*Spoliers* Tour de France talk *Spoilers*

cjcp

Some good audio pieces/interviews with Cav and Wiggins on the BBC website. Worth a listen. The effort by Hincapie is mentioned. I've not seen it yet, but I couldn't wait to find out!

greg66_tri_v2.0

What about this: if Andy wants to win, he's got to have Frank riding for him, but he's got to ride for himself at the crunch moments, and not ride for Frank.

Eau Rouge

Greg66 wrote:

What about this: if Andy wants to win, he's got to have Frank riding for him, but he's got to ride for himself at the crunch moments, and not ride for Frank.

He was never going to take 4 minutes out of Contador on Mt. Ventoux, so there was no point in him riding for himself there really. Were there other times?

cjcp

Eau Rouge wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

What about this: if Andy wants to win, he's got to have Frank riding for him, but he's got to ride for himself at the crunch moments, and not ride for Frank.

He was never going to take 4 minutes out of Contador on Mt. Ventoux, so there was no point in him riding for himself there really. Were there other times?

Who knows? He was never put under pressure on Ventoux. You've got to have a go at least. There's actually a case for saying that Andy's inconsistent pace helped Wiggins more than Frank because Wiggo clawed his way on the group. Who knows? Who cares? It helped Wiggo keep 4th! 8)

Ultimately though, Andy needs to do some serious ITT work. Getting rid of the TTT again would also help.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Eau Rouge wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

What about this: if Andy wants to win, he's got to have Frank riding for him, but he's got to ride for himself at the crunch moments, and not ride for Frank.

He was never going to take 4 minutes out of Contador on Mt. Ventoux, so there was no point in him riding for himself there really. Were there other times?

I was thinking more for the future than of what might have been. It struck me that they ride as a team, but without a leader. That means they end up helping each other, but both riding at the pace of the slower rider.

And yes, some ITT work would no doubt help too. As might a course with more uphill finishes.

Stone Glider

Just watched the stage on Mt Ventoux (family duties at the weekend). The most engrossing stage of the lot! Mr Wiggins should be able to command a huge fee for 2010.

To me, Garmin were the team of the Tour, they put everything in when they could; even at the end in Paris.

Can't wait for next year. Obviously I will :oops:

Eau Rouge

Stone Glider wrote:

Just watched the stage on Mt Ventoux (family duties at the weekend). The most engrossing stage of the lot! Mr Wiggins should be able to command a huge fee for 2010.

To me, Garmin were the team of the Tour, they put everything in when they could; even at the end in Paris.

Can't wait for next year. Obviously I will :oops:

The season isn't over yet. The Vuelta, World Chamnps and the Giro Di Lombardia to name just three races still to come, as well as the Tours of Ireland and Britain.

Stone Glider

:oops: I stand, justifiably, corrected :oops:

cjcp

Anyone else think that Hincapie's peel off before the final corner may have scuppered Garmin's run in to the sprint or just that they took the wrong line going into the corner because they had had the advantage wrestled from them by Hincapie?

cjcp

Greg66 wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

What about this: if Andy wants to win, he's got to have Frank riding for him, but he's got to ride for himself at the crunch moments, and not ride for Frank.

He was never going to take 4 minutes out of Contador on Mt. Ventoux, so there was no point in him riding for himself there really. Were there other times?

I was thinking more for the future than of what might have been. It struck me that they ride as a team, but without a leader. That means they end up helping each other, but both riding at the pace of the slower rider.

+1. You didn't see AC hanging around from LA when the time came to attack.

Also, did AC have a little dig at LAC during his podium speech?

dirk_van_gently

fatgrimpeur wrote:

Been one of the best tours in years, great performances

+1, even if you disregard the British performances, it has been an absolutely fabulous Tour, then top that off with Cavendish and Wiggins performances, well just brilliant.

Bit of an anti climax now, no reason to race home to catch the last 20-30mins live, or watch the highlights.

La Vuelta and Tour of Britain not that far away.

DonDaddyD

I loved the fact that there were no drug scandles in this tour, it made it safe to watch, get behind and talk about riders with the constant feeling of doubt in the back of my mind.

Columbia HTC were the team of the Tour for me. Sure they didn't really have a GC contender but in the stages where it mattered to them, they seemed to be at the front leading things, working as a team and almost being bullish towards the other team.

@ CJCP, I thought Renshaw blocked Garmins line, he did take that corner rather tight and the guy had no choice but to break, crash into Renshaw/Cav or hit the barriers.

Whether what Renshaw did was bad, I don't know enough of the rules to say.

Next year:

I want Andy Shelck and Wiggins to be a proper team leaders. With a solid team to support them, especially Wiggins as in someways I felt he couldn't attack because he was outmanned.

I want to see Cav challenging for the green jersey proper and start thinking/focusing on becoming a complete rider.

Contador to leave Astana.

Armstrong to have a solid team.

I want Team Sky (with some British youngsters) to be awesome.

Christophe3967

cjcp wrote:

Anyone else think that Hincapie's peel off before the final corner may have scuppered Garmin's run in to the sprint or just that they took the wrong line going into the corner because they had had the advantage wrestled from them by Hincapie?

Erik Zabel's notes apparently - they had the best line and the Garmin boys had nowhere to go. Fantastic effort by Renshaw, they made it look easy, and good to see a bit of humility from Cav over the past few days...

amnezia

DonDaddyD wrote:

I loved the fact that there were no drug scandles in this tour, it made it safe to watch, get behind and talk about riders with the constant feeling of doubt in the back of my mind.

There were no drug scandals...yet

Capo

amnezia wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I loved the fact that there were no drug scandles in this tour, it made it safe to watch, get behind and talk about riders with the constant feeling of doubt in the back of my mind.

There were no drug scandals...yet

+1

The French anti-doping agency, the AFLD, said yesterday evening that they are retesting samples taken from 15 riders at last year's TDF.

They delayed the announcement until this year's Tour finished so as not to overshadow the race.

Apparently the 15 riders all finished in the top 20 of the GC last year.

They were told that their samples were being retested BEFORE this year's Tour started in Monaco.

Have a look at last year's top ten in the GC. Of those riders who also took part in this year's race, how many had a decent Tour this time round? And how many had a really disappointing Tour, falling way short of pre-race expectations?

shoulder_of_orion

I thought it was a good tour rather than a great one for lack of a true battle for yellow. Alberto Contador just ran away with it. Until PROVEN otherwise I will give him huge credit for destroying the field just like Armstrong, Indurain or Merckx used to do.

I can't see how some people will allow Armstrong the benefit of the doubt when EPO was found in his 1999 Tour samples whereas as far as I know Contador has never tested positive.

Best ever tour for Britain (probably) with Cav and Bradders both performing admirably, though both just missing out. I though Cav was particularly hard done by with the DQ as had he picked up those points and all other things remained equal, he would have had green. But maybe he deserved the DQ - I don't know enough about the regulations to be sure.

Astana were awesome in the GC and Columbia likewise in the sprints. Garmin can provide a strong challenge next year along with the potential new teams Radioshack and Sky...

Sewinman

Shoulder of Lamb wrote:

I thought it was a good tour rather than a great one for lack of a true battle for yellow. Alberto Contador just ran away with it. Until PROVEN otherwise I will give him huge credit for destroying the field just like Armstrong, Indurain or Merckx used to do.

I can't see how some people will allow Armstrong the benefit of the doubt when EPO was found in his 1999 Tour samples whereas as far as I know Contador has never tested positive.

Best ever tour for Britain (probably) with Cav and Bradders both performing admirably, though both just missing out. I though Cav was particularly hard done by with the DQ as had he picked up those points and all other things remained equal, he would have had green. But maybe he deserved the DQ - I don't know enough about the regulations to be sure.

Astana were awesome in the GC and Columbia likewise in the sprints. Garmin can provide a strong challenge next year along with the potential new teams Radioshack and Sky...

Are you not contradicting yourself a bit? The 1999 sample was never 'proven', so why bring it up?

benno68

Shoulder of Lamb wrote:

I though Cav was particularly hard done by with the DQ as had he picked up those points and all other things remained equal, he would have had green. But maybe he deserved the DQ - I don't know enough about the regulations to be sure.

I don't know anything about the regs either, but listening to Cav at the end he seemed to take the decision on the chin. With this in mind I don't think that Cav believes he was hard done by, although it was very dissapointing.

The green jersey would have been the icing on the cake but Cavs results and general performance shows that he's king of the sprinters - I'd better say "in my opinion".

cjcp

Shoulder of Lamb wrote:

I thought it was a good tour rather than a great one for lack of a true battle for yellow. Alberto Contador just ran away with it. ...

This was the only slightly disappointing feature of this year's tour, otherwise it's been very enjoyable. As DVG said, bit of an anti-climax now.

Still difficult to see anyone seriously challenging AC though if he's in this form. It seems to me that the other GC contenders have to really gang up/attack the living daylights out of him because he seems capable of responding to attacks from only one rider (Schleck).

Shame we didn't get to see Gesink in the mountains this year. Van den Broeck looks as if he'll be the Silence-Lotto leader next year, so there will hopefully be more riders for AC to worry about. Would be great to see Dan Lloyd (CTT) and Ben Swift chosen for next year's Tour too.

Christophe3967

Sewinman wrote:

Shoulder of Lamb wrote:

I thought it was a good tour rather than a great one for lack of a true battle for yellow. Alberto Contador just ran away with it. Until PROVEN otherwise I will give him huge credit for destroying the field just like Armstrong, Indurain or Merckx used to do.

I can't see how some people will allow Armstrong the benefit of the doubt when EPO was found in his 1999 Tour samples whereas as far as I know Contador has never tested positive.

Best ever tour for Britain (probably) with Cav and Bradders both performing admirably, though both just missing out. I though Cav was particularly hard done by with the DQ as had he picked up those points and all other things remained equal, he would have had green. But maybe he deserved the DQ - I don't know enough about the regulations to be sure.

Astana were awesome in the GC and Columbia likewise in the sprints. Garmin can provide a strong challenge next year along with the potential new teams Radioshack and Sky...

Are you not contradicting yourself a bit? The 1999 sample was never 'proven', so why bring it up?

+1 The 1999 samples were never tested under anything like the appropriate conditions using WADA guidelines. As the lab could not demonstrate a “chain of custody” for any of the 1999 Tour samples (over 5+ years) that were tested (and which were known to have already been opened and used for other research testing, including being deliberately “spiked” with EPO) its hard to take their EPO claim seriously. Of course, the samples were already 5 or 6 years old and it is well known that a sample will degrade over that timeframe.

So to still suggest that LA had EPO in his body during the 1999 Tour without any reliable evidence is pretty depressing imo.

shoulder_of_orion

Christophe3967 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Shoulder of Lamb wrote:

I thought it was a good tour rather than a great one for lack of a true battle for yellow. Alberto Contador just ran away with it. Until PROVEN otherwise I will give him huge credit for destroying the field just like Armstrong, Indurain or Merckx used to do.

I can't see how some people will allow Armstrong the benefit of the doubt when EPO was found in his 1999 Tour samples whereas as far as I know Contador has never tested positive.

Best ever tour for Britain (probably) with Cav and Bradders both performing admirably, though both just missing out. I though Cav was particularly hard done by with the DQ as had he picked up those points and all other things remained equal, he would have had green. But maybe he deserved the DQ - I don't know enough about the regulations to be sure.

Astana were awesome in the GC and Columbia likewise in the sprints. Garmin can provide a strong challenge next year along with the potential new teams Radioshack and Sky...

Are you not contradicting yourself a bit? The 1999 sample was never 'proven', so why bring it up?

+1 The 1999 samples were never tested under anything like the appropriate conditions using WADA guidelines. As the lab could not demonstrate a “chain of custody” for any of the 1999 Tour samples (over 5+ years) that were tested (and which were known to have already been opened and used for other research testing, including being deliberately “spiked” with EPO) its hard to take their EPO claim seriously. Of course, the samples were already 5 or 6 years old and it is well known that a sample will degrade over that timeframe.

So to still suggest that LA had EPO in his body during the 1999 Tour without any reliable evidence is pretty depressing imo.

Fair enough. My point was there is more "evidence" pointing at Lance doping than their is at Contador - yet people seem to give Lance the benefit of the doubt and not Contador.

Gazzaputt

Shoulder of Lamb wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Shoulder of Lamb wrote:

I thought it was a good tour rather than a great one for lack of a true battle for yellow. Alberto Contador just ran away with it. Until PROVEN otherwise I will give him huge credit for destroying the field just like Armstrong, Indurain or Merckx used to do.

I can't see how some people will allow Armstrong the benefit of the doubt when EPO was found in his 1999 Tour samples whereas as far as I know Contador has never tested positive.

Best ever tour for Britain (probably) with Cav and Bradders both performing admirably, though both just missing out. I though Cav was particularly hard done by with the DQ as had he picked up those points and all other things remained equal, he would have had green. But maybe he deserved the DQ - I don't know enough about the regulations to be sure.

Astana were awesome in the GC and Columbia likewise in the sprints. Garmin can provide a strong challenge next year along with the potential new teams Radioshack and Sky...

Are you not contradicting yourself a bit? The 1999 sample was never 'proven', so why bring it up?

+1 The 1999 samples were never tested under anything like the appropriate conditions using WADA guidelines. As the lab could not demonstrate a “chain of custody” for any of the 1999 Tour samples (over 5+ years) that were tested (and which were known to have already been opened and used for other research testing, including being deliberately “spiked” with EPO) its hard to take their EPO claim seriously. Of course, the samples were already 5 or 6 years old and it is well known that a sample will degrade over that timeframe.

So to still suggest that LA had EPO in his body during the 1999 Tour without any reliable evidence is pretty depressing imo.

Fair enough. My point was there is more "evidence" pointing at Lance doping than their is at Contador - yet people seem to give Lance the benefit of the doubt and not Contador.

Two words Operation Puerto. Google them with Contador's name or easier there is a thread in the Pro Race forum.

bigmat

Gazzaputt wrote:

Two words Operation Puerto. Google them with Contador's name or easier there is a thread in the Pro Race forum.

Agreed - they are both guilty as sin

Didn't Franck Schleck pay Dr Fuentes €7,000 for some "training plans" as well? Of course that should never reflect badly on him, or his brother Andy. Interesting that eam Radio Shack is now being linked with signing them though. I still wouldn't be surprised to see Bertie alongside Bruyneel next season either - bad things happen to those who stray the flock (see Hamilton, Landis, Heras...)

shoulder_of_orion

MatHammond wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

Two words Operation Puerto. Google them with Contador's name or easier there is a thread in the Pro Race forum.

Agreed - they are both guilty as sin

+1

Either that or they are both innocent until proven guilty. You can't have it both ways.

I guess the issue is that in the late '90s early '00s that they were all up to it, whereas now there is the suggestion that some of them are clean. So it makes the doping more unfair.

attica

ahem

Not that I don't agree with you but...

tailwindhome

DId anyone see the TDF live ticker gave a list of the first ten riders to the top of Ventoux in 2000?

1 071 Marco PANTANI 4h 15' 11"
2 001 Lance ARMSTRONG + 00' 00"
3 102 Joseba BELOKI + 00' 25"
4 061 Jan ULLRICH + 00' 29"
5 022 Santiago BOTERO + 00' 48"
6 024 Roberto HERAS + 00' 48"
7 151 Richard VIRENQUE + 01' 17"
8 016 Francisco MANCEBO + 01' 23"
9 032 Manuel BELTRAN + 01' 29"
10 101 Christophe MOREAU + 01' 31"


I hope things have changed

tailwindhome

On a lighter note what happened to the guys handing out newspapers at the top of each climb?

Bugly

DonDaddyD wrote:

I loved the fact that there were no drug scandles in this tour, it made it safe to watch, get behind and talk about riders with the constant feeling of doubt in the back of my mind.

no drug scandels ... yet.

There were some frankly 'unreal' performances in the alps - akin to Rico's stage win last year.

The lack of positives means nothing other then the testing is not up to scratch

cjcp

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/afld-pr ... in-peloton

Also saw this (hehe):

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/war-of- ... -armstrong

Eau Rouge

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

On a lighter note what happened to the guys handing out newspapers at the top of each climb?

Good question! I
I would guess that the materials used to make cycling tops these days mean you don't need the newspaper?