Nigel Meaby
Well-known
The tour is underway as I type so thought I would start a thread to run alongside the World Cup thread. Please post thoughts and comments as the Tour progresses. Anyone at the Prologue in Rotterdam today? Who do you think will come into Paris in Yellow in three weeks time? Many on here are also cyclists so I'm sure there will be lots of interest in the Tour.
peter_n
Veteran
Wiggo top of the podium, Team Sky to win!! 
Nigel Meaby
Well-known
I think Wiggins will be there or thereabouts again this year. Contador will be the one to beat again and watch out for the Schleck brothers. Going to give a mention to Dan Lloyd from my hometown who is riding in the Cervelo team in his first Tour de France. Won't figure overall but certainly will give everything to make it to Paris!
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Los Bros. Schleck, FTW. My best guess.
Edited to add:
Not an auspicious start:
79. SCHLECK Frank 16 TEAM SAXO BANK 10' 57" + 00' 57"
122. SCHLECK Andy 11 TEAM SAXO BANK 11' 09" + 01' 09"
Edited to add:
Not an auspicious start:
79. SCHLECK Frank 16 TEAM SAXO BANK 10' 57" + 00' 57"
122. SCHLECK Andy 11 TEAM SAXO BANK 11' 09" + 01' 09"
Last edited:
user237428934
User deletion pending
Doping wins again this time. Cycling lost it.
Nigel Meaby
Well-known
what are you referring to Tom? All I can find is news of a rider being withdrawn due to using a cream for saddle sores!!
"Spain's Xavier Florencio has been pulled out of the 2010 Tour de France by his Cervelo Test Team for using a product containing a banned substance.
The 30-year-old treated saddle sores with a product containing ephedrine without consulting the Cervelo doctor."
"Spain's Xavier Florencio has been pulled out of the 2010 Tour de France by his Cervelo Test Team for using a product containing a banned substance.
The 30-year-old treated saddle sores with a product containing ephedrine without consulting the Cervelo doctor."
user237428934
User deletion pending
I am referring to the fact that cycling is one of the dirtiest sports regarding doping. I was a very enthusiastic cycling supporter years ago but not anymore.
chrisso
Established
I must say my enthusiasm has seriously dimmed on account of doping.
I read news reports this year's doping tests are flawed.
Still, I'll be watching most stages (running between 10pm and 2am here) and I'm sure i'll get sucked in as usual.
Hoping for Wiggins and Cadel to shine, expecting Contador and the Schleck's to out do them however.
I read news reports this year's doping tests are flawed.
Still, I'll be watching most stages (running between 10pm and 2am here) and I'm sure i'll get sucked in as usual.
Hoping for Wiggins and Cadel to shine, expecting Contador and the Schleck's to out do them however.
Frontman
Well-known
I remain a fan, as much as I dislike doping. Doping has been a part of the Tour since it's beginnings. It's only been front page news since the Festina bust in 1998, but anyone who had followed the Tour seriously before then was well aware of the problem.
I am still a baseball fan, even after the steroids scandal (I wonder how much of baseball's record books will have to be edited?), and doping has reared it's ugly head in many other sports as well.
To me the Tour is a bigger event than the World Cup. I traveled to watch the Tour several years ago, and even rode along some of it's stages. I have nothing but respect (even awe) for those riders who can complete stages of more than 200 km through the mountains in only 5-odd hours. Few other sporting events are as demanding, and few other athletes are pushed as hard.
I do wish the sport were tougher on doping, and I would support a lifetime ban on anyone caught cheating. Better yet, doping should also be a crime punishable by a lengthy jail sentence as well as a ban from competition.
For the Tour this year, I have no favorites. I love the event more than I love the individual riders, and I am looking forward to traveling to France again in order to see the event in person.
Nigel Meaby
Well-known
Exciting stage yesterday riding over the cobbles in the north of France. Sorry to see Frank Schleck go out with a broken collarbone but great to see Geraint Thomas in the front group and move up to second place. If he can climb with Contador I can see him moving into Yellow before too long. He can time trial well, too so will this be a suprise winner? Only time will tell. A long way to go yet. If nothing else it certainly puts Team Sky in a strong position with Wiggins not too far behind. This tour is already warming up! Really can't see Armstrong challenging now. I think his time has passed.
Schlapp
Well-known
Yes, great stage yesterday and lovely to see Mr Thomas at the front - he is such a pleasant chap- but he has not got the oomph for the big mtns I think. Mr Wigans should be there or there abouts - at least I hope so. At least the sky team is as clean as a team can get - lots of internal testing and the like.
When I worked at their HQ in Manchester at the Velodrome, riders would be tested all the time, week after week. I was coaching a paralympic rider [a visual impaired tandem track rider - Gold in Athens and 2 in Bejing since you ask] and she was tested all the time too. They have to tell the doping testers where they will be all the time!
Looking forward to seeing some great [film] photography from yesterdays stage - I remember a great cycling photo exposition at Charlroi Photography museum a few years back
When I worked at their HQ in Manchester at the Velodrome, riders would be tested all the time, week after week. I was coaching a paralympic rider [a visual impaired tandem track rider - Gold in Athens and 2 in Bejing since you ask] and she was tested all the time too. They have to tell the doping testers where they will be all the time!
Looking forward to seeing some great [film] photography from yesterdays stage - I remember a great cycling photo exposition at Charlroi Photography museum a few years back
steamer
Well-known
This doping thing makes me wonder, seems like everybody has a friend who knows a trainer or somebody in the peloton wink wink who's told them with absolute certainty everybody dopes, or maybe it's just Lance or some other top rider.
So why is it that almost nobody is ever caught?
Doping is a cooperative effort that requires a lot of people from doctor trainers drug dealers etc. The French police at least have made a priority of nailing dopers, but only a few riders have ever been caught. Still every one is heaping dirt on cyclists in general and Armstrong in particular all the time. What gives?
So why is it that almost nobody is ever caught?
Doping is a cooperative effort that requires a lot of people from doctor trainers drug dealers etc. The French police at least have made a priority of nailing dopers, but only a few riders have ever been caught. Still every one is heaping dirt on cyclists in general and Armstrong in particular all the time. What gives?
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Considering that the fifth post in this thread already brings the issue up, I'd say that already happened at the start.
Nigel Meaby
Well-known
Johann did you get to see any of the Tour coming through The Netherlands? Anyone got any pictures to post yet?
Schlapp
Well-known
Bit of a boring stage today - apart from the fact that Cav[endish] got swamped in the sprint. Hate this type of stage really. More cobbles I say!
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Doping or no, what these guys accomplish is simply astonishing.
Now, here is a real question about doping.
There is a well documented case of a Finnish family who carry a gene variant that makes their bodies act as though they are doping with EPO. Their EPO receptors - the molecules in their bodies that detect EPO - are intrinsically hyperactive.
The result is that members of this Finnish family have an elevated hematocrit (red blood cell count). As a consequence, they excel in endurance sports. One of them, in fact, was an unusually good cross country ski racer. How good? He won two World Championships and three Olympic Gold Medals, that's how good. Because of his high red blood cell count, he was incorrectly accused of blood doping. This is a spontaneous, naturally-inherited gene variant that we are talking about.
Now, here is the question: how is this fair? Why should those not lucky enough to be born with this variant gene not be allowed to supplement with EPO?
Some of you probably think that's an easy question to answer.
So answer me this. Why is it acceptable for genetically less-gifted athletes to wear glasses? Why was it acceptable for Tiger Woods to have laser surgery performed which gave him better than 20/20 vision? How is this "surgical doping" fair to the large number of golfers who were born with exceptional eyesight?
You can't argue that we mustn't allow athletes to take risks. Surgery carries risks. Bike racing and football and downhill skiing carry big risks.
So, what aids are fair, and what aids are not? Eyesight is as important for a golfer's performance as height is for a basketball player or VO2 max is for a cyclist, a cross country skiier, or a triathlete.
This gets us to a deeper question: what is athletics about? Is it about hard work? Is it about the genetic luck of the draw? Is it about defining the limits of human performance? Where do we draw the line? Where should we draw the line? The answers are not so simple as many would wish, or imagine.
Now, here is a real question about doping.
There is a well documented case of a Finnish family who carry a gene variant that makes their bodies act as though they are doping with EPO. Their EPO receptors - the molecules in their bodies that detect EPO - are intrinsically hyperactive.
The result is that members of this Finnish family have an elevated hematocrit (red blood cell count). As a consequence, they excel in endurance sports. One of them, in fact, was an unusually good cross country ski racer. How good? He won two World Championships and three Olympic Gold Medals, that's how good. Because of his high red blood cell count, he was incorrectly accused of blood doping. This is a spontaneous, naturally-inherited gene variant that we are talking about.
Now, here is the question: how is this fair? Why should those not lucky enough to be born with this variant gene not be allowed to supplement with EPO?
Some of you probably think that's an easy question to answer.
So answer me this. Why is it acceptable for genetically less-gifted athletes to wear glasses? Why was it acceptable for Tiger Woods to have laser surgery performed which gave him better than 20/20 vision? How is this "surgical doping" fair to the large number of golfers who were born with exceptional eyesight?
You can't argue that we mustn't allow athletes to take risks. Surgery carries risks. Bike racing and football and downhill skiing carry big risks.
So, what aids are fair, and what aids are not? Eyesight is as important for a golfer's performance as height is for a basketball player or VO2 max is for a cyclist, a cross country skiier, or a triathlete.
This gets us to a deeper question: what is athletics about? Is it about hard work? Is it about the genetic luck of the draw? Is it about defining the limits of human performance? Where do we draw the line? Where should we draw the line? The answers are not so simple as many would wish, or imagine.
Last edited:
P
Peter S
Guest
Do you think all other sports (soccer, tennis etc etc) are doping free ? I think cycling is one of the most closely monitored sports. You will never be able to eliminate doping, I guess it is human to consider cheating, but I do think we have seen the last couple of years in cycling that there is a lot more competition in the races. More candidates for victories than ever before, more "boring" stages than ever because the athletes are so close in performance.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Closely-matched competitors generally lead to more interesting, not more boring, competitions. Federer vs. Nadal is a lot more interesting than Federer vs. Semilog!
Last edited:
P
Peter S
Guest
Yes and no semilog. Cycling is a teamsport and what you see is that there are less solo escapes that succeed than there used to be 10-20 years ago, the teams/peloton decide whether an escape is allowed. On top of that everybody is now so well trained that simple stages are usually very boring, you need something very challenging to allow the best athletes to excel; that is why that usually only happens in the mountains or during the time trials. This years Giro was very exciting with some wonderful competing between the top cyclists, it was the design of the parcours that created the conditions for that.
The average level of fitness of the modern cyclists is almost scary, that is why average stages have a high risk of being boring.
Don' t think doping has fully disappeared, but there is a new wind in cycling. Just look at how Basso publishes all his test and training results.
The average level of fitness of the modern cyclists is almost scary, that is why average stages have a high risk of being boring.
Don' t think doping has fully disappeared, but there is a new wind in cycling. Just look at how Basso publishes all his test and training results.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I guess it depends on what you think is interesting.
I found the Indurain-dominated tours of a decade ago, with one totally dominant cyclist, to be incredibly boring, as were some of the Armstrong years. Laurent Fignon's tour -- or LeMond's first win -- now, that was some exciting stage racing. As was this year's Giro, for that matter. Even if the winners all had battery-powered motors in their bottom brackets ;-).
I found the Indurain-dominated tours of a decade ago, with one totally dominant cyclist, to be incredibly boring, as were some of the Armstrong years. Laurent Fignon's tour -- or LeMond's first win -- now, that was some exciting stage racing. As was this year's Giro, for that matter. Even if the winners all had battery-powered motors in their bottom brackets ;-).