Most Farcical Tour Ever?

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Um, yeah. How about 1996, 1998, 2006, 2007 and 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011?

Fixed for you.

2009-2011 basically Schleck and AC looking at each other, even riding backwards lately.

 

[roundabout]

There were a few that stepped up - TJVG, Pinot, Rolland... as the old guard are discarded I think we will start to see a lot of new faces making an impact.

It was only on the last stage that the liquidgas train finally came out to play and cracked Sky's domestiques except for Froome.

Trying to explain Froome's form is one thing I do have trouble with. Take him out and Wiggins would have been isolated on more than one occasion.

Take him out and Wiggins would still have at least one teammate with him up to a certain point on the last climb on every mountain stage.

I wouldn't really call it isolated.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Don't get annnoyed. Take it as a sign of a job well done

Many posters here have a pathological anger towards the sport.
Its an anger created from following the mirage that American cycling has always been.
From the LA Olympic team through to US Postal, it has all been a fabrication.

Watching what is potentially the real deal, can't help but touch a few raw nerves.

I think after years of watching a fabrication, we'd be a lot more willing to believe that the real deal was the real deal if it didn't look exactly the same as the worst parts of that fabrication.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Yes this Tour was farcical and not just because of the obvious doping either.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

True. but these are guys who could have potentially peaked and competed with Sky and who nonetheless failed obviously. Why?
UCI warning (Menchov), team crisis (Schleck), and cleverly deciding to ride clean this year (Evans) are my best guesses.
If A.Schleck and Contador would have been there, A.Schleck would have faltered like his brother, and Contador would have been the Contador of 2011.

Sky at the moment seem to be the only team with a well-structured doping program in place and a guarding UCI hand above their head.

Contador of 2011 still 'won' the Giro and did well in the Tour given he lost time early in a crash and also had Giro legs.
Andy would have never handled the TTing and there were probably not enough MTF for him to give him a chance.

If you follow cycling long enough you will never say that someone or some team is definitely not doping and I won't either. However, I would say there is a better chance then in many recent Tours that Wiggins may not be.

 

[ianfra]

True. but these are guys who could have potentially peaked and competed with Sky and who nonetheless failed obviously. Why?
UCI warning (Menchov), team crisis (Schleck), and cleverly deciding to ride clean this year (Evans) are my best guesses.
If A.Schleck and Contador would have been there, A.Schleck would have faltered like his brother, and Contador would have been the Contador of 2011.

Sky at the moment seem to be the only team with a well-structured doping program in place and a guarding UCI hand above their head.

Dear oh dear!: Here is an opinion stated as fact. Up to you, me old chum, but In my opinion we are looking at a great Tour and a great winner. Clean??? Yeah, you bet! With Wiggo there is not a sniff of dope anywhere. That's why I am so happy. As for you and those of your ilk, you can wallow in your misery, drown in your suspicions and be inspired by your own insults. That's up to you. The vast majority of us can cheer a great win achieved through sheer hard work by a clean rider with a clean team. I certainly don't care what you think because, you know what? You are wrong.

 

[hrotha]

There were a few that stepped up - TJVG, Pinot, Rolland... as the old guard are discarded I think we will start to see a lot of new faces making an impact.

It was only on the last stage that the liquidgas train finally came out to play and cracked Sky's domestiques except for Froome.

Trying to explain Froome's form is one thing I do have trouble with. Take him out and Wiggins would have been isolated on more than one occasion.

Yes, too few people stepped up. 3 Sky riders stepping up, compared to 4 riders from any other teams (and that's stretching it, as in that stage there were folks like Nibali who weren't stepping up).

Besides, this "cleaning up, stepping up" theory only makes sense if we accept that the incidence of doping in previous years was significantly bigger, which could taint 2009 Wiggins.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Take him out and Wiggins would still have at least one teammate with him up to a certain point on the last climb on every mountain stage.

I wouldn't really call it isolated.

But he would have been isolated on the most important stages. Anyway, as most of posters agree: Froome and Wiggins are the most dubious. I hope Pinot, TJVG, Rolland & Taaramae are clean(er) & finsish higher next year...

 

[roundabout]

I thought you left?

 

[TheGeneral]

2011 Tour Evans pulls the elite peloton up the Galibier
2012 Tour Evans is struggling to keep up with his own domestique

Let's not forget Evans seven second deficit to Tony Martin in the final Time Trial of Le Tour 2011. What a "DIFFERENCE" a Year makes.

 

[roundabout]

But he would have been isolated on the most important stages.

Such as?

Would Porte and Rogers taking the group up to the last 2 kms of PdBF mean isolation?

Would Rogers and Porte being there on the Glandon when there were only 4 non-Sky riders in the group mean isolation?

Would Wiggins being left alone (hypothetically) after a podium contender attacked on Peyresourde mean isolation?

In the immortal words of John McEnroe: "you can't be serious"

 

[Paco_P]

Really?!

Are we all really that worn down that we can't enjoy a guy like Bradley having worked his @ss off for something and made it happen? It may not be exciting but it's still an incredible feat. Who would have thought that the Brits would have a winner of the Tour!

I think he says it best himself as reported in the following article...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-the-tour-is-a-lot-more-human-now

Come on Bro D don’t be so grumpy

T

What gets me is how many are clearly incapable of understanding why a blind eye is turned.

Lance wasn't the first from the US to win a grand tour, but he was the first without a French last name, and he could be given the clean cut hero story that plays so well in the gigantic US market.

What other gigantic market has never had any success in a grand tour in cycling? What other market descends into a nationalistic frenzy when it's self-righteously clean never cheating boy wins? England.

 

[Paco_P]

With Wiggo there is not a sniff of dope anywhere.

It's not hard to argue that since the early 1990's at least there has not been a winner of the TdF that has not been doped to the gills.

So your claim doesn't ring true.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Yes, too few people stepped up. 3 Sky riders stepping up, compared to 4 riders from any other teams (and that's stretching it, as in that stage there were folks like Nibali who weren't stepping up).

Its a fair point but on pure climbing Nibali looked stronger than Wiggins except for stage 17 where is was carrying an injury. After about halfway though the Tour the Sky domestiques (excluding Froome) were nowhere near as strong as you might suggest. Just for a point of reference which domestiques from other teams would you expect to see with, say, the last 12 riders on a climb?

And for the record, there are things I find suspicious about the Sky performance and how they have evolved.

Besides, this "cleaning up, stepping up" theory only makes sense if we accept that the incidence of doping in previous years was significantly bigger, which could taint 2009 Wiggins.

You could also argue that the way 2009 was raced benefited Wiggins. Soft-pedaling in Ventoux for instance. When they ramped it up near the end didn't he lose nearly a minute?

 

[roundabout]

no, he lost about 20 seconds. and it was the wind that prevented bigger gaps that day

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

no, he lost about 20 seconds. and it was the wind that prevented bigger gaps that day

Ah, ok. Perhaps I am thinking of time he lost on Garate?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Such as?

Would Porte and Rogers taking the group up to the last 2 kms of PdBF mean isolation?

Would Rogers and Porte being there on the Glandon when there were only 4 non-Sky riders in the group mean isolation?

Would Wiggins being left alone (hypothetically) after a podium contender attacked on Peyresourde mean isolation?

In the immortal words of John McEnroe: "you can't be serious"

Ok, it was basically only Stage 11. But at least.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Sky decided their fate.

Evans sick? Or made to look sick by Sky?
Schleck removed? He already was chanceless before that.
Menchov old and gearless? Or made to look old and gearless by Sky?
etc.

No, not etc.
All crashed out-nothing to do with Sky.
As pointed out TJVG>>>Evans 2012.

One other element sadly missing from this Tour and not Sky related.
Gilbert 2011 form v Sagan 2012 on those first week finishes.

But I guess that's of little interest around here.

 

[ianfra]

Some of the things we think we know best are merely beliefs, and need to be challenged and justified. If we fill our short lives with beliefs, we will never find the truth.

An honest poster would understand: “Start knowing what you really know, and stop believing what you really don’t know. Somebody asks you. “Is there a God?” and you say, “Yes, God is.........” Remember: Do you really know? If you don’t know, please don’t say that you do. Say, “I don’t know.”. . . False knowing is the enemy of true knowledge. All beliefs are false knowledge.”
Sadhguru

Sometimes you know things without being able to explain. That's OK. But too many people here seem to 'know' that Evans doped last year (because he won) and didn't dope this year (because he didn't win). They seem to 'know' that Sky has a clever doping programme (because they won) or conversely that Rob-a-bank's doping programme is no good (because they didn't win). Question yourself. Because some Germans did some extremely nasty things in the 1940s, it doesn't mean that they'll do those things next week. If Armstrong did something bad to win his tours (which most of you believe) does that mean Wiggo has? Because my kitten attacks my feet does it mean that yours will? Off course not.

My belief system tells me that we have a clean Tour. This may be false knowing, I accept that, but then I do not claim a monopoly on truth. Neither should you. I accept that you are upset and angry people and that whoever won the Tour would have had to suffer you guys pulling them apart. But its not nice and it goes against natural justice and basic humanity. I was wrong to insult you chaps, I accept that. But you are also wrong to insult these riders just because your personal belief system does not accept their wins as legit. You are not against Sky. You would have been the same with any winner.

 

[The Hitch]

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.

He meant winners of the tour. Which is what he is.now. He has absolutely no problem attacking them, didn't care who it hurt. didn't care if it would hurt sastre when he said Evans was the only clean tour winner. ( how he knows.this is beyond me). But apply the same.standards to.wiggins as.he applies.to.others and all of a sudden wiggins does care who is or isnt hurt.

1 rule.for accusing others 1 rule for accusing wiggins . Is that honest ?

 

[sniper]

No, not etc.
All crashed out-nothing to do with Sky.
As pointed out TJVG>>>Evans 2012.

One other element sadly missing from this Tour and not Sky related.
Gilbert 2011 form v Sagan 2012 on those first week finishes.

But I guess that's of little interest around here.

I'm currently liking the UCI-warning hypothesis outlined elsewhere.
Giving out warnings to several teams and individual riders, but leaving sky in peace (in exchange for financial compensation).
For Sagan the UCI may simply have lacked sufficient passport data, in which case they had no choice but to let him do whatever he wants this season.

 

[Benotti69]

Some of the things we think we know best are merely beliefs, and need to be challenged and justified. If we fill our short lives with beliefs, we will never find the truth.

An honest poster would understand: “Start knowing what you really know, and stop believing what you really don’t know. Somebody asks you. “Is there a God?” and you say, “Yes, God is.........” Remember: Do you really know? If you don’t know, please don’t say that you do. Say, “I don’t know.”. . . False knowing is the enemy of true knowledge. All beliefs are false knowledge.”
Sadhguru

Sometimes you know things without being able to explain. That's OK. But too many people here seem to 'know' that Evans doped last year (because he won) and didn't dope this year (because he didn't win). They seem to 'know' that Sky has a clever doping programme (because they won) or conversely that Rob-a-bank's doping programme is no good (because they didn't win). Question yourself. Because some Germans did some extremely nasty things in the 1940s, it doesn't mean that they'll do those things next week. If Armstrong did something bad to win his tours (which most of you believe) does that mean Wiggo has? Because my kitten attacks my feet does it mean that yours will? Off course not.

My belief system tells me that we have a clean Tour. This may be false knowing, I accept that, but then I do not claim a monopoly on truth. Neither should you. I accept that you are upset and angry people and that whoever won the Tour would have had to suffer you guys pulling them apart. But its not nice and it goes against natural justice and basic humanity. I was wrong to insult you chaps, I accept that. But you are also wrong to insult these riders just because your personal belief system does not accept their wins as legit. You are not against Sky. You would have been the same with any winner.

whatever your smoking in Thailand is probalby a PED but its side effects are not helping

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

If Armstrong did something bad to win his tours (which most of you believe)

I like your post very much. But i do know that Armstrong doped. It comes with life experience, common sense, logic, eye-witness and hard evidence. OTOH, it´s unlogical to think that many different guys would lie and risk prison to falsely accuse Armstrong of doping, yet they wouldn´t gain anything of it... If 1 person does it, ok that might be a personal vendetta, but not if there is 20 people from different angles.

 

[Benotti69]

I'm currently liking the UCI-warning hypothesis outlined elsewhere.
Giving out warnings to several teams and individual riders, but leaving sky in peace (in exchange for financial compensation).
For Sagan the UCI may simply have lacked sufficient passport data, in which case they had no choice but to let him do whatever he wants this season.

UCI maybe be 'favouring' Sky due to the oncoming sh!t storm approaching with USADAs investigation into team doping(etc) and how UCI were involved, so 'favouring' a huge media organisation to avoid bad press.

Hey, Sniper, any recent German press about Sky's cleanliness?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

UCI maybe be 'favouring' Sky due to the oncoming sh!t storm approaching with USADAs investigation into team doping(etc) and how UCI were involved, so 'favouring' a huge media organisation to avoid bad press.

Hey, Sniper, any recent German press about Sky's cleanliness?

But using your logic it would make much more sense for the UCI not to participate with 'favouring' full stop. And, since when has NI given a damn about doping and corruption in cycling. They have bigger problems of their own atm.