Most recent activity
-
Jeez, #231, I think I must be a bit of a traditionalist and I don't think I gave it (the Pro event in the US) much chance. I am a bit of grumpy git and don't like change. Watching an event in quaint European villages sits well with me, that's what I have always watched - the scenery is part of the enjoyment for me. The switch to the US freeways was a bit of a leap for my anti change old school ways. It took away the enjoyment for me. My comment was a tad biased.
As for the silence over the last few days from people on the Vuelta, I think it says it all. The final stage procession seemed to start about 4days ago. In all the event was alive for just a few days, the rest was fairly mundane - with no change in the GC (or even threat to it) in the last 4 days - that can hardly be good for an event.
With only one individual time trial - you have to wonder how this year's race produced a winner that demonstrated all round skills?
I was disappointed by the last few days - which is so annoying given it was building to a bit of climax - then nothing. I don't think the Vuelta has done much to dismiss claims that it is now a much poorer sister to the Giro and the Tour.
-
What a finish. Awesome stuff from Froome. Good call though AndyP - you can hardly blame Cobo for not covering the inside - he looked blown. He got 2 yards over the finish and looked like he didn't know what to do. That may catch up with him tomorrow.
Was hugely disappointed with the rest of the Sky bunch though. I am trying to work out what their roles are. So far I can only assume they are there just in case Froome or Wiggins puncture so that when they get to the back of the Peloton there are some friendly faces waiting for them.
-
I watched a bit of that race. Hardly flowing through the mountain tracks of the Alps or back roads of a Spanish village.
Fucking massive freeways!
I suspect there was a bit of money to attract the big names.
It looked dull though.
-
Wiganwill, I guess I was a bit trusting as a 20year old new to cycling and without access to the same kind of media attention these days. As I said before the UCI needed to hide matters after Voets Festina exploits. I firmly believe that the UCI actively hid Armstrong's doping to save cycling. Sponsors would have disappeared. The Tour may well have ended. As a consequence, you had to look much harder to find info on riders and drugs - most were still relatively naive too.
As for this Vuelta, it has only got lively in the few stages - but that is more to do with the British riders. Sky entering a 'B' Team, the Schlecks went across to some Pro Event in America, and the loss of interest from HTC has left it well and truly lower than the other two tours.
A Grand Tour? Not so sure anymore - there must surely be a more logical calendar for the Grand Tours.
Surprisingly though, I am looking forward to the Tour of Britain.
-
Wiganwill, some good points there and I completely agree with you that not talking about drugs led to the position in the 90s and so on. But I am not saying that we should not talk about them - they should never be forgotten - I am just suggesting that perhaps we should not be so quick to believe that everyone is on drugs.
I am sure it is not clean, and history has taught us that doping controls (largely because the UCI were so reticent) were always behind the testing. But for the most part I would like to believe that riders were clean when winning events.
Drugs didn't ruin my enjoyment of cycling in the 90s, Pantani's climbing in 98 was something to behold - hindsight tells me why - Armstrong brought many new fans into the sport, but hindsight tells they have been brought on the back of a fraud. I enjoyed cycling at the time, I was fucking livid when I found out why. I am not going to maintain naivety but I am not going to tar everyone with the same brush. I want to believe in the blood DNA passport thing and to hope that Cycling and the testers are in control. I am still massively concerned that known dopers are still in the sport - how Riis can be a director is beyond me, a lot of the dodgy soigneurs are still active too. We still need much tougher punishments.
However, I want to believe whoever wins this vuelta is clean, as I want to believe that Evans and the Schlecks fought out an exciting tour (it was a good one). I want to think Evans had better tactics, and I want to believe that the Schlecks just messed up and are just weak. I don't want to think Evans' soigneur is better than the Schlecks.
-
So is that it then, all winners of grand tours, are dopers - they must need help doping, so their soigneurs are assisting them - then they are not going to just be sorting out the tour winners, so the team members as well?
Its not logic to suggest that just because one rider won the GC on drugs that were rife and for the most part undetectable, that every winner from now on is on drugs.
The 90s and 00s were awful, the UCI had backed themselves into a corner by their own part in the omerta, the cover up. Armstrong should have tested positive in 96, not for drugs but because his testicular cancer would have showed up massive levels of testosterone (Alan Stubbs the footballer failed a test for the same reasons). Pantani was on Cocaine through large parts of his professional career - he tested positive once and was allowed back in.
Things have changed, now the world and the media have woken up - sponsors have. In addition, more is known about physiology and diets. I am sure it is not 100% clean but it's a different peloton these days. That's why I want to believe the riders are clean, and if not, then they will get caught. If I think everyone who is doing well is on drugs, well that's just depressing. It almost sounds like people want them to be on drugs, so they can moan about cyclists being on drugs like the old days. That ain't right. Give them a chance or cycling will never move on.
-
Come on folks, drugs? really.
What is the point in watching a sport if you pull apart all the people who are doing well. If Wiggins wins, is that good because he is clean? Do we only seem to think that others are not clean? Is there a Spanish blog somewhere saying the same about Wiggins?
None of us know for sure what is going on, and all this talk of drugs does not help the sport. I for one will watch to the end of the Vuelta and if Cobo wins because of an amazing climb, then so be it. If he is then done, then so be it. But I am not going to judge the sport based on no facts. The whole of the 90s and 00s were killed for me because of doping, Riis, Pantani, Armstrong and Flandis (amongst others).
To say Cobo looked like he was on drugs because he didn't celebrate is unfair and not helpful.
-
I wouldn't say Wiggins is a far weaker rider than Froome. And as for Sky leadership, I think it is fair to say that Froome is showing a new side to his abilities that not many could have seen coming to this extent.
I don't think the leadership is that bad - although they have a massive dilemma now. Wiggins or Froome - or use both in a cunning way to catch Cobo.
-
Horatio, completely agree. The pressure is off now, Wiggins is not such a target anymore, on top of that, Froome is in there too. The others are going to have to mark each rider which complicates matters. That said, I hope SKY don't just settle for a place on the podium and pick a couple of days to really lay into Cobo.
Wednesday's stage looks like the toughest left, nowt compared to today, but could be an opportunity to lay in a sustained attack.
On top of that Rabobank may even think about taking some risks for Molema and will look to hunt down Cobo too. He will have to be very wary of the attacks.
General,
Not sure what you mean by typical British Response - but those last few days of the tour were hardly set up to make to the GC blitzed, whereas the Tour this year had a couple of mountain stages followed by a Time Trial.
The fact is that those relatively less difficult stages towards the end meant that it was almost a foregone conclusion - the commentators on Eurosport and ITV were all trying desperately hard to make viewers believe there was some kind of sting in the tail, but in reality they knew it that opportunities were limited.
Whether you are British or not, the end of that Tour was far from exciting.