Tour de France 2018, July 27, Stage 19: Lourdes > Laruns

irishrover99

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I also hate their tactics, but they haven't needed a rider in a break at all in this tour, would have been a bit stupid to put someone up the road

Perhaps for entertainment value?

eeeee

Belgium is the top cycling nation in the world? Based on what? It has a fabulous cycling history to be sure, particularly on track actually (see Ghent 6 day, and most of the other 6 days). France, Italy and Spain can all lay claim to that title.

Australia heap money into track, as do China (see their womens' TP squads). Denmark, all the major countries fund their track squads. See the dominance of French track sprinters in the 00's for example (Pervis, Tournant, Bauge).
Track has a much smaller audience for sure, but the quality and level of racing is the same.

Personally I love the classics, they're the only really interesting road races out there on the road IMO, GT's are quite boring bar in fits and starts and have a bit of a 'who ever has the most money wins' yawn fest about them.
On track you can have a few surprises at the highest level, depending on smartness and tactical nous (as well as pure strength obviously). The 2013 World Scratch champion was an Irish man called Martin Irvine The racing is waaaaaaaaay faster, more tactical, intense, tighter and exciting. There's no comparison. And it's infinitely more exciting and entertaining to do as well.
I started on track (racing wise). I'll never forget my first road race, it went on for so long, it was way slower and so boring. Road races still bore me, but I enjoy them a bit more now because of it. You don't have to exercise the brain a tenth as much as you do on track! And the conditioning you get off it is good if you're an endurance trackie.

I mainly watch and follow GT's and road cycling because it's the only kind of cycling that accessible media wise. And within that I am more interested in the women's than the mens, but good luck trying to watch women's cycling live most of the time.

equivariant

DonegalBay wrote: »

I guess the question is this, if you have the potential to win the biggest event in all of cycling, why would you waste most of your career riding track, which despite what the Brits might think, is a minor niche area of the sport compared to road cycling. How many Tours could Thomas have won if he had focused on GTs all his career or at least from his early 20s?

Bit like staying in the League of Ireland when you could be playing in the Premier League or La Liga etc. Hardly seems logical.

1. Why would anyone think that riding track is a waste, no matter what else you might be doing? A lot of people really love riding track. I really don't get this whole thing that the tour is only thing that counts.

2. As to how many tours he could have won? Probably the same as he has. Its not like you can just rock up to Brailsford and just announce "right I've decided to win the tour, so I'm going to be leader". He put in the time riding for Froome just like Froome did for Wiggins and so on. He had to earn his right to be a protected rider.

3. This particular Tour was well suited him. I don't think that he will be a multiple grand tour winner. At least I don't see him winning more than 2 grand tours. Could be wrong but that's my guess

4. Its really not like playing LOI if you could play La Liga. In that case its exactly the same sport at a higher level. Track cycling and road cycling require different training regimes and different skill sets even if you have the physical talent to do well at both.

DonegalBay

nee wrote: »

Belgium is the top cycling nation in the world? Based on what? It has a fabulous cycling history to be sure, particularly on track actually (see Ghent 6 day, and most of the other 6 days). France, Italy and Spain can all lay claim to that title.

Australia heap money into track, as do China (see their womens' TP squads). Denmark, all the major countries fund their track squads. See the dominance of French track sprinters in the 00's for example (Pervis, Tournant, Bauge).
Track has a much smaller audience for sure, but the quality and level of racing is the same.

Personally I love the classics, they're the only really interesting road races out there on the road IMO, GT's are quite boring bar in fits and starts and have a bit of a 'who ever has the most money wins' yawn fest about them.
On track you can have a few surprises at the highest level, depending on smartness and tactical nous (as well as pure strength obviously). The 2013 World Scratch champion was an Irish man called Martin Irvine The racing is waaaaaaaaay faster, more tactical, intense, tighter and exciting. There's no comparison. And it's infinitely more exciting and entertaining to do as well.
I started on track (racing wise). I'll never forget my first road race, it went on for so long, it was way slower and so boring. Road races still bore me, but I enjoy them a bit more now because of it. You don't have to exercise the brain a tenth as much as you do on track! And the conditioning you get off it is good if you're an endurance trackie.

I mainly watch and follow GT's and road cycling because it's the only kind of cycling that accessible media wise. And within that I am more interested in the women's than the mens, but good luck trying to watch women's cycling live most of the time.

Seriously?? Belgium is the only country in the world I can think of where cycling comes close to rivaling the main top sport in terms of popularity. In Flanders, it might even be level or above football. Cycling is like a religion to the Flemish and there are very few places that can be said off. Yes there are the six-day races, but until recent years(last 10 years) they were more like training events for riders in the winter. Back in the day Stephen Roche rode them to keep in shape over the winter. That is how Roche screwed his knee when he crashed. Fignon, LeMond, Mottet, Duclos-Lassalle and plenty others rode track in winter. Doesn't really happen anymore as it has become more specialised.

You may love track, however reality is track and cyclo-cross/mtb are essentially niche areas of cycling in terms of interest and popularity. As for BMX....

DonegalBay

equivariant wrote: »

1. Why would anyone think that riding track is a waste, no matter what else you might be doing? A lot of people really love riding track. I really don't get this whole thing that the tour is only thing that counts.

2. As to how many tours he could have won? Probably the same as he has. Its not like you can just rock up to Brailsford and just announce "right I've decided to win the tour, so I'm going to be leader". He put in the time riding for Froome just like Froome did for Wiggins and so on. He had to earn his right to be a protected rider.

3. This particular Tour was well suited him. I don't think that he will be a multiple grand tour winner. At least I don't see him winning more than 2 grand tours. Could be wrong but that's my guess

4. Its really not like playing LOI if you could play La Liga. In that case its exactly the same sport at a higher level. Track cycling and road cycling require different training regimes and different skill sets even if you have the physical talent to do well at both.

1. If the track is equal to the Tour, then why would Wiggins or Thomas even bother with trying to win the Tour? Why not just stick to the track then? There must be some reason why they switched codes?

2. Well, when the SKY team were first announced 2009, one of their stated aims was to win Le Tour with a British rider within five years. Funny enough at the time, the rider who was considered most likely to fit that bill was Dan Martin and he was already riding with Ireland. Not Thomas, not Froome, not Wiggins. I think most just laughed at the idea at the time as there was nobody on the horizon who fitted the bill. There was a window there for Thomas to make his stake as a Tour contender. Unfortunately for him , the magical transformations of Wiggins and Froome happened.

3. As Thomas is 32, it will probably be a single Tour win, plus Froome might be more hesitant to attempt the double again, so will probably be back to full strength next year.

4. It is in terms of popularity and prestige, and I say that as someone who prefers the classics as well. I even prefer the other two GTs over the Tour, but as they say Le Tour is le Tour, the biggest, most prestigious event in cycling. If you have the potential to win it, why aim for anything less? Thomas got his Olympic gold medal in 2008, he could have easily focused on the road after that.

equivariant

DonegalBay wrote: »

1. If the track is equal to the Tour, then why would Wiggins or Thomas even bother with trying to win the Tour? Why not just stick to the track then? There must be some reason why they switched codes?

2. Well, when the SKY team were first announced 2009, one of their stated aims was to win Le Tour with a British rider within five years. Funny enough at the time, the rider who was considered most likely to fit that bill was Dan Martin and he was already riding with Ireland. Not Thomas, not Froome, not Wiggins. I think most just laughed at the idea at the time as there was nobody on the horizon who fitted the bill. There was a window there for Thomas to make his stake as a Tour contender. Unfortunately for him , the magical transformations of Wiggins and Froome happened.

3. As Thomas is 32, it will probably be a single Tour win, plus Froome might be more hesitant to attempt the double again, so will probably be back to full strength next year.

4. It is in terms of popularity and prestige, and I say that as someone who prefers the classics as well. I even prefer the other two GTs over the Tour, but as they say Le Tour is le Tour, the biggest, most prestigious event in cycling. If you have the potential to win it, why aim for anything less? Thomas got his Olympic gold medal in 2008, he could have easily focused on the road after that.

I'm not even sure what your argument is here. Thomas winning the tour is suspicious because he didn't do it sooner?

I'm guessing that he focused on track because he really liked track racing at that time - I don't see the issue. Maybe he likes both kind of racing and wanted to focus on different things at different times - it's not that strange. Lots of people want to be good at multiple things and not just specialise in the most popular.

TBH the amount of nonsense on this thread about Sky and their riders is ridiculous. Claiming that Thomas career trajectory is somehow evidence of skullduggery strikes me as tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff. Why bother even watching if someone like him is not allowed to win a grand tour?

Yeah it's like claiming a niche sportsman and 3 time Cyclo cross world champ Wout Van Aert can't compete credibly on the road without questions being asked

Eamonnator

Lawson Craddock is some man for one man.
I don't know, how he has managed to hang in for the past three weeks.
My man of the Tour.

DonegalBay

equivariant wrote: »

I'm not even sure what your argument is here. Thomas winning the tour is suspicious because he didn't do it sooner?

I'm guessing that he focused on track because he really liked track racing at that time - I don't see the issue. Maybe he likes both kind of racing and wanted to focus on different things at different times - it's not that strange. Lots of people want to be good at multiple things and not just specialise in the most popular.

TBH the amount of nonsense on this thread about Sky and their riders is ridiculous. Claiming that Thomas career trajectory is somehow evidence of skullduggery strikes me as tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff. Why bother even watching if someone like him is not allowed to win a grand tour?

Perhaps, having had to endure all the crap that has gone on in the sport in the last 20 years, you tend to be cynical.

In the 90s, there was a big change in cycling. Everything that was considered normal kinda changed, guys could suddenly develop at any age, riders were riding up mountains in the big ring, heavier guys were dropping the featherweight climbers in the mountains. Climbers could challenge the TT guys. Everything was turned on its head. We know now that was the EPO generation.

Now we are witnessing something similar, pursuit riders becoming Tour champions. Before Wiggins, Thomas, you have to go back to the 50s/60s for that to have happened, and that was a time of less specialisation. Actually there was Berzin EPO in 94 but he made the road switch young and Moser who barely won the 84 Giro on a course tailored to suit him and with some skulldudgery involved. That was also the year he was blood doping.

But seriously, go through some of the great pursuit riders. Doyle, Orested, Piasecki, Sturgess, Woods, Moreau, Obree, Boardman, Ekimov, Lehmann, all had the same characteristics on the road, good TT riders or rouleurs, not a hope in hell of winning a GT. Brad McGee tried it and made the Top 10 in the Giro once. More recently Bobridge, Hepburn.

So with a lack of precedent, its hard to fathom it happening twice on the same team. Its something new like in the 90s so for those who remember the good oul bad days, its a question of whether we are witnessing something similar or has the sport been so revolutionised. SKY have had 3 of the biggest transformations in the history of the sport and historically speaking they have been the result of one thing.

As an aside, Egan Bernal would be considered the most believable SKY rider, has shown huge climbing talent before he even turned pro and is displaying it at this Tour. A lot of people were annoyed when he signed with SKY as would have been great to see him riding his own race.

DonegalBay

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah it's like claiming a niche sportsman and 3 time Cyclo cross world champ Wout Van Aert can't compete credibly on the road without questions being asked

Well if Van Aert morphs into a Tour champions, there would be some serious questions asked. Again, precedent is the key. Historically cross riders have become classics riders or TT riders, not Tour winners. Stybar, Boom, Adrie Van der Poel, Roger De Vlaeminck. Most don't even make the switch, Van Aert looks good on the road as does Mathieu Van der Poel.

Macy0161

I think Boardman could've, if he was in this era compared to the era he was on the road.

And I wouldn't judge now how van aert or (multi discipline national champion) van der Poel careers may play out yet. Van aert has already shown in hilly classics. If they progress towards grand tours, through week long stage races, then I wouldn't be raising questions JUST because they started in cross, just as JUST because Thomas was good on the track doesn't make it unbelievable for me. Biggest road block for them is probably going to be how important the classics will be for them.

Brian?

DonegalBay wrote: »

Perhaps, having had to endure all the crap that has gone on in the sport in the last 20 years, you tend to be cynical.

In the 90s, there was a big change in cycling. Everything that was considered normal kinda changed, guys could suddenly develop at any age, riders were riding up mountains in the big ring, heavier guys were dropping the featherweight climbers in the mountains. Climbers could challenge the TT guys. Everything was turned on its head. We know now that was the EPO generation.

Now we are witnessing something similar, pursuit riders becoming Tour champions. Before Wiggins, Thomas, you have to go back to the 50s/60s for that to have happened, and that was a time of less specialisation. Actually there was Berzin EPO in 94 but he made the road switch young and Moser who barely won the 84 Giro on a course tailored to suit him and with some skulldudgery involved. That was also the year he was blood doping.

But seriously, go through some of the great pursuit riders. Doyle, Orested, Piasecki, Sturgess, Woods, Moreau, Obree, Boardman, Ekimov, Lehmann, all had the same characteristics on the road, good TT riders or rouleurs, not a hope in hell of winning a GT. Brad McGee tried it and made the Top 10 in the Giro once. More recently Bobridge, Hepburn.

So with a lack of precedent, its hard to fathom it happening twice on the same team. Its something new like in the 90s so for those who remember the good oul bad days, its a question of whether we are witnessing something similar or has the sport been so revolutionised. SKY have had 3 of the biggest transformations in the history of the sport and historically speaking they have been the result of one thing.

As an aside, Egan Bernal would be considered the most believable SKY rider, has shown huge climbing talent before he even turned pro and is displaying it at this Tour. A lot of people were annoyed when he signed with SKY as would have been great to see him riding his own race.

The so called transformations of Wiggins and Thomas are quite believable in my eyes. They went from riding tempo on the track to riding tempo on the road. Sky have done a phenomenal job of improving endurance athletes. It's not as if Wiggins or Thomas transformed from track riders into explosive attacking riders like Contador.

The way Sky win is very simple, but incredibly hard to train for and implement. I hate it, but it's not rocket surgery.

Froome is the exception. He was a **** climber who became a great climber.

rappid

Sky's philosophy was very simple:
1. Find good TT/track/classic specialist a.k.a. Wiggins, Thomas, Kwiatkowski...
2. Thin them down
3. Keep their watts
4. Voila

Chips Lovell

Please read the charter, especially the rule about doping speculation. Thanks.

Lusk_Doyle

Training works wonders. I started doing parkruns again earlier in the year. On Saint Patrick's day to be precise. I recorded 19'45" then and since then I have steadily improved my times down to 18'17". I have a full time job, kids, etc and don't train or eat "properly". A pro athlete can easily improve in 'leaps and bounds' with the proper monitoring and training and diet.

DonegalBay

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Training works wonders. I started doing parkruns again earlier in the year. On Saint Patrick's day to be precise. I recorded 19'45" then and since then I have steadily improved my times down to 18'17". I have a full time job, kids, etc and don't train or eat "properly". A pro athlete can easily improve in 'leaps and bounds' with the proper monitoring and training and diet.

Yeah, I guess nobody figured that out for about 50 years before SKY arrived.

Lusk_Doyle

DonegalBay wrote: »

Yeah, I guess nobody figured that out for about 50 years before SKY arrived.

No need for the sarky retort. Everyone can train. It's how you do it that gives different results.

letape

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Training works wonders. I started doing parkruns again earlier in the year. On Saint Patrick's day to be precise. I recorded 19'45" then and since then I have steadily improved my times down to 18'17". I have a full time job, kids, etc and don't train or eat "properly". A pro athlete can easily improve in 'leaps and bounds' with the proper monitoring and training and diet.

I think this is a silly analogy - you started running and your times came down - no surprise there and I don’t see how that can be applied to cyclists that have been effectively full time living and breathing cycling from their late teens.

Fignon won his first tour at 23, Roche, Lemond, Contador etc etc were winning big races in their first year as a pro and on the podium in their first tour. Froome is the exception - someone with no results for much of his career and then developed to be the best GT rider of his generation. Definitely can’t be put down to the fact that he started training properly.

Lusk_Doyle

letape wrote: »

I think this is a silly analogy - you started running and your times came down - no surprise there and I don’t see how that can be applied to cyclists that have been effectively full time living and breathing cycling from their late teens.

Fignon won his first tour at 23, Roche, Lemond, Contador etc etc were winning big races in their first year as a pro and on the podium in their first tour. Froome is the exception - someone with no results for much of his career and then developed to be the best GT rider of his generation. Definitely can’t be put down to the fact that he started training properly.

"Definitely can't be put down to..."

How can you be so definite about that?

guanciale

^
Froome excepted, many of the Sky riders through the years have credible palmares as juniors through to early pro. Froome is an exception to that.
One wonders if he was left go before the stellar Vuelta would Sky come in for quite the same level of opprobrium. I have no problem believing that with the budget and the application of the letter of the law that they might well have been as successful with the riders that they have.

It is very difficult to find a successful professional athlete on a world stage that is as lacking respect as Chris Froome.

Lusk_Doyle

guanciale wrote: »

It is very difficult to find a successful professional athlete on a world stage that is as lacking respect as Chris Froome.

Justin Gatlin.

dastardly00

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Training works wonders. I started doing parkruns again earlier in the year. On Saint Patrick's day to be precise. I recorded 19'45" then and since then I have steadily improved my times down to 18'17". I have a full time job, kids, etc and don't train or eat "properly". A pro athlete can easily improve in 'leaps and bounds' with the proper monitoring and training and diet.

Wow that's bloody quick Lusk!

Weepsie

Froome finished 83 and 36 in his first TdF and Giro respectively while being on a fairly bad team. He also won and podiumed in a handful of low level races.

From that 36th his progression is remarkably similar to most other GC winners over the course of 4/5 years.

Everyone points to the Giro he was disqualified from to say how he was rubbish, rather than the one the year before where he did well for a crap team and dismisses that he had any sort of potential. Can't say I'm his fan, but the blinkers are well and truly on for most people (as is the way with most sports fans, myself included)

Halloween Jack

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Training works wonders. I started doing parkruns again earlier in the year. On Saint Patrick's day to be precise. I recorded 19'45" then and since then I have steadily improved my times down to 18'17". I have a full time job, kids, etc and don't train or eat "properly". A pro athlete can easily improve in 'leaps and bounds' with the proper monitoring and training and diet.

Your experiences at park run are in no way comparable to the elite end of a pro sport, even as an analogy.

Lusk_Doyle

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Your experiences at park run are in no way comparable to the elite end of a pro sport, even as an analogy.

In your opinion. It's all relative and the point is that concerted effort over time has results. That's a perfectly valid point. I was in no trying to compare a parkrun to an elite professional.

doccy

letape wrote: »

I think this is a silly analogy - you started running and your times came down - no surprise there and I don’t see how that can be applied to cyclists that have been effectively full time living and breathing cycling from their late teens.

Fignon won his first tour at 23, Roche, Lemond, Contador etc etc were winning big races in their first year as a pro and on the podium in their first tour. Froome is the exception - someone with no results for much of his career and then developed to be the best GT rider of his generation. Definitely can’t be put down to the fact that he started training properly.

Lemond and Fignon maybe. Say what you want about Froome but he is far from the exception.

Macy0161

Weepsie wrote:

Everyone points to the Giro he was disqualified from to say how he was rubbish, rather than the one the year before where he did well for a crap team and dismisses that he had any sort of potential. Can't say I'm his fan, but the blinkers are well and truly on for most people (as is the way with most sports fans, myself included)

I prefer to point to the fact that he went into his "breakthrough" Vuelta with no contract offer from Sky, and no interest from anyone else. Sky subsequently said he "always had the numbers", yet didn't see the potential in him to sign him back up on the domestique wages he was on...

mloc123

But sky have explained his sudden huge improvements... He live with that parasitic virus for all those years and never knew... Right? Curing it was the first of his marginal gains.

Lusk_Doyle

mloc123 wrote: »

But sky have explained his sudden huge improvements... He live with that parasitic virus for all those years and never knew... Right? Curing it was the first of his marginal gains.

Like the lady last week on la course. The Danish rider who said that she got her wisdom teeth out and wham, big improvement in form!

Sal Butamol

Anyone want to buy some magic beans?