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

[ManicJack]

'99 and its alright given that I'm born 86. You're telling me that you've watched cycling for 40years, going through the EPO era and all that stuff and you dont have any doubt when a rider has an out of this world performance? You' re either naive or just extremely biased.given the history of the sport. People used to use bilharzia as an argument for Froome's mutant performance not too long ago. Cmon man, ffs.

Born in 86. That explains a lot. F ing hilarious

 

[Boehmand]

'99 and its alright given that I'm born 86. You're telling me that you've watched cycling for 40years, going through the EPO era and all that stuff and you dont have any doubt when a rider has an out of this world performance? You' re either naive or just extremely biased.given the history of the sport. People used to use bilharzia as an argument for Froome's mutant performance not too long ago. Cmon man, ffs.

I refer you to my previous reply.

 

[SHAD0W93]

I have offered you a host of plausible explanations.

Care to offer one yourself?

Why do YOU think Vingegaard performed like he did today?

Yes a host of explanations that you’re saying is what all occurred to make us witness the greatest performance ever.

I think Vinge took his wheaties and vitamins the last two days while he moto’d around the course.

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.

I know you’ve posted a lot today but go back and read your posts. It started off that it wasn’t crazy and along track, then others started posting how crazy and one of a kind the TT actually was. Which then lead to Pog not actually having his best TT but a bad one. Then bringing up that he was tired, of course he was. He did his best TT and was finding out he was getting destroyed along the way.

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’m not trying to shut anything down. 1-3 of those reasons occurring would make sense if Vinge gained 40 seconds over Pog. Yet he didn’t, he absolutely trounced him while destroying everyone else and now there’s 10 reasons that all happened simultaneously for why it occurred. That’s what the majority is having issue with, because of all these scenarios that happened at once.

And rich, coming from an anonymous internet poster that laughs at others misfortunes and crashes while getting upset about apparent posters being xenophobic.

 

[ManicJack]

Just reduce yourself to liking your mate's comments. Doing more than that doesnt do you any favours.

You were 6 years old the first time I made any money racing my bike. PM me if you want to keep talking ***.

 

[Boehmand]

I think Vinge took his wheaties and vitamins the last two days while he moto’d around the course.

Of course you are entirely unable to offer a credible alternative explanation, thought as much.

 

[Boehmand]

It started off that it wasn’t crazy

Nowhere have I said that

 

[ManicJack]

And still you havent learned anything since then, so sad.

PM if you want to talk ***.

 

[Boehmand]

You were 6 years old the first time I made any money racing my bike. PM me if you want to keep talking ***.

Guess he didn't want to PM you

 

[madthebad]

PM if you want to talk ***.

Thank you but its ok, if you want to talk *** pm your danish friend, he seems to be an expert.

 

[ManicJack]

Thank you but its ok, if you want to talk *** pm your danish friend, he seems to be an expert.

If you want to talk *** about me PM me.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Of course you are entirely unable to offer a credible alternative explanation, thought as much.

More credible then having multiple scenarios happen at once but that’s just my scenario, could not have happened at all and you’re right.

Nowhere have I said that

You started off after the stage saying how you’ve been telling everyone this will happen and two of Pog’s three weaknesses to Vinge was shown. Then started defending how it was not crazy Pog got his butt curb stopped because of these weaknesses and Vinge’s superior recovery, descending, and cornering. After many posters started posting Vinge’s TT was the best of the best of the best, then it changed to Pog would have done better but these factors. Starting from page three to present on your post history.

If you don’t think that’s you saying Vinge’s performance was not crazy then we’re disagreeing on that.

What we can agree on is Vinge is most likely winning the Tour now unless something even crazier happens.

 

[Boehmand]

More credible then having multiple scenarios happen at once but that’s just my scenario, could not have happened at all and you’re right.

No, you have not offered a single explanation, you have spent your entire time disputing mine, without actually offering your own.

So go on, what do you think the explanation is?

 

[Andy schleck]

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.

Vingegaard:58 kg.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

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.

Well I offered a lot of contextualization of todays performance, which you simply dismiss. As have others, which you have also simply dismissed. Sorry but how is that my fault? I asked you several question to which you have not really replied. I've been sincere and tried to adress your points, even asked you If I understood you correctly, but you didn't engage at all.

Like you say it's just about Pogacar, no one says it's just about the distance to Pogacar, even though that alone is already an historic difference.

And to your "challenge" to ask for a better explanation than yours that excludes PEDs, I don't even know what you are trying to argue for with that. You just don't accept the conclusion that if your explanation isn't holding, than you yourself have no clue as to how this came about. And then you blame others for not being able to present you with a better explanation, that doesn't lead to that consequence.

Also I still haven't heard from you, but I have asked you and I will now again, how your explanation explains the historic outlier this is . But I guess you have dismissed the entire idea on grounds of not allowing historic comparisons for some reason.

You don't really engage in an honest conversation, even when it is offered to you, you rather ridicule the idea that historical comparisons are of any worth. Or how am I to understand you when you say I don't really have anything to offer?

 

[ManicJack]

Have a good one, I've already wasted too much time with you guys. You have something to say, you can pm.

That's about what I would expect. All talk and no action.

 

[Boehmand]

You started off after the stage saying how you’ve been telling everyone this will happen and two of Pog’s three weaknesses to Vinge was shown. Then started defending how it was not crazy Pog got his butt curb stopped because of these weaknesses and Vinge’s superior recovery, descending, and cornering. After many posters started posting Vinge’s TT was the best of the best of the best, then it changed to Pog would have done better but these factors. Starting from page three to present on your post history.

Again, I have not saing anything about it not being "crazy", all I have disputed are people moronic claims belonging in the clinic.

I have not told anyone he would take 1:28 out of Pogacar on the TT, my predition was far less, but I have had a great time telling the people that laughed at me (you included), when I told them Vingegaard would beat Pogacar by a good margin in week 3 - with qualified factual reasons - that their chicken had come home to roost - and yes, I realise it embarassed you and you are now hung up on it, tough luck, you made your bed and now have to lie in it

 

[Boehmand]

Vingegaard:58 kg.

I just went by the numbers on PCS, the others are probably off too by a little, but it made the point.

 

[madthebad]

Well I offered a lot of contextualization of today performance, which you simply dismiss. As have others, which you have also simply dismissed. Sorry but how is that my fault? I asked you several question to which you have not really replied. I've been sincere and tried to adress your points, even asked you If I understood you correctly, but you didn't engage at all.

Like you say it's just about Pogacar, no one says it's just about the distance to Pogacar, even though that alone is already an historic difference.

And to your "challenge" to ask for a better explanation than yours that excludes PEDs, I don't even know what you are trying to argue for with that. You just don't accept the conclusion that if your explanation isn't holding, than you yourself have no clue as to how this came about. And then you blame others for not being able to present you with a better explanation, that doesn't lead to that consequence.

Also I still haven't heard from you, but I have asked you and I will now again, how your explanation explains the historic outlier this is . But I guess you have dismissed the entire idea on grounds of not allowing historic comparisons for some reason.

You don't really engage in an honest conversation, even when it is offered to you, you rather ridicule the idea that historical comparisons are of any worth. Or how am I to understand you when you say I don't really have anything to offer?

If you've read his comments his arguments are that Vingegaard actually was able to hold on to a Pogacar attack 2 days ago hence Pogacar is tired so it makes sense that after a rest day Vingegaard puts 5 seconds per km on a 22 km TT on Pogacar and 3 minutes on any other rider. Thats it, nothing else.

 

[Boehmand]

Well I offered a lot of contextualization of todays performance, which you simply dismiss. As have others, which you have also simply dismissed. Sorry but how is that my fault? I asked you several question to which you have not really replied. I've been sincere and tried to adress your points, even asked you If I understood you correctly, but you didn't engage at all.

Like you say it's just about Pogacar, no one says it's just about the distance to Pogacar, even though that alone is already an historic difference.

And to your "challenge" to ask for a better explanation than yours that excludes PEDs, I don't even know what you are trying to argue for with that. You just don't accept the conclusion that if your explanation isn't holding, than you yourself have no clue as to how this came about. And then you blame others for not being able to present you with a better explanation, that doesn't lead to that consequence.

Also I still haven't heard from you, but I have asked you and I will now again, how your explanation explains the historic outlier this is . But I guess you have dismissed the entire idea on grounds of not allowing historic comparisons for some reason.

You don't really engage in an honest conversation, even when it is offered to you, you rather ridicule the idea that historical comparisons are of any worth. Or how am I to understand you when you say I don't really have anything to offer?

I see you - again - refusing to give an alternative explanation for the result.

The only logical conclusiuon is, that you don't really have one, and are just here to talk *** about my postings.

 

[ManicJack]

You don't really engage in an honest conversation, even when it is offered to you, you rather ridicule the idea that historical comparisons are of any worth. Or how am I to understand you when you say I don't really have anything to offer?

What historical comparison is there to today's race. That's what I don't understand. Anecdotal narratives don't mean crap. What happened today happened. Nothing you can compare it to has any relevance to that fact. Get over it. It was a bike race. There will be another one tomorrow.

 

[madthebad]

What historical comparison is there to today's race. That's what I don't understand. Anecdotal narratives don't mean crap. What happened today happened. Nothing you can compare it to has any relevance to that fact. Get over it. It was a bike race. There will be another one tomorrow.

The most dominant TT performance in history (and why it was stage 16 of the 2023 TdF)

Yeah, we all saw it. Jonas Vingegaard dominated this TT like nobody has dominated a TT since...well...since when exactly? If you want an answer to that you came to the wrong post, but I'll write some other stuff instead. So what I did is I tried to come up with a metric showing how dominant a...

forum.cyclingnews.com

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

I see you - again - refusing to give an alternative explanation for the result.

The only logical conclusiuon is, that you don't really have one, and is just here to talk *** about my postings.

I already adressed this: how is it necessary for me to give an alternative explanation? You simply define that an explanation has to exclude PEDs and than claim a win when people say that they have no explanation that makes sense to them, that's not based on clinical issues. You're making a priori judgements about empirical claims. It's just logically confused, so much so it seems that you are unaware of it.

 

[ManicJack]

The most dominant TT performance in history (and why it was stage 16 of the 2023 TdF)

Yeah, we all saw it. Jonas Vingegaard dominated this TT like nobody has dominated a TT since...well...since when exactly? If you want an answer to that you came to the wrong post, but I'll write some other stuff instead. So what I did is I tried to come up with a metric showing how dominant a...

forum.cyclingnews.com

Anecdotal, but probably factual to someone born in 86.

 

[madthebad]

Anecdotal, but probably factual to someone born in 86.

Still way more factual than anything you posted on this forum today.

 

[Boehmand]

I already adressed this: how is it necessary for me to give an alternative explanation? You simply define that an explanation has to exclude PEDs and than claim a win when people say that they have no explanation that makes sense to them, that's not based on clinical issues. You're making a priori judgements about empirical claims. It's just logically confused, so much so it seems that you are unaware of it.

LOL

Much earlier in this debate, when I alluded to you claiming Vingegaard had been cheating, you strenuously denied that was your position - and here you are, saying you are completely unable to offer an alternative explanation without claiming PEDs were used.

You are a ridiculous