Le Tour de France 2013: who will win?

[Jason_Mercier]

Ever heard of Darwin? Some are just stronger than others. When a lion fights a gazelle the lion wins every time. Yet what you are arguing is that if the lion hasn't fought a gazelle in a while we have to assume the gazelle has grown claws and teeth. and that we are stupid to say otherwise.

Did indurain or.hinault or merckx win 1 gt then step aside. Or did they keep winning?

The strong win and continue to win. You know why?

Cos they are ****ing stronger.

Hahaha. Man. You're crazy. So Contador will win forever? Is Froome a gazelle? Why do you know it? Nice arguments.

 

[Jason_Mercier]

The natural selection of Darwin explains that only the strongests survives. And Froome was the strongest in 2011 Vuelta and 2012 Tour. We are not talking about a gazelle. We are talking about other lion which is threatening the kingdom of the current king. And this is the nature. Or you never heart anything about the natural replace?

 

[airstream]

Ever heard of Darwin? Some are just stronger than others. When a lion fights a gazelle the lion wins every time. Yet what you are arguing is that if the lion hasn't fought a gazelle in a while we have to assume the gazelle has grown claws and teeth. and that we are stupid to say otherwise.

Did indurain or.hinault or merckx win 1 gt then step aside. Or did they keep winning?

The strong win and continue to win. You know why?

Cos they are ****ing stronger.

No, I'm learning technical subjects. But even my it's entirely incorrect comparison. They are all human beings and afterall it's life and many things change. If one reasons like you, other riders are not entitled to grow in order to be equal Contador because in such a case one would have nothing but uncovering a notorious argument about off-form. From outsider's perspective, it looks like concsious will to polarize the situation to elevate your rider even more. I don't know how you treat Armstrong. Based on what I could read, you handle him quite neutrally. Well-know Contador fans don't like Lance. But it is exactly his approach. Lion and gazelles and thinking 'When I don't win, it's not normal'.

Well, my question is still in force. 'If Contador is in form, he is not beatable'. How you came to that?

 

[Siriuscat]

Contador is there he is the likely winner, he'll find a way to win whether it be the Sky/US Postal method or by cunning, guile and cleverness. It's not all about physical strength, it's having the brains to use the strength. This is easy Contadors rides; 9 times out of ten he wins

 

[airstream]

Product of the same methods.

Probably it's grateful to root for the strongest rider [I never checked and never will]. More fun, more expectations, more positive emotions. But it obscures the eyes so much...

 

[cineteq]

Do you think anyone is going to.believe your unexplained theories to heart just because you order them" learn it"

I expect Contador 2013 performances to be in the 2012 Vuelta neighbourhood. Quote it for posterity. It wouldn't be the first or the last time that I say to you: "I told you so".

And you have yet provide any meaningful argument that Froome wasn't fatigued at the Vuelta.

You're the one saying that, so it's up you to prove it. IMO Bio Harzard's year programme was mild, and in the Tour he didn't go full gas, thus there was no a real reason to be tired. Again see Gesink, see Valverde.

 

[Afrank]

You're the one saying that, so it's up you to prove it. IMO Bio Harzard's year programme was mild, and in the Tour he didn't go full gas, thus there was no a real reason to be tired. Again see Gesink, see Valverde.

The only argument to mine you have been providing is "no, your wrong, I'm right" it's a weak argument. Did you watch the tour? Did you see Froome riding everybody off his wheel, even his own teammate at times How does a rider ride everyone off his wheel in the mountains and not go hard in doing so? Go back to the forum during the Vuelta or go to any article that was published during the Vuelta and you will read the same thing, Froome was fatigued.

Your theory that Valverde proves Froome wasn't fatigued has already been dis-proven.

Froome>>>>>>>>>>>Gesink Plus he didn't do the same amount of work as Froome due to his crash, which made him drop out on stage 12.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Product of the same methods.

Probably it's grateful to root for the strongest rider [I never checked and never will]. More fun, more expectations, more positive emotions. But it obscures the eyes so much...

Chaneling The Great Pink floyd? sometimes i wonder if you are on lsd or weed

 

[cineteq]

Your theory that Valverde proves Froome wasn't fatigued has already been dis-proven.

Froome>>>>>>>>>>>Gesink Plus he didn't do the same amount of work as Froome due to his crash, which made him drop out on stage 12.

You quoted my argument, and don't try to twist it into 'i'm right, you're wrong' argument. If you want to continue sounding like a broken record, and say Froome was fatigued, what a poor thing, and so on, fine. Last time I check, Froome was a pro road cyclist. If you want to play naïve, fine, it's up to you. Next question?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Chaneling The Great Pink floyd? sometimes i wonder if you are on lsd or weed

Wait they have weed in belarus

 

[airstream]

Chaneling The Great Pink floyd? sometimes i wonder if you are on lsd or weed

Do you really find yourself funny? What's wrong? What exactly do you disagree with? These words don't do you credit, even if it was said in jest.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Do you really find yourself funny? What's wrong? What exactly do you disagree with? These words don't do you credit, even if it was said in jest.

cry baby i find you hilarious even if you say things not in jest but like an obscure stationary object.

 

[airstream]

cry baby i find you hilarious even if you say things not in jest but like an obscure stationary object.

Too much of cycling in your posts.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Too much of cycling in your posts.

So?? And whats the use of posting about anything when there are cycling experts like you and other better just to read or talk about cycling when there is a race.

 

[Afrank]

You quoted my argument, and don't try to twist it into 'i'm right, you're wrong' argument. If you want to continue sounding like a broken record, and say Froome was fatigued, what a poor thing, and so on, fine. Last time I check, Froome was a pro road cyclist. If you want to play naïve, fine, it's up to you. Next question?

And I have already proven those arguments wrong, yet you completely ignore my arguments.

According to your logic: Froome placed 2nd at the Tour while working for Wiggins but didn't use too much energy in doing so. He than went to the Vuleta where he placed 4th, 10 minutes back. How does a rider that is able to place 2nd at the tour with minimal efforts then place 10 minutes back in the Vuleta? I guess you could say Contador, Purito, and Valverde were just stronger than he was, but wait, Froome beat Valverde at the tour by 40 minutes. So much for that argument.

Here's what actually happened: Froome placed 2nd at the tour while working for Wiggins. He then went to the Vuelta as leader and was one of the big favorites to win it. It started off good with Froome hanging in there with the other contenders then it got worse and worse. And Froome lost more and more time. Eventually he fell out of contention and we didn't see him at any key moments in the race. What happened was, while placing 2nd at the tour while working for Wiggins he used too much energy. And as they got further into the Vuelta and the racing got harder his form declined. He showed a clear trend of downward moving form and fatigue.

And the reason I keep saying he was fatigued is because this isn't that complicated. There really isn't that much too it, for everybody but you this isn't even an issue.

 

[Siriuscat]

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.......

 

[LaFlorecita]

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.......

Next year that will be two years ago! It doesn't matter anymore, it's about the present not the past

 

[cineteq]

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.......

Afrank should be able to answer this.

And I have already proven those arguments wrong, yet you completely ignore my arguments.

You can read my mind too? Great, at least you got that right.

I guess you could say Contador, Purito, and Valverde were just stronger than he was, but wait, Froome beat Valverde at the tour by 40 minutes. So much for that argument.

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.

 

[Jason_Mercier]

And I have already proven those arguments wrong, yet you completely ignore my arguments.

According to your logic: Froome placed 2nd at the Tour while working for Wiggins but didn't use too much energy in doing so. He than went to the Vuleta where he placed 4th, 10 minutes back. How does a rider that is able to place 2nd at the tour with minimal efforts then place 10 minutes back in the Vuleta? I guess you could say Contador, Purito, and Valverde were just stronger than he was, but wait, Froome beat Valverde at the tour by 40 minutes. So much for that argument.

Here's what actually happened: Froome placed 2nd at the tour while working for Wiggins. He then went to the Vuelta as leader and was one of the big favorites to win it. It started off good with Froome hanging in there with the other contenders then it got worse and worse. And Froome lost more and more time. Eventually he fell out of contention and we didn't see him at any key moments in the race. What happened was, while placing 2nd at the tour while working for Wiggins he used too much energy. And as they got further into the Vuelta and the racing got harder his form declined. He showed a clear trend of downward moving form and fatigue.

And the reason I keep saying he was fatigued is because this isn't that complicated. There really isn't that much too it, for everybody but you this isn't even an issue.

Word by word.+1

 

[The Hitch]

I expect Contador 2013 performances to be in the 2012 Vuelta neighbourhood. Quote it for posterity. It wouldn't be the first or the last time that I say to you: "I told you so".
.

Actually it would be the first time. I recalled you assured us that nibali would win the tour and ridiculed anyone who.said.contador would win the vuelta.

 

[cineteq]

Actually it would be the first time. I recalled you assured us that nibali would win the tour and ridiculed anyone who.said.contador would win the vuelta.

Now you have selective memory? remember Menchov, Sanchez? For the record, I didn't ridicule anyone re: Contador. In fact, he was a worthy winner. If I've ever ridiculed anyone it has to be you.

 

[airstream]

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.......

It is not about relative strength because Froome can not be compared to Contador by palmares. But if Froome wins the Tour it won't be surprise for anyone. For anyone but you and Hitch, if you like


gazelle lol. that was your best post, Hitch. I laughed my heart out

 

[Siriuscat]

It is not about relative strength because Froome can not be compared to Contador by palmares. But if Froome wins the Tour it won't be surprise for anyone. For anyone but you and Hitch, if you like


gazelle lol. that was your best post, Hitch. I laughed my heart out

We're not comparing palmares....we're comparing the relative strengths of an on form Contador and an on form Froome, and that's ALL about relative strength and recovery!

Funnily enough ..... we're not comparing Andy in this equation!!

It would not be a big surprise if he won, but we'd have a thread as long as your arm in the Clinic, the same as Wiggins if he does.

 

[airstream]

We're not comparing palmares....we're comparing the relative strengths of an on form Contador and an on form Froome, and that's ALL about relative strength and recovery!

Funnily enough ..... we're not comparing Andy in this equation!!

It would not be a big surprise if he won, but we'd have a thread as long as your arm in the Clinic, the same as Wiggins if he does.

2011 and 2012 is only your hypertrophied comparison which doesn't give any direct answers. However you can't be convinced in the opposite. Relative strength will be clear only after the Tour no matter how it can enrage you or make laugh.

By the way why didn't you mention about the Olympics and the shortest even break between Tour and Vuelta? Amnesia or it just doesn't suit your scheme?

 

[The Hitch]

Now you have selective memory? remember Menchov, Sanchez? For the record, I didn't ridicule anyone re: Contador. In fact, he was a worthy winner. If I've ever ridiculed anyone it has to be you.

In the vuelta who will.win thead you were pretty vocal about how contador.coming back from suspension had no chance and anyone who thought otherwise was an idiot.