Hi friends,
Welcome to the official thread for the tour.
Todays leg is the first time trial, before they head to the mountains, where things get interesting!
Go Cadel!
tweet
Nah mate, Wiggo all the way. Evans is a fighter though, and if I wasn’t a Brit then I’d be cheering him on. Plus, with Wiggins being in yellow, he gets the advantage of the final start spot today so he knows where he stands at each checkpoint. My prediction for today’s stage:-
1 Cancellara
2 Martin
3 Wiggins
4 Evans
5 Menchov
Evans will win imho.
I hope Cancellara wins today, but I think Martin will.
Cancellara just finished and took off 1:19 or so off Martin. I don’t think anyone else is going to top that. I’d say Wiggins will finish 2nd but still be about 30 seconds back of Cancellara.
Bradley Wiggins ftw, although i do find him and Team Sky pretty obnoxious.
Go Neil Armstrong!!!
Wow I was surprised that Wiggins lit into the field that much. This may be over already barring a major accident with him, which with him isn’t out of the question.
Also looks like USADA is going after Armstrong again and the federal courts are going to let them - Armstrong had filed an injunction against the USADA but it was thrown out in court.
[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
Wow I was surprised that Wiggins lit into the field that much. This may be over already barring a major accident with him, which with him isn’t out of the question.
Also looks like USADA is going after Armstrong again and the federal courts are going to let them - Armstrong had filed an injunction against the USADA but it was thrown out in court.[/quote]
How do you mean you were surprised with Wiggins?
What are peoples opinions of the Armstrong situation? I don’t see him getting out of this.
Huge fan of the Tour for several years. I read another forum dedicated to cycling and, unfortunately, the general consensus among those of us who follow cycling pretty closely is that Sky is looking very similar to the USPS team of old (in other words, “doped to the gills”).
A guy like Froome coming out of nowhere to not only blast Wiggo and Cadel off their wheels on a brutal MTF but also following that up a couple of days later with an ITT where he beats four-time world champ Cancellara is just generally unheard of without some kind of assistance. I’m not ready to drop the “They’re doing it” hammer. Being an attorney, I’m a huge believer in “innocent until proven guilty.” That doesn’t mean I don’t have suspicions, however.
Armstrong? It’s sad. I believe he doped (read “From Lance to Landis” for a great, eye-opening - albeit sad - account on the prevalence of doping in cycling); there is much more evidence through the years for his guilt and that of all of USPS than the current Sky riders (though, admittedly, it’s mostly circumstantial).
I wish they’d just leave him alone, however. To be fair, I still believe LA is one of the greatest athletes that ever lived and he is still one of my heroes. “It’s Not About the Bike” is one of my two all-time favorite books (no hyperbole). In an era where “everyone was doing it” (think baseball), he was still the class of the peloton, talent-wise (many might say his attitude was a different story).
On an even course, he would have still dominated everyone, IMHO. It’s just a sad way for his legacy to likely end. Did he bring it upon himself? Of course. But so did nearly every other top rider of his era, yet he’s the one getting the most attention.
They all use drugs, everyone knows, when they bust someone it’s because he stepped on someone’s feet.
If Froome wins he will get busted too I think.
[quote]CC wrote:
Huge fan of the Tour for several years. I read another forum dedicated to cycling and, unfortunately, the general consensus among those of us who follow cycling pretty closely is that Sky is looking very similar to the USPS team of old (in other words, “doped to the gills”).
A guy like Froome coming out of nowhere to not only blast Wiggo and Cadel off their wheels on a brutal MTF but also following that up a couple of days later with an ITT where he beats four-time world champ Cancellara is just generally unheard of without some kind of assistance. I’m not ready to drop the “They’re doing it” hammer. Being an attorney, I’m a huge believer in “innocent until proven guilty.” That doesn’t mean I don’t have suspicions, however.
Armstrong? It’s sad. I believe he doped (read “From Lance to Landis” for a great, eye-opening - albeit sad - account on the prevalence of doping in cycling); there is much more evidence through the years for his guilt and that of all of USPS than the current Sky riders (though, admittedly, it’s mostly circumstantial).
I wish they’d just leave him alone, however. To be fair, I still believe LA is one of the greatest athletes that ever lived and he is still one of my heroes. “It’s Not About the Bike” is one of my two all-time favorite books (no hyperbole). In an era where “everyone was doing it” (think baseball), he was still the class of the peloton, talent-wise (many might say his attitude was a different story).
On an even course, he would have still dominated everyone, IMHO. It’s just a sad way for his legacy to likely end. Did he bring it upon himself? Of course. But so did nearly every other top rider of his era, yet he’s the one getting the most attention.[/quote]
On Sky: do you not think it is more a case of “financial doping” than actual doping? They have spent some serious money and many of these guys do have long standing pedigree, e.g. Wiggins and Cavendish. Froome has been highly regarded for a while too.
On LieStrong: he’s getting the most attention for many reasons, preaching a whiter than white persona being one. Also, being the record Tour winner another and becoming a massive multi millionaire from it all a third.
He clearly doped, as others did. Also, undoubtedly AMAZING athlete. I think his aggressive anti drugs attitude is what’s going to be his ultimate downfall. Far too aggressive protecting his public image, which it can be argued, is mainly through concern for his bank account.
In many ways, he is very similar to Carl Lewis, someone clearly on drugs who chased the all American public image, largely to line his pockets.
Froome hasn’t come out of nowhere - I believe he placed highly at last year’s Vuelta? However, with regards the doping, nothing’s impossible. Still, I’d like to believe that cycling was a clean sport but I think it would be naive to assume that. It doesn’t affect my opinion of the riders though - they’re all amazing athletes. If anything, seeing some of the more super-human riders battle it out is what makes the race exciting.
[quote]Jaice wrote:
Froome hasn’t come out of nowhere[/quote]
Agreed, in addition Wiggins’ times have been slower for many events than in the very strong doping years, something he has commented on.
Of course, they could all be doping. I just feel there is an anti-money and anti-English element to a large amount of the criticism (I am not English btw).
On Sky: Perhaps. They do have a good “stable.” Some on that other forum have also suggested that maybe Sky - being so financially resourceful - have just pumped so much money and time into finding new legal techniques to give their riders an edge. Is it likely that they’ve discovered training and nutrition techniques not already thought of by all of the other teams that have been doing it for years? No. But possible? Absolutely. The running joke is “Who could’ve known a swim coach would have such a profound effect on cycling?” Haha.
On Froome: My comment was incorrect. I shouldn’t have said “he came out of nowhere;” he has been doing well for a couple of years (incidentally, from right around the time he joined Sky . . .) However, I still found that climb surprising. To not just beat, but absolutely destroy both Wiggo and Cadel at the end of Belles Filles like that was kind of a “Whoa” moment.
To get real technical about it and look at the numbers, he (along with Wiggo and Cadel) was pumping around 6.5 W/kg of power on that climb. Know who else was putting up those kinds of power numbers? Riders in the 90’s and early 2000’s, when doping was all the rage and everyone was getting away with it. What was the difference? Those guys were doing it for close to an hour, while these guys only did it for a little over 15 minutes.
It is also my understanding that Froome had an ongoing illness that plagued him for years, and some feel that this perhaps hindered him from reaching his potential for so long (up until he joined Sky). Perhaps Sky just has better doctors (would make sense, given their money) than he previously had. So, as you can see, I am absolutely willing to look at all of the angles. To be honest, it would be my absolute joy to find that Wiggo, Froome and the rest of the Sky gang were doing it the right way.
On LA: The guy isn’t the nicest around, by all accounts from those who’ve dealt with him personally. So, yeah, he certainly doesn’t help himself by being that way (something Wiggo would do well to remember, if he doesn’t want too much attention; he’s starting to get a bit cheeky and he acts like a prima donna when the races are over at times).
On anti-English sentiment: I think that’s just something native to cycling in general, especially when it comes to American and British teams on French soil. They don’t like either of us. I generally pull for British riders when there are no real American GC contenders (and as long as van Garderan is riding for Cadel, we won’t see another one of those for some time). Loved Wiggo when he was on Garmin and still pull for him now. Just want him to quit worrying about the critics and focus on the race. If he really is clean and has nothing to worry about, then it shouldn’t upset him. His anger and lashing out is starting to sound like someone else . . .
[quote]CC wrote:
[/quote]
good post, agree with everything you said.
Froome is sick, it’s unfair that the team stops him, he deserves to win this tour.