Most Farcical Tour Ever?

[180mmCrank]

In and of its own it may be authentic. but when you consider that in 2007 Wiggins said that one should be sceptical about the winners of the next 6 Tours (including 2012) and now he has turned his position 180 degrees and refuses to even speak about the issue, well that is very dishonest.

LOL coffee coming out my nose (really thanks not laughed like that in a while and no disrespect intended)

I seriously doubt he meant himself when he was referrring to the winner of the Tour in 2012 when he said this in 2007.

AND I am not sure he refuses to speak about the issue ... i am not surprised he is not particularly keen to discuss itat post race press conferences ... it's a distraction and many of the questions (if you are clean) are a little insulting AND I get why they are bring asked. He did write an article mid way through the Tour by way of a response - I think he is trying!

From my perspective - His answers just seem to have a different character than the usual 'never tested positive' and generalizations about how 'doping is bad for cycling' stuff we have heard in the past. But again this is only my interpretation others will see different things in what he says and how he comes across.

I guess I keep sense checking - what would we expect him to say/do IF he was clean?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

This point makes sense; if the whole péloton cleans up by 10% then a Mick Rogers who has cleaned up by 10% should be in approximately the same position as before.

It only has one problem - Mick Rogers himself bleating that he put out his best ever numbers on PdBF.

OK, i doubt Sky much (to been seen in my posts). It´s either better doping than the rest or they gain the last 1 % on other legal resources (the money is there) like science etc... BTW, as said many times before: The GT´s are boring since the computerized racing started. Just get rid of powermeters and race radios. That´s the magic formula.

 

[barn yard]

wiggins dominating the tour based on individual pursuits and then 10kg weight loss?

jack bobridge will win the 2016 tour de france.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

janibrajkovic ‏@janibrajkovic
I'm gonna bite my tongue and say nothing
#fiarplay

http://twitter.com/janibrajkovic/status/226703801158094848

 

[oldcrank]

If Bobridge or Cam Meyer have maybe six or eight Grand Tours
under their belts and a team dedicated completely to their
success I believe it is possible they could be contenders too.

 

[Ripper]

The last time ...

A (really) quick looksy shows the last time there was a spread of 17+ minutes from 1st to 10th was 2004. That was a really clean tour, very comparable.

So there we go folks, nothing to see here. Marginal gains and transferring WC IP form into total destruction in 100 km of TT. On a course that was deemed somehwat boring with fewer "winnable" days, we have the MJ and 4 team mates driving all the rest into submission.

 

[roundabout]

http://twitter.com/janibrajkovic/status/226703801158094848

Twitter is useless without context

 

[Epicycle]

If they had done last year's route this year, with 4 HC finishes (2 in the last week) and 40 km of ITT...Froome could have destroyed the field and won by 4 minutes or more over Wiggins.

 

[yourwelcome]

AND for me that's the difference between a doped up performance and what we have seen from Bradley

You saw Friggins 'just hanging in there'? LOL. Sky shredded the rest of the field from the first TT on.

This Tour has been a total joke, and a sad return to the kind of systematic doping we used to see.

And after seeing the Armstrong thing play out, I don't doubt any more that the UCI is corrupt enough to work hard to ensure any evidence stays behind locked doors too.

I'm done with pro cycling for a while. Enough is enough.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

A (really) quick looksy shows the last time there was a spread of 17+ minutes from 1st to 10th was 2004. That was a really clean tour, very comparable.

So there we go folks, nothing to see here. Marginal gains and transferring WC IP form into total destruction in 100 km of TT. On a course that was deemed somehwat boring with fewer "winnable" days, we have the MJ and 4 team mates driving all the rest into submission.

That means what? In 1989 the gap was 19 mins when clean Lemond won. And this edition was realitively short (3.200+ kms). If tiny time gaps mean anything than only for dull racing (see Giro 2012 for example).

 

[oldcrank]

@janibrajkovic
Congrats to @bradwiggins and @chrisfroome for 1-2 spots.
Well deserved, a level above every1 else, nothing was given to them.

 

[BroDeal]

You saw Friggins 'just hanging in there'? LOL. Sky shredded the rest of the field from the first TT on.

This Tour has been a total joke, and a sad return to the kind of systematic doping we used to see.

And after seeing the Armstrong thing play out, I don't doubt any more that the UCI is corrupt enough to work hard to ensure any evidence stays behind locked doors too.

I'm done with pro cycling for a while. Enough is enough.

The sad thing is that Vaughters and the other people at the top of the sport have spent an immense amount of effort to convince us that cycling has changed, things are different, it's not like it used to be. Then it all gets destroyed by this ridiculous display. They must be livid, but they cannot say anything. They have to stick with the official talking points. Four years of work gone in twenty-two days.

I wonder how many team managers are privately chastising Sky's mangement.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

If they had done last year's route this year, with 4 HC finishes (2 in the last week) and 40 km of ITT...Froome could have destroyed the field and won by 4 minutes or more over Wiggins.

Which is not unusual. AC did it at Giro 2011 and TdF 2009. It´s not the mistake of Froome that AC and AS didn´t show up, or that Evans had an off year...

I suspect Sky too. But looking at time gaps is really the wrong way to search for evidence of better doping than other teams...

 

[asdfgh101]

AND for me that's the difference between a doped up performance and what we have seen from Bradley

It is a myth that 'grinders' cannot be dopers otherwise they would be able to launch devastating attacks. Performance in a grand tour is a composite of many factors; one of these is doping, another is natural physiological abilities.

Doping enhances a rider's capabilities but current testing curbs the potential impact (highlighted by lower power numbers and more 'human' performances on mountain stages). In any case the result is relative to the effectivness of the programme as well as the base talent of the rider.

Wiggins was the second best climber this tour (cumulative performance). There is something to be said about the parcours, the competition and Wiggin's physical transformation (which may have been artificially enhanced) as well as his dedication. There are also legitimate red flags which raise cause for concern (already discussed in this thread).

Systematic doping is a complex undertaking (with posible corruption further obfuscating the issue) and history has strongly hinted at certain teams having more effective programmes than others. The advantage gained compromises the validity of the results.

Failed tests can be a consequence of errors (not possesing required knowledge or juggling too many moving parts) or brazen risk taking (Gabrovski).

However the number of suspicious performances that are going unpunished leads me to question the efficacy of the the current testing regimen (the apparent altitude loophole springs to mind).

Ultimately confidence that cycling is a clean sport requires progress in anti-doping methods and far greater transparency.

 

[Grayguard]

Porte is riding better than with Riis...do you honestly think he wasn't on a programme with Riis?

Rogers is riding as well as 2006 and Freiburg.

I do think Riis doesn't want his riders to dope. If he can prevent it, is another matter. But I think Riis can't afford actually support doping - and I think most, if not all STB riders are clean.

 

[will10]

Thehog made a good point that even in the Postal years, the leaders of other teams were able to stick with Armstrong until near the end. Postal's domestiques were used to isolate the leaders of other teams. Armstrong would then put in the killing blow at the end of the stage. This year's Tour is even more ludicrous. It would be like watching Popovych destroy Ullrich, Basso, and Beloki. Heck, it is worse than that because at one time Popo was a legitimate contender for a Giro win.

Has any Tour been a bigger farce than this one?

2005 was pretty bad: Lance catching Ullrich on the opening day, a much-too-long TTT to kick a few more climbers out of contention, and then we did have Popovych drop everyone who could be a true challenger, on Courchevel.

This was the GC after Courchevel:
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) Discovery Channel 37.11.04 (44.934 km/h)
2 Michael Rasmussen (Den) Rabobank 0.38
3 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC 2.40
4 Christophe Moreau (Fra) Credit Agricole 2.42
5 Alejandro Valverde (Spa) Illes Balears-Caisse d'Epargne 3.16
6 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Gerolsteiner 3.58
7 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) Illes Balears-Caisse d'Epargne 4.00
8 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team 4.02
9 Andreas Klöden (Ger) T-Mobile Team 4.16
10 Floyd Landis (USA) Phonak Hearing Systems

The race was already over. But on the whole I'd agree - 2012 gives '05 a run for it's money

If they had done last year's route this year, with 4 HC finishes (2 in the last week) and 40 km of ITT...Froome could have destroyed the field and won by 4 minutes or more over Wiggins.

Yep, I think Froome could have won this Tour if we'd had either the 2010 or 2011 parcours.

 

[D-Queued]

You saw Friggins 'just hanging in there'? LOL. Sky shredded the rest of the field from the first TT on.

This Tour has been a total joke, and a sad return to the kind of systematic doping we used to see.

And after seeing the Armstrong thing play out, I don't doubt any more that the UCI is corrupt enough to work hard to ensure any evidence stays behind locked doors too.

I'm done with pro cycling for a while. Enough is enough.

Why are you criticizing the UCI here? We need English speaking heroes in cycling.

Cycling needed an American hero and they produced.

With all of their great cycling traditions, the UK has never had a winner. What better year to have one than the same year as the London Olympics.

It is so romantic, it brings tears to my eyes.

If the UCI helped, we should be truly thankful.

Dave.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

I really don't get the fuzz.

Maybe it's me underrating Nibali and Vandenbroeck and overrating some others. But Wiggins/Froome just had to deal with Nibali and Vandenbroeck. And while both sure a very consistent GT riders. They are both fairly obviously limited.
Vandenbroeck is a follower in the mountains and a decent (at best) time trial specialist. Nibali is a decent climber and a bit better than Vandenbroeck at ITT, but not really special either. But Nibali has more fight and guts (in downhill), but even that doesn't make up for pure class.

Menchov and Evans turned out to be over the hill. Sanchez already started with a bad preparation after getting injured in the Dauphine and then literally fell away. Gesink, who did his strongest time trials ever this season also fell away. Hesjedal fell away. And Contador and Andy didn't even start (no Andy would never have won, but provided different dynamics in the mountains...)

So basically it's been a pretty much quality-poor Tour. With a course perfectly suited for the Sky riders. Ofcourse you get domination

 

[Grayguard]

LOL coffee coming out my nose (really thanks not laughed like that in a while and no disrespect intended)

I seriously doubt he meant himself when he was referrring to the winner of the Tour in 2012 when he said this in 2007.

AND I am not sure he refuses to speak about the issue ... i am not surprised he is not particularly keen to discuss itat post race press conferences ... it's a distraction and many of the questions (if you are clean) are a little insulting AND I get why they are bring asked. He did write an article mid way through the Tour by way of a response - I think he is trying!

From my perspective - His answers just seem to have a different character than the usual 'never tested positive' and generalizations about how 'doping is bad for cycling' stuff we have heard in the past. But again this is only my interpretation others will see different things in what he says and how he comes across.

I guess I keep sense checking - what would we expect him to say/do IF he was clean?

Sounds to me like people's answers in an interview, somehow make them more or less guilty in doping? Not sure thats how it works....

 

[ianfra]

At last a clean winner and a great Tour. Nothing more need be said, except that all the moves against doping are coming to fruition and the evidence is there for us all to see. I salute Evans from last year and Wiggins this ........ It's been a joy to watch spoiled only by those who wish to say the bad words. The majority of Tour fans know we have a clean winner, a great winner and nothing else matters. I can now go off and do my 160km today with a smile on my face. Happy! Happy! (However I do feel so sorry for those who want to wallow in their misery and only see the negatives, too bad for them!)

 

[BikeCentric]

+1

I think there has been one too many big names to have been busted for these guys to take crazy risks anymore. I mean even the master escape artist Armstrong is finally going to go down. Cycling really has turned a corner and the guys with a real big talent and racing clean are coming to the top (Wiggins/Froome).

Honestly though and not to be rude - people have been saying this every single season since the Festina affair at least and it always turns out to be wrong. So don't think people are cynical for not wanting to be fooled again and again year after year with the same BS.

 

[Grayguard]

At last a clean winner and a great Tour. Nothing more need be said, except that all the moves against doping are coming to fruition and the evidence is there for us all to see. I salute Evans from last year and Wiggins this ........ It's been a joy to watch spoiled only by those who wish to say the bad words. The majority of Tour fans know we have a clean winner, a great winner and nothing else matters. I can now go off and do my 160km today with a smile on my face. Happy! Happy! (However I do feel so sorry for those who want to wallow in their misery and only see the negatives, too bad for them!)

Well, hang on to that happy feeling, while you can I am not convinced it's gonna last.

 

[thehog]

The sad thing is that Vaughters and the other people at the top of the sport have spent an immense amount of effort to convince us that cycling has changed, things are different, it's not like it used to be. Then it all gets destroyed by this ridiculous display. They must be livid, but they cannot say anything. They have to stick with the official talking points. Four years of work gone in twenty-two days.

I wonder how many team managers are privately chastising Sky's mangement.

It's only with some reflection the real comments will come out. Each team will have a review and come to one conclusion. They'll have to dope on the same sort of levels. Nibili will look at his race and think - what else more could I do? I can't compete with an entire team driving the pace so hard no one can keep up.

I think you'll hear comments about Sky's performance in the days/weeks to come.

This performance was stronger than what USPS ever did.

 

[sittingbison]

2005 was pretty bad...This was the GC after Courchevel:
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) Discovery Channel 37.11.04 (44.934 km/h)
2 Michael Rasmussen (Den) Rabobank 0.38
3 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC 2.40
4 Christophe Moreau (Fra) Credit Agricole 2.42
5 Alejandro Valverde (Spa) Illes Balears-Caisse d'Epargne 3.16
6 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Gerolsteiner 3.58
7 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) Illes Balears-Caisse d'Epargne 4.00
8 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team 4.02
9 Andreas Klöden (Ger) T-Mobile Team 4.16
10 Floyd Landis (USA) Phonak Hearing

What a resplendent list of pedigree in that list

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I really don't get the fuzz.

Maybe it's me underrating Nibali and Vandenbroeck and overrating some others. But Wiggins/Froome just had to deal with Nibali and Vandenbroeck. And while both sure a very consistent GT riders. They are both fairly obviously limited.
Vandenbroeck is a follower in the mountains and a decent (at best) time trial specialist. Nibali is a decent climber and a bit better than Vandenbroeck at ITT, but not really special either. But Nibali has more fight and guts (in downhill), but even that doesn't make up for pure class.

Menchov and Evans turned out to be over the hill. Sanchez already started with a bad preparation after getting injured in the Dauphine and then literally fell away. Gesink, who did his strongest time trials ever this season also fell away. Hesjedal fell away. And Contador and Andy didn't even start (no Andy would never have won, but provided different dynamics in the mountains...)

So basically it's been a pretty much quality-poor Tour. With a course perfectly suited for the Sky riders. Ofcourse you get domination

Basically i agree. I mean the only guy Nibali ever dropped was Mosquera at the fall Vuelta. And the real contenders didn´t show up. And i don´t have a bad feeling (as many here) about Rogers. He was T-10 in the blood days and cleaner days (Giro 2009). Porte showed his TT & GC talent before. EBH is a great talent (especially TT) way before joining Sky.

But Froome (since last Spt.) & Wiggins (since July 2009) out of nowhere leaves a sour taste...