Tour De France 2013

[Rascal]

Agree 100% with all of that. I can understand why some older fans will be dubious about everything, but I firmly believe that cycling tests more than any other sport. You're spot on about Sky as well, Murdoch has built his Sky TV platform on sport, and if the Sky team were involved in drug abuse it would be a real blow for them. As for the team throwing that second stage to 'throw people off the scent' - I don't buy into that.

Just off to watch the highlights now.

The Sky Sports thing in my opinion is the key. They have grown on the back of things such as the Premier League which is worth how many millions to them around the globe. Why would they sacrifice there integrity as a sports broadcaster by backing a team that cheats. Also if Team Sky do dope where does it place our Olympic achievements. In the whole grand scheme of things is it really worth losing all credibility for past achievements to win a race the team won last year anyway. It makes no sense to me

Froome was the best rider at the TdF last year but Wiggo won it as the plan went, so i find it odd that with Wiggo not being there people question Froomey. He finished second last year so if the winner is absent he is the favorite and best rider left.

 

[Shands]

Agree 100% with all of that. I can understand why some older fans will be dubious about everything, but I firmly believe that cycling tests more than any other sport. You're spot on about Sky as well, Murdoch has built his Sky TV platform on sport, and if the Sky team were involved in drug abuse it would be a real blow for them. As for the team throwing that second stage to 'throw people off the scent' - I don't buy into that.

Just off to watch the highlights now.

The Sky Sports thing in my opinion is the key. They have grown on the back of things such as the Premier League which is worth how many millions to them around the globe. Why would they sacrifice there integrity as a sports broadcaster by backing a team that cheats. Also if Team Sky do dope where does it place our Olympic achievements. In the whole grand scheme of things is it really worth losing all credibility for past achievements to win a race the team won last year anyway. It makes no sense to me

Froome was the best rider at the TdF last year but Wiggo won it as the plan went, so i find it odd that with Wiggo not being there people question Froomey. He finished second last year so if the winner is absent he is the favorite and best rider left.

It's not quite as simple as that Rascal. Yes Froome was the second best rider at The Tour last year but it was a tour with no Contador, no Andy Schleck, and no Rodriguez, not to mention Frank Schleck and Sanchez both gone before any mountain stages and Valverde caught up in several crashes and soft pedaling to build form. The only competition of any note was Nibali whose form was nothing like that which we have seen from him this year. Bearing in mind that prior to the end of 2011 Froome was a complete unknown in comparison to these riders, that until this season he'd never won a stage race, and that he finished some ten minutes back in the last Vuelta, it's not unreasonable that people wouldn't have considered him clear favourite for the tour.

Personally my opinion hasn't wavered much from what I posted in the Pro Cycling thread. I don't believe there is a team endorsed systematic doping set up within Sky, in fact I think the vast majority of that team are riding completely clean in line with their public stance. Froome as an individual however I have real doubts about. His career progression and the level he is performing at this season just doesn't add up to me I'm afraid. I don't see how someone with his physique can take 25-30 seconds a kilometer out of some of the best climbers in the world and then a few days later perform to the same level as someone built like Tony Martin in a flat TT. It's just too reminiscent of Lance to sit comfortably with me. I honestly wish I felt differently but I can't. I see his interviews and I think he comes across as a good, intelligent guy, but then so did Jan Ullrich or David Miller or plenty of others who were caught before.

That's only my opinion and I know other will disagree strongly but there we go. Despite that I think cycling is in a really good place in the main and on the whole looks more natural than it has in a long time.

 

[crooky]

I hope your wrong, for years I've seen the Tour as one of the greatest tests in sport but couldn't stand to watch it with all the false results from all the doping. I'll admit I only took a keen interest in it last year due to a Englishman being one of the hot favourites but now I understand the sport I'll likely continue to watch in the future after the British talent pool runs dry.

But if a winner gets caught doping again I think I'll shelve it for good, so I hope whole heartedly that we have reached a period free of drugs if not at least for the winners.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Stages like today are the ones that make me feel sorry for anyone who doesn't get the appeal of bike racing, they're missing out on such excitement.

But these stages are few and far between. This is the first stage for many a stage where a whole team has attempted to take advantage of the conditions and made a decent fist of it. For too many tours now a rider will ride to a specific strength and his team will help defend that instead of making a decent race of it. Too much pro cycle racing has become the two-wheeled equivalent of relegation fodder footy teams hanging on to what they started the match with - a nil nil and one point!

 

[Rascal]

It's not quite as simple as that Rascal. Yes Froome was the second best rider at The Tour last year but it was a tour with no Contador, no Andy Schleck, and no Rodriguez, not to mention Frank Schleck and Sanchez both gone before any mountain stages and Valverde caught up in several crashes and soft pedaling to build form. The only competition of any note was Nibali whose form was nothing like that which we have seen from him this year. Bearing in mind that prior to the end of 2011 Froome was a complete unknown in comparison to these riders, that until this season he'd never won a stage race, and that he finished some ten minutes back in the last Vuelta, it's not unreasonable that people wouldn't have considered him clear favourite for the tour.

Personally my opinion hasn't wavered much from what I posted in the Pro Cycling thread. I don't believe there is a team endorsed systematic doping set up within Sky, in fact I think the vast majority of that team are riding completely clean in line with their public stance. Froome as an individual however I have real doubts about. His career progression and the level he is performing at this season just doesn't add up to me I'm afraid. I don't see how someone with his physique can take 25-30 seconds a kilometer out of some of the best climbers in the world and then a few days later perform to the same level as someone built like Tony Martin in a flat TT. It's just too reminiscent of Lance to sit comfortably with me. I honestly wish I felt differently but I can't. I see his interviews and I think he comes across as a good, intelligent guy, but then so did Jan Ullrich or David Miller or plenty of others who were caught before.

That's only my opinion and I know other will disagree strongly but there we go. Despite that I think cycling is in a really good place in the main and on the whole looks more natural than it has in a long time.

I think my point was perhaps missed my friend.


Perhaps Froome has done the Usain Bolt and moved the sport on a level. Cycling seems so trapped in Armstrong numbers it cant accept better and
willnot accept better as its on the back foot so much with doping.

I really value you input mate and your knowledge has helped me really enjoy the sport. Thank you pal

 

[malg]

The Yanks took doping to an all new level. While the world was looking at the Eastern Europeans and blaming them, the USA took doping to an all new level. Armstrong, where cycling was concerned, epitomised this. I now see that people are questioning Froome, and by extension, Wiggins. I personally don't believe it, but will stand down if it transpires they have done so. Unfortunately it's all too easy to point the finger at cyclists.

 

[Shands]

It's not quite as simple as that Rascal. Yes Froome was the second best rider at The Tour last year but it was a tour with no Contador, no Andy Schleck, and no Rodriguez, not to mention Frank Schleck and Sanchez both gone before any mountain stages and Valverde caught up in several crashes and soft pedaling to build form. The only competition of any note was Nibali whose form was nothing like that which we have seen from him this year. Bearing in mind that prior to the end of 2011 Froome was a complete unknown in comparison to these riders, that until this season he'd never won a stage race, and that he finished some ten minutes back in the last Vuelta, it's not unreasonable that people wouldn't have considered him clear favourite for the tour.

Personally my opinion hasn't wavered much from what I posted in the Pro Cycling thread. I don't believe there is a team endorsed systematic doping set up within Sky, in fact I think the vast majority of that team are riding completely clean in line with their public stance. Froome as an individual however I have real doubts about. His career progression and the level he is performing at this season just doesn't add up to me I'm afraid. I don't see how someone with his physique can take 25-30 seconds a kilometer out of some of the best climbers in the world and then a few days later perform to the same level as someone built like Tony Martin in a flat TT. It's just too reminiscent of Lance to sit comfortably with me. I honestly wish I felt differently but I can't. I see his interviews and I think he comes across as a good, intelligent guy, but then so did Jan Ullrich or David Miller or plenty of others who were caught before.

That's only my opinion and I know other will disagree strongly but there we go. Despite that I think cycling is in a really good place in the main and on the whole looks more natural than it has in a long time.

I think my point was perhaps missed my friend.


Perhaps Froome has done the Usain Bolt and moved the sport on a level. Cycling seems so trapped in Armstrong numbers it cant accept better and
willnot accept better as its on the back foot so much with doping.

I really value you input mate and your knowledge has helped me really enjoy the sport. Thank you pal

That would be great if it's the case, more power to him. My response to that though would be that Bolt showed clear exceptional ability from a very young age, he was earmarked as someone who could be a special talent and game changer, as is this case for nearly all people of that ilk (take an O'Sullivan in snooker for example). In cycling's case Contador and Schleck were obvious prodigious talents from the moment they arrived on the junior scene, as was/is Qunitana now - these are people whose performances can justifiably be expected to advance the sport. By all accounts however Froome showed no signs of being exceptional at all, and as recently as 20 months ago, prior to riding at the 2011 Vuelta, he by Brailsford's admission was in the last chance saloon with Sky who were ready to let him go (a fact I'm sure Froome was aware of). To go from that point to producing numbers that, if clean, would revolutionise the sport is too much of a stretch for me.

I'm not saying I'm right, in fact i'd love to be wrong, and I actually envy those who do believe and can place their faith in him, but sometimes you just have to listen to your gut instinct don't you. Still it's an interesting debate and one that shouldn't detract from what is regardless a cracking race, contested by some great cyclists.

 

[malg]

That would be great if it's the case, more power to him. My response to that though would be that Bolt showed clear exceptional ability from a very young age, he was earmarked as someone who could be a special talent and game changer, as is this case for nearly all people of that ilk (take an O'Sullivan in snooker for example). In cycling's case Contador and Schleck were obvious prodigious talents from the moment they arrived on the junior scene, as was/is Qunitana now - these are people whose performances can justifiably be expected to advance the sport. By all accounts however Froome showed no signs of being exceptional at all, and as recently as 20 months ago, prior to riding at the 2011 Vuelta, he by Brailsford's admission was in the last chance saloon with Sky who were ready to let him go (a fact I'm sure Froome was aware of). To go from that point to producing numbers that, if clean, would revolutionise the sport is too much of a stretch for me.

I'm not saying I'm right, in fact i'd love to be wrong, and I actually envy those who do believe and can place their faith in him, but sometimes you just have to listen to your gut instinct don't you. Still it's an interesting debate and one that shouldn't detract from what is regardless a cracking race, contested by some great cyclists.

Bolt wasn't singled out as a 100 metre guy though, he was always earmarked for the 400m. He is probably a very good example of someone who has fought through the odds. I think you're being a bit too pessimistic.

 

[Shands]

That would be great if it's the case, more power to him. My response to that though would be that Bolt showed clear exceptional ability from a very young age, he was earmarked as someone who could be a special talent and game changer, as is this case for nearly all people of that ilk (take an O'Sullivan in snooker for example). In cycling's case Contador and Schleck were obvious prodigious talents from the moment they arrived on the junior scene, as was/is Qunitana now - these are people whose performances can justifiably be expected to advance the sport. By all accounts however Froome showed no signs of being exceptional at all, and as recently as 20 months ago, prior to riding at the 2011 Vuelta, he by Brailsford's admission was in the last chance saloon with Sky who were ready to let him go (a fact I'm sure Froome was aware of). To go from that point to producing numbers that, if clean, would revolutionise the sport is too much of a stretch for me.

I'm not saying I'm right, in fact i'd love to be wrong, and I actually envy those who do believe and can place their faith in him, but sometimes you just have to listen to your gut instinct don't you. Still it's an interesting debate and one that shouldn't detract from what is regardless a cracking race, contested by some great cyclists.

Bolt wasn't singled out as a 100 metre guy though, he was always earmarked for the 400m. He is probably a very good example of someone who has fought through the odds. I think you're being a bit too pessimistic.

To be fair Malg look at Bolt's record as a junior at both 200 and 400 meters. It was clear from 14 or 15 that this was an athlete of exceptional promise and talent where as Froome really showed absolutely nothing at all until the the age of 26, his career looked like being that of a journeyman at best, certainly not the pick of the elite.

I'n not here to convince anyone though. I'm not pessimistic by nature and have always ered on the side of giving as much benefit of the doubt to potential dopers as possible. My opinions on Froome are not knee-jerk, they're considered based on what I've observed and read, but I'm more than happy for others to have an opposing stance and view it differently.

 

[MCFC1993]

As a quick point on the Sky doping conversation, I believe Sky are clean and as we know from last year Wiggo is so against it that I believe he would of outed anyone on his team if they had doped.

However in all seriousness they are innocent till proven guilty although we know with the Armstrong case, that some may never get caught.