2016 TdF, Stage 15: Bourg-en-Bresse → Culoz (160km)

Eamonnator

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

PEDS as in performance enhancing

Oh dear!

odyssey06

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Why does Froome get such a hard time from fans? Is it because there might be a peds issue?
Looking at him in this tour he has been superb. Climbs the hills, can descend and time trial with the best of them. Granted in interviews he can come across as reserved and doesn't say much. But he also comes across as humble and even a bit shy. Seems to be strong mentally too.

Without engaging in any speculation as to whether Froome is or isn't - The fans don't seem to have a problem with actual convicted dopers such as Contador, so it would be hypocritical if that was the case. Of course, fans can be hypocritical and irrational and prejudiced!

I don't think Froome would be getting treatment like this if he was from an 'established' cycling power like France, Spain, Italy or Belgium.
I remember Mark Cavendish getting some OTT abuse in the past.
Is it simply national prejudice? On the other hand, Geraint Thomas doesn't engender the same level of hostility - maybe because he's "done his time" on the road? Maybe because he's not as successful.

He had (emphasis on past tense) a rather robot like persona. He did come from obscurity to 2nd in the Vuelta in 2001, so he hadn't exactly "earned his spurs" as far as the fans are concerned. He doesn't do classics or local races, just appears like a death star for grand tours and their warms ups.

It's a pity Froome was dragged back into controversy with the bike crash, as his new-found risk taking, descending, attacking from the pelton with Sagan etc could have changed his public persona from that of a somewhat 'robot' like winner to something more favourable.

TheBlaaMan

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Why does Froome get such a hard time from fans? Is it because there might be a peds issue?

Looking at him in this tour he has been superb. Climbs the hills, can descend and time trial with the best of them. Granted in interviews he can come across as reserved and doesn't say much. But he also comes across as humble and even a bit shy. Seems to be strong mentally too.

Okay, I'll bite....

* He's boring (admittedly not this year, but all other times bar now).... I'm warming to him on this front
* In cycling terms, he is a style-free zone, completely lacking in any flair or panache. OK his style is a winning style, as time has shown, but that's not why we bother to watch pro cycling.
* His demeanour on the bike is akin to a baby giraffe on a child's scooter (or frog on a skateboard on Peyresourd as one UK journo put it...Ned Boulting?)
* His meteoric rise to the top of the game still hasn't been adequately explained, and talk of PEDs is ever present and doesn't help...
* He cycles for Sky, owned by Rupert Murdoch, 'nuff said. Their racing tactics also make for pretty awful viewing.
* Stunts like his comfort break to falsely neutralise the race before Ventoux on Friday endear him to no-one, IMO, this has Sky's fingerprints all over it, not a Froome tactic, but straight from Brailsford.

That's for starters.....

pelevin

I was warming to him & his efforts this Tour but found the neutralisation tactic very off-putting. The desire for excitement will naturally produce hopes for weakness in the strongest in any sport if not a fan of that strongest, but to see Landa having seemingly been back the road earlier then leading up Ventoux was really distasteful. Froome does tend to come across as pleasant, humble etc but there's an odd ruthless & self-righteous aspect that rears its head at times - like I imagine Froome sees zero wrong with what happened before Ventoux. Today he apparently was speaking quite sternly with Aru regarding Astana pushing the pace hard, & asking Aru to explain his tactics to Froome. "Who the f... do you think you are!?" would seem the right response.

Similarly when Contador attacked on a descent Froome's first TdF win, Froome though over 5 minutes ahead, followed the attack & then shouted abuse at Contador after he crashed that the attack was dangerous. He continued to complain to the media about this afterwards. Again, to me that's a pretty megalomaniacal side in terms of thinking he has the right to be in control of what his rivals are allowed to do. Contador on the ground of course hurt to some degree, risking whatever long shot to try to fight for the race, & there's Froome shouting abuse at him. Noone made you follow his wheel, Chris. It's a bloody race.

Most else I'd add would simply be elaborating on points of BlaaMan's. Trying again to be fair though, to a degree the negative points can be put in the light of simply hoping for excitement. Despite what I've said though I don't have any great personal emotional reaction to Froome, & I far more dislike Sky in the sense of the Murdoch empire thing; and simply in terms of racing the simple fact of their huge budget allied to having the clear strongest rider makes them so in control of the racing that time & again they can strangle all the life from the racing. Like people keep saying of whoever, & often even somewhat contemptuously, "Why doesn't so-and-so attack?" Well unless in amazing form we saw what tends to happen - like with Quintana on Ventoux. The Sky domestiques don't panic but just swallow you up. And this is against the best riders & climbers in the world.

Having said all that, twas great to see the unexpected way he raced for not big gains in this race. But then that's what people want: off-the-cuff excitement whereas Sky unfortunately are so crazy strong & in support of the strongest rider, they tend to be the very people who negate all the excitement.

whacker00

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

* Their racing tactics also make for pretty awful viewing.
* his comfort break to falsely neutralise the race before Ventoux on Friday endear him to no-one, IMO, this has Sky's fingerprints all over it, not a Froome tactic, but straight from Brailsford.

That's for starters.....

I think that's it, SKY have a serious team and control everything with numbers it's just robotic and does not lend to great viewing - hence the dislike from many people and especially the cycling purists. Everyone wants to see the constant attacks and entertainment on the climbs .I have huge respect and awe for how they control the race on these climbs but it's just makes it very boring viewing.

I'm not sure why Movistar haven't attacked more as they always seem to have numbers at the end but it seems Quintana is not in great form or does not have the tactical knowledge to try something or maybe it's the D.S , probably the earlier from his showing on ventoux

The Giro and Vuelta have been far more entertaining in recent years

TheBlaaMan

If further proof was needed of the anaesthetic impact that Sky's tactic have on the race:

https://twitter.com/willfoth/status/754761216300646404


If a (banned for doping) rider like Valverde is saying these things, then it seems unlikely that things will change in this tour to enable a more interesting contest

Someone else was making the point tonight that it was a shame to see (Sky) guys who could and should be contesting for the win - if they were with any other team, that is - on a stage such as today simply riding on the front of the peloton to suffocate any chance of an attack on Froomes position. Wout Poels rode for an extended period at over 430watts apparently......:eek:

Burial.

Poels casually sipping on a can of Coke whilst dropping known climbers today took the biscuit for me tbh. You just cannot compete with the money being pumped into Sky. I mean you have Landa, a guy who was arguably the best out and out climber of 2015 being a casual dom. If one lad had a bad day or crashes, there's three more to step in. Landa, Poels, Henao and Thomas all are worthy of leading their own team. And that's ignoring the likes of Nieve and Kwiatiwowski. I don't know how anyone can support it. It's ridiculous.

omri

Can someone explain then: with sprint you got a lead out train that pushes hard making things more aero for the main sprinter who conserves energy for the final push plus all the little confusion when the front riders are peeling out. When on a climb Froome has few guys pushing hard what does it do to him? Is it purely psychological thing that if guy infront puts big effort I can focus my eye on his wheel and put same effort without any energy cost? If so what is stopping the other gc contenders benefiting from skys train in a way Froome does. Apart from perhaps loosing their minor places in the gc if sky sends someone to attack. Surely Contadors goal was the yellow jersey, same with Quintana. Is it the case that other big guys are not strong enough or just more concerned about their top 10 places and not willing to go for the yellow.

Brian?

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

I hope he doesn't at this stage TBH. His performance over the two weeks so far had been ultra conservative to the point of boring, and while he may be sandbagging waiting to pounce in week 3, it has been awful to watch. I thought Froome had no panache? Quintana makes Froome look interesting and aggressive, and that takes some doing........ :cool:

I want anyone else to win at this stage, certainly not Quintana with the performance he has put out so far.

Quintana attacked on Ventoux and then exploded. He's not being conservative, he doesn't have the legs.

Brian?

Sky are the like the Man City and Chelsea of cycling combined. They have enough money to skim the best talent and not even use them in the Tour.

irishrover99

Burial. wrote: »

Poels casually sipping on a can of Coke whilst dropping known climbers today took the biscuit for me tbh. You just cannot compete with the money being pumped into Sky. I mean you have Landa, a guy who was arguably the best out and out climber of 2015 being a casual dom. If one lad had a bad day or crashes, there's three more to step in. Landa, Poels, Henao and Thomas all are worthy of leading their own team. And that's ignoring the likes of Nieve and Kwiatiwowski. I don't know how anyone can support it. It's ridiculous.

I seen Poels drinking that can and straight away i was thinking,I wonder what Greg Lemond was saying when he seen that.

terrydel

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

I hope he doesn't at this stage TBH. His performance over the two weeks so far had been ultra conservative to the point of boring, and while he may be sandbagging waiting to pounce in week 3, it has been awful to watch. I thought Froome had no panache? Quintana makes Froome look interesting and aggressive, and that takes some doing........ :cool:

I want anyone else to win at this stage, certainly not Quintana with the performance he has put out so far.

The first week was good and interesting, but I'd put that down to it will well planned out by the organisers rather than the riders making it by their actions.
As soon as Froome gets into yellow its over, and that's been the case for his previous wins, and Wiggins win with Sky also. Not having a go at Sky, but their calculated, tactical approach is ruining the race. Everything is planned out before hand to a ridiculous degree, its like American football now in that every move or 'play' is set out before it actually takes place.
I prefer the Giro for a number of reasons, mainly that I simply prefer Italy, the climbs are better imho (cos the poor old Italians cant build the kind of mountain road passes the more affluent French can afford!) and that Sky don't take it as seriously and ruin it with their TdeF approach.
Movistar have to take a lot of blame too, given they've the best pure climber in the world and are more conservative than Maggie bleedin Thatcher!
I wish we had the old days of solo breakaways that when caught, they have another go. Pure madness! But great fun.

terrydel

Brian? wrote: »

Sky are the like the Man City and Chelsea of cycling combined. They have enough money to skim the best talent and not even use them in the Tour.

And sod all history of success too.
Unlike the toffees eh?!

Tigerandahalf

Given that the tour is 3 weeks it is hard to expect huge excitement on every stage. For most of the GC riders I would imagine they want to conserve as much energy as they can and hang in there in the peleton until a chance might present itself.

Given that the forecast could be very hot for France this week you would never know what might happen yet.

As for Froome being unsightly on the bike surely that is a good thing. Not everyone can look good on a bike and he is showing that you don't have to be a certain type of build to be good at it.

As for Sky and its money that problem is in every sport. Soccer and rugby union have had wealthy investors come in and change the landscape.

pelevin

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

As for Sky and its money that problem is in every sport. Soccer and rugby union have had wealthy investors come in and change the landscape.

Tobh for that very reason I find club soccer at the higher levels a sick joke. Wayne Rooney warns more in one week than the UK prime minister does in 2 years. There's a society that has a good handle on things, & worthy of serious respect.

Just to add, Froome's unsightliness is a very minor point compared to others all right. Sky's ability to total suffocate the racing is far more damning in terms of for me negative impact & killing of the desire to watch even supposedly the big stages.

pelevin

omri wrote: »

Can someone explain then: with sprint you got a lead out train that pushes hard making things more aero for the main sprinter who conserves energy for the final push plus all the little confusion when the front riders are peeling out. When on a climb Froome has few guys pushing hard what does it do to him? Is it purely psychological thing that if guy infront puts big effort I can focus my eye on his wheel and put same effort without any energy cost? If so what is stopping the other gc contenders benefiting from skys train in a way Froome does. Apart from perhaps loosing their minor places in the gc if sky sends someone to attack. Surely Contadors goal was the yellow jersey, same with Quintana. Is it the case that other big guys are not strong enough or just more concerned about their top 10 places and not willing to go for the yellow.

But the pace is too hard for them to be able to meaningfully attack. A big surplus of energy is expended to try to get out of that group but that energy can't be sustained, and generally the attacker is simply caught by the Sky train & is now quite a bit worse off in terms of the finite reserves he has to finish the stage.

Froome is the strongest in the race & so his super-domestiques dictate what he wants, when he wants. If he wasn't the strongest it could all be to no avail like in the 2014 Vuelta where Contador with a far weaker team still beat him. Racing isn't or shouldn't be wholly about physiological superiority - though it is much more the case in 3 week racing than other forms, & is obviously where Sky have excelled. They've been known as tactically simplistic & unsubtle - reducing racing as far as possible to a lowest common denominator of pure physical superiority, & with their tactic of riding hard at the front with super-strong riders negating all possibility of unknown variables entering the equation - variables like attacks, counter-attacks, which attacks to chase down, etc.

Thus even though Froome must have felt his own strength & had no reason to fear anyone, before Ventoux after the crash involving Sky dom's, he forces a slowdown as otherwise the unknown variables were much higher, Sky were no longer so in control of what could happen.

To add, if you haven't really seen racing where it's comparatively free and uncontrolled, there's simply no comparison in terms of the pleasure & excitement it gives - as Froome himself gave tasters of earlier in the race.

irishrover99

pelevin wrote: »

Sky's ability to total suffocate the racing is far more damning in terms of for me negative impact & killing of the desire to watch even supposedly the big stages.

Let's be fair. It happens in one race per year and that's the Tour and maybe the Dauphine before. I've never seen them completely control another stage race.

I think this i can be solved by the UCI. Ban power meters from grand tours. F1 always change the rules when a team becomes too dominant that it affects the viewing. The UCI seem to stand by like deers in the headlights.

When was the last time a GC contender broke away over 3 Cols for a great victory, Andy Schlek in 2011?
Something has to be done but more than likely won't.

terrydel

irishrover99 wrote: »

Let's be fair. It happens in one race per year and that's the Tour and maybe the Dauphine before. I've never seen them completely control another stage race.

I think this i can be solved by the UCI. Ban power meters from grand tours. F1 always change the rules when a team becomes too dominant that it affects the viewing. The UCI seem to stand by like deers in the headlights.

When was the last time a GC contender broke away over 3 Cols for a great victory, Andy Schlek in 2011?
Something has to be done but more than likely won't.

What would banning power meters achieve? Serious qs, as I'm not really up on the benefits or otherwise of using them.

pelevin

irishrover99 wrote: »

Let's be fair. It happens in one race per year and that's the Tour and maybe the Dauphine before. I've never seen them completely control another stage race.

I think this i can be solved by the UCI. Ban power meters from grand tours. F1 always change the rules when a team becomes too dominant that it affects the viewing. The UCI seem to stand by like deers in the headlights.

When was the last time a GC contender broke away over 3 Cols for a great victory, Andy Schlek in 2011?
Something has to be done but more than likely won't.

I definitely agree with the banning of power meters. Blatantly ridiculous that they are used outside of training imo. Smaller teams & more of them would surely be a help in the manner of racing. Nine man teams in what is to a large extent about single riders - in gc anyway - seems serious overkill in a team's manpower.

Tigerandahalf

irishrover99 wrote: »

When was the last time a GC contender broke away over 3 Cols for a great victory, Andy Schlek in 2011?
Something has to be done but more than likely won't.

Wasn't Schlek convicted of doping?

I'd seriously wonder about any fella doing a solo break if he was in GC contention. The energy required to do that and then to turn up the following day and put in another decent effort is huge.

Froome just seems to have a huge ability advantage over the others. Swap him with Dan Martin and he would still win it out.

Weepsie

That was the other Schlek who was banned.

pelevin

irishrover99 wrote: »

Let's be fair. It happens in one race per year and that's the Tour and maybe the Dauphine before. I've never seen them completely control another stage race.

I think this i can be solved by the UCI. Ban power meters from grand tours. F1 always change the rules when a team becomes too dominant that it affects the viewing. The UCI seem to stand by like deers in the headlights.

When was the last time a GC contender broke away over 3 Cols for a great victory, Andy Schlek in 2011?
Something has to be done but more than likely won't.

I am talking more or less specifically about the Tour here though where Sky have much their strongest assembled team. TO add though to the earlier response I'm not talking about improbable wins from very far out by GC contenders, more that the GC contenders are racing against each other without nearly all of what we see determined by the super-strong domestiques. The Giro this year for instance was more or less about the main men one-on-one against each other. From my admittedly sketchy memory, Scarponi from Astana was the only real guy doing domestique duties who could have been riding for himself & making a difference.

irishrover99

terrydel wrote: »

What would banning power meters achieve? Serious qs, as I'm not really up on the benefits or otherwise of using them.

It stops riders from going into the red and using all of their energy. They ride to a set power and stick to it unless someone attacks and then they up it slightly knowing they will pull the rider back eventually.

Valerde said sky ride at the front of the peloton at the power most riders attack at so without using a power meter, the sky riders would have to ride on feel alone and most likely run out of energy and not be able to control the race as long.

terrydel

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Wasn't Schlek convicted of doping?

I'd seriously wonder about any fella doing a solo break if he was in GC contention. The energy required to do that and then to turn up the following day and put in another decent effort is huge.

See Landis, Floyd!

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Froome just seems to have a huge ability advantage over the others. Swap him with Dan Martin and he would still win it out.

Wasn't that a huge part of the scepticism surrounding Armstrong, that he seemingly was hugely superior in ability to the best of the best who themselves were juiced up?!

Darkglasses

I'd propose shorter stages as more conducive to more entertaining racing than banning PMs. Regardless of the technology, you can't get around the fact that Sky are comfortably the strongest team in the peloton. Shorter stages would make aggressive, attacking racing more likely to succeed than needlessly long, and typically dull stages like the recent example.

PeadarCo

Darkglasses wrote:

I'd propose shorter stages as more conducive to more entertaining racing than banning PMs. Regardless of the technology, you can't get around the fact that Sky are comfortably the strongest team in the peloton. Shorter stages would make aggressive, attacking racing more likely to succeed than needlessly long, and typically dull stages like the recent example.

Banning power metres would be regressive technological advances like that should be welcomed as they help rider's perform to the best of their ability. In addition to shorter stages why not reduce team size by one or two rider's and replace those rider's with extra teams. Smaller teams would make it harder to control a race over 3 weeks. Extra teams would mean more competition every day.

pelevin

PeadarCo wrote: »

Banning power metres would be regressive technological advances like that should be welcomed as they help rider's perform to the best of their ability. In addition to shorter stages why not reduce team size by one or two rider's and replace those rider's with extra teams. Smaller teams would make it harder to control a race over 3 weeks. Extra teams would mean more competition every day.

I agree with the smaller teams idea & DG's shorter stages also but disagree with the power metres. Feel should be an intrinsic aspect of racing imo, the athlete gauging his own efforts unaided. 'Technological advances' isn't imo at all a given good in many senses in sport. That's confusing "Progress" with sport. For instance if all team sports, the players were on teh equivalent of race radio to their team manager . . . one could argue that's optimising efficiency but it's not supposed to be the equivalent of a production line with the highest standards of efficiency. Sport is supposed to be something much more human than that.

Darkglasses

What team sports are there where the team members cannot communicate with management?

Honestly my worry is that removing well-established "crutches" would just lead to more conservative approaches. Fully agree with the smaller teams suggestion, as long as the stages are made equally less long and difficult. I believe adding even more difficulty would only lead to increased doping.

pelevin

Darkglasses wrote: »

What team sports are there where the team members cannot communicate with management?

Honestly my worry is that removing well-established "crutches" would just lead to more conservative approaches. Fully agree with the smaller teams suggestion, as long as the stages are made equally less long and difficult. I believe adding even more difficulty would only lead to increased doping.

I'm talking about a sport like soccer or rugby with the idea of the players miked up to their coaches. That's a self-evidently aberrant thought imo - the sportsmen as mere robots executing their coach's thoughts. I wasn't however really referring to its use in cycling though, just showing the idea of optimising efficiency using technological methods isn't necessarily the highest ideal in sport.

Beasty

I don't think banning anything (that's not already banned!) will improve things. The point is (and this applies to all sports), things improve over time. The benefits Sky get from use of PMs will be replicated elsewhere. Team tactics will also improve by the information relayed by race radio.

If you take all that away what's to stop teams placing people at various places along the stage relaying the same sort of info. You could even get to the stage of messages in/on a bottle/bidon! The more you try and outlaw stuff the more innovative teams become. That's already happening in F1. My view is you just have to accept it and await the next innovation which may shift the balance of power.

Ultimately Sky's dominance is actually down to one factor. They have the best rider in the race.