The wind to cost wiggo

BdeB

It would be vey annoying if Wiggo ends up missing the podium by the time he lost to Armstrong when the wind caused the field to split.

thamacdaddy

Not really them's the breaks you miss them then thats what happens. The cost of that means he needed to make that time up elsewhere. As much as I want wiggo to make podium there are so many little things that could contribute to changes in time that its not worth thinking about.

What about if today brad had gone out slower but finished faster or yesterday didn't follow or lead Lance up the final climb. You could go through probably most stages and rack up the seconds end of the day its been a great ride from brad and whatever its a big achievement.

gsk82

take out the joke team time trial and wouldnt he be ahead of armstong? don't know how it would effect others around him though

drenkrom

Armstrong dropped him in the mountains yesterday. You can't blame that echelon for the gap.

liversedge

drenkrom wrote:

Armstrong dropped him in the mountains yesterday. You can't blame that echelon for the gap.

+1

paulcuthbert

drenkrom wrote:

Armstrong dropped him in the mountains yesterday. You can't blame that echelon for the gap.

+2

mz__jo

gsk82 wrote:

take out the joke team time trial and wouldnt he be ahead of armstong? don't know how it would effect others around him though

I think from memory that Brad gained from that team tt also. I agree though that it was a bad joke as far as the race was concerned up until the Alps. I am still waiting for a decent tt in the Tour that could make the same sort of difference that the mountains do. Something around 100 - 150kms with a ban on intercoms and splits outside the official ones. Riders at this level are never going to be split up very much in a 25 (as todays results show). Never happen though, lousy tele and hopeless for the caravan.

I am hoping that Brad can do enough on the Ventoux to go ahead of LA (who should have stayed retired, he doesn't belong to the modern scene, he's a relic from the heavy doping days, but that's only my very bigotted opinion)

bobtbuilder

It would be vey annoying if Wiggo ends up missing the podium by the time he lost to Armstrong when the wind caused the field to split.

It's called being inattentive. GC contenders need to be on their game for the whole 3 weeks, not just the stages they think will matter.

jackhammer111 - banned

mz__jo wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

take out the joke team time trial and wouldnt he be ahead of armstong? don't know how it would effect others around him though

I think from memory that Brad gained from that team tt also. I agree though that it was a bad joke as far as the race was concerned up until the Alps. I am still waiting for a decent tt in the Tour that could make the same sort of difference that the mountains do. Something around 100 - 150kms with a ban on intercoms and splits outside the official ones. Riders at this level are never going to be split up very much in a 25 (as todays results show). Never happen though, lousy tele and hopeless for the caravan.

I am hoping that Brad can do enough on the Ventoux to go ahead of LA (who should have stayed retired, he doesn't belong to the modern scene, he's a relic from the heavy doping days, but that's only my very bigotted opinion)

They've targeted Astana for testing this whole tour. The cops spend three hours searching the team truck, lance is poised for a podium and all you can do is whine.
Don't count him out next year when he doesn't ride the Giro before the Tour.
He won against dopers, he's completive now. He's one of the greatest riders of all time. Get used to it.
Versus says ratings are up and attendance at the races is up over last year.
Where is Sastre?
Andy Schleck has been amazing. Hope they are real.
Wiggo has impressed.
Everybody is tired. Anything can happen.

RichN95.

bobtbuilder wrote:

It would be vey annoying if Wiggo ends up missing the podium by the time he lost to Armstrong when the wind caused the field to split.

It's called being inattentive. GC contenders need to be on their game for the whole 3 weeks, not just the stages they think will matter.

While what you say is true, on stage 3 Wiggins wasn't really a GC contender - he was aiming for top 15-20, so he wouldn't have anticipated that such a small loss would be so important.

paulcuthbert

jackhammer111 wrote:

mz__jo wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

take out the joke team time trial and wouldnt he be ahead of armstong? don't know how it would effect others around him though

I think from memory that Brad gained from that team tt also. I agree though that it was a bad joke as far as the race was concerned up until the Alps. I am still waiting for a decent tt in the Tour that could make the same sort of difference that the mountains do. Something around 100 - 150kms with a ban on intercoms and splits outside the official ones. Riders at this level are never going to be split up very much in a 25 (as todays results show). Never happen though, lousy tele and hopeless for the caravan.

I am hoping that Brad can do enough on the Ventoux to go ahead of LA (who should have stayed retired, he doesn't belong to the modern scene, he's a relic from the heavy doping days, but that's only my very bigotted opinion)

They've targeted Astana for testing this whole tour. The cops spend three hours searching the team truck, lance is poised for a podium and all you can do is whine.
Don't count him out next year when he doesn't ride the Giro before the Tour.
He won against dopers, he's completive now. He's one of the greatest riders of all time. Get used to it.
Versus says ratings are up and attendance at the races is up over last year.
Where is Sastre?
Andy Schleck has been amazing. Hope they are real.
Wiggo has impressed.
Everybody is tired. Anything can happen.

Fantastically put

coulcher

Sorry to bring up same old stuff but it's really worth reading read this article in full before having too much faith in any particular rider. I consider it a fairly balanced and analytical look at the testing procedures from someone just interested in the science:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

This doesn't prove anything for 2009 but it looks conclusive that Lance used EPO repeatedly in 1999.

Stuey01

It would be tough shit, they all had to deal with the wind that day and LA dealt with it better than most. It's not unfair in any way.

pedalpower

It is disapointing though that Armstrong's going to get on the podium by virtue of a pretty huge timegap gained by a canny or lucky break in a stage no-one was taking too seriously. Yes it was wily of him but seems a shame that the strongest man doesn't finish ahead and I just wish that those commentators who worship everything he does will remember it - it wasn't like he did any work in that break, he was just dragged along by Popovych and the Columbia boys.

Wiggins might beat him on the Ventoux though. He was faster than Armstrong over the climb in the ITT and on the prologue timetrial and has generally looked very comfortable on the mountains - apart from the Queen stage - whereas Armstrong has looked like he's really struggling most of the Tour. But it'll be hard to hold of Kloeden too.

SunWuKong

reasonable breakdown of the TT here:http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-time-trial-analysis.html

Tom Butcher

I think it's fair to say that the strength of Astana is why Armstrong is ahead of Wiggins. Apart from the TTT Lance dropped him in the mountains but only because Wiggo was forced to ride to try and stop Kloden and Schlecks getting too far up the road - Armstrong could play the card of two teammates up ahead. Wiggo has also dropped Lance in this tour - but he didn't have anyone to help push things along and press home that advantage.

andy_wrx

Wiggins has had VdV, Millar and Dave Zee helping him in the mountains, but nothing like the same support as the Postal Blue Train, err I mean Disco Boys, err I mean Astana team have given to Lance (and to a lesser degree to Alberto...)

Regarding the split - yes, Lance had the nouse to be up there (and we are told was tipped-off by Hincapie or Cav or one of his other mates...) but Wiggins didn't
- it was interesting that in the second week, Wiggins was glued to the back of Armstrong : obviously figuring that was a way to get into the break if it happened, or stay out of trouble if there was a crash, etc

edit : where's my strikethrough HTML tags gone ?

deejay.

paulcuthbert wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

mz__jo wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

take out the joke team time trial and wouldnt he be ahead of armstong? don't know how it would effect others around him though

I think from memory that Brad gained from that team tt also. I agree though that it was a bad joke as far as the race was concerned up until the Alps. I am still waiting for a decent tt in the Tour that could make the same sort of difference that the mountains do. Something around 100 - 150kms with a ban on intercoms and splits outside the official ones. Riders at this level are never going to be split up very much in a 25 (as todays results show). Never happen though, lousy tele and hopeless for the caravan.

I am hoping that Brad can do enough on the Ventoux to go ahead of LA (who should have stayed retired, he doesn't belong to the modern scene, he's a relic from the heavy doping days, but that's only my very bigotted opinion)

They've targeted Astana for testing this whole tour. The cops spend three hours searching the team truck, lance is poised for a podium and all you can do is whine.
Don't count him out next year when he doesn't ride the Giro before the Tour.
He won against dopers, he's completive now. He's one of the greatest riders of all time. Get used to it.
Versus says ratings are up and attendance at the races is up over last year.
Where is Sastre?
Andy Schleck has been amazing. Hope they are real.
Wiggo has impressed.
Everybody is tired. Anything can happen.

Fantastically put

+1

jackhammer111 - banned

coulcher wrote:

Sorry to bring up same old stuff but it's really worth reading read this article in full before having too much faith in any particular rider. I consider it a fairly balanced and analytical look at the testing procedures from someone just interested in the science:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

This doesn't prove anything for 2009 but it looks conclusive that Lance used EPO repeatedly in 1999.

This gets a lot of play from the Lance haters. He has an opinion, another scientist appointed to investigate by UCI reached a different conclussion. UCI did not sanction Lance.

And if he did dope in 99 so what? most of the peloton was doped. He repeatedly beat a long list of high performing riders that were later sanctioned for doping.

He's back under the strongest doping program in the history of the sport and he looks like the second strongest rider. He was that good, he is that good.

Tomorrow will be his 63rd racing day this year, including the Giro, despite missing weeks with a broken collarbone and regaining his fittness.

It's remarkable feat for any rider.

Of the riders in the Tour that did the Giro, Sastra is 15th, Evans, 30th, all the rest further down. There's a good reason for not doing both, but Lance was committed to doing it even before he broke his collarbone, badly, surgery, screws.
Why? To get exposier for the foundation.
No other tour contender started their season as early as the Tour Down Under.
There is nothing more he can do to prove he's among the best of all time.

Yet, he's going to do it again next year.

Le Commentateur

pedalpower wrote:

It is disapointing though that Armstrong's going to get on the podium by virtue of a pretty huge timegap gained by a canny or lucky break in a stage no-one was taking too seriously. Yes it was wily of him but seems a shame that the strongest man doesn't finish ahead.

What do you want, 3 weeks of time trials? Racing involves moments of opportunistic cunning as well as brute strength.

Kléber

jackhammer111 wrote:

another scientist appointed to investigate by UCI reached a different conclussion. UCI did not sanction Lance.

I missed this scientist's name, could you let me know who it was please?

jackhammer111 wrote:

And if he did dope in 99 so what? most of the peloton was doped. He repeatedly beat a long list of high performing riders that were later sanctioned for doping.

Ah, so it's ok if others were doing it? If he was doping just once then he should have served a ban like Virenque, Pantani, Basso and everyone else who eventually got caught.

Still, Armstrong is having a solid Tour de France. He's come close so many times, he was milliseconds from the yellow jersey at one point. He's third overall now but with Ventoux tomorrow we'll have to wait and see who takes the third place on the podium.

thamacdaddy

Le Commentateur wrote:

pedalpower wrote:

It is disapointing though that Armstrong's going to get on the podium by virtue of a pretty huge timegap gained by a canny or lucky break in a stage no-one was taking too seriously. Yes it was wily of him but seems a shame that the strongest man doesn't finish ahead.

What do you want, 3 weeks of time trials? Racing involves moments of opportunistic cunning as well as brute strength.

Not to mention that its not like Wiggins has beaten armstrong on every level and then he managed a lucky break. For example armstrong rode a clever ride the other day over the columbiere and launched an attack before the summit to gain time on wiggins. Thats hardly by vertue of a canny or lucky break.

And today he made sure he got the four seconds. I think Pedalpower with respect this is not an unfair result its fair and square apart from maybe if you consider having a good team an unfair advantage (garmin ain't exactly bad). Most importantly is that its there for the taking for wiggins tomorrow. He needs 15 seconds on armstrong and to hold off kloden (who probably won't be allowed to jump armstrong onto podium). The climb is hardcore but its also the last thing on the day and the first major effort. There is nothing after for brad to save energy for so if he wants it its up to him to go take it tomorrow and put it all out there.

jackhammer111 - banned

pedalpower wrote:

It is disapointing though that Armstrong's going to get on the podium by virtue of a pretty huge timegap gained by a canny or lucky break in a stage no-one was taking too seriously. Yes it was wily of him but seems a shame that the strongest man doesn't finish ahead and I just wish that those commentators who worship everything he does will remember it - it wasn't like he did any work in that break, he was just dragged along by Popovych and the Columbia boys.

Wiggins might beat him on the Ventoux though. He was faster than Armstrong over the climb in the ITT and on the prologue timetrial and has generally looked very comfortable on the mountains - apart from the Queen stage - whereas Armstrong has looked like he's really struggling most of the Tour. But it'll be hard to hold of Kloeden too.

Kloden won't ride against Lance. If he has to go up the rode to protect Alberto it could complicate things for Lance but Lance will be free to race tomorrow. The 3 Astana riders will be riding against the 2 Saxo riders.
Not that unexpected things can't happen on day 20 on a stage like this, but Astana didn't do much work today. Wiggo has had a great tour but I don't see him dancing away from anybody. Nibali and Frank would have to put time into him.
People have though Lance was about to falter a couple of times, or dismissed him from the beginning when he didn't have a great day in Monaco. He keeps coming back.
He has said he has unfinished business on Ventoux.

aurelio_-_banned

jackhammer111 wrote:

coulcher wrote:

Sorry to bring up same old stuff but it's really worth reading read this article in full before having too much faith in any particular rider. I consider it a fairly balanced and analytical look at the testing procedures from someone just interested in the science:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

This doesn't prove anything for 2009 but it looks conclusive that Lance used EPO repeatedly in 1999.

This gets a lot of play from the Lance haters. He has an opinion, another scientist appointed to investigate by UCI reached a different conclussion.

I think you meant to say. 'Yes that is pretty conclusive, especially given that other scientists have also reached the same conclusion'.

UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong

It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.

...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "

http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=17128

aurelio_-_banned

jackhammer111 wrote:

He's back under the strongest doping program in the history of the sport

Yes, he probably is...

jackhammer111 - banned

aurelio wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

coulcher wrote:

Sorry to bring up same old stuff but it's really worth reading read this article in full before having too much faith in any particular rider. I consider it a fairly balanced and analytical look at the testing procedures from someone just interested in the science:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

This doesn't prove anything for 2009 but it looks conclusive that Lance used EPO repeatedly in 1999.

This gets a lot of play from the Lance haters. He has an opinion, another scientist appointed to investigate by UCI reached a different conclussion.

I think you meant to say. 'Yes that is pretty conclusive, especially given that other scientists have also reached the same conclusion'.

UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong

It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.

...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "

http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=17128

I'm absoluty certain that if acussed of a crime you're going to take advantage of arguments of a legal nature whether you are inoccent or not.
Have you ever noticed how many guilty people plead not guilty?
Self defense is human nature.

For someone who has been a fan for such a long time you don't seem to acknowledge that the peloton has always had a culture of doping.

"The acceptance of drug-taking in the Tour de France was so complete by 1930 that the rule book, distributed by Henri Desgrange, reminded riders that drugs would not be provided by the organisers."

The peloton has an institutional memory. If you aren't willing to do whatever it takes, you don't get there.

Modern science and testing is making it harder to get a clear advantage now but it should not surprise you that some people with still try. What I call nibbling around the edges. This years field is the cleanest in a decade and Lance is right there with the best, clearly better than Menchov, Sastre, and Evans.
I'm going to say again from another post, and I may repeat it yet again until it sinks in to the anti lancers.

Lance is 3rd overall.

Tomorrow will be his 63rd racing day this year, including the Giro, despite missing weeks with a broken collarbone and regaining his fittness.

It's remarkable feat for any rider.

Of the riders in the Tour that did the Giro, Sastra is 15th, Evans, 30th, all the rest further down. There's a good reason for not doing both, but Lance was committed to doing it even before he broke his collarbone, badly, surgery, screws.
Why? To get exposier for the foundation.
No other tour contender started their season as early as the Tour Down Under.
There is nothing more he can do to prove he's among the best of all time.

Yet, he's going to do it again next year.

Get over 1999.

iainf72

jackhammer111 wrote:

Of the riders in the Tour that did the Giro, Sastra is 15th, Evans, 30th, all the rest further down. There's a good reason for not doing both, but Lance was committed to doing it even before he broke his collarbone, badly, surgery, screws.

Evans didn't do the Giro.

Back "in the day", doing the Giro and the Tour was the norm, rather than some wierd action which would cost you both.

jackhammer111 - banned

Kléber wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

another scientist appointed to investigate by UCI reached a different conclussion. UCI did not sanction Lance.

I missed this scientist's name, could you let me know who it was please?

Dr. Adriaan van der Veen

http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf

aurelio_-_banned

jackhammer111 wrote:

Kléber wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

another scientist appointed to investigate by UCI reached a different conclussion. UCI did not sanction Lance.

I missed this scientist's name, could you let me know who it was please?

Dr. Adriaan van der Veen

http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf

That's the notorious Vrijman report, which far from been 'independent' was commissioned by the UCI / Hein Verbruggen and gave every impression of being a wilful 'hatchet job', designed to give the UCI an excuse for not taking further action against Armstrong. The main question the report did not consider was the central issue of why Armstrong had Epo in his blood...

WADA described this report as being 'so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical'. Here's WADA's response in full:

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/docu ... report.pdf

Kléber

jackhammer111 wrote:

Dr. Adriaan van der Veen

Aurelio's beaten me to it, the report was comprehensively trashed by WADA and others. To this day it's a shining example of how the UCI manages to shoot itself in both feet, with Verbruggen appointing personal friends and business associates to write reports.

But anyway, you alude to Armstrong's doping above jackhammer, it seems you're slowly reconciling yourself to the fact that he was cheating just like many other riders, it was just what all the riders did.

jackhammer111 - banned

aurelio wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

Kléber wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

another scientist appointed to investigate by UCI reached a different conclussion. UCI did not sanction Lance.

I missed this scientist's name, could you let me know who it was please?

Dr. Adriaan van der Veen

http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf

That's the notorious Vrijman report, which far from been 'independent' was commissioned by the UCI / Hein Verbruggen and gave every impression of being a wilful 'hatchet job', designed to give the UCI an excuse for not taking further action against Armstrong. The main question the report did not consider was the central issue of why Armstrong had Epo in his blood...

WADA described this report as being 'so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical'. Here's WADA's response in full:

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/docu ... report.pdf

Of course WADA didn't like. The report ripped their chain of costody and security issues to shreds. The issue of what was in the blood in not legally relevent if it can't be proved that it is his blood. You would never want to be accused of a crime and have sceintific evidence against you handled, secured and stored the way those were.
": It also called upon the WADA and LNDD to submit themselves to an investigation by an outside independent authority. The WADA rejected these conclusions. The IOC Ethics Commission subsequently censured Dick Pound, the President of WADA and a member of the IOC, for his statements in the media that suggested wrongdoing by Armstrong"

They now have proper protocols for long term handling of samples and will retest them as they see fit.

Get over 1999.

One more day and he'll be on the podium.

Next year he'll be back with Levi, Popo, Horner, maybe Kloden maybe Big George? and hopefully some young blood.