Le Tour de France 2013: who will win?

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Who will win the 2013 Tour

  • Other (specify)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
The Hitch said:
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.
As far as I know, the only person who calls others idiot is you...oh yeah, and Ryo too. :)

I stated that Contador's lack of race legs would hurt him, and I also said do not expect the Contador of 2011 Giro. And I called it right, as he almost lost the Vuelta. Oh wait...I told you so, is it starting to sound familiar?
 
cineteq said:
As far as I know, the only person who calls others idiot is you...oh yeah, and Ryo too. :)

I stated that Contador's lack of race legs would hurt him, and I also said do not expect the Contador of 2011 Giro. And I called it right, as he almost lost the Vuelta. Oh wait...I told you so, is it starting to sound familiar?
wait so if you said back then that the lack of racing would hurt him, why do you now say he was in top form? consistency much?
 
May 24, 2010
855
0
0
airstream said:
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?
....or the short break between Tour and Giro in 2011..etc etc etc.

I'm set in my ways?? maybe but over the last 30 years of watching bike racing i've garnered fairly good grasp of the relative merits of riders. Froome is good whether he will be the GT rider Contador has already proven to be is another matter.

You on the other hand refuse resolutely to recognise the abilities of Contador and the fact the he is the best GT rider of the era. That is fact borne out by his palmares.

Will Froome win GT's?? I'd expect so but it would depend on the relative form of his competitors not his abilities in my mind, I'll be happy to be disproved.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Siriuscat said:
You on the other hand refuse resolutely to recognise the abilities of Contador and the fact the he is the best GT rider of the era. That is fact borne out by his palmares.
No, absolutely not. I never argued with that. People just vote for Froome too because he showed enormous potential without having possibility to show himself fully while being in top form.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,821
0
0
Siriuscat said:
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.......:rolleyes:
So? We were talking about Froome being fatigued at the Vuelta. Obviously Contador is currently the stronger of the two.

cineteq said:
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.
:confused: 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.
 
Aug 4, 2010
11,337
0
0
cineteq said:
The way he ended La Vuelta is the current Contador, that's his top form. The one we're going to see next year.
Bull****,how do you know this?Are you his fitness trainer or something:eek:
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
1
0
Jason_Mercier said:
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?
not the strongest surive. the fittest survive. big difference
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
1
0
Afrank said:
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.
this is what happened. now let's laugh at cineteq to see how he will try to save himself out of this
 
Ryo Hazuki said:
not the strongest surive. the fittest survive. big difference
+1

Same way that Contador was far fitter than Purito, although Purito was the strongest uphill.

EDIT: And the same can be said regarding Piti vs. Purito. Valverde is sublime in getting results without always being the strongest.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Was Rodriguez in top shape in the Vuelta? Valverde? ) Perfectly prepared Purito wouldn't have had a crisis day on hilly stage, no? :)
 
airstream said:
Was Rodriguez in top shape in the Vuelta? Valverde? ) Perfectly prepared Purito wouldn't have had a crisis day on hilly stage, no? :)
Cause that was the first time ever he had a bad day in a GT (which was also his strongest GT) :rolleyes:

From 1-10 I would say that the preparation of the contenders were:
Contador: 4
Valverde: 8
Purito: 7
Froome: 3
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Netserk said:
Cause that was the first time ever he had a bad day in a GT (which was also his strongest GT) :rolleyes:

From 1-10 I would say that the preparation of the contenders were:
Contador: 4
Valverde: 8
Purito: 7
Froome: 3
According to your rates, Contador is able to beat anyone while being at 50% fit. Are you serious? I'm agree to admit lack of 1 point not more. Why do you save a myth that 'a gap between Contador and others may reduce' so tremulously? Giving Purito and Valverde 7 and 8 respectively, you call them gazelles as the Hitch did.
 
airstream said:
According to your rates, Contador is able to beat anyone while being at 50% fit. Are you serious? I'm agree to admit lack of 1 point not more. Why do you save a myth that 'a gap between Contador and others may reduce' so tremulously? Giving Purito and Valverde 7 and 8 respectively, you call them gazelles as the Hitch did.
I think preperation and form is 2 differnt things
 
airstream said:
According to your rates, Contador is able to beat anyone while being at 50% fit. Are you serious? I'm agree to admit lack of 1 point not more. Why do you save a myth that 'a gap between Contador and others may reduce' so tremulously? Giving Purito and Valverde 7 and 8 respectively, you call them gazelles as the Hitch did.
The points weren't based on their performances in the Vuelta, but in their racing program before.

Valverde had an intense early season from Jan-Mar, but showed in the Ardennes that he was far from his top level. After that he had a pause (well deserved) before racing Suisse were he helped Costa win. He then went to the Tour for GC, but an early crash and time lost, meant that it was out of the question. He then saved himself for a stage win (again well deserved). Back in time racing a GT as warm up (not going for GC) has showed to be a very effective, when one was in need of race days (which Valverde was because of his ban, which is also why I don't think he could top 5 the Tour without crashes). As an example see Menchov in '07. Helping MR, but not going all out. He was in great shape for the Vuelta.

I will give you a similar reason for the three others tomorrow as I am going to bed now :)
 
ILovecycling said:
Bull****,how do you know this?Are you his fitness trainer or something
No, I'm not. I just happen to be a very observant person, c'est tout. ;) Glad you quoted it for posterity.

Afrank said:
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.
LOL!!! Good sense of humor. Now, back to your logic. 'Fatigued' (whatever that means) Froome >>>>>>> Beatup Gesink [2 minutes difference]. Houston we have a problem. :rolleyes:

LaFlorecita said:
And what was Tour 2009? And Giro 2011? Wait I already know your explanation, it doesn't belong in this sub forum.
I'm talking about his age. He's not a kid anymore. :)

Ryo Hazuki said:
this is what happened. now let's laugh at cineteq to see how he will try to save himself out of this
I'm safe and sound, you're late to the party brother.
 
cineteq said:
No, I'm not. I just happen to be a very observant person, c'est tout. ;) Glad you quoted for posterity.

LOL!!! Good sense of humor. Now, back to your logic. 'Fatigued' (whatever that means) Froome >>>>>>> Beatup Gesink [2 minutes difference]. Houston we have a problem. :rolleyes:

I'm talking about his age. He's not a kid anymore. :)

I'm safe and sound, you're late to the party brother.
Strange definition of "kid" you have.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,821
0
0
cineteq said:
LOL!!! Good sense of humor. Now, back to your logic. 'Fatigued' (whatever that means) Froome >>>>>>> Beatup Gesink [2 minutes difference]. Houston we have a problem. :rolleyes:
So you can't figure out a way to prove Froome wasn't fatigued so you laugh at what I say and try to make it sound like the word fatigued isn't a word :rolleyes:.

you keep say "Froome, Gesink, 2 minutes" but you don't provide any explanation of how this is suppose to prove Froome wasn't fatigued. Do you think Gesink is stronger than Froome? Or Gesink wouldn't have lost to a fatigued Froome? Or that Froomes gap to Gesink would have been smaller if he was fatigued? What? :confused:

I'm talking about his age. He's not a kid anymore.
29 isn't that old.
 
Afrank said:
you keep say "Froome, Gesink, 2 minutes" but you don't provide any explanation of how this is suppose to prove Froome wasn't fatigued. Do you think Gesink is stronger than Froome? Or Gesink wouldn't have lost to a fatigued Froome? Or that Froomes gap to Gesink would have been smaller if he was fatigued? What? :confused:
I'm not trying to prove anything, you're the one saying Froome >>>>>>> Gesing, not me. Your math doesn't add up, that's all. It's contradictory because Froome just finished 2 min. better that Gesink which was all beat up from the Tour, that's the issue I have. If you're going to say that, at least back it up. So far you've failed to do it.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,821
0
0
cineteq said:
I'm not trying to prove anything, you're the one saying Froome >>>>>>> Gesing, not me. Your math doesn't add up, that's all. It's contradictory because Froome just finished 2 min. better that Gesink which was all beat up from the Tour, that's the issue I have. If you're going to say that, at least back it up. So far you've failed to do it.
I get the feeling that you are intentionally trying to make your posts as confusing as possible. The math of Froome being better than Gesink doesn't add up? The Vuelta (as well as many other races) shows Froome is the stronger (when has Gesink podiumed in a GT?), even when tired and fatigued. You are the one who used Gesink finishing 2 minutes back of Froome in the Vuelta as proof that Froome wasn't fatigued; yet you still do not explain why or how it proves that.
 
cineteq said:
I'm not trying to prove anything, you're the one saying Froome >>>>>>> Gesing, not me. Your math doesn't add up, that's all. It's contradictory because Froome just finished 2 min. better that Gesink which was all beat up from the Tour, that's the issue I have. If you're going to say that, at least back it up. So far you've failed to do it.
Froome does seem to the rational mind to indeed be a superior rider to Gesink.

Dont know why its such a big problem for you to see that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY