TdF 2016 Stage 9 *Contains spoilers*

frisbee

Above The Cows wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

Contrary to popular belief Quintana is not a racer. The last two days have proved that. Contrary to popular belief Froome is a real racer.

He can race when the person he's attacking thinks the battle is neutralised... Oh.

As opposed to attacking when the race is officially neutralised and then the organisers bizarrely let him continue and the result stand.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah I disagree Pross.

Racing was even duller in most of the '90s, and the Armstrong races were hardly scintillating. Between 2007 and 2011 was a decent run.

The '80s were dope* free and the racing was no more or less dull than it was during doping.


*well, EPO free anyway.

But that was just Armstrong's way. He was totally dominant and even then he'd do what everyone seems to want now and attack flat out at the the first sign of a MTF but that just killed the race and then he could ride at a constant but stupidly fast pace for the rest of the mountains. There were some 'great' stages for a few years between Indurain and Armstrong's dominance. Pantani in particular gave us plenty.

The 80s appeared better as most of us only saw highlights. The years between 2007 and 2011 were probably partly due to lack of a clear leading GT rider and partly as riders were still trying to ride as if they were doped to the gills when most weren't or weren't to the same extent hence great performances one day and falling apart the next. They have now learnt the lesson hence the 'dull' racing. That said, people have moaned about 90% of stages being dull for as long as I can remember.

Lanterne_Rogue

bobmcstuff wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yes.

We should introduce audience controlled amphetamines.

Race organiser puts up 3 riders who have little machines on them that administer amphetamines and the crowd vote with an app on their phone.

That would actually be mechanical doping too...!

Great idea.

Or use these hidden motors like DRS in Formula One except the audience votes for when they are allowed to be used.

I want Mario Kart power-ups and I want them now.

Edit: I've just realised what's going on: Steve Cummings isn't hanging around at the back being lazy - he's been conditioned that way by too many blue shells.

simon_e

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Pross wrote:

When are people going to realise that this is how stages are generally going to be if we want clean cycling? Even the best riders have only got one or two really big efforts in them and with the race being loaded heavily to the back end they are keeping their powder dry. They aren't exactly soft pedalling, 20kph consistently up climbs that are pushing 2000m. There's not a lot of oxygen at that level to support the sustained monster efforts so it's a case of picking the time and place for it. As for those saying Quintana only ever follows Froome, have they forgotten the last week of last year's Tour? I reckon Thursday will be the day where there's fireworks - a brutal climb at the end of a slightly easier day and not quite at the highest altitudes. A repeat of 2013?

Totally on the money for me. Hat.

Hat from me too.

Pross wrote:

people have moaned about 90% of stages being dull for as long as I can remember.

And a +1 to this.

DeVlaeminck

Does the altitude matter - it's the same altitude for everyone after all - if there is an advantage to be had wouldn't it suit Quintana having grown up at altitude.

v2p

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Does the altitude matter - it's the same altitude for everyone after all - if there is an advantage to be had wouldn't it suit Quintana having grown up at altitude.

I think the effects are probably more to do with altitude training just prior to the tour/ in prep for the tour, rather than a lifetime of growing up at altitude vs someone who didn't grow up at altitude.

qpp

Simon E wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Pross wrote:

When are people going to realise that this is how stages are generally going to be if we want clean cycling? Even the best riders have only got one or two really big efforts in them and with the race being loaded heavily to the back end they are keeping their powder dry. They aren't exactly soft pedalling, 20kph consistently up climbs that are pushing 2000m. There's not a lot of oxygen at that level to support the sustained monster efforts so it's a case of picking the time and place for it. As for those saying Quintana only ever follows Froome, have they forgotten the last week of last year's Tour? I reckon Thursday will be the day where there's fireworks - a brutal climb at the end of a slightly easier day and not quite at the highest altitudes. A repeat of 2013?

Totally on the money for me. Hat.

Hat from me too.

Pross wrote:

people have moaned about 90% of stages being dull for as long as I can remember.

And a +1 to this.

+2 to both the above. Been watching this thing since '85, mostly, and there's always been lots of stages you could call "dull". Actually most stage races are like that, for pretty obvious reasons, or at least they are if you're only interested in the GC. Personally I like some of the sidebar moments of stage races as much as the main event - be it breakaways, battles for other jerseys, guys who seem to be having a new lease of life or riding differently with a new team.

I only really got bored with the Tour (and cycling in general) when I stopped believing in it, when massive blokes like Riis were climbing like Pantani, and sprinters like Jalabert were winning mountain stages. Then turned off in disgust when it became obvious what Armstrong was up to, but the sport was turning a blind eye.

Now I am convinced things really are much cleaner. Which might make races more "dull" if you want fireworks and mutant attacks, but if you like the tension and the feeling that you're watching blokes working out if they can go all in and take a risk, then maybe it's not so dull

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Does the altitude matter - it's the same altitude for everyone after all - if there is an advantage to be had wouldn't it suit Quintana having grown up at altitude.

Not sure it matters as an advantage to particular riders but I think it prevents hard, sustained attacks in the likely absence of widespread EPO use or blood doping which counteracted the impact of lower oxygen levels. For impact on individuals no doubt someone will suggest reading The Sports Gene?

argyllflyer

Both Froome and Quintana grew up at altitude - Nairobi is hardly sea level - it's only a few hundred metres below Teide where Sky go to work at altitude.

philbar72

I think Quintana is playing this really well with his drinking mistake the day before an obvious learning experience. he'll reclaim that on a summit finish or the uphill TT, I reckon. keeping his powder relatively dry...

DeVlaeminck

argyllflyer wrote:

Both Froome and Quintana grew up at altitude - Nairobi is hardly sea level - it's only a few hundred metres below Teide where Sky go to work at altitude.

OK wouldn't it suit Quintana and Froome then - though according to Wiki Quintana's birth place is about 1000 metres higher than Nairobi - the point was the altitude isn't a reason for Quintana not launching an attack.

I don't really agree that altitude prevents sustained attacking anyway because an attack only has to be harder than the chase and both would be affected.

andyp

argyllflyer wrote:

Both Froome and Quintana grew up at altitude - Nairobi is hardly sea level - it's only a few hundred metres below Teide where Sky go to work at altitude.

There is a difference though, Quintana is an altitude native, i.e. has a genetic line that has adapted to living at altitude, whereas Froome is a white European who's family moved to Kenya, so whilst he may have adapted more than your average white European to living at altitude, he's not going to have the genetic mutation that Quintana will have.

As always, everyone should read The Sports Gene.

pottssteve

When the Spanish Conquistedors invaded central and south America and began to settle, some married local women. For those living at altitude in the Andes, it was over 50 years before any of them delivered a live baby - they would die due to hypoxia, brought on by the lack of oxygen at altitude as the Spanish husbands were not adapted to living so high above sea level. So Quintana may have the edge over Froome, genetically, in terms of the ability to assimilate oxygen at altitude.