I don't expect clean riders to be anywhere near as fast as doped riders. That current riders crush them on any given climb is preposterous. And Froome compared now to Eddy Merckx.. what a circus this all is. In 2011, Froome was a failed domestique and Sky were trying to sell him.
It was never that close during the Armstrong dynasty, except in 03 where he only won by 1:01 over Ullrich (some say LA was ill during part of that Tour).
DrugVampire wrote:
I don't expect clean riders to be anywhere near as fast as doped riders. That current riders crush them on any given climb is preposterous. And Froome compared now to Eddy Merckx.. what a circus this all is. In 2011, Froome was a failed domestique and Sky were trying to sell him.
If you can't see the reason why a performance on a mountain top finish is going to be quicker than when the mountain is mid-stage, you really don't have the knowledge to be involved in a conversation like this.
Doping or no-doping, you simply can't compare them in any meaningful way because it proves nothing.
It's like saying 'OMG Kittel hit 75 kmh in a sprint finish and Armstrong only climbed Alpe D'Huez at an average of 20kmh, the difference must be doping'.
Uh huh :)
DrugVampire wrote:
Barguil on Izoard:
http://www.climbing-records.com/2017/07/barguil-sets-tremendous-record-on-izoard.htmlTwo minutes faster than EPO lifetime-banned doping daddy - Riccardo Ricco.
and
TEN other riders this year climbed Izoard faster than Ricco.
and
Alberto Contador sets another new record on Croix de Fer beating the EPO-infested Festina team of 1997.
and
2017 is the third fastest tour in history according to Eurosport - only 2003 and 2005 were raced faster.
First time finishing atop Col d'Izoard + Tailwind + lighter/better equipment = something would be majorly wrong of they didn't beat the record.
Get back to me when Froome takes the record on Alpe d'Huez or Mount Ventoux
ggfsgasdfs wrote:
EAH wrote:I love the TDF but agree with the poster who noted that there are long periods of it that are incredibly boring (e.g., long flat stages that end in sprint finishes in the last 5-10 minutes). I'd like to see a few changes that might help. First, shorten stages to about 60-90 miles in length to encourage more aggressive racing from the drop of the flag. Second, more mountain top finishes since the long downhills in this year's TDF helped negate any gains on the climbs. Third, longer time trials to reward more well-rounded riders rather than pure climbers. Fourth, eliminate race radios on riders. Fifth, reduce the number of team members to 4 or 5 so the race is more about the strength of individual riders rather than the team and the overall strength of riders in the peloton is higher.
I like that you're thinking but I mostly disagree :/
5. I think I disagree here again. If you want the strongest/fittest rider to win, you want to minimize the effects of weird adverse events (mechanical issues, crashes, crazy spectators, etc), and you want the riders to be well-hydrated and fed (although less of an issue if the stages are shorter as you propose). The best way to do that is to have lots of riders on each team so that they can help their leaders with all of the knucklehead stuff. I agree it looks bad when you have four team Sky riders on the final climb ramping up the pace, but setting tempo for Froome can be advantageous for other riders as well (and limiting the number of riders on their team isn't going to change things very much).
Like I said before, I don't get the point of 3 weeks of racing if you're only going to have three decisive stages.
I think differently on this. I don't necessarily want the strongest/fittest rider to win. That will happen as a matter of course most of the time. But it would to have some variability in who holds the yellow jersey from day to day, rather than having Froomie wear it for 50+ days now (lifetime).
Weird adverse events happen randomly - there is nothing to prevent that, and that is part of the game. Where having a strong team becomes less than fair is when that team makes it less than random for some riders. In one of the stages Froome had an issue with a back tire, and rather than have to wait for the team car Kwiatkowski was right there to swap out tires. It probably would have been different for Aru or Bardet.
Froome never had to chase down attacks by himself; always had Kwiat and Landa there to do the work for him. That by itself probably dissuaded the other riders from launching attacks.
DrugVampire wrote:
I don't expect clean riders to be anywhere near as fast as doped riders. That current riders crush them on any given climb is preposterous. And Froome compared now to Eddy Merckx.. what a circus this all is. In 2011, Froome was a failed domestique and Sky were trying to sell him.
Lol, because merckx wasn't doping either. Weren't you just saying something about how everybody dopes just 10 posts ago? There's been doping in the tour since the 1900s.
You should probably just stop posting. Unless you're trying to convince everyone you're an idiot, in which case, mission accomplished