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

[YavorD]

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.

Only that Tadej didn't have a bad day. His gap to the third was massive enough to raise some questions, arguably the same or even better performance than LPBF.
So when Pogacar produces a performance that would've (possibly) been considered thermonuclear, but yet Vingegaard completely obliterates him explanations like "nah he was risking more" doesn't seem plausible.

 

[Boehmand]

Only that Tadej didn't have a bad day. His gap to the third was massive enough to raise some questions, arguably the same or even better performance than LPBF.
So when Pogacar produces a performance that would've (possibly) been considered thermonuclear, but yet Vingegaard completely obliterates him explanations like "nah he was risking more" doesn't seem plausible.

So what do you think the explanation is?

 

[woodburn]

Another weird stat of the day. Vingegaard now equal to LeMond and Fignon with 22 days in yellow.

 

[D. Pecher]

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.

I guess that explains why big guys like Tony Martin or Fabian Cancellara used to win ITT championships.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

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.

Yes, and? Was regeneration or was it not the mainstay or your argument.

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

I am not claiming they are wrong, I am claiming they are insufficient, important difference here. I never made the claim I had an explanation, you on the other hand do. And I don't see how your explanation explains the phenomenon at hand. If you make the claim that you can explain something outlandish, you're the one who has to provide a sufficient explanation. Just because I can't come up with a better explanation than you does not make you explanation logically strong.

Also my explanation would follow the pointer of the facts and therefore leave the forum. My entire problem here is that it is hard to make sense of it by using your reasoning, because the silence of it is so deafening torwards the monstrosity of the facts.

 

[Boehmand]

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.

I appreciate you Jack

 

[madthebad]

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.

If I was danish I would find 1 million reasons for why Chicken Rasmussen was actually clean and it was all a setup, he never did anything wrong.

 

[Boehmand]

I guess that explains why big guys like Tony Martin or Fabian Cancellara used to win ITT championships.

TT championships are different than TT's in stage races, and especially in week 3.

Big heavy TT engines rarely perform well in a TT at the end of a GT, because they have spent 2+ weeks hauling their massive bodies over the tallest mountains in Europe. There are exceptions, depending on how they have raced for the duration of the race, but generally speaking, it's the GC riders than perform better at the end of a GT, that's why they are GC riders.

It's the same reason many sprinters lose their explosiveness in week 3, and we often see different spinters hit the top 5 late in GTs.

 

[Boehmand]

If I was danish I would find 1 million reasons for why Chicken Rasmussen was actually clean and it was all a setup, he never did anything wrong.

Never said that.

 

[madthebad]

I have offered you a host of plausible explanations.

Care to offer one yourself?

Why do YOU think Vingegaard performed like he did today?

Its simple, he opened the wrong can of herring at breakfast. He had the smoked herring instead of the regular one, thats why he smoked everyone.

 

[ManicJack]

I appreciate you Jack

I might not always agree, but certain people here obviously have an agenda

 

[Boehmand]

Its simple, he opened the wrong can of herring at breakfast. He had the smoked herring instead of the regular one, thats why he smoked everyone.

Yeah, thought so, you have no real alternative explanation

 

[nightowl]

You know you all could save yourselves a lot of trouble if you went to the clinic thread where you can discuss everything plainly and not awkwardly talk around the point

 

[ManicJack]

Of course you didnt cause that would look very stupid given that he admitted to using EPO. Denmark had 2 previous TDF winners ( well chicken almost got away with it) that are confessed dopers, is it that crazy for people to doubt the third one especially after a performance like today? I think not.

Moderation is non existent around here unless you bad mouth Remco. It's a joke.

 

[Boehmand]

Of course you didnt cause that would look very stupid given that he admitted to using EPO. Denmark had 2 previous TDF winners ( well chicken almost got away with it) that are confessed dopers, is it that crazy for people to doubt the third one especially after a performance like today? I think not.

Yes it is crazy, when it is based off nothing other than "but 20 years ago some other person cheated".

It's the kind of stupid thing people who only follow cycling during the Tour say - and would you look at that, your account was created 5 days ago, with a convicted doper as your profile picture.

It doesn't get much dumber.

 

[Boehmand]

Moderation is non existent around here unless you bad mouth Remco. It's a joke.

In fairness, it's 3 AM for most moderators, so they will probably clean it up in the morning.

 

[madthebad]

Moderation is non existent around here unless you bad mouth Remco. It's a joke.

How is my statement incorrect? These are well known facts , no speculations here. I dont see whats the problem with having doubts, nobody is making any accusations.

 

[Boehmand]

How is my statement incorrect? These are well known facts , no speculations here. I dont see whats the problem with having doubts, nobody is making any accusations.

LOL

Of course you are making accusations.

You are discounting any other explanation than cheating, without even being able to argue as to why.

 

[ManicJack]

How is my statement incorrect? These are well known facts , no speculations here. I dont see whats the problem with having doubts, nobody is making any accusations.

That's funny

 

[madthebad]

Yes it is crazy, when it is based off nothing other than "but 20 years ago some other person cheated".

It's the kind of stupid thing people who only follow cycling during the Tour say - and would you look at that, your account was created 5 days ago, with a convicted doper as your profile picture.

It doesn't get much dumber.

You know what I think? That your statements are so biased they are laughable. This profile was created a year ago and I was commenting on the cycling news site way before you had any clue about cycling. Look at your profile created a few months ago and flooding this forum with subjective stuff, doing pro bono defense lawyer for your countryman with this arrogant, self righteous attitude, give me a break mate.

 

[ManicJack]

You know what I think? That your statements are so biased they are laughable. This profile was created a year ago and I was commenting on the cycling news site way before you had any clue about cycling. Look at your profile created a few months ago and flooding this forum with subjective stuff, doing pro bono defense lawyer for your countryman with this arrogant, self righteous attitude, give me a break mate.

Self righteousness at it's best. F ing hilarious. "My account is a year older than yours. I'm better. "

 

[madthebad]

LOL

Of course you are making accusations.

You are discounting any other explanation than cheating, without even being able to argue as to why.

Because for any person with common sense that has watched this sport for the past 20-30 years your boy's performance looks amazingly suspicious, we've seen everything. This forum has been filled with stats regarding how " unbelievable" Vingegaard performance was in this tt. You literally have dedicated posts with detailed stats to show that what he did was not normal by any means, but instead you keep commenting here and choose to argue against anyone that dares to have some doubts. Your boy just destroyed the whole peloton by at least 3 minutes on a half an hour effort, have some common sense please.

 

[Boehmand]

You know what I think? That your statements are so biased they are laughable. This profile was created a year ago and I was commenting on the cycling news site way before you had any clue about cycling. Look at your profile created a few months ago and flooding this forum with subjective stuff, doing pro bono defense lawyer for your countryman with this arrogant, self righteous attitude, give me a break mate.

I am most definitely not my mate, my mates are able to make intelligent arguments.
Your only argument seems to be "but he is Danish", it doesn't get much dumber than that.

And no my arguments are not biased, they are informed and factual, something you appear to be completely unable to achieve yourself.

And fyi, I started following cycling 40 years ago, when Kim Andersen took yellow at the Tour, and have watched more or less every WT and PT level race broadcast since - how about you?

 

[Savant12]

Pog's ride was nuclear, Vingo's was thermonuclear...

No, I think we need a new descriptor for what Vingo did. Thermonuclear just doesn’t seem enough.

 

[Boehmand]

Yes, and? Was regeneration or was it not the mainstay or your argument.



I am not claiming they are wrong, I am claiming they are insufficient, important difference here. I never made the claim I had an explanation, you on the other hand do. And I don't see how your explanation explains the phenomenon at hand. If you make the claim that you can explain something outlandish, you're the one who has to provide a sufficient explanation. Just because I can't come up with a better explanation than you does not make you explanation logically strong.

Also my explanation would follow the pointer of the facts and therefore leave the forum. My entire problem here is that it is hard to make sense of it by using your reasoning, because the silence of it is so deafening torwards the monstrosity of the facts.

One of them, and an important one, yes.

I note you are unable to offer an alternative explanation, which puts the whole debate in perspective, you don't really have anything to offer.