Tour of Catalunya - *Spoilers*

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

God AtC is back. Sigh....

*Googles Sisypheam*

Let me know when you find out

Turfle

I think it means "fascinating".

ddraver

Sis·y·phe·an
adj.
1. Greek Mythology Of or relating to Sisyphus.
2. Endlessly laborious or futile: "Their patients' lack of education and the high cost of medicine make health care a Sisyphean task" (Frank Gibney, Jr.)

Turfle

So he wants us to talk even more about panache/boring mountain stages. Got it.

iainf72

Richmond Racer wrote:

He's started his season 2 months later than he did last year. No idea what the thinking is...unless its sand-bagging and really his main focus is the Tour not the Giro.

Maybe he got nothing out of the TdU last year? He did that, Strade Bianchi and then this race. And also rode like a sack of crap in it last year.

above_the_cows

Sorry :oops:

Sisyphus was this geezer:

Jez mon

iainf72 wrote:

Duff stage but I blame the organisers.

Do we need finishes like this in March? Perhaps something shorter and more punchy.

Only caught the last 7km, it seemed an OK stage to me? Vallient effort by the lotto rider and a strong showing by Wiggins, even if attacks apparently don't count after the flame rouge.

At times this forum is too predictable, unless we get fireworks, we'll see lots of complaints about boring racing. Otoh, when there are fireworks, the old spectre of doping will rear it's ugly head.

above_the_cows

Turfle wrote:

So he wants us to talk even more about panache/boring mountain stages more often. Got it.

Who me? No! :shock:

No I definitely do not want more talk about panache and boring mountain stages that become as boring as the supposed boring stage. I meant that the argument just goes on and on, it is never ending, like Sisyphus' job of pushing the rock up a hill (the hill is entirely coincidental to the metaphor and is not mean to symbolise an actual mountain that cyclists might climb).

greeny12

Jez mon wrote:

the old spectre of doping will rear it's ugly head.

He not only reared his head, he's in the leader's jersey unfortunately...

Richmond Racer

greeny12 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

the old spectre of doping will rear it's ugly head.

He not only reared his head, he's in the leader's jersey unfortunately...

^Post of the Day

frenchfighter

LoL.

Still racking and stacking.

Stage 3 Results
COL 1 QUINTANA ROJAS, Nairo Alexander (MOVISTAR TEAM) 5:01:19
ESP 2 VALVERDE BELMONTE, Alejandro (MOVISTAR TEAM) + 6
ESP 3 RODRIGUEZ OLIVER, Joaquin (KATUSHA)
GBR 4 WIGGINS, Bradley (SKY PROCYCLING)
FRA 5 PINOT, Thibaut (FDJ) + 9
USA 6 STETINA, Peter (GARMIN SHARP)
ITA 7 SCARPONI, Michele (LAMPRE-MERIDA)
POL 8 NIEMIEC, Przemyslaw (LAMPRE-MERIDA)
COL 9 URAN URAN, Rigoberto (SKY PROCYCLING)
ITA 10 POZZOVIVO, Domenico (AG2R LA MONDIALE) + 21

General Classification after Stage 3
ESP 1 VALVERDE BELMONTE, Alejandro (MOVISTAR TEAM) 12:45:22
ESP 2 RODRIGUEZ OLIVER, Joaquin (KATUSHA) + 6
GBR 3 WIGGINS, Bradley (SKY PROCYCLING) + 10
ITA 4 SCARPONI, Michele (LAMPRE-MERIDA) + 13
POL 5 NIEMIEC, Przemyslaw (LAMPRE-MERIDA)
COL 6 QUINTANA ROJAS, Nairo Alexander (MOVISTAR TEAM) + 22
NED 7 GESINK, Robert (BLANCO PRO CYCLING) + 36
ESP 8 LOPEZ GARCIA, David (SKY PROCYCLING)
IRL 9 MARTIN, Daniel (GARMIN SHARP)
USA 10 STETINA, Peter (GARMIN SHARP) + 41

ddraver

Above The Cows wrote:

Turfle wrote:

So he wants us to talk even more about panache/boring mountain stages more often. Got it.

Who me? No! :shock:

No I definitely do not want more talk about panache and boring mountain stages that become as boring as the supposed boring stage. I meant that the argument just goes on and on, it is never ending, like Sisyphus' job of pushing the rock up a hill (the hill is entirely coincidental to the metaphor and is not mean to symbolise an actual mountain that cyclists might climb).

What do you actually do...?!?!?

knedlicky

Above The Cows wrote:

Interesting that Wiggins shut down J-Rod's attempt to do his usual.

I think it was more a case of Rodriguez easing off, because he knew if tried to close the gap to Quinatna, he'd have taken Valverde with him, with the risk Valverde might have taken the stage and more bonification seconds.

jam1e

I'd heard that the bonus seconds had been neutralized for the mountain finishes?

above_the_cows

ddraver wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Turfle wrote:

So he wants us to talk even more about panache/boring mountain stages more often. Got it.

Who me? No! :shock:

No I definitely do not want more talk about panache and boring mountain stages that become as boring as the supposed boring stage. I meant that the argument just goes on and on, it is never ending, like Sisyphus' job of pushing the rock up a hill (the hill is entirely coincidental to the metaphor and is not mean to symbolise an actual mountain that cyclists might climb).

What do you actually do...?!?!?

I'm an assistant professor of politics at UvA.

ddraver

So how come none of our politicians ever sound intelligent then?

ddraver

Should have a few of these in - that would make the stages a bit more exciting...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/video/2 ... cape-video

(no it's not the one from last time..)

TimB34

Antelopes HATE power meters.

danlikesbikes

Richmond Racer wrote:

greeny12 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

the old spectre of doping will rear it's ugly head.

He not only reared his head, he's in the leader's jersey unfortunately...

^Post of the Day

Yep chapeau to that quote

nic_77

ThomThom wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

I'm afraid that's science - it will pretty much always beat artistry.
You have to try and see the beauty in science.

I hate this quote.

Riding like this has nothing to with being clean or being doped.

Erm... I think you may have understood me.
I was making no reference to or insinuation about doping whatsoever.

I was trying to indicate that a conservative race strategy based upon known quantifiable parameters like power and careful measurement of effort is likely to be more successful in a modern-day stage race, certainly when compared to individual bravery or flair. One-day racing is of course a different matter.

Not always, but the science of (stage) racing has become more about making the most of the numbers. For some (i.e. me at least) that isn't necessary a turn-off when watching - I find it tactically enthralling. For others I understand that it detracts from the spectacle.

That said, some posters (like my chum FF) have been open enough to say that the result is not necessary a primary factor in their enjoyment of the sport, which I can see makes the stylistic element even more significant. Maybe the combativity prize should be given more prestige... or perhaps we should introduce a scoring system with components made up of artistic merit and a difficulty tariff like ice-dance or diving

Macaloon

nic_77 wrote:

That said, some posters (like my chum FF) have been open enough to say that the result is not necessary a primary factor in their enjoyment of the sport, which I can see makes the stylistic element even more significant. Maybe the combativity prize should be given more prestige... or perhaps we should introduce a scoring system with components made up of artistic merit and a difficulty tariff like ice-dance or diving

Froome & Wiggins giving it Torville & Dean's Bolero up the Alpe Duet this year, please.

Richmond Racer

Macaloon wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

That said, some posters (like my chum FF) have been open enough to say that the result is not necessary a primary factor in their enjoyment of the sport, which I can see makes the stylistic element even more significant. Maybe the combativity prize should be given more prestige... or perhaps we should introduce a scoring system with components made up of artistic merit and a difficulty tariff like ice-dance or diving

Froome & Wiggins giving it Torville & Dean's Bolero up the Alpe Duet this year, please.

I'll be putting money on it being Froome who gets thrown into the Bolero volvano in the flouncy skirt

above_the_cows

ddraver wrote:

So how come none of our politicians ever sound intelligent then?

I can't really answer that without derailing the thread and entering 'pompous donkey' mode. Simply put, most don't actually have politics degrees (political science isn't really the study of politicians per se), the medium of communication necessitates soundbites and I don't actually teach domestic politics, I teach international relations and conflict resolution and governance.

Anyway back to Catalunya -a place with an interesting political history - I'm looking forward to more mountains tomorrow, hopefully better TV coverage and Valverde loosing the leader's jersey.

Richmond Racer

I vote ATC for UCI President!

DeadCalm

jam1e wrote:

I'd heard that the bonus seconds had been neutralized for the mountain finishes?

I'd heard that too. 90% sure it was mentioned in the commentary on stage 1.

DeadCalm

DeadCalm wrote:

jam1e wrote:

I'd heard that the bonus seconds had been neutralized for the mountain finishes?

I'd heard that too. 90% sure it was mentioned in the commentary on stage 1.

Yes, according to Cycling News:

General classification after stage 3
1 Alejandro Valverde Belmonte (Spa) Movistar Team 12:45:28
2 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Sky Procycling 0:00:04
3 Joaquim Rodriguez Oliver (Spa) Katusha
4 Michele Scarponi (Ita) Lampre-Merida 0:00:07
5 Przemyslaw Niemiec (Pol) Lampre-Merida
6 Nairo Alexander Quintana Rojas (Col) Movistar Team 0:00:26
7 Robert Gesink (Ned) Blanco Pro Cycling Team 0:00:30
8 David Lopez Garcia (Spa) Sky Procycling
9 Daniel Martin (Irl) Garmin-Sharp
10 Peter Stetina (USA) Garmin-Sharp 0:00:35

Turfle

You appear to be correct. The GC looks like it has been changed so it's now:

1. Valverde
2. Wiggins @4
3. JRod @4

I'm much happier with that.


edit: ah beaten to it

Richmond Racer

Turfle wrote:

You appear to be correct. The GC looks like it has been changed so it's now:

1. Valverde
2. Wiggins @4
3. JRod @4

I'm much happier with that.


edit: ah beaten to it

*nods approvingly*


Wiggins knows he attacked too early according to the team website....still, good to see, he's clearly in very perky form

cogidubnus

LeicesterLad

Brad's deffinition is ridiculous.