Tour de France Tour de France 2023, stage 16: Passy - Combloux, 22.4k (ITT)

[Elos Anjos]

Vingo is no different than Pogi. Just a higher skill ceiling especially with Pogi's broken wrist and questionable preparations. It is hilarious people like you are crying. You're fanboying Pogacar hard and when he is winning you're cheering all smiles. You can't handle though when it is the other way around. Everything is now boring and Tour de France will soon lose all their viewers.

Sure. Hand me a hankerchief please.

 

[ManicJack]

WVA commenting for French channels was also in utter disbelief.

Jumbo was not smart. They have overdone it and will draw much attention to themselves.

Seriously, what's your point? State it clearly.

 

[Boehmand]

Why, just so Vinge’s time doesn’t look even crazier than it is?

Both have looked like that, it’s been a very hard Tour yet they were blow to blow with the other. Both looked good yesterday on the rest day and Pog looked fine until he started being told how much Vinge was wiping the floor with him.

Why what?

Why Pogacar looked worse than ever before in the last 1/3 of a TT?

I've already explained that, several times.

 

[johnymax]

I've seen several times (in this thread and in the clinic) people writing how it should be imposible for a 60kg rider to do this kind of performance and I agree it was unbelievable. But why point out his 60kg...shouldn't his light weight be an advantage in this kind of course. It was almost a MTT, lool at the average speed. Jonas was the only one above 40kph.

 

[Boehmand]

Seriously, what's your point? State it clearly.

He can't, he knows the moderators will get on his case - but we all understand what he is saying, as uninformed an opinion as it is.

 

[Elos Anjos]

Seriously, what's your point? State it clearly.

The points are:

1) not to assign disbelief to mere fanboyism but to acknowledge it as a fair outcome of a "very special" performance;
2) to acknowledge that there is not enough logical explanations (aero or cornering techniques) to account for this performance;
3) that you can and should be skeptical regarding this performance until further notice;

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Let's try, for a moment, to entertain the idea of the "cheating" you (and others) are constantly alluding to.

Do you really think Jumbo gave Vingegaard some magical potion overnight, so that he was suddenly much better than he was the day before - bearing in mind it would have to be something that did not show up in the mandatory test after the ride?

If you follow cycling closely and have an understanding of the rigerous testing regime imposed on the sport these days, you would know it's close to impossible - it would have to be some completely unknown new drug, that nobody (incl WADA) has ever heard of.

In theory it's of course possible, if Jumbo have themselves invented something groundbreaking in sports medicine that nobody else in the world knows about - but then (oddly) chosen to ONLY use it for a TT instead of from the start of the race - frankly it's not a very realistic scenario.

The much more logical explanation is the one (with many individual parametres) I am giving you.

See I was rather sincere in my posting, only asking you to consider why people are asking questions. And also to acknowledge how crazy this effort ist. I don't want to go into clinic issues here, which is why I am here only pointing out the historical significance of the achieved performance. This alone is alluding to cheating for you it seems to me. But if that's the case you should be honest to yourself and understand that it's the facts not me pointing to the clinic. I am merely following in the pointed direction.
Your explanation, and I will leave it at that, is only really logical if one ignores history completely. As for the "how" of the performance: I am clueless, it doesn't make any sense it happened. Your explanations are there to dismiss questions, not to explain something very hard to make sense off. It's just to abnormal a performance to be solved by "he had a better day and has better regeneration".

 

[Boehmand]

I've seen several times (in this thread and in the clinic) people writing how it should be imposible for a 60kg rider to do this kind of performance and I agree it was unbelievable. But why point out his 60kg...shouldn't his light weight be an advantage in this kind of course. It was almost a MTT, lool at the average speed. Jonas was the only one above 40kph.

In Denmark we have a state funded sports organisation called Team Danmark, which funds athletes in all kinds of sports and do rigerous testing on them.

They tested Vingegaard back in 2018, and already then said he had a heart and lung capacity, as well as power to weight ratio, that was 15 % better than any other cyclist they had ever tested - in 40 years.

They called his genetic condition generational.

It's one of the reasons Jumbo signed him as a relatively unknown conti rider.

 

[RobertCrawley]

The points are:

1) not to assign disbelief to mere fanboyism but to acknowledge it as a fair outcome of a "very special" performance;
2) to acknowledge that there is not enough logical explanations (aero or cornering techniques) to account for this performance;
3) that you can and should be skeptical regarding this performance until further notice;

I know it hurts when a sports hero lets you down. We've all been there. Tadej had a bad day. But Jonas Vingegaard has done nothing to deserve implications that he is anything but honorable at this sport.

 

[Boehmand]

See I was rather sincere in my posting, only asking you to consider why people are asking questions. And also to acknowledge how crazy this effort ist. I don't want to go into clinic issues here, which is why I am here only pointing out the historical significance of the achieved performance. This alone is alluding to cheating for you it seems to me. But if that's the case you should be honest to yourself and understand that it's the facts not me pointing to the clinic. I am merely following in the pointed direction.
Your explanation, and I will leave it at that, is only really logical if one ignores history completely. As for the "how" of the performance: I am clueless, it doesn't make any sense it happened. Your explanations are there to dismiss questions, not to explain something very hard to make sense off. It's just to abnormal a performance to be solved by "he had a better day and has better regeneration".

Respectfully, that is all BS.

I have explained - in great detail - what prompted the result today.

It's not about dismissing questions, it's about answering them logically and in an informed manner.

You dismissing all those explanations with "but history" is exactly why I feel the need to flirt with the edge of the clinic topic, to explain why my explanations make much more sense than anything belonging in that forum.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Why what?

Why Pogacar looked worse than ever before in the last 1/3 of a TT?

I've already explained that, several times.

Go back and read what you said.

All you have been trying to do is make Vinge’s performance look normal with so many hypotheticals all occurring for it to happen.

 

[Elos Anjos]

I know it hurts when a sports hero lets you down. We've all been there. Tadej had a bad day. But Jonas Vingegaard has done nothing to deserve implications that he is anything but honorable at this sport.

So found of you. Have you seen 1)?

Here's a simple argument. Even if was "hurting" because Pogacar lost today, that doesn't mean I don't have good reasons to be skeptical and have disbelief.

If you can't understand this there's no point in arguing anymore.

 

[T-Nielsen]

I seem to have found the clinic.

Sorry about that guys and/or girls.

I was looking for the road racing.

 

[ManicJack]

After lurking here for a decade but never being interested in creating an account, but choosing to do so leading into the tour we are witnessing, I question as to why I wasted my damn time. There are so many self righteous, anonymous posters here it's toxic. I hope you all continue to hate cycling.

 

[D. Pecher]

I've seen several times (in this thread and in the clinic) people writing how it should be imposible for a 60kg rider to do this kind of performance and I agree it was unbelievable. But why point out his 60kg...shouldn't his light weight be an advantage in this kind of course. It was almost a MTT, lool at the average speed. Jonas was the only one above 40kph.

Being light and being a good TTer is normally mutually exclusive. A TT-specialist needs a big engine, so they tend to be on the heavy side. Okay, this TT had a large climbing element, but it still doesn't make much sense, especially the huge gaps in relation to the rather short distance.

 

[Boehmand]

Go back and read what you said.

All you have been trying to do is make Vinge’s performance look normal with so many hypotheticals all occurring for it to happen.

Not true.

I have already acknowledged it was his best TT performance ever - so has he himself.

What I have explained is:

1. Why I think Pogacar underperformed
2. Why I don't think there is anything "fishy" about Vingegaard's performance.

I thought that was quite clear by now, since I have posted my positions quite rigorously, but if it was not I apologise.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Pog's performance today was on par with his tt in 2020. That time Roglic had a bad one. But today was totally different, what Vingegaard produced belongs to other era's of this sport from 20-30 years ago.

Tell me you're clueless, without telling me you're clueless.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Respectfully, that is all BS.

I have explained - in great detail - what prompted the result today.

It's not about dismissing questions, it's about answering them logically and in an informed manner.

You dismissing all those explanations with "but history" is exactly why I feel the need to flirt with the edge of the clinic topic, to explain why my explanations make much more sense than anything belonging in that forum.

In order to dismiss questions, a myth gets rid of history. To make use of an insight of Hans Blumenberg. Basically by taking historic comparisons out of the question, you make the performance today inaccessible for rational analysis. It just is, what it is, a marvel of the day!

You say with vigor that your explanations are much more logical, yet you haven't - or have I missed something - put anything forward but Vingegaards better regeneration. To me that implies that you think his regeneration must be not just better than this generation of riders, but of many generations of riders before, as it is not only the explanation for the gap to Pogacar, but to anyone else and how it was possible to be such a historic outlier.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Respectfully, that is all BS.

I have explained - in great detail - what prompted the result today.

It's not about dismissing questions, it's about answering them logically and in an informed manner.

You dismissing all those explanations with "but history" is exactly why I feel the need to flirt with the edge of the clinic topic, to explain why my explanations make much more sense than anything belonging in that forum.

Yes, it was all Vinge’s; recovery, third week recovery (even though we just had a rest day so it isn’t like this is the end of the third week), descending, cornering, flat and mountain prows, heat tolerance, aerodynamics, GI soft diet, advanced TT bike, broken equipment, and 95 minimum VO2 max. On top of an apparent bad day by Pog despite Pog destroying everyone else and doing his best ever TT, which isn’t his best ever apparently, on a day after the rest day when Pog has amazing three week recovery as well and it’s not a long stage so heat won’t affect him. Only for Vinge to not only destroy Pog who himself destroyed everyone else but completely annihilated everyone to the point we weren’t even close to the average time for the winner. On top of this being the best performance in 100 years and completely destroys what others did on a shorter distance.

That is what you’re trying to peddle. You’re right, Vinge kicked everyone to the curb but no one saw this coming.

 

[Boehmand]

Being light and being a good TTer is normally mutually exclusive. A TT-specialist needs a big engine, so they tend to be on the heavy side. Okay, this TT had a large climbing element, but it still doesn't make much sense, especially the huge gaps in relation to the rather short distance.

Remco: 61 kg
Vingegaard: 60 kg
Roglic: 65 kg
Pogacar: 66 kg
Skjelmose: 65 kg
Ayuso: 65 kg
Almeida: 63 kg

All ranked in the top 13 of the PCS TT ranking.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Not true.

I have already acknowledged it was his best TT performance ever - so has he himself.

What I have explained is:

1. Why I think Pogacar underperformed
2. Why I don't think there is anything "fishy" about Vingegaard's performance.

I thought that was quite clear by now, since I have posted my positions quite rigorously, but if it was not I apologise.

No, it is true. You’re trying to use whatever you can to try and make the best ever TT of all time normal. Now to the point of saying Pog had a terrible day and could have been 30-40 seconds closer despite Pog doing his absolute best.

 

[Boehmand]

In order to dismiss questions, a myth gets rid of history. To make use of an insight of Hans Blumenberg. Basically by taking historic comparisons out of the question, you make the performance today inaccessible for rational analysis. It just is, what it is, a marvel of the day!

You say with vigor that your explanations are much more logical, yet you haven't - or have I missed something - put anything forward but Vingegaards better regeneration. To me that implies that you think his regeneration must be not just better than this generation of riders, but of many generations of riders before, as it is not only the explanation for the gap to Pogacar, but to anyone else and how it was possible to be such a historic outlier.

Regeneration is genetic, it's not something you can train your way to or develop.

All good GC riders have that ability, but obviously to varying degrees.

Also I find it highly ironic, that you constantly claim my explanations are wrong, without offering a single alternative explanation yourself.

 

[Boehmand]

Yes, it was all Vinge’s; recovery, third week recovery (even though we just had a rest day so it isn’t like this is the end of the third week), descending, cornering, flat and mountain prows, heat tolerance, aerodynamics, GI soft diet, advanced TT bike, broken equipment, and 95 minimum VO2 max. On top of an apparent bad day by Pog despite Pog destroying everyone else and doing his best ever TT, which isn’t his best ever apparently, on a day after the rest day when Pog has amazing three week recovery as well and it’s not a long stage so heat won’t affect him. Only for Vinge to not only destroy Pog who himself destroyed everyone else but completely annihilated everyone to the point we weren’t even close to the average time for the winner. On top of this being the best performance in 100 years and completely destroys what others did on a shorter distance.

That is what you’re trying to peddle. You’re right, Vinge kicked everyone to the curb but no one saw this coming.

I have offered you a host of plausible explanations.

Care to offer one yourself?

Why do YOU think Vingegaard performed like he did today?

 

[Boehmand]

No, it is true. You’re trying to use whatever you can to try and make the best ever TT of all time normal. Now to the point of saying Pog had a terrible day and could have been 30-40 seconds closer despite Pog doing his absolute best.

I am not fond of strawman arguments, especially after I have already denied them once.

If you want to be treated like an adult, please refrain from claiming things I have already once said are not my position.

 

[ManicJack]

No, it is true. You’re trying to use whatever you can to try and make the best ever TT of all time normal.

At least he is trying to rationalize the result instead of just shutting anyone you disagree with down because you're the prolific anonymous internet poster that you are.