So the previous year when Contador won the toughest Giro in years then placed 5th (couple of minutes back) in a tough hilly tour, where does that stack up against Froomes second on a relatively easy Tour and 10 minute+ loss in the Vuelta???
Just thinking on relative strengths.......
So? We were talking about Froome being fatigued at the Vuelta. Obviously Contador is currently the stronger of the two.
cineteq wrote:Afrank should be able to answer this.
Answer what? Who is better? Froome or Contador? At the moment that is Contador.
You can read my mind too? Great, at least you got that right.
I have no idea what your talking about anymore.
What a meaningless argument. All this goes to prove that you didn't really watch the Tour, or you missed completely stage 6 (Metz)
. How can you explain a beat up Gesink ends up 2 minutes behind Froome in La Vuelta? Let's make a deal: if you'd say radioactive bio hazard was sick, I'll buy it.
Valverde lost 2 minutes in Metz, not the full 40 minutes. But it doesn't matter anyways, the point was Valverde did no where near the amount of work that Froome did in the tour. Plus he was coming back from a ban and needed the racing a GT brings to get him back in form to be competitive in them. So your original point, that Valverde doing the tour then placing 2nd in the Vuleta proves Froome wasn't fatigued, is wrong.
As for Gesink: he exited on stage 12 to recovered from his injuries and got back into decent form for the Vuelta. And I will say it again Froome>>>>>>>Gesink.
And to the bolded: What? do you think I am desperately trying to come up with a reason that will please you? Sorry I'm not, Froome was fatigued at the Vuelta that is a fact accepted by everyone in cycling, in your own words "learn it"
oh and contador wasn't in top form at the Vuelta...learn that too.