TDF 2013 Stage 15 - Ventoux *Spoilers*
Comments
-
I'm not sure we have seen an act as despicable as that in pro cycling!Above The Cows wrote:ddraver wrote:Above The Cows wrote:Bo Duke wrote:ddraver wrote:Bo Duke wrote:Lads Im', back in, NO NEWS what happened, I don't even know who won ?
If I tell you that Froome is back to being the greatest cheat since My Grandad playing Monopoly you can probably fill in the rest mate...
Oh feck me, have I missed something BIG ?? :shock:
PS: My 11 year twins are shocking cheaters at monopoly but it doesn't mean I don't love them...
*Off Topic*
I used to have a secret stash of Monopoly money in the toilet. I somehow needed the toilet a lot when playing monopoly.
Ohhhhhhh!!! That is just despicable, albeit genius, behaviour! I mean serious that's "I'm sorry you don't believe in dreams" stuff!
*Off Topic* You had to to time it right too. I would wait for another round of the board before sneaking out my newly acquired wad of dosh and buying a hotel. I pulled it off for 5 years. When my mother found the stash of cash, my defence was that she should be ashamed that it was at least 5 years since she had cleaned under the pile of books on top of the loo.0 -
Come on chaps!
Still got a few pages to go before we beat that boring flat stage on Friday 0 -
The Mad Rapper wrote:NapoleonD wrote:
Strava is a load of ****. Why everyone gets a hard on for it God only knows.
Wow, sounds like you need to take things far less seriously! :?Mañana0 -
ddraver wrote:So if it looks like any cycling performance ever basically it = doping....I have to ask why you watch really...
How does it look like 'any cycling performance ever'? That acceleration from dropping Contador on was completely taking the p*ss. Because loads of Pros can basically sprint 7KM up Ventoux right? Give over...0 -
Well I said after stage 13 when doom and gloom surrounded Sky and Froome (having predicted the Cav win 20 km out I might also add) that I think Sky are playing a game and saving everything for the mountains - I think today showed that to be the case. Let your opponents think you are weak and falling apart and then at the right time kick them in the nuts hard.
Sky were well rested for today compared to the other teams0 -
The Mad Rapper wrote:pb21 wrote:Presumably you are basing what you think seems a 'clean' or 'not clean' performance on previous years racing, when doping was rampant?
No, I'm basing it on today's attack from dropping Contador on.
And why does that seem 'not clean' to you? If you had never seen any bike racing you wouldn't have a clue either way, you are basing your judgement on more than just those 7kms.
What would the limit of clean racing be?
I don't know if he is or isn't doping, its certainly very impressive, and if this had happened 5 years ago I would be thinking for sure he was.
Perhaps naively I think the whole game is a bit different now than it has been for the past 20 years and just because something seems dodgy, based on those past 20 years, doesn't mean it isMañana0 -
ddraver wrote:Michelle Cound, Froome's other half (fiancée now???) and general twitter megaphone
oh right........... yawn............ :roll:
thanks for replying.0 -
Well I can spend some time watching it in Blighty.ddraver wrote:So if it looks like any cycling performance ever basically it = doping....I have to ask why you watch really...
I wouldn't want to spend 3 days in a van on a mountain to watch it.
That followed by the Grid Lock procession off the mountain and onto the next rendezvous.
well that's what is happening as I write this.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
The Mad Rapper wrote:ddraver wrote:So if it looks like any cycling performance ever basically it = doping....I have to ask why you watch really...
How does it look like 'any cycling performance ever'? That acceleration from dropping Contador on was completely taking the p*ss. Because loads of Pros can basically sprint 7KM up Ventoux right? Give over...
It looked like any cyclist riding away from any other, including me and my mates dicking around on the MTB's
Contador (for whatever reason and to be honest I don't think it's a dope thing) is so clearly not on form, so meh....We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
The Mad Rapper wrote:pb21 wrote:Wow, sounds like you need to take things far less seriously! :?
I'm in a proper mood now to be fair.
It shows, trust me.
Still enough light for a quick ride.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
pb21 wrote:Perhaps naively I think the whole game is a bit different now than it has been for the past 20 years and just because something seems dodgy, based on those past 20 years, doesn't mean it is
With respect I think that view is naive, but you aren't the only one here sadly. I don't know what else to say, some will accept what I've said and others won't. That's up to each of you.
I'm disappointed how few of you are questioning this. I'm disappointed how many of you are either looking at your feet or denying.
Froome has spoilt my Tour today. Utter BS.0 -
It's been great racingtoday and I don't think we've seen the last of it. For the first time in a long time teams are prepared to take a roll of the dice and attack. In the name of what? fame? glory? No it's the rediscovered currency of cycling...Panache!0
-
No tA Doctor wrote:It shows, trust me.
Still enough light for a quick ride.
That's a good idea - I'll hop on the TT for an hour and then have an early night.0 -
Anyhoo,
surveying today's stage spoiler thread, I have to say this:
On other forums, to shut down pesky provocative posters, they give them The Silent Treatment. It works.
There is a collective decision (undescribed in public, not debated, intuitively) to just Not Reply. Ever. This is remarkably effective. It works. The on-topic exciting commentary moves on.
So why the heck don't you do it here? Have you never seen this technique before or are you unaware of it?
Other than that - but there are so many mini-Mods here today that I might as well add mine - I have no strong feelings.0 -
The Mad Rapper wrote:pb21 wrote:Perhaps naively I think the whole game is a bit different now than it has been for the past 20 years and just because something seems dodgy, based on those past 20 years, doesn't mean it is
With respect I think that view is naive, but you aren't the only one here sadly. I don't know what else to say, some will accept what I've said and others won't. That's up to each of you.
I'm disappointed how few of you are questioning this. I'm disappointed how many of you are either looking at your feet or denying.
Froome has spoilt my Tour today. Utter BS.
Look, it's like this. Almost everyone (I can't think of any exception) admits that it's possible that Froome is doping.
Everyone accepts that his performances have been exceptional and eye-opening.
Some have tried, not very successfully given the difficulties of estimation, to quantify how exceptional they've been.
Meanwhile some are utterly convinced that Froome is on the gear.
What nobody has been able to do is to prove, by performance alone, that Froome is doped. Even those doing the estimations wont say that with any degree of certainty.
And there's nothing else, just noise, lots and lots and lots of noise. Which would really be better off kept to a different thread, because it's the same thing, over and over and over and over again, like a cross between Groundhog Day and a Kafka novel.
So why don't we try and keep the doping stuff to the doping thread, where it can be as noisy as anyone wants?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
The Mad Rapper wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:It shows, trust me.
Still enough light for a quick ride.
That's a good idea - I'll hop on the TT for an hour and then have an early night.
Have a good'un.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
It's interesting to see people like David Walsh talk about how we should look closely at performances, yet here having an opinion that is remotely negative towards Sky/Froome (and Wiggins last year) is completely forbidden and you will get berated for it and a demand for evidence.0
-
I don't want to give them "the silent treatment". Sky+doping is a perfectly valid topic for discussion, it should not be ignored or swept under the carpet. I simply don't like seeing it take over threads which are meant to be focused on the day's racing. Even more so when there's a thread set aside specifically for that discussion which certain people refuse to use.Lichtblick wrote:Anyhoo,
surveying today's stage spoiler thread, I have to say this:
On other forums, to shut down pesky provocative posters, they give them The Silent Treatment. It works.
There is a collective decision (undescribed in public, not debated, intuitively) to just Not Reply. Ever. This is remarkably effective. It works. The on-topic exciting commentary moves on.
So why the heck don't you do it here? Have you never seen this technique before or are you unaware of it?
You could do with being a bit less condescending.0 -
Me I'm scratching my head as I've seen many things while watching cycle racing for 40 odd years and there is a similarity today of things before. I hope there isn't.pb21 wrote:
And why does that seem 'not clean' to you? If you had never seen any bike racing you wouldn't have a clue either way, you are basing your judgement on more than just those 7kms.The Mad Rapper wrote:
No, I'm basing it on today's attack from dropping Contador on.pb21 wrote:Presumably you are basing what you think seems a 'clean' or 'not clean' performance on previous years racing, when doping was rampant?
What would the limit of clean racing be?
I don't know if he is or isn't doping, its certainly very impressive, and if this had happened 5 years ago I would be thinking for sure he was.
Perhaps naively I think the whole game is a bit different now than it has been for the past 20 years and just because something seems dodgy, based on those past 20 years, doesn't mean it is
However we have the second rest day tomorrow which in the past has meant a time for special samples to be sent to laboratories for in depth miniscul testing. ?Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
For me it is a question of evidence as in hard, scientifically provable within the scope of human knowledge facts rather than belief, but then I am an atheist so don't really do belief. And with that I will say no more about it on this thread. All further discussion will take place here:http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12930855&start=460Correlation is not causation.0
-
The Mad Rapper wrote:Froome's performance was ridiculous, and that's all I'm going to say about that.
Contador was a massive disappointment today, but I suspect the playing fields were very different for various reasons.
I'm not sure I understand this comment. I know I'm not much of a poster here but have watched the tour for more than the Sky years. On one hand you say Froome's performance was unbelievable then that Contador was below par ( I say this as an assumption from your post unless you also think Contador's own teammate is doping too) so would a fit Contador have been one and a half minutes faster but believable? Just asking.
For myself as a neutral (not British, no particular heart flutterings for any riders) I saw today's stage as a great performance. I think Movistar could possibly have played it better but that's racing.0 -
Outsider art by Loan wrote:Somebody needs to smack those cu nts setting off flares. Why the fu ck?
Apart from the anglo-saxon, I'm in full agreement.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:It's interesting to see people like David Walsh talk about how we should look closely at performances, yet here having an opinion that is remotely negative towards Sky/Froome (and Wiggins last year) is completely forbidden and you will get berated for it and a demand for evidence.
'Cos he knows to a degree what he's talking about. Most of the people here don't have a fucking clue about the subject and I include myself. I can't think of any aspect of PEDs that I can speak about with authority.
I'm not aware that (m)any of the people on this forum are world class sports scientists, nutritionists or drug testers.
I hope for their sake the people expounding some pretty wacky arguments here are never in a court of law where the jury accept the same reasoning to be sound proof of guilt0 -
adr82 wrote:
I don't want to give them "the silent treatment". Sky+doping is a perfectly valid topic for discussion, it should not be ignored or swept under the carpet. I simply don't like seeing it take over threads which are meant to be focused on the day's racing. Even more so when there's a thread set aside specifically for that discussion which certain people refuse to use.Lichtblick wrote:Anyhoo,
surveying today's stage spoiler thread, I have to say this:
On other forums, to shut down pesky provocative posters, they give them The Silent Treatment. It works.
There is a collective decision (undescribed in public, not debated, intuitively) to just Not Reply. Ever. This is remarkably effective. It works. The on-topic exciting commentary moves on.
So why the heck don't you do it here? Have you never seen this technique before or are you unaware of it?
You could do with being a bit less condescending.
You remind me of the kids in the classes that I teach who make more noise trying to shush everyone when I am waiting for silence.
You also remind me of the kids who will tell someone they don't like to shut up while ignoring their buddies who are being much louder.0 -
... while this guy on the other hand is a perfect example of someone who does deserve to be ignored, so I'll be doing that from now on.Rundfahrt wrote:adr82 wrote:
I don't want to give them "the silent treatment". Sky+doping is a perfectly valid topic for discussion, it should not be ignored or swept under the carpet. I simply don't like seeing it take over threads which are meant to be focused on the day's racing. Even more so when there's a thread set aside specifically for that discussion which certain people refuse to use.Lichtblick wrote:Anyhoo,
surveying today's stage spoiler thread, I have to say this:
On other forums, to shut down pesky provocative posters, they give them The Silent Treatment. It works.
There is a collective decision (undescribed in public, not debated, intuitively) to just Not Reply. Ever. This is remarkably effective. It works. The on-topic exciting commentary moves on.
So why the heck don't you do it here? Have you never seen this technique before or are you unaware of it?
You could do with being a bit less condescending.
You remind me of the kids in the classes that I teach who make more noise trying to shush everyone when I am waiting for silence.
You also remind me of the kids who will tell someone they don't like to shut up while ignoring their buddies who are being much louder.0 -
adr82 wrote:
... while this guy on the other hand is a perfect example of someone who does deserve to be ignored, so I'll be doing that from now on.Rundfahrt wrote:adr82 wrote:
I don't want to give them "the silent treatment". Sky+doping is a perfectly valid topic for discussion, it should not be ignored or swept under the carpet. I simply don't like seeing it take over threads which are meant to be focused on the day's racing. Even more so when there's a thread set aside specifically for that discussion which certain people refuse to use.Lichtblick wrote:Anyhoo,
surveying today's stage spoiler thread, I have to say this:
On other forums, to shut down pesky provocative posters, they give them The Silent Treatment. It works.
There is a collective decision (undescribed in public, not debated, intuitively) to just Not Reply. Ever. This is remarkably effective. It works. The on-topic exciting commentary moves on.
So why the heck don't you do it here? Have you never seen this technique before or are you unaware of it?
You could do with being a bit less condescending.
You remind me of the kids in the classes that I teach who make more noise trying to shush everyone when I am waiting for silence.
You also remind me of the kids who will tell someone they don't like to shut up while ignoring their buddies who are being much louder.
Awesome!!!! Although I know you are full of it.0 -
cyclingsheep wrote:The Mad Rapper wrote:Froome's performance was ridiculous, and that's all I'm going to say about that.
Contador was a massive disappointment today, but I suspect the playing fields were very different for various reasons.
I'm not sure I understand this comment. I know I'm not much of a poster here but have watched the tour for more than the Sky years. On one hand you say Froome's performance was unbelievable then that Contador was below par ( I say this as an assumption from your post unless you also think Contador's own teammate is doping too) so would a fit Contador have been one and a half minutes faster but believable? Just asking.
For myself as a neutral (not British, no particular heart flutterings for any riders) I saw today's stage as a great performance. I think Movistar could possibly have played it better but that's racing.
I wouldnt bother mate. Until recently there were 2 convicted but unrepentant dopers in the first 4 on GC, and no one on here said a word about that.
Sky, for some reason, are the only team that get the "I am convinced they are dopers" slur. For no other reason than they are leading on GC.
Log on to any other thread from say, the Belgian classics and you will see no bad mouthing of teams. There was even a post, from an earlier stage, accusing Froome of cheating and deliberately finishing second. You figure.0 -
I don't think any of the riders would have appreciated a lung full of that, silly sods. Glad there wasn't too much running next to the riders but it still happened. Looked like they never got the message from the ASOSalsiccia1 wrote:Outsider art by Loan wrote:Somebody needs to smack those cu nts setting off flares. Why the fu ck?
Apart from the anglo-saxon, I'm in full agreement.
0
