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

mloc123

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Anyone want to buy some magic beans?

Will they give me a marinal gain?

DonegalBay

Weepsie wrote: »

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)

Seriously no, his progression is not similar to other GT contenders at all.

Look at some of his rivals.

Quintana 2nd Debut Tour: Age 22
Bardet: 15th Debut Tour: Age 22/ 6th age 23
Pinot: 10th Debut Tour(1 stage win): Age 22
Porte: 7th Debut GT Giro, pink for 3 days: Age 25 came late from triathlon
Kwiatowski: 11th Tour debut: Age 23
Kruiswijk: 8th Giro: Age 24
Nibali had 4 Top 20 finishes in GTs by age 24 including 6th in the Tour.



Of the others who didn't have amazing Tour debuts.

Dumoulin 3rd World Championship TT: Age 23
3 Top 5 finishes in World Tour stage races: Age 23
6th Vuelta age 24

Roglic: Only started cycling in 2012
Giro stage in first year as pro, Tour stage win as 2nd year pro, 3 Top 5 finishes in Worlds Tour stage races, 2nd World Championships TT all as 2nd year pro.

Landa is probably the only other top GT contender who didn't have major results before he finished 3rd at the Giro aged 25. His early results were still better than Froome though.

So by age 26, four years as pro. Froome's best/only result at World Tour level was 15th at the Tour of Romandy age 26. Then, BOOM, 2nd in the Vuelta having worked his butt off for Wiggins.

How is that in anyway similar to nearly all his rivals who showed some level of talent at an early age.

Edit: How could I forget, Thomas, best GT result 15th aged 27. The other exception to the rule of showing Tour talent early.

Lumen

DonegalBay wrote: »

Edit: How could I forget, Thomas, best GT result 15th aged 27. The other exception to the rule of showing Tour talent early.

Yeah, but he did get an Olympic gold at 22, at the same age the rivals you document were GT racing.

DonegalBay

Lumen wrote: »

Yeah, but he did get an Olympic gold at 22, at the same age the rivals you document were GT racing.

Well, the team pursuit was not exactly where you normally looked to find future Tour winners. He did ride 7 GTs between 2007-14, best placing 22nd in 2014.

Macy0161

DonegalBay wrote:

Well, the team pursuit was not exactly where you normally looked to find future Tour winners. He did ride 7 GTs between 2007-14, best placing 22nd in 2014.

It is an "endurance" track race though. Plus his performances in week long stage races in the meantime.

Lumen

DonegalBay wrote: »

Well, the team pursuit was not exactly where you normally looked to find future Tour winners.

No, because track cycling is technically amateur and traditionally underfunded and overlooked. It's a bit like casting aspersions at Katie Taylor because she didn't show any professional boxing prowess until the age of 30.

DonegalBay wrote: »

He did ride 7 GTs between 2007-14, best placing 22nd in 2014.

He was a track cyclist until he the 2008 Olympics, so it's hardly surprising he had nothing up to and including the 2008 season.

In 2009 he broke his pelvis and then continued on the track.
In 2010 he joined Sky but continued riding classics and track through to 2013.
And so on.

I think the comparison with the likes of Quintana is an interesting straw man but not particularly enlightening. They're completely different types of cyclists, and the TdF has rarely been a race for pure climbers.

Look at Quintana in 2013 when he came 2nd in the TdF. He lost 3 1/2 minutes on stage 11 (flat ITT) and over a minute on stage 17 (hilly ITT). You cannot win the TdF with those kind of TT performances.

But if Quintana somehow managed a win, I bet there'd be people saying wasn't it great that a proper climber had won the TdF like they ought to, which is a complete misunderstanding of the sort of race it is.

Lusk_Doyle

So the message is that basically if you didn't show early signs of promise as a "youngster" then you must be a charlatan.

Macy0161

Lusk_Doyle wrote:

So the message is that basically if you didn't show early signs of promise as a "youngster" then you must be a charlatan.

It's moved on. It's if you didn't show the right type of promise...

DonegalBay

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

So the message is that basically if you didn't show early signs of promise as a "youngster" then you must be a charlatan.

Pretty much in a nutshell. But, you know what, this is not some pie in the sky stuff pulled from thin air, this is the history of the sport which a lot of people here seem to be seriously lacking in. Hinault, LeMond, Fignon, Roche, Delgado and pretty much every Tour winner ever all showed potential as possible Tour winners as youngsters. They gave some indication of their talent from a young age. Then that changed in the 90s, you suddenly had guys like Indurain, Riis, Bugno, Chiappucci and most famously Lance morphing into GT winners at an older age, we also seen plenty of guys suddenly become contenders at a later age. It was a break from the historical norm, guess what also ties those guys together?

More recently we have seen a return to potential Tour winners showing talent to do so from a young age. The exceptions, Froome, Wiggins and Thomas. Froome is a complete and utter anomaly. He had the worst palmares of any rider who then became a GT contender, but has become one of the greats. That is why he is viewed with such skepticism. May seem harsh to fans who have come to the sport in the last 10 years, but his progression curve is so out of whack with what was considered normal, it is ridiculous.

People want to point out that Wiggins and Thomas showed talent on the track. Grand. But, once again, there is no historical precedent for pursuit riders turning into Tour contenders. Riding a 4k track event is not in anyway relatable to a GT. I listed before a load of track riders who also competed on the road. Some like Boardman, Piasecki were bloody good roadmen. Boardman was famous for the track, but he was also probably the best road rider in the British amateur scene in the early 90s. Never came near being GT contenders, but Boardman in particular had some great results on the road. 2nd in Dauphine Libere, Tour of Romandy for example.

This is all really simple, without historical precedent for what is happening, there will always be more questions. Riders becoming GT contenders at a later stage are associated with the 90s because that is when it started to become a trend. The fact the they all belong to the same team whom ride in a manner similar to US Postal, but are even better also makes people weary.

Fact is cycling will always be a prisoner of its past and when it has such murky past, there will always be questions when people see parallels with what has gone before. Now maybe some posters have come to the sport more recently, dont really know what has gone before or only know a brief resume. Many only see the glory and believe the SKY propaganda. For us more experienced fans, we already seen this story with the Lance fans.

None of this proves anything, but a lot of people get bent out of shape when people are skeptical of SKY. Fact is they are the No 1 team in a sport with an incredibly dark past and have overseen three of the biggest transformations in the history of the sport, which again based on factual, historical precedent, does not have good connotations.

Before a mod comes in with a doping speculation warning. It is not, it is a breakdown of why so many are skeptical. Perhaps there is nothing nefarious going, but at least people should try to understand those who are more skeptical. I would be interested to know how long some people here have been foĺlowing the sport. I had a look at a few profiles and I see a few have been following cycling for 3-4 years. It gives me a better understanding of what phase that person is in. For me personally, I have followed the sport for 30 years and not just road cycling, perhaps like the rogue Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, I have seen too much.

Weepsie

Can I ask why it's okay for Porte to come from Triathlon and be immediately good? or Roglic from SkiJumping and be immediately good? OR Michael Woods who was one day tearing up Strava, to to being a Pro at 28 and top 10 in Vuelta? Yet it is not okay for gradual and sustained improvements from cyclists who were at an elite level in another discipline for 20 odd years and while continually improving in another?

If Thomas were not at Sky, I don't think anyone would have much of a problem and would be thinking well done him.

letape

^^^Couldn’t agree more DonegalBay

Lumen

DonegalBay wrote: »

I would be interested to know how long some people here have been foĺlowing the sport. I had a look at a few profiles and I see a few have been following cycling for 3-4 years. It gives me a better understanding of what phase that person is in. For me personally, I have followed the sport for 30 years and not just road cycling, perhaps like the rogue Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, I have seen too much.

I've been watching cycling since about 1995 when I first bought a TV, not that it makes any difference to the arguments.

Lusk_Doyle

Lumen wrote: »

I've been watching cycling since about 1995 when I first bought a TV, not that it makes any difference to the arguments.

And I've been watching it since my school holidays as a young teenager when I had real potential. Does that count for something?

Lumen

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

And I've been watching it since my school holidays as a young teenager when I had real potential. Does that count for something?

Handball medals don't count.

Macy0161

Being able to comment is an age and experience thing is it? fwiw I've been watching the Tour since the mid 80's. Following it more year around since the early 90's through the magazines and then when we got cable/ eurosport mid 90's. Given the era that was my formative years in following the sport, I think I'm pretty realistic/ have an appropriate level of sceptism about the sport.

I don't see anything wrong with Thomas's trajectory to winning the tour. He showed early promise on the road, but was swallowed up by the UK track system - who know's what he might have done on the road but for that. His transition from that to where he is now is entirely believable to me. Similar tour set up, in which he did a lot of work, he was 4th deep into the third week (and he didn't just crack, once he couldn't hang on, he sat up). If anything, I'm a bit relieved it's worked out for him, as I thought it was a mistake for him to focus on the grand tours when he had so much classics potential.

Boardman was lined up to be a Grand Tour GC contender - the reason he couldn't compete despite his week long stage race results wasn't necessarily to do with his physical characteristics or capabilities, more that he wasn't prepared to do what was necessary to compete over 3 weeks in the era he raced. Saying Boardman couldn't do it the EPO era, so why should Thomas be able to do it in a cleaner era, is a bit of strawman for me tbh.

I don't "believe" in any rider 100%, just I don't believe this is an unbelievable or extraordinary turnaround in a career - it's been a believable path, for me.

Hurrache

Take a look at the wider picture. It was only this year that a British parliamentary committee investigating the team found that Sky had crossed ethical lines when it came to drug use (such as the use of corticosteroids) and maintaining their medical records. Sky haven't changed their methods, and you then have Thomas coming along, dramatic weight loss across the team, yet they maintain, if not increase their endurance and power.

You'd be the odd one out if you weren't sceptical.

I too have been watching the tours since the 80s, but this year I watched very very little. WWE would give me more a thrill.

Lumen

Hurrache wrote: »

You'd be the odd one out if you weren't sceptical.

But there is not really any more reason to be skeptical of Thomas at Sky than Valverde or Quintana at Movistar or anyone or Astana or whoever else. I think it's generally accepted that Sky have at least flown extremely close to the sun w.r.t rule-bending on TUEs, but I don't know that they're doing anything other well-funded teams aren't. Which isn't any kind of excuse.

In this tour the leading GC contenders all looked very evenly matched. Probably what got it for Thomas was the tedious Sky train, but they have some incredibly strong riders.

Look at their roster, it's ridiculous.

https://www.procyclingstats.com/team/team-sky-2018

They have so much quality they can afford to rest the superdomestiques and then control everything in the mountains.

For me, there is more interesting discussion to be had about the incredible power/funding imbalances (where at information is out in the open) than there is about doping, on which nobody has anything but speculation.

Macy0161

Hurrache wrote: »

You'd be the odd one out if you weren't sceptical.

Again, I would say that narrative ignores his progress. It wasn't Track - Classics - Tour win with nothing in between. It was steady progress from track to classics to week long stage races to more prestigious stage races - to Grand Tour leadership.

Lumen wrote: »

In this tour the leading GC contenders all looked very evenly matched. Probably what got it for Thomas was the tedious Sky train, but they have some incredibly strong riders.

And (amazingly given his record) he was the only one to not lose any time on any stage due punctures/ crashes/ penalties.

Lumen wrote: »

For me, there is more interesting discussion to be had about the incredible power/funding imbalances (where at information is out in the open) than there is about doping, on which nobody has anything but speculation.

Definitely- right up to the last mountain, 3 Sky in the group when the rest of the favourites were long left to their own devices. And it's not just in terms of riders, but in the whole support team and infrastructure they have. The difference isn't doping, it's money, imo.

Sky are, rightly, subject to higher standards due to what they said they'd do and act, and the ethical standards they said they'd live up to. Even the parliamentary enquiry was really because of the blurred lines with them and British Cycling, which opened the door to that.

DonegalBay

Weepsie wrote: »

Can I ask why it's okay for Porte to come from Triathlon and be immediately good? or Roglic from SkiJumping and be immediately good? OR Michael Woods who was one day tearing up Strava, to to being a Pro at 28 and top 10 in Vuelta? Yet it is not okay for gradual and sustained improvements from cyclists who were at an elite level in another discipline for 20 odd years and while continually improving in another?

If Thomas were not at Sky, I don't think anyone would have much of a problem and would be thinking well done him.

I would say coming from a different sport and making it to the the top in 3-4 years is a sign of incredible talent. I think we all know people who can start a sport and just be incredible from the go. That is not to say there is more to it than that. If you have that talent, it will manifest itself pretty quickly. It shouldn't take 10 years to show. Yes, athletes can improve over time, but not a huge amount. I would say Dan Martin has improved in GTs over the years, but again that talent was always there and Tours with little to no TT miles(as is currently the trend) favour his type of rider. Put in long TTs again and I think he would be struggling to break top 15/20.

How Thomas differs is that he always rode on the road, he was a Junior Paris-Roubaix winner. He was never 'just' a trackie. He took part in the Tour in his first year as a pro. Between the Olympics in 08 and 12, he rode primarily on the road, that is how he made his living. He has been focused on the road since 2012. He focused on the cobbled classics as that where his strengths were deemed to fit. Again, generally speaking, the cobbled classic riders don't tend to be future Tour winners or even contenders in the modern era. Ardennes Classics, that is where you are more likely to find the Tour contenders, but Thomas either didn't shine there or didn't ride them.

I would say Thomas is more believable than Wiggins or Froome(well everyone is more believable than Froome). It is just a very unusual career path. Track rider-cobbled classic rider-Domestique-Tour Winner. As I said before, if he always had the talent to win the Tour, he wasted a large part of his career(riding cobbles where he never actually won much), then acting as a domestique before belatedly realising he could contend. Usually, once most guys realise they can contend GTs, they want to become team leader, thinking back to the likes of Hamilton and Landis, and more recently Porte and Landa. But, from what I know about Thomas, he seems to be low on the ego front so may he just didn't fancy it.

It is still very weird route to becoming a Tour winner at 32.