'Peloton' down to 4 men
Tour De France 2013
- Thread starter mariachi-19
- Start date
Cuntador dancing more than usual. Struggling?
Down to 3 now.
How long can Porte do this?
How long can Porte do this?
Gone!
fecks sake
feck off
He is just too good for everyone else.
I think froome just told quintana the stage is quintanas if he works.
meh he's so much better than the rest it's ridiculous
But Quintana will win a TDF in future
But Quintana will win a TDF in future
Test passed then
I'm not usually one to yell "cheat", but Froome is seriously suspicious imo. Only Quintana is remotely close to being able to follow him in the mountains, and he still lost half a minute on the last bit. On top of that Froome did an excellent time-trial only 12 seconds behind Tony Martin (although the wind might have had something to do with it being that close) and completely destroying the competition (Contador 2 minutes behind, Quintana 3 minutes etc.). If Froome keeps up the pace in the last part of the tour I honestly find it hard to believe that he's clean.
Would also like to see the records for this Ventoux (how fast the riders have climbed it) if anyone has them.
Would also like to see the records for this Ventoux (how fast the riders have climbed it) if anyone has them.
I think the correct word is cheats rather than cheat.I'm not usually one to yell "cheat", but Froome is seriously suspicious imo. Only Quintana is remotely close to being able to follow him in the mountains, and he still lost half a minute on the last bit. On top of that Froome did an excellent time-trial only 12 seconds behind Tony Martin (although the wind might have had something to do with it being that close) and completely destroying the competition (Contador 2 minutes behind, Quintana 3 minutes etc.). If Froome keeps up the pace in the last part of the tour I honestly find it hard to believe that he's clean.
Would also like to see the records for this Ventoux (how fast the riders have climbed it) if anyone has them.
Who's cheating? Sky? In this climate? You've got to be kidding right? Why choose the time when the sport is most under the spotlight to start doping?
I think most are a few steps ahead of the testers. I was really hoping the passport system would work but I'm not so sure now. If anything sky looks weak to me compared to other teams. Just 2 strong climbers.
So it's your honest belief that sky riders are doping considering everything that's gone on in the sport? I assume you therefor thing Wiggins must have been doping also? Are you sure that this is t a bit of sour grapes as your favoured rider is getting battered? I mean seriously if you think there is still large scale doping going on why are you still watching?
the same was said with Lance. the answer is the same: money, fame.
with McQuaid /Verbruggen still running UCI they won't get caught if they are doing it smartly.
So why are we watching it then? Would you be saying this whoever was leading? What actually has to happen for one of you to say 'that was a good performance?'
I think there is massive paranoia among cycling fans at the moment and it makes me wonder why anyone continues to watch if they can't accept that whoever is winning isn't cheating? I mean, how far do you think it goes? Or is it only as far back as your favourite cyclist?
My favourite riders are Froome, Wiggins and Cavendish
Again, I think sky and all the others are doping. I'm not convinced sky are worse than the others a some suggest. In fact, I think they may be laying off a little compared to other teams since they look so weak.
What is it about today's performance that makes you think it's a doped one?
I continue to watch because it is an amazing thing to watch. My guess is that the doping buys them minutes in a climb and for the most part the natural talent and training is key. Still amazing that they can climb the way they do. I started to get jaded several years ago when my favourite rider of that year (blanking on his name) failed a test and was thrown out. I started cheering on another and he got thrown out. Then the winner was thrown out. Since then I've decided to just take it for what it is. Amazing athletes buying a few extra minutes.
it is not about froome leading. it is about the manner of his performance. Wiggins and Evans were far more human efforts.
Froome is Armstronging this one.
I don't actually watch it much. Precisely because I find these persistent dopers disillusioning.
And these "you must be biased" suggestions are pathetic.
Not necessarily today's. You have to consider the last several months.
If its self evident that the majority are cheating , I don't think I will watch anymore. I hope a Brit wins and that he's not doping. Don't know how these guys are supposed to prove that though? Perform worse perhaps? They're in a bit of a no win situation however you look at it.
There's a few sports to stop watching then.
Who's problem is it exactly? I'd rather watch something with the idea that the authorities are on top of this sort of thing than watch it with my mind constantly clouded by the thought 'that was very good, must be on drugs', I mean, where's the fun in that. It's like grumpy old men... We hate it, it's abhorrent, it's cheating, but we'll watch it anyway so we can enjoy moaning about it later...
Nobody's problem. Just saying. Football is unlikely to be as clean as we all hope too.
I assume everyone is clean which is why I watch it.
We haven't had a positive test this year have we?
We haven't had a positive test this year have we?
Well if you don't mind I'd like to assume the majority are so I can enjoy watching it without thinking any exceptional performances are enhanced. I prefer to be able to think 'feck, that was amazing' than 'feck, must have been cheating'
I can't see the point in watching anything with the latter attitude, except if my aim in life was to moan with other people about how bad it all is.
I'm not usually one to yell "cheat", but Froome is seriously suspicious imo. Only Quintana is remotely close to being able to follow him in the mountains, and he still lost half a minute on the last bit. On top of that Froome did an excellent time-trial only 12 seconds behind Tony Martin (although the wind might have had something to do with it being that close) and completely destroying the competition (Contador 2 minutes behind, Quintana 3 minutes etc.). If Froome keeps up the pace in the last part of the tour I honestly find it hard to believe that he's clean.
Would also like to see the records for this Ventoux (how fast the riders have climbed it) if anyone has them.
The quickest time is Iban Mayo at 55 minutes and 51 seconds. A doped Armstrong did it in 57:49, 57:52, Contador at 58:45, Armstrong with 58:48 and 59:00 respectively and Indurain with 59:02 (Indurain had one of the highest power outputs ever in the Tour De France with more than 450 watts generated.)
I know what you mean. I try not to moan about it but I probbaly lapse from time to time.
No news on today's times?
Seems you have had a lapse today then Gregster lad.
I'd have much preferred to see 'What a performance from Froome there!'
If he later turns out to have cheated, then we lynch the cnut. Simples.
As I said further up the page, it's not just about today's performance. The fact that he does a flat time-trial almost as good as Tony Martin (who's basically built for it) while destroying everyone in the mountains is what makes it more suspicious. Riders who have excelled in that manner have usually been proved to be cheating (e.g. Armstrong).
Cycling has been under the spotlight for many years, and people still get caught for cheating every season. I'm not saying the entire Sky team is cheating, but to rule out that Froome might be simply because of the current "climate" is silly. Cycling (and other sports heavily based on physical ability) has and will always be under heavy drug-testing, but there's no reason whatsoever to expect that it will keep everyone from cheating. Some will always do it.
For what it's worth, I'm not one of the people who believe the entire peleton is on drugs. I actually believe that the amount of testing and other things (such as the biological-passport) along with a general change of mindset among many young riders have greatly reduced the number of riders on drugs. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether this is actually the case, but that's what I choose to believe.
I had no problem with Wiggins winning last year, although he did it by a huge margin. The competition was poor to say the least (apart from Froome, who might even had beaten him if given the chance), but even then he still showed that he wasn't invincible in the mountains. He wasn't superhuman by any means, but so far this year Froome's only sign of weakness has been when he wasn't alert in the side-wind a few stages back.
Cheers. I just found Froome's time for the last 15 km, which was 48:42 (measured by Danish TV). A few minutes slower than Mayo who did it (45:47) and approximately the same as Contador and Andy Schleck in 2007. The expert from Danish TV claims that Froome's group ran at a very slow pace for about a third of the last 15 km (between the 5th and 10th km).
Roughly 57 minutes which puts him in the Top 5-10 of best times. Pantani, Armstrong and Vinokourov who were doped did it in 57 minutes 30 +/0. So, they will definitely have timed the race, the speed, the conditions and compared his power output by taking the the wattage of Quintana or Contador.
Normal, to avoid suspicion. If Froome had decided to go at a constant pace which is possible, then he would have beaten Mayo's record easily. Again, the doubts will arise. In any case, the timing is for all of Mont Ventoux i.e. 21km, and not the last 15km.
It was awfully fast to the mountain today as well. Lots of pressure put on by Moviestar.
That is easily solved. Martin used a larger crank which meant the start of the time-trial was slower for Tony Martin who used a 58x11. However, I still find it difficult to believe how someone can be one second quicker than Martin over the 10 km mark; 2 seconds over the 20 km mark, then lose over 10 seconds in the last 10 kms. It is not normal for someone who is considered a time-trialist too, but not in the same league as Tony Martin who is, as has been proven, a great deal superior to Froome and the margin of the loss didn't reflect the superiority
Yes, but that doesn't really tell the whole story of the stage. They start the stopwatch at the start of Mont Ventoux and he did just over 57 minutes. There will be questions asked since those who have been doped in the past, have all had slower times up Mont Ventoux than Froome. Do you think it is reasonable for Froome to be over a minute ahead of the likes of Armstrong, Contador, Pantani, Indurain or Virenque when all but one have been found to have taken something?