (year he won Amgen ToC with his Baldy climb). Kwaitkowski is, and has always been, a blatantly better climber than all of these riders.
Doping discussions are pointless, believable performances can be result of doping and some 'unbelivable' performances can be legit and result of the best athletes pushing their limits. Without proof everything is speculation and arguments are biased on personal preferences.
Today we should get a good picture at who is able to win the GC. Very tough stage, it's gonna be great. Wonder what'll happen with Thomas and Froome...
On July 19 2018 16:01 Ghostcom wrote: Please define "believable"
First way is I'm not incredulous or suprised watching the performance. In no way am I thinking "drugs" or god forbid "motor".
Or another way: The performance is ordinary and not at all something that would surprise you the rider could do. Today was not some insane, exceptional ride by Kwaitkowski. It was a good ride, but by no mean an exceptional one.
Kwiatkowski, a light weight, capable time trialist; did 5.8 w/kg for a mere 15'. Shrug. Tony Martin could do that if he wanted. GVA could do that if he wanted. Sagan HAS done that (better actually, 6w/kg for 30') when he has wanted (year he won Amgen ToC with his Baldy climb). Kwaitkowski is, and has always been, a blatantly better climber than all of these riders.
Did you think "motor" or "drugs" in the US postal days?
All that aside, I don't find yesterday ride all that suspicious, except one has to be impressed by how many of Sky can peak multiple times a year and how much better they are a timing it than anyone else of the professionals.
I also agree that one shouldn't judge based on a single performance, but when you go from amateur level climbing to best in the peloton I think it is time to ask some questions. Especially if you claim to suffer from at least three different debilitating diseases to justify your magical transformation. Especially whilst being historically dominant in a fairly talented (and proven doped up) field.
But I doubt either of us are going to convince the other, and that is fine. We can after all still enjoy the spectacle and the story unfold. Here is hoping for a good stage today.
Kittel, Renshaw, Cavendish got eliminated by not making it in time yesteday Zabel also came 5 secs late but was allowed to stay with the tour. Uran decided not to start today, citing injuries from the Roubaix stage.
On July 19 2018 16:01 Ghostcom wrote: Please define "believable"
First way is I'm not incredulous or suprised watching the performance. In no way am I thinking "drugs" or god forbid "motor".
Or another way: The performance is ordinary and not at all something that would surprise you the rider could do. Today was not some insane, exceptional ride by Kwaitkowski. It was a good ride, but by no mean an exceptional one.
Kwiatkowski, a light weight, capable time trialist; did 5.8 w/kg for a mere 15'. Shrug. Tony Martin could do that if he wanted. GVA could do that if he wanted. Sagan HAS done that (better actually, 6w/kg for 30') when he has wanted (year he won Amgen ToC with his Baldy climb). Kwaitkowski is, and has always been, a blatantly better climber than all of these riders.
That performance is NOT ordinary. You talk about "mere" 15' at 5.8 w/kg as if Kwiato would have jumped out of the Sky car, do that job and then jumped back in. Before that he had to work the same as those 15 best climbers, so that's not an argument...using your examples: the day Tony Martin, Sagan or GvA stay with the climbers for a whole stage with two HCs climbs, a 1st cat and another 2nd cat, and after having done all this, decide to set the pace dropping Yates, Zakarin or Uran, leaving the main group in the best 8-10 climbers...THAT day your comparison will make sense. Let alone doing almost the same thing but with a main group of 20 riders in the previous stage (1 HC, 3 1st).
That blatantly better climber thought he could won the Tirreno-Adriatico 2014 and the moment they rode up the Passo Lanciano (HC) he hit a wall and lost 6'. Being able to win a 1week race with a 6km climb and a ITT doesnt make you anything close to a climber. And I like Kiatwo as a rider, i really do.
Please, don't reduce what is happening to a "mere" 15' at 5.8 w/kg. Cycling is a resistance sport. I think we can agree that data alone means absolutely nothing.
So what are you saying? That kwiato is doping in some way? Based on a good performance? Is no rider is allowed to do better than in the past? He may be, but then again he may not be, it's pure speculation and negativity. It's like seeing someone with a nice car and saying that guy must be corrupt or something.
Today is being a massacre for sprinter, Groenewegen, greipel and Zabel all out already. But having 3 gc guys on the break with so much lead can turn out to be very interesting.
On July 20 2018 00:00 L_Master wrote: I'm pretty surprised they let Kruijswijk go up the road...
They'll catch him, I'm pretty sure.
pretty good chance, but still slightly risky. Tbh I don't know what happened to Kruisjswijk, he was damn good when he should have won the Giro, but then after that he turned back into just a "decent climber".
On July 20 2018 00:46 darthfoley wrote: Still so sad I couldn't watch richie Porte on Alpe d'Huez
Yea. Would have been nice to have him in the race ;(
On July 20 2018 00:44 HolydaKing wrote: Ok Thomas was the strongest this time imo, much like yesterday. If Sky doesn't disallow him to win, he'll win this tour most probably.
I felt like Froome was marginally stronger. Stress on marginally. G has a good kick and followed wheels effectively, whereas Froome wasted energy with several big attacks that he didn't have the strength to hold. G didn't. He also had better tactics and positioning into the sprint.
That said, if there is a difference between the two currently, it's subtle and there is no way Froome is clawing back 1:40 unless G makes a mistake or collapses third week.
The 32yo pistard Gerain Thomas wins at Alpe d'huez, nice.
Shoutout to Dumo, Nibali, Bardet and Kruijswik, brave guys. Quintana just doesn't seem to have the legs...maybe he reached his peak a couple of years ago? Nice recover from Landa. Young Bernal showing his talent yet again.
On July 20 2018 01:18 Elmonti wrote: The 32yo pistard Gerain Thomas wins at Alpe d'huez, nice.
Shoutout to Dumo, Nibali, Bardet and Kruijswik, brave guys. Quintana just doesn't seem to have the legs...maybe he reached his peak a couple of years ago? Nice recover from Landa. Young Bernal showing his talent yet again.
What does this mean? If it means what it sounds like, can we not be disrespectful in this thread? I get that you don't like Sky and think they are a dirty, cheating team and that's fine...but not everyone does and it's generally disrespectful and not something I nor others particularly want to read.
If it doesn't mean what it sounds like, apologies in advance.
Oh damn. I hadn't noticed we had so many casulties on the sprinter side. Cav and Kittel yesterday. Today Gaviria, Groenewegen, and Griepel. That's basically everybody that matters. Sagan could get another 4 wins or so like this. I might be missing somebody but I think he is best of the rest.
I can understand Cav, with his crashes lacking form, and Kittel in general struggles with hills and is just checked out this season, but I'm surprised at all the others. Wonder if it's crash aftermath or what? This hasn't been an issue like this in past tours, and it's not like these stages are being ridden much faster than we've seen in the past. It's the usual tempo up climbs until the final climb, then race that.
On July 20 2018 01:18 Elmonti wrote: The 32yo pistard Gerain Thomas wins at Alpe d'huez, nice.
Shoutout to Dumo, Nibali, Bardet and Kruijswik, brave guys. Quintana just doesn't seem to have the legs...maybe he reached his peak a couple of years ago? Nice recover from Landa. Young Bernal showing his talent yet again.
What does this mean? If it means what it sounds like, can we not be disrespectful in this thread? I get that you don't like Sky and think they are a dirty, cheating team and that's fine...but not everyone does and it's generally disrespectful and not something I nor others particularly want to read.
If it doesn't mean what it sounds like, apologies in advance.
It sounded exactly as you thought it did.
I understand that might annoy some people, but I also find annoying and disrespectful to cycling when people say "Wow, such a good ride by Thomas, they are so much better than anyone because they train som hard and have so much money" and pretend these kind of things we are seeing since 2011 are fine.
However, you are the OP and this is your thread, so if that bothered you I apologise and from now on I'll try to talk about the results of the stage. Also I hope you'll understand how I feel when I see the sport I've loved so many years being destroyed like this (once again), beacause I feel they are laughting at our faces and nobody can stop them (once again). I hope you understand how difficult is for me to say "Well, Thomas won in Alpe d'Huez, great climb!" without thinking this guy is a Team pursuit pistard winner of Harelbeke turning into a top10 climber at 30 years of age. Having said that, only pure race results from now on.
Looks like Sagan is gonna sprint alone in Paris, so many top sprinters withdrew today, even tough Popeye, which is totally unusual....
I appreciate that Elmonti. I can understand the frustration, and as you can tell I have no problems with discussion about doping or anything of that nature. I'm just not a big fan of throwing around insults. I think we can talk about Thomas ride being questionable without calling him a pistard. It tends to get people riled up and not promote good discussion. If you want to talk about Sky, Thomas, or anybody else being up to questionable things I'm always okay with that sort of conversation.
On that note, I again am not that suspicious of what Thomas did. Similar things have happened in other sports, and there is precedence there. A 4km pursuit is rather similar to the 1500/mile in athletics. There have been great 1500m runners that have gotten a bit older, changed their focus, and become strong 10000m or half marathon runners. In fact, it's usually around the age of 30 that the full aerobic development and strength usually starts to arise for "faster" more anaerobic guys. In that sense Thomas hitting 30 and developing that is the typical career arc of a track and field endurance oriented 1500m specialist.
If anything, I even see that as more possible in cycling because you can have great short power physiology, add some weight for more raw watts, then eventually drop that weight and lose some of that explosive power while transitioning your training over to sustaining a higher %VO2 and fatigue resistance. Dan Martin for instance, has the physiology to ride a 4km as good as Thomas if he threw on some weight and added a little raw power. So too Valverde. If Valverde has the ability to put out high power on the TT bike in an ideal position, he would absolutely smash the 4km with gaining a little muscle for raw power, and in form he climbs great.
I guess the difference between you and I is guilty until proven innocent versus benefit of the doubt. I firmly believe that what Thomas did, what Kwaitko can do, etc. What they have done is indeed impressive though, and given the current status of sport that inherently means skepticism is warranted, I just view it from a "hmm, a clean rider could do this, but at the same time it's on the edge of plausibility". The difference is, to you Sky is guilty and definitely doping. Guilty until exonerated. For me, it's the opposite. Of course Sky is suspicious as fuck, and if you asked me if they are cheating with a gun to my head, I'd say yes. However...to condemn I have to have proof. Either leaked information about positives, a failed test, or some performance that is truly unbelievable.
If you ask me what's suspicious about Froome, it's his incredible consistency. I can't think of one single climb Froome has done where I though watching "Pfft. No way this is legit". He's always just a little bit better than everybody else climbing, and then of course sinks time into them in TT.
In that same vein, if you ask me where I'm most suspicious about Sky, it's not in their riders doping the same way they did in 2000s era with massively increased physiology. I think what there might be is something drug wise that helps you get very lean and maintain power, and also potentially use of drugs for recovery. Which is also why I'm not that suspicious of Thomas and Kwaitkowski in the way you are. If they had shit that was that magical, their top guys should just be on a comically different level than everyone else...but they aren't. Froome is only a marginally better climber than guys like Quintana, Porte, Landa, etc. He's just always performing at his best. That, more than anything is where my suspicion lies.
Oh, also on that note...one thing that makes this so clearly different is the outputs and speeds. Lance had a 500w FTP back in the early 2000s. That's a 70kg linebacker rolling around with a 7+ w/kg FTP. That's comical. Nowadays, long climbs at above 6w/kg are rare, and usually found on stages that just chill flat until the final climb.
Today's Alp D'Huez was over 41'. The record for the Tour is in the low 36'. That's 15% faster. On garbage, heavier slower bikes.
That's the biggest indicator that cycling is MUCH more clean now that it was then. People are, without a doubt, still using stuff...but I think what they are using has limited physiology impact. It seems to be much more recovery or leanness based as far as I can tell.
The difference between today and 2005 is that today you can be clean and ride top 10 in the world, maybe better. Froome, G, Dumoulin, even Sagan wouldn't even be world tour level, let alone domestique level 15 years ago. Probably the sprinters of that peleton could win outright today's TdF.
It's really sad to think about the Armstrong era. I grew up watching the TdF with my father since I was maybe 5 years old. I remember getting my T-Mobile jersey and hat and going out into my neighborhood and pretending to be Jan Ullrich with his big "diesel" engine. I also remember how adamant both of us were that Lance was innocent (considering we weren't cycling experts by any means, nor was there any conclusive proof for a long time) and how bummed I was when Ullrich got banned from the 2006 Tour. I was sure there was some sort of confusion and that he would be reinstated. My father was particularly hurt when Lance did the whole Oprah confession thing, and when even Hincapie admitted it to be true. I have so many memories from that era: Beloki's terrible crash, Pantani attacking, Armstrong's famous look-back, the Armstrong/Mayo crash, Armstrong being so dehydrated his lips were white, Vino winning on the Champs, etc.
Not only do I have to look back on those memories as super tainted, but the American broadcast N E V E R mentions anyone from that era ever. No flashbacks, not even a casual name drop. It's understandable, but saddening nonetheless. It simply feels like that decade never existed.
It also makes my favorite commercial of all time look like a joke. Because it was a joke.
Doping discussions are pointless. Anti-doping is always behind doping by nature so we'll hear if sky was a fraud or not in aprox 5-6 years. Until then plenty of other stuff to discuss.
For one I spent an evening trying to come up with ways of most painful mafioso tortures fit for those disgrace of so called human beings who felled Nibali. Get huskard in EU west you fucking pieces of shits.
On July 20 2018 02:29 L_Master wrote: I appreciate that Elmonti. I can understand the frustration, and as you can tell I have no problems with discussion about doping or anything of that nature. I'm just not a big fan of throwing around insults. I think we can talk about Thomas ride being questionable without calling him a pistard. It tends to get people riled up and not promote good discussion. If you want to talk about Sky, Thomas, or anybody else being up to questionable things I'm always okay with that sort of conversation.
On that note, I again am not that suspicious of what Thomas did. Similar things have happened in other sports, and there is precedence there. A 4km pursuit is rather similar to the 1500/mile in athletics. There have been great 1500m runners that have gotten a bit older, changed their focus, and become strong 10000m or half marathon runners. In fact, it's usually around the age of 30 that the full aerobic development and strength usually starts to arise for "faster" more anaerobic guys. In that sense Thomas hitting 30 and developing that is the typical career arc of a track and field endurance oriented 1500m specialist.
If anything, I even see that as more possible in cycling because you can have great short power physiology, add some weight for more raw watts, then eventually drop that weight and lose some of that explosive power while transitioning your training over to sustaining a higher %VO2 and fatigue resistance. Dan Martin for instance, has the physiology to ride a 4km as good as Thomas if he threw on some weight and added a little raw power. So too Valverde. If Valverde has the ability to put out high power on the TT bike in an ideal position, he would absolutely smash the 4km with gaining a little muscle for raw power, and in form he climbs great.
I guess the difference between you and I is guilty until proven innocent versus benefit of the doubt. I firmly believe that what Thomas did, what Kwaitko can do, etc. What they have done is indeed impressive though, and given the current status of sport that inherently means skepticism is warranted, I just view it from a "hmm, a clean rider could do this, but at the same time it's on the edge of plausibility". The difference is, to you Sky is guilty and definitely doping. Guilty until exonerated. For me, it's the opposite. Of course Sky is suspicious as fuck, and if you asked me if they are cheating with a gun to my head, I'd say yes. However...to condemn I have to have proof. Either leaked information about positives, a failed test, or some performance that is truly unbelievable.
If you ask me what's suspicious about Froome, it's his incredible consistency. I can't think of one single climb Froome has done where I though watching "Pfft. No way this is legit". He's always just a little bit better than everybody else climbing, and then of course sinks time into them in TT.
In that same vein, if you ask me where I'm most suspicious about Sky, it's not in their riders doping the same way they did in 2000s era with massively increased physiology. I think what there might be is something drug wise that helps you get very lean and maintain power, and also potentially use of drugs for recovery. Which is also why I'm not that suspicious of Thomas and Kwaitkowski in the way you are. If they had shit that was that magical, their top guys should just be on a comically different level than everyone else...but they aren't. Froome is only a marginally better climber than guys like Quintana, Porte, Landa, etc. He's just always performing at his best. That, more than anything is where my suspicion lies
.
Okey, if we talk about this i will be as polite and calm as I can be, promised xD (Also I'm not a native english speaker)
1- The kind/type of "power" you can deliver is mostly based also on your type of muscle fibers, and you can't change that theough training. Thats why Contador, Nibali, Froome, Dumoulin, etc. wont ever sprint decently amongst sprinters no matter how much muscle they build, and that's why Sagan, Greipel, Kittel won't be top climbers no matter the weight they loose. Then you have "gifted" people in between like Valverde (sprints very well and climbs very well, but not like the specialists... he was in O.Puerto btw). Of course this can be changed a little through training (as you say, gaining w/kg loosing weight, or gaining muscle to put some more W in short climbs or flat)...ooor it can be changed a LOT with doping: Lance Armstrong was a great classics rider before his whole transformation, having won World Championship in 93, Klasikoa, Fleche Wallone,... but couldn't hold in the high mountains ... we knew what happened later. Usually this hardcore transitions mean something and are very suspicious.
2- Thats exactly what happened. Froome tested positive in Septembre in the Vuelta a España... then we know about it thanks to a journalist leak information on December, no less than 3 months later... obviously they were trying to resolve this "privately" (just as Contador's case). Then WADA and UCI dropped the case due to not being able to fight with Sky in the court (9k of papers, they spent a fortune over 250k CHF in courte, etc.). Giro Organization payed 2million € to have this guy race in the Giro... do you really think Sky plays under the same rules as the other teams?
3- You say Froome is consistent and just a little better than anyone else, sinking time in the ITT. I would say that if i hadn't seen cycling before 2016, lets see: Consistency: This is a guy who got DQ in the Giro 2010 for climbing the Mortirolo grabbed to a motorbike, the guy got dropped in the Tour of Poland 2011 by SAGAN, this guy was gonna be let go by his team just a few months before Vuelta 2011, Brailsford was trying to sell him to USPostal given that they asked for Cummings ("no to Cummings.... but might you be interested in this guy?"), then he becomes the best GT rider of the Vuelta 2011. He finished like 20 secs behind Cobo...having worked for Wiggins for half of the race....i recommend you to check this out, its worth the 5 min: twitter.com. Then the little better thing: Tour 2013, stage 8: he puts 1+ min into the favourites. Stage 11, in a 33km totally flat stage he goes second 12" behind Tony Martin. Stage 15, he puts 1:30+ in the Mount Ventoux. Tour 2014 he crashes. Tour 2015, first mountain stage he puts from 1 to 3 minutes into the rest of favourites. He and his team destroyed the rest in a fashion we never saw since Lance... Cristopher Froome is the greatest laboratory product the cycling has ever seen. And there are tons of records to support this.
4- I agree with you about the getting lean and maintain power and recovery stuff. We never saw people THAT lean (scary) before without loosing power.....or did we? you can see what David Millar said about the corticosteroid Wiggins was receiving: www.telegraph.co.uk. Loose weight without loosing power. Also, that recovery stuff is what makes people like Kiatowski (powerful in short times) being able to perform like this. Normally climbers can recovery much better, but with some "help" he can do 3 hard stages in a row being in the top20 climbers when he does his job. You will never see Sagan or GvA do this. Also I recommend you to read about the TUE stuff if you haven't before. Its key in todays sport. We need to give our riders Corticosteroids, so we need them to suffer a disease which is treated with them....then it looks like Froome (and half of the damn peloton, can't blame him alone on this one) has asthma... which is treated.... by corticosteroids. So in case we get caught, we have an official medical permission for that kind of drug. The thing is Salbutamol doesnt do much orally, so you have to take it VI or IM to produce that big muscular effect. Problem is high concentration, just like the positive of Froome, DOUBLING the allowed limit. Do you know how many "shots" of ventolin do you need to reach his concentration ? 20 shots.....Medical prescription of Ventolin says the limit of doses are 8 in the whole day. Yep. Sooo we say its Froome's body that works in a different way, and they start with the riding with one-kidney bullshit while riding a damn 3 week race (I'm sorry, but I just couldn't contain myself with that one ). The thing is WADA tells that you HAVE to prove that throught a controlled pharpacokynetic study (CPKS).... but it turns out Froome and Sky don't have to prove anything. Check this: twitter.com Then we won. Our riders are using corticosteroids vi to enhance their performance, AND they cannot touch us. Unlike the other teams, we can go full doping system and no one can do anything. No UCI, no WADA, no one.
5- Regarding the climbing records: the day before yesterday they rode La Madeleine 1 minute faster than 2009 (Contador and Schleck brothers, "pretty" good climbers) for example. Headwind or tailwind alone can mess those records up, let alone previous stages, riders conditions, etc.. But I do agree with you that luckily those 7 w/kg for 40' (Armstrong, Pantani) and those 80kg cruising up the mountains (Indurain) days are long gone. But that just means they are not going for the hardcore 90s stuff (EPO, CERA, ...), but for the scary skinny - no power loose stuff.
On July 20 2018 02:29 L_Master wrote: I appreciate that Elmonti. I can understand the frustration, and as you can tell I have no problems with discussion about doping or anything of that nature. I'm just not a big fan of throwing around insults. I think we can talk about Thomas ride being questionable without calling him a pistard. It tends to get people riled up and not promote good discussion. If you want to talk about Sky, Thomas, or anybody else being up to questionable things I'm always okay with that sort of conversation.
On that note, I again am not that suspicious of what Thomas did. Similar things have happened in other sports, and there is precedence there. A 4km pursuit is rather similar to the 1500/mile in athletics. There have been great 1500m runners that have gotten a bit older, changed their focus, and become strong 10000m or half marathon runners. In fact, it's usually around the age of 30 that the full aerobic development and strength usually starts to arise for "faster" more anaerobic guys. In that sense Thomas hitting 30 and developing that is the typical career arc of a track and field endurance oriented 1500m specialist.
If anything, I even see that as more possible in cycling because you can have great short power physiology, add some weight for more raw watts, then eventually drop that weight and lose some of that explosive power while transitioning your training over to sustaining a higher %VO2 and fatigue resistance. Dan Martin for instance, has the physiology to ride a 4km as good as Thomas if he threw on some weight and added a little raw power. So too Valverde. If Valverde has the ability to put out high power on the TT bike in an ideal position, he would absolutely smash the 4km with gaining a little muscle for raw power, and in form he climbs great.
I guess the difference between you and I is guilty until proven innocent versus benefit of the doubt. I firmly believe that what Thomas did, what Kwaitko can do, etc. What they have done is indeed impressive though, and given the current status of sport that inherently means skepticism is warranted, I just view it from a "hmm, a clean rider could do this, but at the same time it's on the edge of plausibility". The difference is, to you Sky is guilty and definitely doping. Guilty until exonerated. For me, it's the opposite. Of course Sky is suspicious as fuck, and if you asked me if they are cheating with a gun to my head, I'd say yes. However...to condemn I have to have proof. Either leaked information about positives, a failed test, or some performance that is truly unbelievable.
If you ask me what's suspicious about Froome, it's his incredible consistency. I can't think of one single climb Froome has done where I though watching "Pfft. No way this is legit". He's always just a little bit better than everybody else climbing, and then of course sinks time into them in TT.
In that same vein, if you ask me where I'm most suspicious about Sky, it's not in their riders doping the same way they did in 2000s era with massively increased physiology. I think what there might be is something drug wise that helps you get very lean and maintain power, and also potentially use of drugs for recovery. Which is also why I'm not that suspicious of Thomas and Kwaitkowski in the way you are. If they had shit that was that magical, their top guys should just be on a comically different level than everyone else...but they aren't. Froome is only a marginally better climber than guys like Quintana, Porte, Landa, etc. He's just always performing at his best. That, more than anything is where my suspicion lies.
I see your point and I admire you. Because since 1998 EVERY YEAR, every damn year, they say : This time it's gonna be a clean run. Every damn year.
And 2, 3 or even 5 years later, we learn that the previous winner was cheating. I mean, how can you give them the benefit of the doubt, since it's the same stuff every time. I get your point, but I am tired of trusting them, thus I don't follow the TDF like I did in the past. It's like i'm waiting for scandals to happen..
On July 20 2018 02:29 L_Master wrote: I appreciate that Elmonti. I can understand the frustration, and as you can tell I have no problems with discussion about doping or anything of that nature. I'm just not a big fan of throwing around insults. I think we can talk about Thomas ride being questionable without calling him a pistard. It tends to get people riled up and not promote good discussion. If you want to talk about Sky, Thomas, or anybody else being up to questionable things I'm always okay with that sort of conversation.
On that note, I again am not that suspicious of what Thomas did. Similar things have happened in other sports, and there is precedence there. A 4km pursuit is rather similar to the 1500/mile in athletics. There have been great 1500m runners that have gotten a bit older, changed their focus, and become strong 10000m or half marathon runners. In fact, it's usually around the age of 30 that the full aerobic development and strength usually starts to arise for "faster" more anaerobic guys. In that sense Thomas hitting 30 and developing that is the typical career arc of a track and field endurance oriented 1500m specialist.
If anything, I even see that as more possible in cycling because you can have great short power physiology, add some weight for more raw watts, then eventually drop that weight and lose some of that explosive power while transitioning your training over to sustaining a higher %VO2 and fatigue resistance. Dan Martin for instance, has the physiology to ride a 4km as good as Thomas if he threw on some weight and added a little raw power. So too Valverde. If Valverde has the ability to put out high power on the TT bike in an ideal position, he would absolutely smash the 4km with gaining a little muscle for raw power, and in form he climbs great.
I guess the difference between you and I is guilty until proven innocent versus benefit of the doubt. I firmly believe that what Thomas did, what Kwaitko can do, etc. What they have done is indeed impressive though, and given the current status of sport that inherently means skepticism is warranted, I just view it from a "hmm, a clean rider could do this, but at the same time it's on the edge of plausibility". The difference is, to you Sky is guilty and definitely doping. Guilty until exonerated. For me, it's the opposite. Of course Sky is suspicious as fuck, and if you asked me if they are cheating with a gun to my head, I'd say yes. However...to condemn I have to have proof. Either leaked information about positives, a failed test, or some performance that is truly unbelievable.
If you ask me what's suspicious about Froome, it's his incredible consistency. I can't think of one single climb Froome has done where I though watching "Pfft. No way this is legit". He's always just a little bit better than everybody else climbing, and then of course sinks time into them in TT.
In that same vein, if you ask me where I'm most suspicious about Sky, it's not in their riders doping the same way they did in 2000s era with massively increased physiology. I think what there might be is something drug wise that helps you get very lean and maintain power, and also potentially use of drugs for recovery. Which is also why I'm not that suspicious of Thomas and Kwaitkowski in the way you are. If they had shit that was that magical, their top guys should just be on a comically different level than everyone else...but they aren't. Froome is only a marginally better climber than guys like Quintana, Porte, Landa, etc. He's just always performing at his best. That, more than anything is where my suspicion lies.
I see your point and I admire you. Because since 1998 EVERY YEAR, every damn year, they say : This time it's gonna be a clean run. Every damn year.
And 2, 3 or even 5 years later, we learn that the previous winner was cheating. I mean, how can you give them the benefit of the doubt, since it's the same stuff every time. I get your point, but I am tired of trusting them, thus I don't follow the TDF like I did in the past. It's like i'm waiting for scandals to happen..
Because it's the equitable thing to do. Making a much more serious analogy to crime, I would rather we let 10 murders go free by "benefit of the doubt" than wrongly convict and ruin the life of even one.
Also, anyone that says it's "going to be clean" is just naive. There will ALWAYS be cheaters in sport, or anything with that kind of money and prestige involved. I don't see any way that can ever be stopped sort of super excellent technology in the future that detects everything that enters the body or such.
In the interim, what's important is that we continue to reduce the magnitude of the cheating so that honest athletes can compete. We aren't quite there as far as I can tell, but it's closer. Clean guys can definitely win stages and maybe even some one week tours.
Contrast that to the peleton of 15 years ago where Froome literally wouldn't even be at the level of a weak domestique. That's the best drug progress I can imagine. If we can get a little better, perhaps we can reduce it to where clean riders have a legitimate shot to win the tour if they have a great performance.
1- The kind/type of "power" you can deliver is mostly based also on your type of muscle fibers, and you can't change that theough training. Thats why Contador, Nibali, Froome, Dumoulin, etc. wont ever sprint decently amongst sprinters no matter how much muscle they build, and that's why Sagan, Greipel, Kittel won't be top climbers no matter the weight they loose. Then you have "gifted" people in between like Valverde (sprints very well and climbs very well, but not like the specialists... he was in O.Puerto btw). Of course this can be changed a little through training (as you say, gaining w/kg loosing weight, or gaining muscle to put some more W in short climbs or flat)...ooor it can be changed a LOT with doping: Lance Armstrong was a great classics rider before his whole transformation, having won World Championship in 93, Klasikoa, Fleche Wallone,... but couldn't hold in the high mountains ... we knew what happened later. Usually this hardcore transitions mean something and are very suspicious.
There is truth to what you write, but it's not just muscle fibers; and some of it can be changed due to training. We know that a large portion of muscle fibers and other aspects of physiology can convert and change, sometimes dramatically, with training.
Moreover, what's important to realize is that cycling "sprinters" are not sprinters at all. The muscle fibers are Marcel Kittel are MUCH closer to the muscle fiber composition of Froome than they are to that of a true sprinter such a Bolt or Chris Hoy. Those are true, fast twitch dominant sprinters. Guys like Kittel, Griepel, and especially Sagan or GVA are endurance guys that can kick. Their physiology doesn't hold them back from producing massive aerobic power.
Realize power comes from two places. Aerobic metabolism, aka FTP, and anaerobic metabolism, aka FRC/AWC. Sprint power is just someone with a higher burn rate of FRC. Guys like Sagan and Valverde have huge FRC's. Valverde's is huge on a w/kg basis, and Sagan's is good there and ridiculous on a pure power basis.
Generally, guys with a high FRC are biased to have a slightly lower threshold. FRC is finite and linear. If you have a massive 30kJ FRC this means that for one minute you can do 500w anaerobically. For five minutes you can do 100w anaerobically. For thirty minutes you can do 17w anaerobically, etc. This only recovers when you dip below threshold. So to compare two hypothetical riders. Rider A has threshold of 400w and FRC of 18kJ. Rider B has threshold of 370w and FRC of 30kJ. Their outputs are as follows:
Most riders that are anaerobic powerhouses like Valverde tend to have slightly lower thresholds predominately because they can't hold as high of a %V02 max at threshold as the super diesel engine guy. The super diesel's can often hold 90% of VO2 for their FTP. Valverde can probably only hold 85%.
This CAN be trained, specifically if the rider gives up some focus on aerobic side and works hard on pushing up fractional utilization of VO2 (basically aerobic work).
2- Thats exactly what happened. Froome tested positive in Septembre in the Vuelta a España... then we know about it thanks to a journalist leak information on December, no less than 3 months later... obviously they were trying to resolve this "privately" (just as Contador's case). Then WADA and UCI dropped the case due to not being able to fight with Sky in the court (9k of papers, they spent a fortune over 250k CHF in courte, etc.). Giro Organization payed 2million € to have this guy race in the Giro... do you really think Sky plays under the same rules as the other teams?
It's sport. In this case I feel confident saying not only do we suspect Sky plays by different rules, we basically know they do.
And I believe Froome was guilty as the Vuelta. I think he woke up, realized he wasn't feeling good/having breathing problems. Panicked when the usual dose didn't work, and went for something stronger. Someday maybe the full facts will be out but I think he cheated on that day of the Vuelta, admittedly in a panic. Stripping his Vuelta and a 6-12 month ban would be appropriate for that sort of case.
I do not think it's evidence or proof of systematic performance enhancing doping. Froome and Sky are WAY to smart to get busted blatantly cheating in an in competition test. They panicked and fucked it up a bit.
3- You say Froome is consistent and just a little better than anyone else, sinking time in the ITT. I would say that if i hadn't seen cycling before 2016, lets see: Consistency: This is a guy who got DQ in the Giro 2010 for climbing the Mortirolo grabbed to a motorbike, the guy got dropped in the Tour of Poland 2011 by SAGAN, this guy was gonna be let go by his team just a few months before Vuelta 2011, Brailsford was trying to sell him to USPostal given that they asked for Cummings ("no to Cummings.... but might you be interested in this guy?"), then he becomes the best GT rider of the Vuelta 2011. He finished like 20 secs behind Cobo...having worked for Wiggins for half of the race....i recommend you to check this out, its worth the 5 min: twitter.com.
He was a young developing rider, and many of the things you're describing are easy to write off as bad days. That said, there is no question in my mind that the rapid rise of Froome from struggling domestique to top rider in short span is suspicious. It will always be. But I also know tons of clean athletes from recreational up to pro level who were stuck in mediocrity for a long while, made a change to their training or circumstances and got DRAMATICALLY better in a short time frame.
This does happen. Many times it's due to doping. Other times it absolutely isn't.
Then the little better thing: Tour 2013, stage 8: he puts 1+ min into the favourites. Stage 11, in a 33km totally flat stage he goes second 12" behind Tony Martin. Stage 15, he puts 1:30+ in the Mount Ventoux. Tour 2014 he crashes. Tour 2015, first mountain stage he puts from 1 to 3 minutes into the rest of favourites. He and his team destroyed the rest in a fashion we never saw since Lance...
That mountain stage (2015) we talked about when it happened. Literally everybody just sucked that day. It was a flat, easy ass stage. Hesink sitting in rode 6w/kg up the first half, until it broke up with the attacks and he lost some time. 1:34. In the end he did about 5.8 w/kg. Froome likely did 6.1 or so to win the stage by 1:34. A strong performance, but it came on the back of a rest day followed by a comically easy stroll to the climb. The NP leading up to the climb was less than 180w for Hesink. They were fresh, and literally everybody except Froome, Porte, and Quintana just sucked that day. Froome won dominant ally because every else had a shit day. Robert Hesink was 4th on that stage. 4th. Ahead of guys like Pinot, Valverde, Yates, Thomas, Contador, and Nibabli.
Bringing up stage 15 is clearly not looking at the data. Froome and his team didn't "destroy the field in a fashion not seen since Lance". Everyone else folded like a card table. Robert Hesink put two minutes into Contador. 4 minutes into Nibali. A minute into Valverde. This is Gesink we are talking about here. A mediocre breakway specialist climber. Froome was dominant that day because literally everyone sucked. Only 5 guys could handle better than 5.5 w/kg on a day that was pure noodling till the final climb.
If anything that day was interesting because everyone was so uniquely terrible on that day.
---------
Ventoux was Froome's most dominant performance in his career. He looked great. He's never come close to looking that good at any other point. I think we can safely chalk that one up to the best ride of his life. And it's not even that ridiculous when you consider Ventoux is a far longer, harder climb than just about any other the Tour does. Putting in 1:30 on Ventoux is a little different than putting in 1:30 on Alp D'Huez, and even more different from putting in 1:30 on some 10km 7% finishing climb.
Also, he only won by 29 seconds, not 1:30, so it wasn't even that dominant.
----------
All of this leads to my point, Froome has generally not been dominant. He isn't doing ridiculous things on his bike that no one can hope to match. On his best days he wins convincingly, but not overwhelming, and he has only had a few of those in his entire career. Outside of that, he generally puts in modest victories with impeccable consistency, which as I said is perhaps the oddest thing about Froome.
4- I agree with you about the getting lean and maintain power and recovery stuff. We never saw people THAT lean (scary) before without loosing power.....or did we? you can see what David Millar said about the corticosteroid Wiggins was receiving: www.telegraph.co.uk. Loose weight without loosing power. Also, that recovery stuff is what makes people like Kiatowski (powerful in short times) being able to perform like this. Normally climbers can recovery much better, but with some "help" he can do 3 hard stages in a row being in the top20 climbers when he does his job. You will never see Sagan or GvA do this.
Really? I watch Avermaet beat Gesink and many other capable climbers over a taxing mountain stage just a few days ago.
Also, Sagan sixth on Mt. Baldy 2015 Amgen ToC. Did 6w/kg for 25'. Multiple HC climbs and a total of 87 miles and 12k feet of climbing, with a summit finish on Baldy, a 7km climb at over 9%. Only a handful of seconds behind guys like Sergio Henao of Sky.
Bottom line, in my opinion you really underestimate how strong all world tour riders, especially top level talent is at climbing, especially in diesel mode and especially when digging in for a single day. Where they lose out is ability to repeat that over and over, and the ability to deal with accelerations. Most climbs are ridden at tempo on the run in to a hard summit finish. Usually this means 5-5.5 w/kg. for 2-4 climbs of 30-60'.
Avermaet for instance likely has a threshold around 420-450w. I've seen him on strava doing 10' repeats at 500w. Avermaet weighs 73kg. So he is sitting on an FTP of around 5.7w/kg-6w/kg. This means that in order to do what Kwaitkowski did Avermeat would need to do a 5 hour ride with two to three hours at 90% of FTP +/- 5%, then finish it off with 15' at perhaps 97-105% of FTP.
I don't know how much you ride bikes, but I will tell you that is a hard; though far from insane, day.
Also I recommend you to read about the TUE stuff if you haven't before. We need to give our riders Corticosteroids, so we need them to suffer a disease which is treated with them....then it looks like Froome (and half of the damn peloton, can't blame him alone on this one) has asthma... which is treated.... by corticosteroids. The thing is Salbutamol doesnt do much orally, so you have to take it VI to produce muscle effect. Problem is high concentration, just like the positive of Froome, DOUBLING the allowed limit. Do you know how many "shots" of ventolin do you need to reach his concentration ? 20 shots.....Medical prescription of Ventolin says the limit of doses are 8 in the whole day. Yep.
Yea, this shit is silly. I'd like to see it eliminated.
From an equity and rules standpoint though everybody has access to it, and most are. It's obnoxious, but does not provide an unfair advantage.
Sooo we say its Froome's body that works in a different way, and they start with the riding with one-kidney bullshit while riding a damn 3 week race (I'm sorry, but I just couldn't contain myself with that one ). The thing is WADA tells that you HAVE to prove that throught a controlled pharpacokynetic study (CPKS).... but it turns out Froome and Sky don't have to prove anything. Check this: twitter.com Then we won. Our riders are using corticosteroids vi to enhance their performance, AND they cannot touch us. No UCI, no WADA, no one.
Sky plays by different rules, and as I said earlier I'm reasonably convinced Froome was guilty of cheating on the day of the Vuelta. We are close in agreement here.
5- Regarding the climbing records: the day before yesterday they rode La Madeleine 1 minute faster than 2009 (Contador and Schleck brothers, quite good climbers) for example. But I do agree with you that luckily those 7 w/kg for 40' (Armstrong, Pantani) and those 80kg cruising up the mountains (Indurain) days are long gone. But that just means they are not going for the hardcore 90s stuff (EPO, CERA, ...), but for the scary skinny - no power loose stuff.
That doesn't necessarily tell how they raced up the climb, it's possible there was much more looking around. Especially when you consider that yesterday's stage was quite easy (only a few short climbs ridden at anything above 5 w/kg) and they had cohesion and chasing for most of it with Dumoulin up the road I find that not too shocking. More so when you consider that 2009 is definitely NOT 2004. I forget what had come into place, but the blazing times being set in men's T&F basically dried up around 04/05 as well. By 2009 people were not ripping out the insane performances of the EPO era of the 90s and early 2000s.
Cristopher Froome is the greatest laboratory product the cycling has ever seen. And there are tons of records to support this.
LOL?! A guy with a low 6w/kg FTP that couldn't hack it as a cycling domestique in the 2000s era is a greater "laboratory cyclist" than Big Mig's 550w FTP dragging 80kg up mountains, or Marco Pantani soaring up hills at 7.5 w/kg blasts to win stages by minutes?
There is also this great video, and probably the point Lance decided it was time for something more:
A solid 5+ km/hr pass at well over 55--60km/hr (Lance was spinning 100rpm is his 53/11). Looks awesome, but total LOL at the same time looking back given what we know. Indurain was probably doing 100w more.
Also, just for a comparison just look at the difference in speed between today and Armstrong back in time. It's almost comical.
So Nibali broke his thoracic vertebra and and still managed to close that gap so well after. Even with the leader up thare fooling around playing games for the stage win, this is kinda insane.
But well... with him abandoning, just another rider who at least looked like he could tickle Sky is gone.
Cristopher Froome is the greatest laboratory product the cycling has ever seen. And there are tons of records to support this.
LOL?! A guy with a low 6w/kg FTP that couldn't hack it as a cycling domestique in the 2000s era is a greater "laboratory cyclist" than Big Mig's 550w FTP dragging 80kg up mountains, or Marco Pantani soaring up hills at 7.5 w/kg blasts to win stages by minutes?
Well I see for the most part we agree in facts but just take different conclusions. Fair enough.
Just one thing regarding the "laboratory product": when I say that i'm not refering to "the most juiced up" rider ever, by any means. We all agree that was the Lance/Pantani/Ullrich era, and after that the Indurain/Rominger/Ciapucci (scary 64% Ugrumov, omg). By that I mean they created a monster (dominating as they want and crushing GC opponents both in mountain and ITT) from the scratch. Thats the BIG difference. Lance was a superb classics rider (WC 93, FW, etc.) and Indurain had already won 2 paris-Nice, the Tour de l'avenir (with 23 yo he had won 5 stages in this "sub23 Tour de France"), 2 stages at the tour, etc. They were both great young riders with a lot of projection. Doping (Conconi and Padilla) made Indurain reach that monster level by becoming even better in ITT and much better at climbing. Doping (Ferrari and cia) made Lance reach that monster level by transforming him into a GT smash machine, dominating both ITT and climbing. Even Pantani was since he was a young boy with hair in his head a superb climber, doping made him a much much better one. Good lord, even Wiggins was a great pistard prior to his transformation in the Tour 2009, climbing with Armstrong, Nibali and the Schlecks.
But what had Froome done when he became the best rider at the Vuelta 2011?... 1 stage at the Tour of Japan, 1 stage in a Race in Southafrica and 2nd in the British ITT. He was a mediocre to decent timetrialist, and absolutely nothing more. Thats why I see him as a total Product. He was not "enhanced", he was created from the scratch. Thats why I will ever consider him the biggest fraud.
DP: sad news for Nibali, he seemed to be okay when he closed the gap after the crash. This stage has been a slaughter...
Cycling should go all the NFL road (we all got loaded and nobody cares), to be sincere It has lost much of my attention from Indurain era, watching Sky is disgusting, lets wait for the next week, in one climbing stage Froome will lose 30 secs to 1 min, showing him as an human being, and then the next stage he will take 1:30 or more mins, it is just a pattern in what they do btw, Valverde should go to Sky, He will be a monster right there, and could win a TdF with 39 years.
On July 21 2018 03:59 palexhur wrote: Cycling should go all the NFL road (we all got loaded and nobody cares), to be sincere It has lost much of my attention from Indurain era
Honestly, I've considered that and in many ways I don't think it's a bad idea. Except for one major concern, which is that if the pro peleton gets that doped up, then so too must the next level to be good enough to join those ranks, which then means rising amateurs are doping, which then forces juniors to dope...and then we have a real medical problem. If doping could be done with near absolute safety I would be okay with it.
There is also a small concern of turning sport into a laboratory arms race, but that's an issue of budget, and teams with big budgets have always been favored.
That said, cycling now is 1000x better than it was 15 years ago. It's a much healthier, fair, balanced sport. HUGE strides have been made over the last 10 years and the playing field is much more equitable.
, watching Sky is disgusting, lets wait for the next week, in one climbing stage Froome will lose 30 secs to 1 min, showing him as an human being, and then the next stage he will take 1:30 or more mins,
Not really sure what you're saying.
Froome almost never takes more than a minute, except for time trials. It's happened at most 3 or 4 times in all of Froomes Tours. I don't know why you find this "disgusting". People have good days and bad days. Froome, like every rider, deals with this same concern.
Moreover, Froome can't have a bad day and win the tour at this point barring a collapse from G AND Dumoulin. Froome will lose 15s-45s against Dumulin and might gain at best 30s against G. If he loses a minute that puts him 2:40 behind G, and 1:00 behind Dumoulin. Making up 2' on G (TT accounted for) and 1:30+ on Dumoulin is unlikely to happen...especially given his form today.
it is just a pattern in what they do btw,
Wut.
It's a pattern with any rider. A rider clearly strong than the others will usually gain 15s-45s on most days, with a really bad day being a loss of perhaps 30s-60s. All riders more or less follow this pattern of oscillation relative to where their actual "average" fitness is at.
Valverde should go to Sky, He will be a monster right there, and could win a TdF with 39 years.
Uh huh. Maybe with Sky's advantages he could have won if he was there 2-3 years ago and Froome wasn't, but let's face it, Valverde is waning. Great season still but couldn't win at Fleche Wallone for the first time and can't come close to hanging on here in this Tour.
Thomas from what I heard said that he still sees Froome as the captain of Sky and tries to keep yellow for a few more stages. I'm pretty sure that means (if it's between the two) he'll let Froome go away at one stage (prolly the one before the TT) so he gets yellow and wins the tour.
On July 21 2018 07:14 HolydaKing wrote: Thomas from what I heard said that he still sees Froome as the captain of Sky and tries to keep yellow for a few more stages. I'm pretty sure that means (if it's between the two) he'll let Froome go away at one stage (prolly the one before the TT) so he gets yellow and wins the tour.
Well... I believe him winning the tour depends basically on how even Dumoulin and Froome are. As during the last stage in the Alps, Thomas won't chase attacks by Froome himself. But if Dumoulin or whoever else decides to follow, he will just follow them. So if Froome is able to distance everyone else he gets the yellow. If he fails to do so, Thomas can just sit tightly on the heels of whoever goes after him and claim that he never actively tried to ruin Froomes escape attempts.
On July 21 2018 07:14 HolydaKing wrote: Thomas from what I heard said that he still sees Froome as the captain of Sky and tries to keep yellow for a few more stages. I'm pretty sure that means (if it's between the two) he'll let Froome go away at one stage (prolly the one before the TT) so he gets yellow and wins the tour.
If he actually does this I would be amazed. I suspect at this point Froome and G and racing each other, even if they both won't publically admit or acknowledge it. I don't think they will blatantly attack each other, but I don't see either one not going full gas and letting up on a climb to gift the lead, nor do I think one will do domestique duties for each other.
On July 21 2018 07:14 HolydaKing wrote: Thomas from what I heard said that he still sees Froome as the captain of Sky and tries to keep yellow for a few more stages. I'm pretty sure that means (if it's between the two) he'll let Froome go away at one stage (prolly the one before the TT) so he gets yellow and wins the tour.
Well... I believe him winning the tour depends basically on how even Dumoulin and Froome are. As during the last stage in the Alps, Thomas won't chase attacks by Froome himself. But if Dumoulin or whoever else decides to follow, he will just follow them. So if Froome is able to distance everyone else he gets the yellow. If he fails to do so, Thomas can just sit tightly on the heels of whoever goes after him and claim that he never actively tried to ruin Froomes escape attempts.
Yea, basically this. G probably won't pull guys back to Froome. He might well attack them though and try to get to Froome if Froome goes away.
Cristopher Froome is the greatest laboratory product the cycling has ever seen. And there are tons of records to support this.
LOL?! A guy with a low 6w/kg FTP that couldn't hack it as a cycling domestique in the 2000s era is a greater "laboratory cyclist" than Big Mig's 550w FTP dragging 80kg up mountains, or Marco Pantani soaring up hills at 7.5 w/kg blasts to win stages by minutes?
Well I see for the most part we agree in facts but just take different conclusions. Fair enough.
Just one thing regarding the "laboratory product": when I say that i'm not refering to "the most juiced up" rider ever, by any means. We all agree that was the Lance/Pantani/Ullrich era, and after that the Indurain/Rominger/Ciapucci (scary 64% Ugrumov, omg). By that I mean they created a monster (dominating as they want and crushing GC opponents both in mountain and ITT) from the scratch. Thats the BIG difference. Lance was a superb classics rider (WC 93, FW, etc.) and Indurain had already won 2 paris-Nice, the Tour de l'avenir (with 23 yo he had won 5 stages in this "sub23 Tour de France"), 2 stages at the tour, etc. They were both great young riders with a lot of projection. Doping (Conconi and Padilla) made Indurain reach that monster level by becoming even better in ITT and much better at climbing. Doping (Ferrari and cia) made Lance reach that monster level by transforming him into a GT smash machine, dominating both ITT and climbing. Even Pantani was since he was a young boy with hair in his head a superb climber, doping made him a much much better one. Good lord, even Wiggins was a great pistard prior to his transformation in the Tour 2009, climbing with Armstrong, Nibali and the Schlecks.
But what had Froome done when he became the best rider at the Vuelta 2011?... 1 stage at the Tour of Japan, 1 stage in a Race in Southafrica and 2nd in the British ITT. He was a mediocre to decent timetrialist, and absolutely nothing more. Thats why I see him as a total Product. He was not "enhanced", he was created from the scratch. Thats why I will ever consider him the biggest fraud.
DP: sad news for Nibali, he seemed to be okay when he closed the gap after the crash. This stage has been a slaughter...
So in your view Roglic and Dumoulin (let's use these 2 as an example) are completly normal brave guys yet the others with similar or worse track records (sky team) are all doped? This is why I called double standards.
I don't believe Dumoulin and Roglic are doped but I don't see you accusing them or raising suspicions on them….yet Thomas was a proven rider on the track and took several years on the road to transition to what he was doing last year and this year. (And in my eyes, the organization giving roughly 10 flat stages to start the Tour is helping Thomas more than anyone, he can now ride 2 weeks and avoid his usual downfall in the third week as effectively the first one was almost a bónus.)
Roglic was good in his own sport and now this out of the blue. So why is one to blame and the other isnt? Dumoulin is young and because of that his transition was legit? So was Froome when he started. Brailsford said the first time he saw Froome, he saw a guy with a ton of power in his legs but without technique or even proper equipment….maybe that is a lie, or maybe that helps explaining his poor results before joining sky.
This is the problem I see with most discussions like this. I'm not going to try to convince you or anything. For one because i'm not sure sky are not doping and also because I dont particularly like them to be defending them. I just hate it when I see the double standard posts. And please note I really like Roglic…..so this is not a biased position in favour of sky, its just some food for thought.
On July 24 2018 19:27 HolydaKing wrote: So uhh, what happened here? How did they get dazzled? Never seen something like this.
Pepper spray. It is not clear, if it was used by the protesters or by the police trying to get them away from the road. They also ditched hay bales on the road.
Now the commentator said the police used teargas on farmers that blocked the road on purpose or something like that. Which apparently was too recent so peloton cought it as well.
Oh shit. Tomorrow is basically it. Next day is a sprint stage, then the following on the climbs are very easy and not a summit finish so no time gaps.
If Thomas can hold his gap to Froome he should win. If Froome or Dumoulin can take back 30s it's interesting. If G falter more than that he probably loses.
Very interesting: Froome has 10s on Dumoulin. In the 30k ITT, Tom should take 40-60 secs on Froome easily, so if he doesn't crack in the two mountain stages left, he should take second spot....If Sky wants to win the Giro-Tour double and 5th Tour with Froome (wow... that statement...seeing that written is worse than i thought...what a time to be alive xD) they will be taking A LOT of risks.
So, I think it all depends on whether Tom cracks or not... if he does, Froome wins the Tour, if he keeps himself within 1 min from Froome, Thomas should take it. So Sky's tractic should be Froome attacking and Thomas following Dumo's wheel. It will be also interesting seeing Roglic, will he defend his 4th place in his first Tour as GC contender, or will he risk it to go for the podium.
In the ITT: Dumo > Thomas/Roglic > Froome
We will also see if Movistar goes ALL IN in the Tourmalet stage to go for the podium, or if they try not to burn their domestiques to take their main goal: 1st Team classification..... what a sad Tour by Movistar...
Cristopher Froome is the greatest laboratory product the cycling has ever seen. And there are tons of records to support this.
LOL?! A guy with a low 6w/kg FTP that couldn't hack it as a cycling domestique in the 2000s era is a greater "laboratory cyclist" than Big Mig's 550w FTP dragging 80kg up mountains, or Marco Pantani soaring up hills at 7.5 w/kg blasts to win stages by minutes?
Well I see for the most part we agree in facts but just take different conclusions. Fair enough.
Just one thing regarding the "laboratory product": when I say that i'm not refering to "the most juiced up" rider ever, by any means. We all agree that was the Lance/Pantani/Ullrich era, and after that the Indurain/Rominger/Ciapucci (scary 64% Ugrumov, omg). By that I mean they created a monster (dominating as they want and crushing GC opponents both in mountain and ITT) from the scratch. Thats the BIG difference. Lance was a superb classics rider (WC 93, FW, etc.) and Indurain had already won 2 paris-Nice, the Tour de l'avenir (with 23 yo he had won 5 stages in this "sub23 Tour de France"), 2 stages at the tour, etc. They were both great young riders with a lot of projection. Doping (Conconi and Padilla) made Indurain reach that monster level by becoming even better in ITT and much better at climbing. Doping (Ferrari and cia) made Lance reach that monster level by transforming him into a GT smash machine, dominating both ITT and climbing. Even Pantani was since he was a young boy with hair in his head a superb climber, doping made him a much much better one. Good lord, even Wiggins was a great pistard prior to his transformation in the Tour 2009, climbing with Armstrong, Nibali and the Schlecks.
But what had Froome done when he became the best rider at the Vuelta 2011?... 1 stage at the Tour of Japan, 1 stage in a Race in Southafrica and 2nd in the British ITT. He was a mediocre to decent timetrialist, and absolutely nothing more. Thats why I see him as a total Product. He was not "enhanced", he was created from the scratch. Thats why I will ever consider him the biggest fraud.
DP: sad news for Nibali, he seemed to be okay when he closed the gap after the crash. This stage has been a slaughter...
So in your view Roglic and Dumoulin (let's use these 2 as an example) are completly normal brave guys yet the others with similar or worse track records (sky team) are all doped? This is why I called double standards.
I don't believe Dumoulin and Roglic are doped but I don't see you accusing them or raising suspicions on them….yet Thomas was a proven rider on the track and took several years on the road to transition to what he was doing last year and this year. (And in my eyes, the organization giving roughly 10 flat stages to start the Tour is helping Thomas more than anyone, he can now ride 2 weeks and avoid his usual downfall in the third week as effectively the first one was almost a bónus.)
Roglic was good in his own sport and now this out of the blue. So why is one to blame and the other isnt? Dumoulin is young and because of that his transition was legit? So was Froome when he started. Brailsford said the first time he saw Froome, he saw a guy with a ton of power in his legs but without technique or even proper equipment….maybe that is a lie, or maybe that helps explaining his poor results before joining sky.
This is the problem I see with most discussions like this. I'm not going to try to convince you or anything. For one because i'm not sure sky are not doping and also because I dont particularly like them to be defending them. I just hate it when I see the double standard posts. And please note I really like Roglic…..so this is not a biased position in favour of sky, its just some food for thought.
Yep, the cases of Dumoulin and Roglic are shady af.... and i do like a lot both riders. Dumoulin is one of my favorites (in general in Spain we do love him.... he reminds us of Indurain), but a 1,90m 70kg time trialist being like the 3rd best climber in this Tour??? In two years he went from a TT specialist to climbing almost as fast as Quintana...no thanks. And Roglic, the ski jumper who got into cycling at like 23 yo, being a Tour GC contender, also very shady.
Having said this, it doesn't even compare to Froome's transformation. These two guys showed two years of consistent good results (stages in the BEST races, look at their 2015, 2016 and 2017 results) before being GC contenders.... Froome took 1 f***ng month to do that... without having done shit before. Also you talk about Brailsford's impressions on Froome... these are his real impressions: twitter.com He wanted to sell him to Radioshack team... and of course they didn't want him. So nope... Froome's and Dumoulin's record are not the same. Not even close.
But the main difference is Sky's bullshit factory and unprecedented corruption: all that "marginal gains" stuff to justify their utterly superior performances, making a lot of riders become almost retired (Kenaught, Intxausti, etc.) and making riders like Cavendish or Boasson Hagen set the main group's pace in HC climbs, all that Henao blood values shit, their USPostal-kind relationship with Cookson's UCI (his own son working for team Sky), being the most opaque and liar team in modern cycling while being cocky about "new clean cycling"·, Froome's fair and square positive, all the asthma stuff coming out from nowhere, riders like Dylan Van Baarle who do not suffer from Asthma taking Ventolin shots (twitter.com), Froome winning 3 Tours and 1 Vuelta with 1 kidney, all those journalists/dogs buying and spreding all their bullshit when they learnt Cycling was a sport in 2011, etc. Really, I could write pages and pages about all there is wrong exclusively with them. I do think is way worse than the US Postal....it's more...dirty. Thats why I feel sad when i think his name is going to join the likes of Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault and Indurain. I feel like Sky and all its machinery are taking a dump on cycling itself.
You cannot have double standards when you talk about two COMPLETELY different situations.
On July 25 2018 05:56 L_Master wrote: Oh shit. Tomorrow is basically it. Next day is a sprint stage, then the following on the climbs are very easy and not a summit finish so no time gaps.
If Thomas can hold his gap to Froome he should win. If Froome or Dumoulin can take back 30s it's interesting. If G falter more than that he probably loses.
I think all hell will break loose on Tourmalet. It's one of the longest descents out there, perfect place for Froome to make a statement.
On July 25 2018 05:56 L_Master wrote: Oh shit. Tomorrow is basically it. Next day is a sprint stage, then the following on the climbs are very easy and not a summit finish so no time gaps.
If Thomas can hold his gap to Froome he should win. If Froome or Dumoulin can take back 30s it's interesting. If G falter more than that he probably loses.
I think all hell will break loose on Tourmalet. It's one of the longest descents out there, perfect place for Froome to make a statement.
I don't think Froome is riding away from anybody downhill. He can definitely hold his own on descents, but ride away from people? Nah. He'll save his energy and attack on the Col du Portet when his slaves are used up.
I think the short stage with 3 hard mountains is quite a brilliant idea. But I think the start is going to be an utter failure. Froome and Thomas are very obviously going to wait for de Gendt, Kwiatkowski, Bernal and whoever else they expect to slave away for them today. So unless one of the others think they'd rather go it alone and attack from the very first second, the beginning is going to have exactly one purpose: neutralize the "moto gp start" and ensure all teams link up again. The only one crazy enough to actually do something like that is Kruiswijk, but I don't think he's capable of getting away and staying away, and the teams will simply take that risk. Especially as he is quite a few minutes behind and would have to win a lot to threaten the top.
On July 25 2018 05:56 L_Master wrote: Oh shit. Tomorrow is basically it. Next day is a sprint stage, then the following on the climbs are very easy and not a summit finish so no time gaps.
If Thomas can hold his gap to Froome he should win. If Froome or Dumoulin can take back 30s it's interesting. If G falter more than that he probably loses.
I think all hell will break loose on Tourmalet. It's one of the longest descents out there, perfect place for Froome to make a statement.
I don't think Froome is riding away from anybody downhill. He can definitely hold his own on descents, but ride away from people? Nah. He'll save his energy and attack on the Col du Portet when his slaves are used up.
I think the short stage with 3 hard mountains is quite a brilliant idea. But I think the start is going to be an utter failure. Froome and Thomas are very obviously going to wait for de Gendt, Kwiatkowski, Bernal and whoever else they expect to slave away for them today. So unless one of the others think they'd rather go it alone and attack from the very first second, the beginning is going to have exactly one purpose: neutralize the "moto gp start" and ensure all teams link up again. The only one crazy enough to actually do something like that is Kruiswijk, but I don't think he's capable of getting away and staying away, and the teams will simply take that risk. Especially as he is quite a few minutes behind and would have to win a lot to threaten the top.
He did precisely that in was it 2015 (?), the Quintana thrown bottle on the summit. But what I meant was an attack 5km from the top. If he makes a 30-35 sec gap its game over you can trust that will rise to 1m before end of descent and 1.30-2 before the stage is over. Judging by his giro form he's perfectly capable of riding the remaining elevations by himself.
However he can also chose the safe option you mentioned but its less steep and distancing top10 there is much harder. I think G, Dumo and Roglic at least will stick with him for sure but thats fine for Sky so thats probably what's gona happen.
One curious thing is the fact that Froome and Dumoulin were 1 and 2 at the Giro. Would be quite a feat if both of them make it to the end without cracking. Noone has managed to win both since Pantani in 98. In fact most riders who have tried it after winning the Giro haven't come that close.
And well, Froome also won the Tour and the Vuelta last year, so he is riding his 4th straight GT and might win them all.
On July 25 2018 23:49 JumboJohnson wrote: What happened?
They had a F1 style starting lineup prepared with top10 lining up in order etc. ofc it didn't matter at all as soon as start was sounded they formed a peleton :D
Meanwhile, G has his orders not to chase obviously
Thomas is super strong, and Froome once again showed he's weaker. Now I have no doubts anymore, I always thought Froome would pass Thomas at some points but not anymore.
Good stage for Quintana too. At least he got a win, it must feel bad tho that he didn't feel like a threat to the top 3.
Well, they went for Thomas. Its normal after all, given that Froome's participation in the Tour was on hold, they made G.T. being the best in the race. Lets see if Roglic can take Froome's spot in the podium (they are both 8/10 timetrialists, maybe Roglic a little bit superior imo).
Shout out to Bernal. If Sky created these monsters from mediocre climbers like Froome or Thomas, i can't even imagine what they can make a super talented like Egan Bernal. This kid has some serious future.
Nice climb from Quintana, this has to be his real level... maybe he needs a change in his career and leave Movistar, i dont know.
On July 26 2018 00:47 palexhur wrote: Froome always shows "miraculous" recovery after his bad stage, lets wait until friday before any conclusion.
Doesn't matter. Unless you're thinking Froome can repeat his Giro super bomb attack by going on Tourmalet.
Friday's stage won't see gaps barring a crash or people cracking, the climbs just aren't hard enough. The Tourmalet is legit, but it's ages out and will just be ridden at tempo. After Tourmalet it's like 9km at 5.8% and 15km but at only 4.7%. Not even close to hard enough to make differences. Moreover, it follows with a decent to the finish so riders won't be incentive to bother with attacking.
I think the gaps you see now are the gaps you have at the start of the TT, barring of course a crack likes Yates at the Giro or a surprise long bomb.
Also damn, Bernal was magnificent today. Controlled the whole group all the day to inside 3km to go, and looked fluid and like he could have gone with Roglic's move as well, despite being on the front. Props to him for being such an aware and good teammates. As soon as Roglic went he immediately looked back for Froome and dropped back to assist. Not a split second hesitation or any thoughts of glory.
Cool move by Roglic, and good attempt by Landa; but in Landa's case the legs haven't been there. If he had last year's form it might have been good enough to at least get him a podium as it was well orchestrated and with some other good leaders.
Also, Bernal is ridiculous.
G should basically just need to stay upright tomorrow and he wins the Tour. Will be interesting to see if Thomas and Froome both remain at Sky. Seems unlikely even if they are long time teammates and good friends.
Roglic deserved the win 100%. Can only see Dumoulin having a chance to beat him tomorrow. Which means froome out of the podium. Giro fatigue? But Dumoulin was also at the giro podium and never cracked. Also this is the strongest top 10 I remember off the top of my head.
Fun stage. That pacing by Gesink was savage, he took like 2 mins in a few kms.
Dumoulin is the best timetrialist there, but knowing how is riding Thomas, I wouldn't be surprised if he takes the stage tomorrow... though it would go against the laws of physiology (If you are a grown up rider and improve climbing, you are supposed to be a worse timetrialist). I would say Dumo >30"> Thomas/Roglic >30"> Froome, and Geraint takes the Tour.
On July 28 2018 03:21 Elmonti wrote: Fun stage. That pacing by Gesink was savage, he took like 2 mins in a few kms.
Dumoulin is the best timetrialist there, but knowing how is riding Thomas, I wouldn't be surprised if he takes the stage tomorrow... though it would go against the laws of physiology (If you are a grown up rider and improve climbing, you are supposed to be a worse timetrialist). I would say Dumo >30"> Thomas/Roglic >30"> Froome, and Geraint takes the Tour.
No it wouldn't. It would be the law of "Dumoulin had a shit day". Thomas TT's pretty well but Dumoulin is MUCH better. Thomas can't touch Froome in a TT and Dumoulin is clearly superior to Froome.
Moreover, it also doesn't go against the laws of physiology. TT speed is all about watts/CdA. Climbing is w/kg. Thomas is quoted at around 70kg, Dumoulin around 72-73kg. They are climbing about the same, so assuming 6w/kg as is typical that's 420w from Thomas and 440w from Dumoulin. In other words, Dumoulin is barely bigger than Thomas. It's not like Thomas is a Quintana pipsqueak. Thomas is BIGGER than Froome.
20w difference ain't much. If we assume their positions are similarly as good (given how much better Dumoulin is, I'd guess Dumoulin is actually more aero), probably by 10w or so. If Dumoulin has a bad day and is off by 5-10% and Thomas is solid, that's enough difference from Thomas to eek out a tie or small win.
Moreover, a small guy being good at TT does not "defy the laws of physiology". It's rare though, because big guys can usually get into positions almost as good as smaller guys. Take a smaller guy like Roglic, at 65kg, and the reason he is doing so well at TT is because his position is exceptional. It's about as closed off as I've ever seen. We don't have wind tunnel data, but in his case you can see a visible difference between him and even Dumoulin with his more compact frame and uniquely closed to air flow setup from the front. When you have a guy that can still produce excellent power in a uniquely slippery position you get a smaller guy that can compete with the best. That's also why Roglic was known as a TT specialist before being a decent climber; he's always had an incredible position.
On July 28 2018 06:36 HolydaKing wrote: I say Thomas > Dumoulin > Froome > Roglic tomorrow.
I'd be pretty surprised if Thomas won. Dumoulin and Roglic would both have to shit the bed so to speak.
Dumoulin > Roglic > Thomas > Froome.
I'm confident Froome is last and Dumoulin wins. Less sure about Roglic and Thomas. Roglic would usually be better, but might be a little more tired than Thomas and also Thomas has been going marginally faster as well uphill.
On July 28 2018 03:21 Elmonti wrote: Fun stage. That pacing by Gesink was savage, he took like 2 mins in a few kms.
Dumoulin is the best timetrialist there, but knowing how is riding Thomas, I wouldn't be surprised if he takes the stage tomorrow... though it would go against the laws of physiology (If you are a grown up rider and improve climbing, you are supposed to be a worse timetrialist). I would say Dumo >30"> Thomas/Roglic >30"> Froome, and Geraint takes the Tour.
No it wouldn't. It would be the law of "Dumoulin had a shit day". Thomas TT's pretty well but Dumoulin is MUCH better. Thomas can't touch Froome in a TT and Dumoulin is clearly superior to Froome.
Moreover, it also doesn't go against the laws of physiology. TT speed is all about watts/CdA. Climbing is w/kg. Thomas is quoted at around 70kg, Dumoulin around 72-73kg. They are climbing about the same, so assuming 6w/kg as is typical that's 420w from Thomas and 440w from Dumoulin. In other words, Dumoulin is barely bigger than Thomas. It's not like Thomas is a Quintana pipsqueak. Thomas is BIGGER than Froome.
20w difference ain't much. If we assume their positions are similarly as good (given how much better Dumoulin is, I'd guess Dumoulin is actually more aero), probably by 10w or so. If Dumoulin has a bad day and is off by 5-10% and Thomas is solid, that's enough difference from Thomas to eek out a tie or small win.
Moreover, a small guy being good at TT does not "defy the laws of physiology". It's rare though, because big guys can usually get into positions almost as good as smaller guys. Take a smaller guy like Roglic, at 65kg, and the reason he is doing so well at TT is because his position is exceptional. It's about as closed off as I've ever seen. We don't have wind tunnel data, but in his case you can see a visible difference between him and even Dumoulin with his more compact frame and uniquely closed to air flow setup from the front. When you have a guy that can still produce excellent power in a uniquely slippery position you get a smaller guy that can compete with the best. That's also why Roglic was known as a TT specialist before being a decent climber; he's always had an incredible position.
You have misunderstood what I meant, I didn't bring up Dumo or Roglic, I was not comparing GT to anyone... I didn't say that you HAVE to be a worse TT if you are smaller because that's not true (Rominger, T.Martin, even people like Evans or Contador were pretty good at TT), what I meant is that when you have already matured as a rider (we assume Thomas is already a formed rider being 32yo), improving in one aspect should mean getting worse at the other. Let's say if Thomas was 75 kgs when he won the E3 three years ago, and now he has dropped to 70 kgs to climb better, those are 5 kgs less which should have repercussion in the power he can put in flat-ish time trials. Of course thats not 5kgs of pure muscle, but neither are 5kgs of pure fat, so it HAS to have repercussion in the TTs.
Thats what I meant: under the laws of physiology, when being 32yo, if u loose weight to climb better, u loose power to dish in the TTs. (and I specify being a mature rider... if Bernal being 21 yo improves in everything for the next 3 or 4 years that's normal since he hasn't reached his peak yet)
PD: of course that doesn't mean he necessarily has to do a better/worse TT than Dumo/Roglic. I was just talking about "standart" facts
On July 28 2018 03:21 Elmonti wrote: Fun stage. That pacing by Gesink was savage, he took like 2 mins in a few kms.
Dumoulin is the best timetrialist there, but knowing how is riding Thomas, I wouldn't be surprised if he takes the stage tomorrow... though it would go against the laws of physiology (If you are a grown up rider and improve climbing, you are supposed to be a worse timetrialist). I would say Dumo >30"> Thomas/Roglic >30"> Froome, and Geraint takes the Tour.
No it wouldn't. It would be the law of "Dumoulin had a shit day". Thomas TT's pretty well but Dumoulin is MUCH better. Thomas can't touch Froome in a TT and Dumoulin is clearly superior to Froome.
Moreover, it also doesn't go against the laws of physiology. TT speed is all about watts/CdA. Climbing is w/kg. Thomas is quoted at around 70kg, Dumoulin around 72-73kg. They are climbing about the same, so assuming 6w/kg as is typical that's 420w from Thomas and 440w from Dumoulin. In other words, Dumoulin is barely bigger than Thomas. It's not like Thomas is a Quintana pipsqueak. Thomas is BIGGER than Froome.
20w difference ain't much. If we assume their positions are similarly as good (given how much better Dumoulin is, I'd guess Dumoulin is actually more aero), probably by 10w or so. If Dumoulin has a bad day and is off by 5-10% and Thomas is solid, that's enough difference from Thomas to eek out a tie or small win.
Moreover, a small guy being good at TT does not "defy the laws of physiology". It's rare though, because big guys can usually get into positions almost as good as smaller guys. Take a smaller guy like Roglic, at 65kg, and the reason he is doing so well at TT is because his position is exceptional. It's about as closed off as I've ever seen. We don't have wind tunnel data, but in his case you can see a visible difference between him and even Dumoulin with his more compact frame and uniquely closed to air flow setup from the front. When you have a guy that can still produce excellent power in a uniquely slippery position you get a smaller guy that can compete with the best. That's also why Roglic was known as a TT specialist before being a decent climber; he's always had an incredible position.
You have misunderstood what I meant, I didn't bring up Dumo or Roglic, I was not comparing GT to anyone... I didn't say that you HAVE to be a worse TT if you are smaller because that's not true (Rominger, T.Martin, even people like Evans or Contador were pretty good at TT), what I meant is that when you have already matured as a rider (we assume Thomas is already a formed rider being 32yo), improving in one aspect should mean getting worse at the other. Let's say if Thomas was 75 kgs when he won the E3 three years ago, and now he has dropped to 70 kgs to climb better, those are 5 kgs less which should have repercussion in the power he can put in flat-ish time trials. Of course thats not 5kgs of pure muscle, but neither are 5kgs of pure fat, so it HAS to have repercussion in the TTs.
Thats what I meant: under the laws of physiology, when being 32yo, if u loose weight to climb better, u loose power to dish in the TTs. (and I specify being a mature rider... if Bernal being 21 yo improves in everything for the next 3 or 4 years that's normal since he hasn't reached his peak yet)
PD: of course that doesn't mean he necessarily has to do a better/worse TT than Dumo/Roglic. I was just talking about "standart" facts
I agree with that in principle.
In the case of Thomas, obviously he was always good at short TT given he was pursuit champion.
In becoming a GC rider he gave up some anaerobic cap to improve his ability at threshold/aerobic climb. This means he is faster at 40' and slower at 4', which is fair because he would get thrashed at a pursuit now. I bet he is at least 10s to 15s slower at 4km pursuit now.
Although less likely given his pursuit background, it also possible Thomas improved his position. That can happen anytime. Most likely though he improved his long term sustainability and comfort in that position. I would expect a pursuit guy to have very aggressive position that he can maybe stay for 4' but for long time he can't stay there from discomfort and loses aero. As Thomas serious to GC rider I think he may have improved his long TT position giving some boost there combined with a few more watts at 40'.
In short for Thomas I think:
- 30 to 60' watts went up a little - 20' and less watts went down, with watts at 5' down a lot - more aero at duration longer than 10'
I think this also makes sense with weight loss. Excess muscle doesn't usually change threshold/aerobic too much. I don't think a guy like Marcel Kittle or even Sagan has more aerobic watts than someone like a Dennis, Kung, or Martin at his best. Big muscle guys usually have large anaerobic cap though, giving HUGE power at 5' and okay power at 5' to 20'. If Kittle lost 20lbs I don't think his threshold watts would change much, but his power at 10' would become MUCH less.
That's exactly what I think the change was for Thomas. Less short time period/anaerobic watts in exchange for similar or small improvenent in aerobic watts in a now lighter body.
We can basically confirm this too because Thomas can't compete at all with people like Martin or Valverde or Alaphillipe up Mur or similar climb.
Cristopher Froome is the greatest laboratory product the cycling has ever seen. And there are tons of records to support this.
LOL?! A guy with a low 6w/kg FTP that couldn't hack it as a cycling domestique in the 2000s era is a greater "laboratory cyclist" than Big Mig's 550w FTP dragging 80kg up mountains, or Marco Pantani soaring up hills at 7.5 w/kg blasts to win stages by minutes?
Well I see for the most part we agree in facts but just take different conclusions. Fair enough.
Just one thing regarding the "laboratory product": when I say that i'm not refering to "the most juiced up" rider ever, by any means. We all agree that was the Lance/Pantani/Ullrich era, and after that the Indurain/Rominger/Ciapucci (scary 64% Ugrumov, omg). By that I mean they created a monster (dominating as they want and crushing GC opponents both in mountain and ITT) from the scratch. Thats the BIG difference. Lance was a superb classics rider (WC 93, FW, etc.) and Indurain had already won 2 paris-Nice, the Tour de l'avenir (with 23 yo he had won 5 stages in this "sub23 Tour de France"), 2 stages at the tour, etc. They were both great young riders with a lot of projection. Doping (Conconi and Padilla) made Indurain reach that monster level by becoming even better in ITT and much better at climbing. Doping (Ferrari and cia) made Lance reach that monster level by transforming him into a GT smash machine, dominating both ITT and climbing. Even Pantani was since he was a young boy with hair in his head a superb climber, doping made him a much much better one. Good lord, even Wiggins was a great pistard prior to his transformation in the Tour 2009, climbing with Armstrong, Nibali and the Schlecks.
But what had Froome done when he became the best rider at the Vuelta 2011?... 1 stage at the Tour of Japan, 1 stage in a Race in Southafrica and 2nd in the British ITT. He was a mediocre to decent timetrialist, and absolutely nothing more. Thats why I see him as a total Product. He was not "enhanced", he was created from the scratch. Thats why I will ever consider him the biggest fraud.
DP: sad news for Nibali, he seemed to be okay when he closed the gap after the crash. This stage has been a slaughter...
So in your view Roglic and Dumoulin (let's use these 2 as an example) are completly normal brave guys yet the others with similar or worse track records (sky team) are all doped? This is why I called double standards.
I don't believe Dumoulin and Roglic are doped but I don't see you accusing them or raising suspicions on them….yet Thomas was a proven rider on the track and took several years on the road to transition to what he was doing last year and this year. (And in my eyes, the organization giving roughly 10 flat stages to start the Tour is helping Thomas more than anyone, he can now ride 2 weeks and avoid his usual downfall in the third week as effectively the first one was almost a bónus.)
Roglic was good in his own sport and now this out of the blue. So why is one to blame and the other isnt? Dumoulin is young and because of that his transition was legit? So was Froome when he started. Brailsford said the first time he saw Froome, he saw a guy with a ton of power in his legs but without technique or even proper equipment….maybe that is a lie, or maybe that helps explaining his poor results before joining sky.
This is the problem I see with most discussions like this. I'm not going to try to convince you or anything. For one because i'm not sure sky are not doping and also because I dont particularly like them to be defending them. I just hate it when I see the double standard posts. And please note I really like Roglic…..so this is not a biased position in favour of sky, its just some food for thought.
Yep, the cases of Dumoulin and Roglic are shady af.... and i do like a lot both riders. Dumoulin is one of my favorites (in general in Spain we do love him.... he reminds us of Indurain), but a 1,90m 70kg time trialist being like the 3rd best climber in this Tour??? In two years he went from a TT specialist to climbing almost as fast as Quintana...no thanks. And Roglic, the ski jumper who got into cycling at like 23 yo, being a Tour GC contender, also very shady.
Having said this, it doesn't even compare to Froome's transformation. These two guys showed two years of consistent good results (stages in the BEST races, look at their 2015, 2016 and 2017 results) before being GC contenders.... Froome took 1 f***ng month to do that... without having done shit before. Also you talk about Brailsford's impressions on Froome... these are his real impressions: twitter.com He wanted to sell him to Radioshack team... and of course they didn't want him. So nope... Froome's and Dumoulin's record are not the same. Not even close.
But the main difference is Sky's bullshit factory and unprecedented corruption: all that "marginal gains" stuff to justify their utterly superior performances, making a lot of riders become almost retired (Kenaught, Intxausti, etc.) and making riders like Cavendish or Boasson Hagen set the main group's pace in HC climbs, all that Henao blood values shit, their USPostal-kind relationship with Cookson's UCI (his own son working for team Sky), being the most opaque and liar team in modern cycling while being cocky about "new clean cycling"·, Froome's fair and square positive, all the asthma stuff coming out from nowhere, riders like Dylan Van Baarle who do not suffer from Asthma taking Ventolin shots (twitter.com), Froome winning 3 Tours and 1 Vuelta with 1 kidney, all those journalists/dogs buying and spreding all their bullshit when they learnt Cycling was a sport in 2011, etc. Really, I could write pages and pages about all there is wrong exclusively with them. I do think is way worse than the US Postal....it's more...dirty. Thats why I feel sad when i think his name is going to join the likes of Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault and Indurain. I feel like Sky and all its machinery are taking a dump on cycling itself.
You cannot have double standards when you talk about two COMPLETELY different situations.
I'm not comparing past froome to current dumoulin. I was comparing your critique of current Froome to the complet absence on comments regarding Roglic and Dumoulin. The other line you said about them makes my case rest and I'll leave it at that since that is consistent. The only difference is that it was the first time I saw you raise doubt on their performances whereas every other post i see from you is bashing someone at sky. That right there is a double standard regardless of how you try to change the point I was making.
But again, seeing your position on those 2 being similar to that regarding Froome makes me take my statement back ;-)
Closing that part and moving on to today's stage, I spent most of this Tour's last week wondering when were Froome and Dumoulin going to break….I assumed the Giro performances would lead to at least one bad day but maybe the longer distance between the Giro and the Tour this year and the first stages being all flat help avoiding such a day for them, moreso for Dumoulin.
For my fantasy team purposes, a completely off day from Dumoulin today would be ideal but realistically, that seems unlikely.
On July 29 2018 00:09 Laurens wrote: Belgian tv first showing Dumoulin 2nd behind Froome, then suddenly in front of Froome, which one is it now guys?
The automatic system had taken a wrong time for Froome (considering him over the goal line about 3 seconds earlier than he actually was), but his time was manually adjusted. So according to the automated system Froome was faster, but with the adjusted times (and thats what counts) Dumo won.
On July 29 2018 00:19 mahrgell wrote: Btw: So what will be the captaincy situation next year at Sky?
Even if they can tell Bernal to wait for a year with winning the TdF... Who will be their #1 between Froome and GT?
Well, I think that this Tour has taught us that the Sky captain will be the rider they decide to, whatever his record or characteristics are. If Thomas and Froome can't race due to crash/leaving the team/doping positive/etc they still have Bernal and Poels as potential Tour winners. Maybe Kwiato.
Terrible TT by Roglic, and superb performance by Froome and Thomas. Dumoulin did the expected, as of being the TT world champion.
Geraint Thomas takes the Tour, he has been the strongest rider by far. Being able to improve A LOT both in TT and in climbing HCs at 32 years old, nothing more that their rivals can do.
Also pretty impressive stuff by both Froome and Dumoulin, getting the 2nd and 3rd spot in podium after having riden the Giro? These kind of things didn't happen since Pantani, Indurain, etc..... so I don't know how to take this, tbh.
The Tour is the most boring big race yet again, though the intrusion of Roglic and Dumo/Froome doing the Giro-Tour have risen some interest, so it hasn't been a total disgrace like the 2016 and 2017 Tours.
On July 29 2018 00:10 palexhur wrote: Well it is clear that if you can build a TdF champion like GT, you can do whatever you want in this modern cycling.
I'm sorry, but you guys are ridiculous. You're remotely suprised a big 76kg powerhouse pursuit TT champion with good skills over cobbles, a HUGE engine, and excellent race skills evolves into a Tour winner?
The formula to win the tour is to be a massive engine that tolerates losing weight while holding most of that power and hangs on in the mountains. Thomas fits this script and development to a T, perhaps even more so than Froome ever did.
When was the last pipsqueak climber to win the tour? Pantani? Domination of the Tour over the past few decades has been Indurain, Armstrong, Landis, Wiggins, then Froome. Only a few tours have been won by moderate climbers: twice by Contador, once by Evans, and once by Nibali (after everyone else good crashed out). Not a true climber to win since Pantani.
Bernal might be good enough to do that. Might be. I'd still back McNulty long before I'd back Bernal though. Small, pure climbers with weak TT ability don't win tours.
Back to pursiter Thomas...take that guy, have him shift his training from 4' power to threshold work and fatigue resistance + a little weight loss and you have the most basic formula for a tour champion. Has been happening for decades not sure why it's a suprise now. Froome going rapidly from mediocre domestique to champion is way more surprising than the gradual evolution of Thomas into a Tour winner if you ask me.
On July 29 2018 00:19 mahrgell wrote: Btw: So what will be the captaincy situation next year at Sky?
Even if they can tell Bernal to wait for a year with winning the TdF... Who will be their #1 between Froome and GT?
This will be fascinating. I'm guessing next year Bernal will do lead for Giro, Vuelta, or both. He will either skip or support in the Tour preparing for Vuelta or recovering from Giro.
Thomas and Froome I don't know. I'm kinda thinking one will jump ship, but perhaps they will play the same game as this time with legitimate co-leadership.
On July 29 2018 00:19 mahrgell wrote: Btw: So what will be the captaincy situation next year at Sky?
Even if they can tell Bernal to wait for a year with winning the TdF... Who will be their #1 between Froome and GT?
Also pretty impressive stuff by both Froome and Dumoulin, getting the 2nd and 3rd spot in podium after having riden the Giro? These kind of things didn't happen since Pantani, Indurain, etc..... so I don't know how to take this, tbh.
6 weeks instead of 5. HUGE difference. Moreover, prime Froome is the clear best and Dumoulin the clear second best (well perhaps not with arrival of G).
Froome and Dumoulin are both far above the level of guys like Bardet, Roglic (though hugely improved), Kruijswijk, and others. Landa and Quintana are the riders that might have been good rivals and I would think could challenge weak Dumoulin, but both suffered bad crashes and struggled as a result.
As is often the case, the only guy in good health that Froome and Dumoulin beat was Roglic. Bardet wasted HUGE energy on stage 8 and 9. That affected him the entire way, and he has never shown top level climbing ability. Quintana seems his best days are behind him. Landa had a brutal crash on stage 9 that made his form very weak all tour.
So yea, with an extra week to recovery Froome and Dumoulin can both easily beat up on some B listers and injured A listers.
On July 29 2018 00:10 palexhur wrote: Well it is clear that if you can build a TdF champion like GT, you can do whatever you want in this modern cycling.
I'm sorry, but you guys are ridiculous. You're remotely suprised a big 76kg powerhouse pursuit TT champion with good skills over cobbles, a HUGE engine, and excellent race skills evolves into a Tour winner?
The formula to win the tour is to be a massive engine that tolerates losing weight while holding most of that power and hangs on in the mountains. Thomas fits this script and development to a T, perhaps even more so than Froome ever did.
At 29 years old, u cannot evolve anymore L_Master... you can just get a little bit better or worse at what you do. Not becoming something completely different.
That's the thing, he didn't hang in the mountains "Cadel Evans" style (I loose 15 + 20 + 0 + 10 in mountain stages, then take 2 mins on TT)...not even Wiggo style... he crushed them. He had way more power than the rest of the field. In all mountain stages he hunged on easily, never got dropped once and destroyed them at sprint, which means he only didn't drop them because of Froome. That's not a great timetrialist who can hang on with the climbers. That's the best climber by far. You say he had a HUGE engine, he started to climb decently like 3 yeasr ago, at 29yo... where was that climbing engine who will make him a Tour winner?
That formula also suits people like Tony Martin, Cancellara, GvA, Stefan Kung, etc. People with a massive engine who can ride up shorts periods of time or little mountains.
I mean, i think it's just fucking clear that seeing all the stuff with Froome and maybe not being able to ride the Tour, they decided to transform him into the Tour winner, as they have done already with other riders of the team.
On July 29 2018 00:10 palexhur wrote: Well it is clear that if you can build a TdF champion like GT, you can do whatever you want in this modern cycling.
I'm sorry, but you guys are ridiculous. You're remotely suprised a big 76kg powerhouse pursuit TT champion with good skills over cobbles, a HUGE engine, and excellent race skills evolves into a Tour winner?
The formula to win the tour is to be a massive engine that tolerates losing weight while holding most of that power and hangs on in the mountains. Thomas fits this script and development to a T, perhaps even more so than Froome ever did.
At 29 years old, u cannot evolve anymore L_Master... you can just get a little bit better or worse at what you do. Not becoming something completely different.
Of all the things you've written, this is the one where I disagree with you the most. To be honest I think this statement is completely inaccurate.
In fact, late twenties is precisely when this evolution occurs most typically. Athletics is a good example. Great 1500 or 5000m runners rarely blossom into great marathoners until their late twenties or early thirties. A combination of time building up focus on fatigue resistance and threshold and shifting focus in that direction.
I need to emphasize one thing though. This development goes ONLY one way. A punchy rider can develop into a good climber over time with better endurance/aerobic power and fatigue resistance, both aspects are the most trainable aspects of physiology as well and the ones that mature with age.
A rider developing a sprint, or serious punch/short power later than early twenties would be VERY abnormal and extremely suspicious. I can't think of any examples. You know right away if you have sprint and/or punch.
That's the thing, he didn't hang in the mountains "Cadel Evans" style (I loose 15 + 20 + 0 + 10 in mountain stages, then take 2 mins on TT)...not even Wiggo style... he crushed them. He had way more power than the rest of the field. In all mountain stages he hunged on easily, never got dropped once and destroyed them at sprint, which means he only didn't drop them because of Froome.
If you watched, Thomas never attacked. He just sat in and punched it in the end. Not surprising. If you've ever paid attention to athletics, take a look at what happens to the pure 10000m guys or half marathon runners if a former mile makes it around to the end. The miler SMASHES them. Thomas did the same. If two guys race at 10000m, one guy that can run 26:30 and another guy that can run 27:00, but their ability at 1500 is 3:34 vs 3:28, the 27' runner will SMASH the 26:30 guy on a regular basis. Usually putting on 3-5 seconds in the last 200m of the race.
This is exactly what's happening with Thomas. It's like, would you be surprised to see Valverde hang with the climbers and, if he did, outsprint them brutally at the end? Of course not. Thomas did the same thing. He just drilled it at 600w for the last 40s and nobody else can follow because those other guys don't have that speed.
I assure you Thomas was on his limit just as much as Dumoulin, Froome, Roglic, etc. Moreover, consider who Thomas beat:
Froome (Weak from Giro) Dumoulin (Weak from Giro) Bardet (low A list climber, struggling with fatigue) Roglic (unknown quantity, seemed to be solid climber but still solidly below weak Froome, Dumo) Quintana (seemingly past peak, dealing with injuries) Landa (major injury issues)
If Porte had been here, he would have dropped Thomas' ass brutally on both Alp and the Stage 17 climb. Those climbs are hard enough for Porte to do that. I'm not sure if Thomas could have been dropped anywhere else due to draft.
So, kinda like Nibali in 2014, Thomas beat up on a bunch of weakened, subpar, climbers.
That also perfectly parallels what we see in track to at 10,000m. The 1500m specialists are a bit slower at 10,000, but not slow enough to be dropped with draft advantages. The only guys that ever can drop those kinds of runners are absolutely cream of the crop 10000m runners on excellent form.
Guess what? No good rider was on form in this Tour. Moreover, Thomas was the only one to make it through without crashes and injuries. A HUGE advantage.
That's not a great timetrialist who can hang on with the climbers. That's the best climber by far. You say he had a HUGE engine, he started to climb decently like 3 yeasr ago, at 29yo... where was that climbing engine who will make him a Tour winner?
That huge engine was a) developing and b) in too big of a vehicle. Thomas has, by all reports, consistently lost some weight each of the past several seasons, even after his big initial drop. His training was also still refining that threshold, giving him a little more endurance at end of stages and climbing power. Maybe that's 5-10w of small improvement in three years, along with a drop of 3kg, but taken together that's 3-5%, which is the difference between being best of injured/tired top riders and average level climber.
That formula also suits people like Tony Martin, Cancellara, GvA, Stefan Kung, etc. People with a massive engine who can ride up shorts periods of time or little mountains.
GvA =/= Cancellara =/= Kung + Martin.
GvA is a punchy rider with a major kick. I guarantee you GvA watts at 1' would destroy Thomas. Thomas is a bigger engine guy than GvA, but GvA is punchier. Moreover, GvA also has a pretty good sprint, which usually opposes the development of a massive threshold due to fiber types. This makes GvA an unlikely GT winning candidate. He's also a top level rider of classics and other races, and is never going to take a career risk to try and go GT contender.
Cancellara is interesting. One of the most versatile all around riders of all time. Could sprint, could time trial, could punch. I think he needed his size for all of those things, and like GvA was a classics star and wasn't going to try GTs. He may have had the engine that would have been needed for it, but would have needed a particularly dramatic amount of weight loss.
Kung and Martin are both candidates, although Kung is kinda ridiculously huge. Most guys much above 6'1-6'2 (187cm) really have a hard time developing the needed w/kg to hang. It's just too big, and the smaller you are height wise the more it favors pure w/kg. Martin is the most interesting. He checks all the boxes of TT guys that looks like he could have been a Tour contender. I'm not sure if he tried or what stopped him. If he failed, it was probably a case of a guy who couldn't handle weight drop. Some guys can, some guys can't; and to the extent of what is known you can't tell by looking. Some riders can tolerate it and others can't. If TM tried to ride for general, my guess is this is what inhibited him.
I mean, i think it's just fucking clear that seeing all the stuff with Froome and maybe not being able to ride the Tour, they decided to transform him into the Tour winner, as they have done already with other riders of the team.
Thomas IS almost certainly a product of the sky factory. Whether the shit they do is sketch or outright cheating I don't know, but I think they have a combination of the best "stuff" as well as the best training. Everybody knows the drugs that are in play and can use them, both "legal"(TUE type stuff) and illegal. The fact that Sky churns out amazing riders unlike any other team tells me that they are coming up with better training + "supplement" combination.
I don't believe for a second that Sky's development is 100% due to their supplements.
With that in mind, I do agree with you that going to Sky is a huge advantage to a rider. Perhaps worth 3-5% total. That's a TON. If Thomas hadn't been with Sky he probably would not have one the Tour. We agree there. However, I have no doubt that "not sky" Thomas would have reached podium level in the Tour.
Froome on the other hand....I'm sorry but his rise from nowhere is much more shocking. Geraint had HUGE talent and a unique engine. Froome didn't have any of that and changed rapidly in less than two years from nobody to GT threat.
I mean, i think it's just fucking clear that seeing all the stuff with Froome and maybe not being able to ride the Tour, they decided to transform him into the Tour winner, as they have done already with other riders of the team.
Thomas IS almost certainly a product of the sky factory. Whether the shit they do is sketch or outright cheating I don't know, but I think they have a combination of the best "stuff" as well as the best training. Everybody knows the drugs that are in play and can use them, both "legal"(TUE type stuff) and illegal. The fact that Sky churns out amazing riders unlike any other team tells me that they are coming up with better training + "supplement" combination.
I don't believe for a second that Sky's development is 100% due to their supplements.
With that in mind, I do agree with you that going to Sky is a huge advantage to a rider. Perhaps worth 3-5% total. That's a TON. If Thomas hadn't been with Sky he probably would not have one the Tour. We agree there. However, I have no doubt that "not sky" Thomas would have reached podium level in the Tour.
Froome on the other hand....I'm sorry but his rise from nowhere is much more shocking. Geraint had HUGE talent and a unique engine. Froome didn't have any of that and changed rapidly in less than two years from nobody to GT threat.
I agree with youi for the most part here. The only thing is I find it difficult to believe that they have discovered like a much better method of training at this point of cycling... because we all know all the stuff of super-TT suits, the egg ring, etc. is all product placement and publicity bullshit. The thing is at those levels, the "magical potion" makes a huge difference giving that 3-4 % like you say, and the worst thing of all is all the institutionalized cheating and corruption, which has only seen before in the USPostal stuff.
PD: 2 years??... Dude, it was literally 3 WEEKS lol..... In June he was 47th in Tour Suisse, in July he was 45th in Brixia Tour (¿?), in August 85th in Tour de Pologne and then in Septembre....BAM! 2nd in the Vuelta, 13 seconds from 1st, and +1 stage xD I mean, that is the most hardcore stuff i've ever seen in cycling: www.procyclingstats.com I do like Froome's personality despite being a laboratory product... at least he is a chill, "humble" guy, and not a cocky idiot like Wiggo or a straigh up sociopath like Lance.
Anyways, let's see what we have for La Vuelta. And after that a WC for climbers, it should be fun.
I didn't follow cycling that closely the last 5 years, but hasn't Thomas been a pretty solid climber for several years already? He has done well in smaller stage races for quite a while. Last year he crashed out of both the Giro and the Tour so he didn't get to show whether he could have been closer to the top. Of course winning the Tour is still a jump, but as L_Master pointed out a lot of his competition was dealing with crashes or had ridden the Giro, whereas Thomas had a completely clean Tour. We'll see if he can repeat it next year.
Also it helped that Sky had like 4 of the best 10 climbers in any given stage so other teams had a really hard time attacking them. Thomas seemed the strongest anyway, but it was hard to put him under a lot of pressure because of Sky's dominance. Thomas vs Froome leadership discussion also didn't really become relevant because Bernal was always there with them.
It'll be interesting what Sky does for next year. It's probably pretty tempting for them to just have Bernal lead in some week long stage races and still bring him to the Tour as a domestique. But he seems to be good enough to warrant the chance to lead at either the Giro or the Vuelta.