DPL wrote:
Just because a bike has been scanned, that doesn't mean there is no motor. It's kind of like Lance never testing positive. In all likelihood, Lance had many positive tests for PEDs. The powers that be just kept it under wraps.
The rumors about bike motors are some of the funniest stuff. Testing for motors is nothing like testing for PED's.
DPL wrote:
Some Murray wrote:Because they're not. The race is scanning the bikes and it's pretty easy to control.
Try to keep up.
Just because a bike has been scanned, that doesn't mean there is no motor. It's kind of like Lance never testing positive. In all likelihood, Lance had many positive tests for PEDs. The powers that be just kept it under wraps.
Lance only got popped once, and it wasn't even for EPO. Pretty easy not to get caught when the drugs are always one step ahead of the drug detectors.
dots watcher wrote:
Worst in years wrote:Even the green and the dots have been settled since very early.
Literally nothing to watch.
The dots weren't settled early. Voss then Stuyven then de Gendt then Majka then Pinot then de Gendt again then Majka again since stage 15.
And there have been some razor thin finishes on some of the sprints.
One of the things that makes watching the tour so odd is the complete silence on Lance. He dominated the tour for 10 years and now his name is so anathematized that he's never mentioned at all. It's almost like the tour didn't exist for 10 years or they lost all video footage for a decade. It's weird to watch these famous roads and climbs of the tour where Lance did so many memorable things and it's like those events never happened. And I agree he shouldn't be mentioned because he brought such shame and disgrace to the entire sport. But it's weird and awkward for such a big part of recent tours to be completely missing.
Shame and disgrace to the sport? He put it back on the map bud. But the doping had reached a boiling point and cycling needed a scape goat. A few guys who Lance had put on his bad side chose him, and now they can say "we got lance so cycling is clean now." In reality, Lance doped the same amount as everyone else. He also happened to be the greatest cyclist ever. People with no understanding of physiology or sport will assume drugs take a mediocre rider and make him the greatest of all time. They don't, they take an all time great and make him a slightly faster all time great.
Sagan wrote:
Only memorable thing that happened this year was Froome running up the mountain.
all cycling races are boring wrote:
That's a good idea. Have them do it with no bikes.
bigstickybottle wrote:
Robert Young's run across France. Beating the bikes for the kids. Viewers get a bonus for correctly guessing which support vehicle he rode in for the day.
Indeed, one guy's attempt at running across the country was far more interesting.
And yet, a million plus people line the roads every day. Many millions more watch live on TV.
Compare that to the snoozefests of any and every major marathon in the world. Talk about boring! Wow.
Change the channel then. Or better yet, get off your a$$ and go for a ride.
This was not my favorite Tour. That is mainly due to there being almost no drama with the yellow jersey. Froome got it early (8th stage?) and it never changed hands again or was in danger of being taken by Quintana, van gaarden etc. Sky is just too strong and Froome didn't finish more than 3 stages without at least one teammate with him. No other team offered that kind of protection.
That said, this was the tour that attackers officially made it interesting for me. Not your average Thomas Voekler types (though god bless them on the flat stages), but Alaphilippe and Pantano and others with real GC abilities attacking in tough stages and breaking the peloton apart to catch them. Some great stages even if the yellow and green jersey races weren't competitive.
There's not one running race in history that is remotely as interesting as the TDF, and I've running since I was 13 (I'm now 50). 21 days, something new everyday, crazy risks, amazing and plain outrageous courses, etc etc. If you don't get it, then you don't get cycling.
But for any runner to say the Tour is boring is something. More people will see the Tour in person than all other running events combined in a year, and it's not even close. If you don't like don't watch it and move on.
Perfect response post.
Great tour, great individual results.
I wish there was a bit more excitement during the attacks, but there was enough to keep me glued to the screen throughout. I like the punch thrown as well (by Froomey).
Now, about those knucklehead spectators...
Seriously mate? wrote:
The Tour is the most prestigious but most cycling fans know it is far from the most exciting race. The Giro and Vuelta usually bring more excitement and more challenging mountains.
The best races, by a long shot, are the cobbled classics in the spring. It is just awesome seeing the rouleurs hammer those cobbles at 50+ kph. Each sector is like an entire stage of the Tour with guys crashing, having mechanicals or getting dropped because they can't take the pace.
A 1-day race is more exciting than a 21-day race? Thanks captain obvious.
True. All dopers bring shame and disgrace to any sport. But Lance took it to another level with the ruthless, cutthroat way he destroyed anyone who threatened to expose him, and the way he used cancer and charity as his shield.
dots watcher wrote:
True. All dopers bring shame and disgrace to any sport. But Lance took it to another level with the ruthless, cutthroat way he destroyed anyone who threatened to expose him, and the way he used cancer and charity as his shield.
Shield? He did have cancer, and he did raise a shit ton of money and create a huge charity. I wonder if the people whose lives have or will be saved by things that charity did would care if he took the same drugs as everyone else.
Sagan wrote:
Only memorable thing that happened this year was Froome running up the mountain. But the race directors had his back so the time he lost and the rules he broke were all for not.
Anyone who thinks the tour was boring obviously didn't watch much of it or doesn't really understand cycling. Some other memorable things:
-German sprinters come in as the big favorites, but get beat down by Cav and end up with only 1 win each.
-Contador goes on the attack while still trying to recover from a crash and basically digs his own grave and has to withdraw.
-Froome attacks a descent to get a stage win and the yellow while the other contenders just sit there and watch.
-Stage 11. "Sagan Wins" would have been a shocking enough headline, as it should have been won by one of the big sprinters; but the fact that he won it by going off the front with a teammate at 10k to go and bringing along the yellow jersey and one of his teammates made for one of the most dramatic flat stages in tour history.
-The battle between Froome and Dumoulin in the TTs
-Emergence of Wout Poels as a future GC contender
-Dumoulin's mountaintop win in the hail.
-Mollema continuing the trend of Dutchmen not being able to finish off a grand tour.
-Romain Bardet taking stage 19 and jumping from 5th to 2nd in the process.
-Izagirre distancing Nibali on a descent to win stage 20.
In general I thought the RACING was the most exciting tour of the Sky era. Maybe to you it was less exciting because there weren't any huge crashes or teammate rivalries.
uhhhh wrote:
dots watcher wrote:The dots weren't settled early. Voss then Stuyven then de Gendt then Majka then Pinot then de Gendt again then Majka again since stage 15.
And there have been some razor thin finishes on some of the sprints.
One of the things that makes watching the tour so odd is the complete silence on Lance. He dominated the tour for 10 years and now his name is so anathematized that he's never mentioned at all. It's almost like the tour didn't exist for 10 years or they lost all video footage for a decade. It's weird to watch these famous roads and climbs of the tour where Lance did so many memorable things and it's like those events never happened. And I agree he shouldn't be mentioned because he brought such shame and disgrace to the entire sport. But it's weird and awkward for such a big part of recent tours to be completely missing.
Shame and disgrace to the sport? He put it back on the map bud. But the doping had reached a boiling point and cycling needed a scape goat. A few guys who Lance had put on his bad side chose him, and now they can say "we got lance so cycling is clean now." In reality, Lance doped the same amount as everyone else. He also happened to be the greatest cyclist ever. People with no understanding of physiology or sport will assume drugs take a mediocre rider and make him the greatest of all time. They don't, they take an all time great and make him a slightly faster all time great.
Even without the fact he was doped to somewhere between his gills and eyeballs, Armstrong doesn't make top 10 greatest cyclists of all time. Maybe around the 12-15 mark.
trollism wrote:
uhhhh wrote:Shame and disgrace to the sport? He put it back on the map bud. But the doping had reached a boiling point and cycling needed a scape goat. A few guys who Lance had put on his bad side chose him, and now they can say "we got lance so cycling is clean now." In reality, Lance doped the same amount as everyone else. He also happened to be the greatest cyclist ever. People with no understanding of physiology or sport will assume drugs take a mediocre rider and make him the greatest of all time. They don't, they take an all time great and make him a slightly faster all time great.
Even without the fact he was doped to somewhere between his gills and eyeballs, Armstrong doesn't make top 10 greatest cyclists of all time. Maybe around the 12-15 mark.
VERY FEW riders have won 3 tours, Froome joined them today. Even less have won 5, nobody has won 6 and only one guy won 7. Probably would have been 9 without cancer. Best rider in the biggest race =goat
uhhhh wrote:
trollism wrote:Even without the fact he was doped to somewhere between his gills and eyeballs, Armstrong doesn't make top 10 greatest cyclists of all time. Maybe around the 12-15 mark.
VERY FEW riders have won 3 tours, Froome joined them today. Even less have won 5, nobody has won 6 and only one guy won 7. Probably would have been 9 without cancer. Best rider in the biggest race =goat
Nope. Not true. Sorry about that.
I'm being generous when I say 12-15 in the all-time rankings. In reality it's probably lower.
This is the part where you're supposed to back up your point...
It as way more entertaining than when Lance used to get 6 minute lead halfway through the race, then just lock it down for like 2 weeks.
Sagan wrote:
Only memorable thing that happened this year was Froome running up the mountain. But the race directors had his back so the time he lost and the rules he broke were all for not.
Sorry - but it's "all for naught". Ok, back to the substantive discussion. (Really wish I could help myself... I'd have far more friends.)
I thought the agreement was to strike all of the Texan's references to Tour de France and cycling history. How is Let's Run allowing it to be uttered here?