The Floyd stage

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

The most prominent impression perhaps is how Landis got over 9% sections on the Joux Plane whereas Voigt pulled all in on flat, but the gap remained constant.

Yeah, it was ridiculous. There were only two riders faster than Landis on the Joux Plane, if I recall correctly.

 

[cineteq]

Exactly. Kloden had won that Tour if he'd have followed Landis. I heard the version that le tour referee equipment acted up at some time because of what the peloton started a real chase 2 minutes later that it was required. Probably it's just a speculation, anyway director sportifs get info from different sources. The most prominent impression perhaps is how Landis got over 9% sections on the Joux Plane whereas Voigt pulled all in on flat, but the gap remained constant.

a typical case of woud've, should've, could've...

so if evans would have followed schleck on stage 18 on this year's tour, then he would have won the tour? [rhetorical]

my point is, if kloeden had followed landis, it does not mean he would have won. he did the right thing. the interested teams failed to reduce the gap combined with him having a so-so day. the difference with evans is that evans had a great day and took care of business himself.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

There's a link to a player

Here's part 1.

http://www.megavideo.com/?d=I62X347I

thanks! _O_

 

[Anonymous]

english

http://cyclingtorrents.nl/details.php?hit=1&id=4651

and

http://cyclingtorrents.nl/details.php?hit=1&id=4652

covers the end of stage 16, about 2 hours of stage 17 and then the last few stages.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Agree with Hog. Strategy, and indecision on the chasers had something to do with it. In Floyd's book he talked about the very hot weather as well, and how he liked riding in it, and was well prepared with water, while others melted in it.

...no way on earth does Pereiro get in a 30 minute break...

This has often been repeated giving the impression that Pereiro got a 30 minute lead the way Kivylev did in 2002, and then Floyd, Sastre, Klodi and the others chopped into it, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Pereiro was riding with the contenders through the first ITT and Pyranees, until a few days before "gaining" 30 minutes in a break, he lost nearly 27 minutes to the leaders on stage 11, andand more time on stage 12, putting him 28:50 behind. Had this not happened, the following day when Oscar made his gain of 29:57 along with Voigt, Chavanel and others, the peloton would have never allowed him to get that far. The biggest mistake they made was not reeling the break maybe a few minutes sooner. But at the end of that stage Pereiro was in the lead by a scant 1:29 over Floyd, with the Alps, and final ITT, yet to come. He didn't some massive lead from luck, like so many people think.

 

[therealtimshady]

I bet oscar sits in his chair at night laughing in disbelief about 06
And how he managed to win - fair play to him though. As for fraud landis if you watch carefully at the end if the stage it's all in his eyes and his face that "something is not right" as he looks an angry man

 

[roundabout]

Pereiro climbed as well as he had ever done (with the possible exception of the 03 TdS) following his 30-minute gain. I've always wondered about that especially with his huge loss in the only previous meaningful mountain stage in that Tour.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Don't really disagree there. I mean, that entire year belongs in the Clinic, which is why I sort of view it as though Floyd won the 2006 Tour. That's how it comes out of my mouth when I run through past winners anyway. And he is the guy standing on the top of the podium on the DVD that I watch on my TV.

 

[BroDeal]

Pereiro climbed as well as he had ever done (with the possible exception of the 03 TdS) following his 30-minute gain. I've always wondered about that especially with his huge loss in the only previous meaningful mountain stage in that Tour.

Landis told us what Pereiro was doing to climb like that.

The entire podium of that Tour was dirty. Floyd proved he was the strongest despite misfortune, and as long as Armstrong is considered a Tour winner, I don't see why Landis should be any different. Landis at least had the balls to do something interesting in a stage.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Totally agree that Floyd is still the winner.
That stage was so immensely entertaining to watch as it was happening...now I need to go watch it again.

 

[craig1985]

Landis told us what Pereiro was doing to climb like that.

The entire podium of that Tour was dirty. Floyd proved he was the strongest despite misfortune, and as long as Armstrong is considered a Tour winner, I don't see why Landis should be any different. Landis at least had the balls to do something interesting in a stage.

Bjarne Riis is still considered the '96 winner, right?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

He is to me, in the same light anyway I guess. As has been noted before, many years between about 1994 and 2006 were like science experiments. I don't honor Floyd or Bjarne's wins the same way I do, say, LeMond's wins, no.

The way I look at some of the tours like 1996 or 2006 are that either you accept the guy who crossed the line first as the winner, or you think of them as having no winner at all.

 

[Nick C.]

Didn't Pereiro lose so much time because once he was dropped he pulled the plug and figured he would go for breaks and stage wins? It's pretty much a standard tactic so I wouldn't take the 20 whatever minute loss as a true reflection of his abilities vis a vis the other GC riders.

 

[airstream]

a typical case of woud've, should've, could've...

so if evans would have followed schleck on stage 18 on this year's tour, then he would have won the tour? [rhetorical]

my point is, if kloeden had followed landis, it does not mean he would have won. he did the right thing. the interested teams failed to reduce the gap combined with him having a so-so day. the difference with evans is that evans had a great day and took care of business himself.

Indeed, races are races, there's lots of adrenaline and we can't accuse them directly of bad tactics, all the more so the fact that tactics was really bad came out only when the stage finished. Nobody accuses Voeckler of trying to join Contador and Schleck on the Telegraphe, though most realize it possibly cost him the 3rd place.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Didn't Pereiro lose so much time because once he was dropped he pulled the plug and figured he would go for breaks and stage wins? It's pretty much a standard tactic so I wouldn't take the 20 whatever minute loss as a true reflection of his abilities vis a vis the other GC riders.

He never openly said it, though Levi did make that exact statement after losing just six minutes on the first ITT. This is why I don't care much for Levi. He gave up instead of trying to get into a break and get that time back.

As to Oscar, if you look at going into the Tour Oscar was rider with the 4th best time of the 2005 riders entering. So it's safe to think he had his eyes on the podium at the start, and once he was in the break with Voigt and hearing the splits grow, had to be thinking about GC.

 

[greenedge]

If anyone should have won it should have been Levi..... with the right amount of Clinic it was his race.

Yeah but he sucked that year. It was made for Kloden, Menchov, Ulrich and Evans.

 

[halamala]

According to Dr. Allen Lim:

Using Landis’s stage 17 data, Lim published the following figures for the climbs.

* Col des Saises: 36 min 55 sec at 395 watts (gains time on field)

* Col des Aravis: 16 min 49 sec at 371 watts (loses time on field)

* Col de la Colombiere: 27 min 45 sec at 392 watts (gains time on field)

* Cote de Chatillon: 11 min 7 sec at 374 watts (loses time on field)

* Col de Joux-Plane: 37 min 34 sec at 372 watts (loses time on field)

--> The Clinic...

 

[jens_attacks]

saisies numbers must have been higher,a lot higher

 

[roundabout]

He never openly said it, though Levi did make that exact statement after losing just six minutes on the first ITT. This is why I don't care much for Levi. He gave up instead of trying to get into a break and get that time back.

As to Oscar, if you look at going into the Tour Oscar was rider with the 4th best time of the 2005 riders entering. So it's safe to think he had his eyes on the podium at the start, and once he was in the break with Voigt and hearing the splits grow, had to be thinking about GC.

Oscar P got his virtual 4th best place by riding in breaks. Eyes on the podium would be slightly optimistic.

He was 37th to Courchevel, 33rd to Briancon after being in the break, 30th to Plateau de Bonascre and was 24th on GC after stage 14.

Then of course he was 2nd on the Hincapie stage, won to Pau and was 4th on stage 19. All from breaks.

 

[Moller]

Landis told us what Pereiro was doing to climb like that.

The entire podium of that Tour was dirty. Floyd proved he was the strongest despite misfortune, and as long as Armstrong is considered a Tour winner, I don't see why Landis should be any different. Landis at least had the balls to do something interesting in a stage.

For me, Paul Kimmage summed it up perfectly, when he interview Landis last year he (kimmage) said to him that in the context of what was going on in professional cycling at that time what Landis did was probably one of the greatest rides ever.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

even if all others were clean it';s still amazing. people here act as if you dope you stop riding you bike and it all goes on itself. it's like people in my sport ask about steroids I tell them I never use them because when you use them you need to train very hard. I have lots of respect for guys like that because I would never train (that hard)