Julian Alaphilippe

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

So for the third time, I’m not suggesting he’s a plausible winner, and further I don’t think he’ll win. I’m suggesting comparisons to Froome are absurd.

Ok, so for the second time, his other race results are not particularly relevant.

A 3 minute effort up Mur de Huy or a 5 minute climb of the Poggio are about as relevant to a 50 minute climb or 35 minute ITT as a 4K IP.

They are to the comparison to Froome, not to his GC plausibility.

Is this thing on?

Rider A can win every Fleche Wallonne and Liege-Bastogne-Liege that he entered during his career and it would still not make his jump from 35th to 1st in a GT GC more believable than the same jump from a rider who won nothing.

But, grrr, Froome, I guess.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

So for the third time, I’m not suggesting he’s a plausible winner, and further I don’t think he’ll win. I’m suggesting comparisons to Froome are absurd.

Ok, so for the second time, his other race results are not particularly relevant.

A 3 minute effort up Mur de Huy or a 5 minute climb of the Poggio are about as relevant to a 50 minute climb or 35 minute ITT as a 4K IP.

Scientific proof please...I love rhetoric and soundbites as much as anybody, but...

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

So for the third time, I’m not suggesting he’s a plausible winner, and further I don’t think he’ll win. I’m suggesting comparisons to Froome are absurd.

Ok, so for the second time, his other race results are not particularly relevant.

A 3 minute effort up Mur de Huy or a 5 minute climb of the Poggio are about as relevant to a 50 minute climb or 35 minute ITT as a 4K IP.

well just last season we had two GT winners that were former track riders so maybe it is relevant then?

If it was relevant to Alaphilippe, surely he would have had better previous GT GC results and not consistently failed in difficult stages in short stages race while high on GC.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

So for the third time, I’m not suggesting he’s a plausible winner, and further I don’t think he’ll win. I’m suggesting comparisons to Froome are absurd.

Ok, so for the second time, his other race results are not particularly relevant.

A 3 minute effort up Mur de Huy or a 5 minute climb of the Poggio are about as relevant to a 50 minute climb or 35 minute ITT as a 4K IP.

Scientific proof please...I love rhetoric and soundbites as much as anybody, but...

I don't believe (not really scientific) that a rider can be world class at pretty much every duration on the power curve

See Pinot for example, whose short-duration power outputs are pretty pedestrian

https://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/pinot-ppr.pdf

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

So for the third time, I’m not suggesting he’s a plausible winner, and further I don’t think he’ll win. I’m suggesting comparisons to Froome are absurd.

Ok, so for the second time, his other race results are not particularly relevant.

A 3 minute effort up Mur de Huy or a 5 minute climb of the Poggio are about as relevant to a 50 minute climb or 35 minute ITT as a 4K IP.

Scientific proof please...I love rhetoric and soundbites as much as anybody, but...

I don't believe (not really scientific) that a rider can be world class at pretty much every duration on the power curve

See Pinot for example, whose short-duration power outputs are pretty pedestrian

https://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/pinot-ppr.pdf

I don't believe that the earth is round but there is proof otherwise! :lol:

Many people are influenced by rhetoric that is based on the last 20 years. Its impossible to say that a rider can't be good at LBL and GTs because no one (OK maybe Nibs) targets both anymore. Not that I want to go down the road of comparing eras, but it used to be common for the top guys to be the top guys no matter the race.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

Rider A can win every Fleche Wallonne and Liege-Bastogne-Liege that he entered during his career and it would still not make his jump from 35th to 1st in a GT GC more believable than the same jump from a rider who won nothing.

But, grrr, Froome, I guess.

Believable? No. More believable? Absolutely, yes.

Alaphilippe's palmares before the Tour proved immense levels of talent. His KOM jersey from last year also shows that he had decent climbing ability and the ability to ride hard for three weeks. He might not have shown GT winning talent, but he sure as hell had proved he had an elite level engine, especially in comparison to Froome.

Froome's results before 2011 showed a complete nobody in all aspects of bike riding. 32nd in a GT is the sort of result any low-tier mountain domestique could easily achieve if given the freedom to ride conservatively. Why? Because riders don't care unless they're in the top 10-15 guys. Everyone below that are either racing for something else or they're just servants for the better guys and start coasting in as soon as their job is done. Alaphilippe was racing for something else - stage wins and the KOM jersey, and he succeeded in both. Froome was given a free role and tried to just be better than the guys that were coasting in, and being better than that doesn't take much at all. Basically, where they ended up in the GC is irrelevant. How they ended up there matters. Alaphilippe did it by losing time on purpose, going in the breakaways every day to gain KOM points and just burning energy everywhere to stack his already loaded palmares. Froome did it by riding conservatively and trying to get the best possible placement because that's the best he could possibly achieve.

That 2009 Giro was pretty much the highlight of Froome's career up until his 2011 Vuelta and it showed his upper level in his best discipline - stage races. He was a low-tier mountain domestique and a guy who was more interested in TTs than your average cyclist, but not good enough to actually win them at any level. Alaphilippe on the other hand has been an absolute elite rider his whole life and has shown abilities in the mountains and on TTs that put Froome's early results to shame. Looking at one number in the mid thirties and saying that two riders are equal is moronic. Froome was a donkey. Alaphilippe has never been that.

And it's important to stress the fact that Alaphilippe is in no way believable this year. It's just that Froome is in a league of his own light years away from literally anyone when it comes to ludicrous and unbelievable transformations, while we've seen quite a few Alaphilippe types suddenly rip up GTs before. All of them with "help", of course.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Believable? No. More believable? Absolutely, yes.

Alaphilippe's palmares before the Tour proved immense levels of talent. His KOM jersey from last year also shows that he had decent climbing ability and the ability to ride hard for three weeks. He might not have shown GT winning talent, but he sure as hell had proved he had an elite level engine, especially in comparison to Froome.

Froome's results before 2011 showed a complete nobody in all aspects of bike riding. 32nd in a GT is the sort of result any low-tier mountain domestique could easily achieve if given the freedom to ride conservatively. Why? Because riders don't care unless they're in the top 10-15 guys. Everyone below that are either racing for something else or they're just servants for the better guys and start coasting in as soon as their job is done. Alaphilippe was racing for something else - stage wins and the KOM jersey, and he succeeded in both. Froome was given a free role and tried to just be better than the guys that were coasting in, and being better than that doesn't take much at all. Basically, where they ended up in the GC is irrelevant. How they ended up there matters. Alaphilippe did it by losing time on purpose, going in the breakaways every day to gain KOM points and just burning energy everywhere to stack his already loaded palmares. Froome did it by riding conservatively and trying to get the best possible placement because that's the best he could possibly achieve.

That 2009 Giro was pretty much the highlight of Froome's career up until his 2011 Vuelta and it showed his upper level in his best discipline - stage races. He was a low-tier mountain domestique and a guy who was more interested in TTs than your average cyclist, but not good enough to actually win them at any level. Alaphilippe on the other hand has been an absolute elite rider his whole life and has shown abilities in the mountains and on TTs that put Froome's early results to shame. Looking at one number in the mid thirties and saying that two riders are equal is moronic. Froome was a donkey. Alaphilippe has never been that.

And it's important to stress the fact that Alaphilippe is in no way believable this year. It's just that Froome is in a league of his own light years away from literally anyone when it comes to ludicrous and unbelievable transformations, while we've seen quite a few Alaphilippe types suddenly rip up GTs before. All of them with "help", of course.

Absolutely nailed it.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

Rider A can win every Fleche Wallonne and Liege-Bastogne-Liege that he entered during his career and it would still not make his jump from 35th to 1st in a GT GC more believable than the same jump from a rider who won nothing.

But, grrr, Froome, I guess.

Believable? No. More believable? Absolutely, yes.

Alaphilippe's palmares before the Tour proved immense levels of talent. His KOM jersey from last year also shows that he had decent climbing ability and the ability to ride hard for three weeks. He might not have shown GT winning talent, but he sure as hell had proved he had an elite level engine, especially in comparison to Froome.

Froome's results before 2011 showed a complete nobody in all aspects of bike riding. 32nd in a GT is the sort of result any low-tier mountain domestique could easily achieve if given the freedom to ride conservatively. Why? Because riders don't care unless they're in the top 10-15 guys. Everyone below that are either racing for something else or they're just servants for the better guys and start coasting in as soon as their job is done. Alaphilippe was racing for something else - stage wins and the KOM jersey, and he succeeded in both. Froome was given a free role and tried to just be better than the guys that were coasting in, and being better than that doesn't take much at all. Basically, where they ended up in the GC is irrelevant. How they ended up there matters. Alaphilippe did it by losing time on purpose, going in the breakaways every day to gain KOM points and just burning energy everywhere to stack his already loaded palmares. Froome did it by riding conservatively and trying to get the best possible placement because that's the best he could possibly achieve.

That 2009 Giro was pretty much the highlight of Froome's career up until his 2011 Vuelta and it showed his upper level in his best discipline - stage races. He was a low-tier mountain domestique and a guy who was more interested in TTs than your average cyclist, but not good enough to actually win them at any level. Alaphilippe on the other hand has been an absolute elite rider his whole life and has shown abilities in the mountains and on TTs that put Froome's early results to shame. Looking at one number in the mid thirties and saying that two riders are equal is moronic. Froome was a donkey. Alaphilippe has never been that.

And it's important to stress the fact that Alaphilippe is in no way believable this year. It's just that Froome is in a league of his own light years away from literally anyone when it comes to ludicrous and unbelievable transformations, while we've seen quite a few Alaphilippe types suddenly rip up GTs before. All of them with "help", of course.

This is perfect.

 

[Cookster15]

Re: Re:

Believable? No. More believable? Absolutely, yes.

Alaphilippe's palmares before the Tour proved immense levels of talent. His KOM jersey from last year also shows that he had decent climbing ability and the ability to ride hard for three weeks. He might not have shown GT winning talent, but he sure as hell had proved he had an elite level engine, especially in comparison to Froome.

Froome's results before 2011 showed a complete nobody in all aspects of bike riding. 32nd in a GT is the sort of result any low-tier mountain domestique could easily achieve if given the freedom to ride conservatively. Why? Because riders don't care unless they're in the top 10-15 guys. Everyone below that are either racing for something else or they're just servants for the better guys and start coasting in as soon as their job is done. Alaphilippe was racing for something else - stage wins and the KOM jersey, and he succeeded in both. Froome was given a free role and tried to just be better than the guys that were coasting in, and being better than that doesn't take much at all. Basically, where they ended up in the GC is irrelevant. How they ended up there matters. Alaphilippe did it by losing time on purpose, going in the breakaways every day to gain KOM points and just burning energy everywhere to stack his already loaded palmares. Froome did it by riding conservatively and trying to get the best possible placement because that's the best he could possibly achieve.

That 2009 Giro was pretty much the highlight of Froome's career up until his 2011 Vuelta and it showed his upper level in his best discipline - stage races. He was a low-tier mountain domestique and a guy who was more interested in TTs than your average cyclist, but not good enough to actually win them at any level. Alaphilippe on the other hand has been an absolute elite rider his whole life and has shown abilities in the mountains and on TTs that put Froome's early results to shame. Looking at one number in the mid thirties and saying that two riders are equal is moronic. Froome was a donkey. Alaphilippe has never been that.

And it's important to stress the fact that Alaphilippe is in no way believable this year. It's just that Froome is in a league of his own light years away from literally anyone when it comes to ludicrous and unbelievable transformations, while we've seen quite a few Alaphilippe types suddenly rip up GTs before. All of them with "help", of course.

Absolutely nailed it.

Just for the record, I also agree with this.

 

[JosephK]

Re: Re:

Rider A can win every Fleche Wallonne and Liege-Bastogne-Liege that he entered during his career and it would still not make his jump from 35th to 1st in a GT GC more believable than the same jump from a rider who won nothing.

But, grrr, Froome, I guess.

Believable? No. More believable? Absolutely, yes.

Alaphilippe's palmares before the Tour proved immense levels of talent. His KOM jersey from last year also shows that he had decent climbing ability and the ability to ride hard for three weeks. He might not have shown GT winning talent, but he sure as hell had proved he had an elite level engine, especially in comparison to Froome.

Froome's results before 2011 showed a complete nobody in all aspects of bike riding. 32nd in a GT is the sort of result any low-tier mountain domestique could easily achieve if given the freedom to ride conservatively. Why? Because riders don't care unless they're in the top 10-15 guys. Everyone below that are either racing for something else or they're just servants for the better guys and start coasting in as soon as their job is done. Alaphilippe was racing for something else - stage wins and the KOM jersey, and he succeeded in both. Froome was given a free role and tried to just be better than the guys that were coasting in, and being better than that doesn't take much at all. Basically, where they ended up in the GC is irrelevant. How they ended up there matters. Alaphilippe did it by losing time on purpose, going in the breakaways every day to gain KOM points and just burning energy everywhere to stack his already loaded palmares. Froome did it by riding conservatively and trying to get the best possible placement because that's the best he could possibly achieve.

That 2009 Giro was pretty much the highlight of Froome's career up until his 2011 Vuelta and it showed his upper level in his best discipline - stage races. He was a low-tier mountain domestique and a guy who was more interested in TTs than your average cyclist, but not good enough to actually win them at any level. Alaphilippe on the other hand has been an absolute elite rider his whole life and has shown abilities in the mountains and on TTs that put Froome's early results to shame. Looking at one number in the mid thirties and saying that two riders are equal is moronic. Froome was a donkey. Alaphilippe has never been that.

And it's important to stress the fact that Alaphilippe is in no way believable this year. It's just that Froome is in a league of his own light years away from literally anyone when it comes to ludicrous and unbelievable transformations, while we've seen quite a few Alaphilippe types suddenly rip up GTs before. All of them with "help", of course.

What Saint Unix said. -- Also might add that Ineos stands alone in the number of unlikely transformations to GT-winning riders.

 

[Cookster15]

Two wrongs don't make a right. By all means point the finger at Froome but we should be cheering Pinot not Alaphilippe just because he isn't Skyneos. Even Bernal is preferable to Alaphilippe IMO. Maybe 2,770 metres helps settle the matter If not Ineos / Movistar and Jumbo make it as hard as possible if JA still around then finish him at Val Thorens.

 

[This Charming Man]

Very sad to see the fingerpointing. Allaphilipe has excelled before....Oh well hater gonna hate.

 

[MartinGT]

Re: Re:

Beievable? No. More believable? Absolutely, yes.

Alaphilippe's palmares before the Tour proved immense levels of talent. His KOM jersey from last year also shows that he had decent climbing ability and the ability to ride hard for three weeks. He might not have shown GT winning talent, but he sure as hell had proved he had an elite level engine, especially in comparison to Froome.

Froome's results before 2011 showed a complete nobody in all aspects of bike riding. 32nd in a GT is the sort of result any low-tier mountain domestique could easily achieve if given the freedom to ride conservatively. Why? Because riders don't care unless they're in the top 10-15 guys. Everyone below that are either racing for something else or they're just servants for the better guys and start coasting in as soon as their job is done. Alaphilippe was racing for something else - stage wins and the KOM jersey, and he succeeded in both. Froome was given a free role and tried to just be better than the guys that were coasting in, and being better than that doesn't take much at all. Basically, where they ended up in the GC is irrelevant. How they ended up there matters. Alaphilippe did it by losing time on purpose, going in the breakaways every day to gain KOM points and just burning energy everywhere to stack his already loaded palmares. Froome did it by riding conservatively and trying to get the best possible placement because that's the best he could possibly achieve.

That 2009 Giro was pretty much the highlight of Froome's career up until his 2011 Vuelta and it showed his upper level in his best discipline - stage races. He was a low-tier mountain domestique and a guy who was more interested in TTs than your average cyclist, but not good enough to actually win them at any level. Alaphilippe on the other hand has been an absolute elite rider his whole life and has shown abilities in the mountains and on TTs that put Froome's early results to shame. Looking at one number in the mid thirties and saying that two riders are equal is moronic. Froome was a donkey. Alaphilippe has never been that.

And it's important to stress the fact that Alaphilippe is in no way believable this year. It's just that Froome is in a league of his own light years away from literally anyone when it comes to ludicrous and unbelievable transformations, while we've seen quite a few Alaphilippe types suddenly rip up GTs before. All of them with "help", of course.

Post of this Tour. *applauds*

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

Very sad to see the fingerpointing. Allaphilipe has excelled before....Oh well hater gonna hate.

If finger pointing makes you sad, i think you're on the wrong forum dude :lol:

 

[Cookster15]

Re:

Very sad to see the fingerpointing. Allaphilipe has excelled before....Oh well hater gonna hate.

When has he excelled over three weeks in a Grand Tour? Never. KOM does not count.

 

[F_Cance]

Re: Re:

Very sad to see the fingerpointing. Allaphilipe has excelled before....Oh well hater gonna hate.

If finger pointing makes you sad, i think you're on the wrong forum dude :lol:

I mean what to expect from an Armstrong apologist?

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Very sad to see the fingerpointing. Allaphilipe has excelled before....Oh well hater gonna hate.

If finger pointing makes you sad, i think you're on the wrong forum dude :lol:

I mean what to expect from an Armstrong apologist?

Who, me?

 

[F_Cance]

No, The Charming Man.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

No, The Charming Man.

Ah, ok

 

[Mamil]

The idea of Alaphilippe being a doper in the general sense simply by fact of him being an elite pro-cyclist who wins a lot I'm more than willing to go along with. But the thought that he's doped particularly for the Tour GC, or that he's somewhat found a way to enhance himself specifically for that purpose mid-race, I find absurd. Nothing undetectable works that fast, with the possible exception of a well-administered and timed blood bag. I'd give slight credence to that possibility, but nothing else.

It's obvious that both Ala and QS didn't come into this Tour expecting him to be fighting for the final maillot jaune. Yeah you'd expect that he's probably a little leaner than he normally is in the spring, to assist in dealing with all the climbing, but that's standard practice for a GT for a puncheur, especially one who probably also anticipated that he'd be doing a little domestique work for Mas. That's the extent of it.

I see an immensely talented rider who's found himself with a handy lead, and who has a reasonable climbing pedigree (you don't win the KOM for nothing), spending high mountain stages simply trying to defend his advantage. The climbing times aren't fast, no one team is consistently or for long periods setting a searing tempo, Ala has an experienced team looking after him, his motivation is super high, big attacks have been pretty rare and when they have happened, he mostly hasn't followed them. The TT was probably his most impressive and surprising performance to date, but even there the course was quite favourable to his natural strengths. In the mountains I've observed nothing ridiculous.

The point has been made that he's never done this before. So what? He's never tried. He's not a guy who was previously tooling around struggling and finishing 15th in GTs - he's a GC novice. It's also said with good reason that we didn't know he was capable of this - but I'm willing to bet that neither did he. He's landed in a favourable situation and he's trying to make the most of it, riding in as measured a fashion as he can to stay with his rivals and seeing how far he can run with it. In this regard it really comes down to do you believe that a rider, even an exceptionally gifted one, can race competitively for GC at a GT without specifically preparing and training for it? I'd certainly concede that it's unlikely, but if the conditions are right, the opposition comparatively weak and the race tactics fairly conservative, which they appear to be on both counts, and the rider is in absolute top form, then I think it just might be possible.

In sum, does Alaphilippe dope? Quite possibly. Has he doped specifically to win the Tour? Surely not.

 

[JosephK]

Alaphilippe looking more mortal/non-alien each day (when compared with certain other historical Tour breakthrough standouts).

 

[red_flanders]

The idea of Alaphilippe being a doper in the general sense simply by fact of him being an elite pro-cyclist who wins a lot I'm more than willing to go along with. But the thought that he's doped particularly for the Tour GC, or that he's somewhat found a way to enhance himself specifically for that purpose mid-race, I find absurd. Nothing undetectable works that fast, with the possible exception of a well-administered and timed blood bag. I'd give slight credence to that possibility, but nothing else.

It's obvious that both Ala and QS didn't come into this Tour expecting him to be fighting for the final maillot jaune. Yeah you'd expect that he's probably a little leaner than he normally is in the spring, to assist in dealing with all the climbing, but that's standard practice for a GT for a puncheur, especially one who probably also anticipated that he'd be doing a little domestique work for Mas. That's the extent of it.

I see an immensely talented rider who's found himself with a handy lead, and who has a reasonable climbing pedigree (you don't win the KOM for nothing), spending high mountain stages simply trying to defend his advantage. The climbing times aren't fast, no one team is consistently or for long periods setting a searing tempo, Ala has an experienced team looking after him, his motivation is super high, big attacks have been pretty rare and when they have happened, he mostly hasn't followed them. The TT was probably his most impressive and surprising performance to date, but even there the course was quite favourable to his natural strengths. In the mountains I've observed nothing ridiculous.

The point has been made that he's never done this before. So what? He's never tried. He's not a guy who was previously tooling around struggling and finishing 15th in GTs - he's a GC novice. It's also said with good reason that we didn't know he was capable of this - but I'm willing to bet that neither did he. He's landed in a favourable situation and he's trying to make the most of it, riding in as measured a fashion as he can to stay with his rivals and seeing how far he can run with it. In this regard it really comes down to do you believe that a rider, even an exceptionally gifted one, can race competitively for GC at a GT without specifically preparing and training for it? I'd certainly concede that it's unlikely, but if the conditions are right, the opposition comparatively weak and the race tactics fairly conservative, which they appear to be on both counts, and the rider is in absolute top form, then I think it just might be possible.

In sum, does Alaphilippe dope? Quite possibly. Has he doped specifically to win the Tour? Surely not.

Excellent post.

 

[Red Rick]

Alaphilippe losing 2 minutes on a single HC climb is actually around where he'd usually be if he tried in Paris Nice or something. Still in the 3rd week fo the Tour this is considerably better than he was before the Tour but this is definitely less ridiculous than the first 14 stages.

 

[F_Cance]

Before he couldn't even ride for GC in a 7-8 day stage race. To do this now after 18 hard stages, remember that he was part of the sprint train, attacked on 2 stages, was the best on the Tourmalet, is just ridiculous.

 

[DanielSong39]

Meh, Voeckler 2.0, nothing to see here.