Was Armstrong responsible for the speed of the Giro?

DaveyL

Fastest Giro of all time - undoubtedly down to, in part, the course. But having heard a few riders comment on how tough every stage was, how it was hard racing from the gun with no cruising through villages taking cakes from the locals, I wonder if the increased media coverage due to LA's presence led to riders trying to get into breaks from the gun on most stages, to get a share of some of that increased exposure. Kind of like the way the Tour is raced.

Just a thought.

iainf72

I don't know. I don't trust the numbers to be honest. Km/h? Pft, I just want Wiggins to tell me if it's faster or slower.

You science people and your blinkin' numbers.

cougie

Does an average speed tell us much ? Its not the same route every year - so you'd not expect the same speed every year ?

DaveyL

But the racing was hard from the gun on almost every stage - irrespective of the average speed overall.

blazing_saddles

Increased media coverage? Where, exactly?
The US just swopped Versus for Universal or whatever.
I reckon we had less Eurosport coverage this year, overall.
Maybe it has something to do with the fine weather and those watery parcours.

drenkrom

Italians have a huge soft spot for memorial celebrations like the Centenary. While most of us were not overly impressed with the impact of the celebration, Italian riders still said the word "centenary" at least twice per interview. It was mostly Italians, or Italian teams, doing the attacking and it was mainly an Italian team reeling them back in. I don't think Armstrong equates into it.

leguape

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Increased media coverage? Where, exactly?
The US just swopped Versus for Universal or whatever.
I reckon we had less Eurosport coverage this year, overall.

Other countries are available.

Forgot where I saw it but I think Zomegnan had increased the number of territories carrying the giro from something like 80 to 100.

Certainly there were a lot more accredited journalists at the race, double or triple what they've had in previous years depending on which source you go with.

blazing_saddles

So, we are going with the theory that the race was faster, because it was being shown in Botswana or Lithuania for the first time? :?

leguape

No, just saying that it did have more press coverage.

Michael Barry seemed to give the impression in his velonews diary that it wasn't the usual piano until 20km to go Giro this year.

Lack of frozen/sodden stages made the difference in my opinion. Only time they did piano for most of the day was Milan wasn't it?

What about the effect of fewer teams apparently challenging for GC and so chasing stage wins?

LangerDan

Its not as if it was the fastest Giro by a long chalk - Simoni's win in 2001 was about the same speed too (not that that proves much). OTOH, Pantanis win in 1998 was, relatively speaking, quite slow. In fact speeds in the big, bad '90s were 3-4 km/h slower

It should be noted that in comparing the Giro with previous editions not only does the parcours change but they riders are now getting two rest days (Three if you count the Milan fiasco) whereas they had only one rest day in the past.

DaveyL

My point about the speeds was somewhat tongue-n-cheek and intended to be provocative, but the point about the style of racing (as legaupe also mentioned) still stands.

allaction

I think you will find that The war in Iraq, Big Brother and Poltergiests are all attributed to Lance's comeback!

He has a lot to answer for.....

ms_tree

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Increased media coverage? Where, exactly?
The US just swopped Versus for Universal or whatever.
I reckon we had less Eurosport coverage this year, overall.
Maybe it has something to do with the fine weather and those watery parcours.

Don't agree with you about Eurosport Blazing! The fact it was on Euro2 for wk 3 meant we saw it live and not put back for Murray or whoever. That was a good idea this year.