Road Bike Racing - TDF Organizers want Lance to lose.

Tell me if I am wrong on this. I think the route chosen by the 2004 TDF organizers is designed solely with one purpose in mind and that is, to make sure Lance is defeated. The TTT is early again, and there are only a few mountain stages. They claim there are six, but they're not extremely difficult, so how many are truely considered "mountain stages" by the elite of the elite? The way I see it, the organizers are probably hoping that the Boys in Blue win the TTT and are then too exhausted to help Lance when the the mountains arrive. Leaving Lance on his own against well rested rivals with their well rested teammates. That's how I see it. Am I wrong?

Tell me if I am wrong on this. I think the route chosen by the 2004 TDF organizers is designed solely with one purpose in mind and that is, to make sure Lance is defeated. The TTT is early again, and there are only a few mountain stages. They claim there are six, but they're not extremely difficult, so how many are truely considered "mountain stages" by the elite of the elite? The way I see it, the organizers are probably hoping that the Boys in Blue win the TTT and are then too exhausted to help Lance when the the mountains arrive. Leaving Lance on his own against well rested rivals with their well rested teammates. That's how I see it. Am I wrong?

I can't say for sure, but my gut feeling is you are right. The French are an arrogant people who disdain anything and everything American.

That they would go out of their way to harm Lance's chances to outshine one of their own by winning a world record 6th TDF is not only not surprising, I would be surprised if they didn't try to cheat in any number of ways.

The Posties won the TTT last time and had enough strength to help Lance later on. The mountain time trial suites Lance more than it does Jan.

By most accounts, this course suits Lance very well.

It isn't only the French that would like to see Lance lose, probably every rider other than the posties would like to see the same thing. But Lance, being the strategist he is, will ride and study the course in detail, evaluating his performance and how he feels, and, barring illness or injury, will ride his race that maximizes his assets both team and personal.

Tell me if I am wrong on this. I think the route chosen by the 2004 TDF organizers is designed solely with one purpose in mind and that is, to make sure Lance is defeated.

While I agree that le Tour organizers would like to see Lance fail, I do not agree with your reasoning as to why. The rule change regarding the TTT (the worst team can only lose a maximum of 2.5 minutes to the best team) is one of the silly things they have done to insure that the weak will be in striking distance of Postal and Lance until the end.

Changing the course is one thing - that's done every year. Changing the rules to keep the weak teams and related GC contenders in play is just sad.

This letter summed thngs up pretty well:

I question the logic in the decision by the Tour de France organizers to limit the maximum time a team can lose in the team time trial to two and a half minutes. I understand not wanting some teams that are weak in that discipline to lose large amounts of time. Yet, where is the incentive for teams to push themselves to their max? With the mountains still a week away after the team time trial, the question may be moot since the main riders will have had ample time to recover from that effort. But there are bound to be teams that now will shut down their efforts if they don't envision coming within 2:30 of the top team. While the time gaps may be closer on paper, in reality the gaps to the top teams may in fact grow since some of the lesser teams may save their legs for the coming stages. As long as they finish within the time limit for that day, why should they go harder than need be if they will only lose 2:30?

In the past, some teams with a potential top 10 rider, who are nonetheless weak in the team time trial event, had to include at least a couple of work horses on the team to ensure not losing too much time in that event. Yet they still could only manage times right around the 2:30 mark. Last year Rabobank came in at 2:41 (albeit without Leipheimer); Saeco could only muster 3:02 with Simoni; and Euskatel managed limiting their loss to 3:22 with Zubeldia and Mayo. If Euskatel went nearly all out last year for the Team time trial and still finished 52 seconds slower than the proposed max time loss for next year, why would they put in as much effort for that event in the 2004 Tour? The same can be said for Saeco and Rabobank. These teams might now choose to include a couple of extra climbers, for the later mountain stages, in place of riders previously chosen for the time trial.

The Tour de France may be won by only one person, but it is still a team event. The top teams pick riders that can carry their captains through all stages, including the Team time trial. If the lesser teams don't bring a squad to the Tour that can be competitive in that event, that is their choice and they should suffer the time losses and take it like men. It shouldn't be up to the Tour organizers to level the playing field.

Todd Courtney
Thursday, October 23, 2003

Tell me if I am wrong on this. I think the route chosen by the 2004 TDF organizers is designed solely with one purpose in mind and that is, to make sure Lance is defeated. The TTT is early again, and there are only a few mountain stages. They claim there are six, but they're not extremely difficult, so how many are truely considered "mountain stages" by the elite of the elite? The way I see it, the organizers are probably hoping that the Boys in Blue win the TTT and are then too exhausted to help Lance when the the mountains arrive. Leaving Lance on his own against well rested rivals with their well rested teammates. That's how I see it. Am I wrong?

How could USPS be too exhausted from the TTT while the other teams are well rested? I dont see the logic there. Especially since the TTT is over a week before the real mountains. And with the mountains being late, postal will probably get more rest in the 2nd week than they ever have before.
I figure this course may suit lance because of a lack of real mountains. I think the only times we see him crack are when the gradient gets really high, and there aren't really any high gradients in this tour. Some of these stages do seem like good attacking stages though.... mountains ending just short of the finish...

i'm sure USPS will position themselves well with their selection of riders. the sport should be thanking lance for all the attention internationally he has brought to bike racing.

like lance says: after cancer, everything is easy.

What happened to Mont Ventoux? I thought that it was supposed to be a part of next year's Tour, but I guess it was left out. It's hard to say whether the French really want Lance to loose this time, but I think the TTT rule change is not that bad. The closest rivals would never have a 2 minute gap between them, and winning the stage is more of a prestige thing anyway. The most time USPS can put on Ulrich in a TTT is about a minute or so. Also, the 2.5 minute deficit may give a fighting chance to a young, talented rider on a weaker team. A lot of teams simply cannot afford a bunch of top riders. I think this route is as good as any other for Lance, an he will have a chance to put some massive time on Ulrich on Alp d'Huez. I can't see Jan doing well on 21 switch backs going uphill.
Cheers

The Tour Organizers have always changed the route to try and make it tougher for a repeat winner. When Indurain initially stomped everyone in the time trials, the next year they shortened the TT's and added more mountains, etc.

I honestly believe that there is much more attention paid to politics and economics when it comes to choosing the route, than there is in making sure Lance doesn't win it. But that would not make a very interesting thread.

Lance is an exceptional climber, Lance is also an exceptional time trialist (when he stays hydrated). Lance has a very loyal and strong talented team. I really don't think there is a route or schedule that is going to neutralize any of these facts.


Unless of course there were no TT's or mountain top finishes....which is pure absurdity.


In regards to the TTT rule, last year the following teams would have benefited.

16 Rabobank 2.41
17 Team Saeco 3.02
18 Euskaltel-Euskadi 3.22
19 FDJeux.com 3.29
20 Jean Delatour 3.37
21 Kelme-Costa Blanca 3.49
22 Lotto-Domo 4.53

The difference GC would be Zubeldia passing Tyler Hamilton for 4th.

This rule will make it easier for teams that are strong in the mountains like Euskaltel-Eusakdi to stay near the top of GC, Throw in the ITT up the Alpe, and this is a Tour that could see a pure climber or two on the podium.

What is this about weaker teams? These "weaker" teams have the same opportunity as the "stronger" teams. If they are unable to take advantage of their chance thats to bad. By playing with times the way that they are a "weaker" team does not even have to try in the TTT. On the other hand what benefit is there for a "strong" team to go all out. This is supposed to be a race not a charity event. If they are that worried about teams and individuals losing to much time in the TTT they should just do away with it. For most of the history of the TDF there was no TTT.
The best rider over three weeks is supposed to win the Tour. It should not be a someone who is "gifted" a winning time.

I really believe in my heart that the Tour organizers are picking the route for political/monetary reasons and could care less who wins.

This letter summed thngs up pretty well:

I question the logic in the decision by the Tour de France organizers to limit the maximum time a team can lose in the team time trial to two and a half minutes. I understand not wanting some teams that are weak in that discipline to lose large amounts of time. Yet, where is the incentive for teams to push themselves to their max? With the mountains still a week away after the team time trial, the question may be moot since the main riders will have had ample time to recover from that effort. But there are bound to be teams that now will shut down their efforts if they don't envision coming within 2:30 of the top team. While the time gaps may be closer on paper, in reality the gaps to the top teams may in fact grow since some of the lesser teams may save their legs for the coming stages. As long as they finish within the time limit for that day, why should they go harder than need be if they will only lose 2:30?

In the past, some teams with a potential top 10 rider, who are nonetheless weak in the team time trial event, had to include at least a couple of work horses on the team to ensure not losing too much time in that event. Yet they still could only manage times right around the 2:30 mark. Last year Rabobank came in at 2:41 (albeit without Leipheimer); Saeco could only muster 3:02 with Simoni; and Euskatel managed limiting their loss to 3:22 with Zubeldia and Mayo. If Euskatel went nearly all out last year for the Team time trial and still finished 52 seconds slower than the proposed max time loss for next year, why would they put in as much effort for that event in the 2004 Tour? The same can be said for Saeco and Rabobank. These teams might now choose to include a couple of extra climbers, for the later mountain stages, in place of riders previously chosen for the time trial.

The Tour de France may be won by only one person, but it is still a team event. The top teams pick riders that can carry their captains through all stages, including the Team time trial. If the lesser teams don't bring a squad to the Tour that can be competitive in that event, that is their choice and they should suffer the time losses and take it like men. It shouldn't be up to the Tour organizers to level the playing field.

Todd Courtney
Thursday, October 23, 2003



Excellent letter. Add to it this tidbit...I understand that the 2.30 would also include the cutoff. In other words, a team could finish (in theory) 30 minutes behind the top team and not be dropped from the race as the 2.30 would take precedence.
Why race the TTT? Just ride it expending as little energy as possible.

Excellent letter. Add to it this tidbit...I understand that the 2.30 would also include the cutoff. In other words, a team could finish (in theory) 30 minutes behind the top team and not be dropped from the race as the 2.30 would take precedence.
Why race the TTT? Just ride it expending as little energy as possible.

I didn't even think of that - good point! If a team is going to finish 2.5 minutes behind the leading team, why ride @ a pace faster than a rest day ride?

The organizers have just made the TTT a rest day for 1/2 of the peleton. :(

Bac is right. It will become a recovery ride for some teams while they curb their efforts since the limit will be there.

There needs to be a limit that states if you finish more than 5 minutes behind your team is tossed out of the tour. That would balance things a bit effort wise.

This whole rule is ridiculous. Just eliminate the TTT. Might as well, it is no longer a race.

Those who question whether the tour is a team event or not also need to check the winnings. The team winnings dwarfs the GC winner. If I am not mistaken the team wins 3 million while the GC wins 400K. In this intance the TTT is very relevant and should not have a cutoff.

I can't say for sure, but my gut feeling is you are right. The French are an arrogant people who disdain anything and everything American.

That they would go out of their way to harm Lance's chances to outshine one of their own by winning a world record 6th TDF is not only not surprising, I would be surprised if they didn't try to cheat in any number of ways.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have known some French who are not arrogant and/or disdain everything American.

Maybe you mean that the French bureaucracies can be cumbersome if not imposed on people or managed for them properly...



Jacob

I can't say for sure, but my gut feeling is you are right. The French are an arrogant people who disdain anything and everything American.

That they would go out of their way to harm Lance's chances to outshine one of their own by winning a world record 6th TDF is not only not surprising, I would be surprised if they didn't try to cheat in any number of ways.

Hey, get your own Tour ! :roflmao:
Serious: believe me this is all paranoia. Get out there and stop reading our media crap.

has it occurred to anyone that, rather than wanting armstrong to lose, the stdf just wants someone else -- anyone else -- to win? armstrong's monolithic domination of this race [not of the sport] has not been good. it might play well in the us, but it doesn't in europe.

the cards aren't stacked against armstrong. he has the same chance that everyone else has.

...sounds like bull**** to me.
I don´t believe in this kind of conspiracy-paranoia-thing.
Wouldn´t wonder if someone announces, Bin Laden and his friends have talked to LeBlanc...
Please stop that.

[QUOTE=PiratelloWouldn´t wonder if someone announces, Bin Laden and his friends have talked to LeBlanc...
QUOTE

I bet Rumsfeld started the rumor :roflmao:

has it occurred to anyone that, rather than wanting armstrong to lose, the stdf just wants someone else -- anyone else -- to win?

Hmmm, wouldn't that be the same difference?

Wouldn't that also go against the spirit of the race? (any race, really)

Shouldn't the strongest man win?

Shouldn't the strongest man/team be given the same chance to win as any other GC contender/team?

Isn't he TTT rule obviously contrary to that notion?

Isn't this all just more motivation to feed the LA furnace? :D

It's hard to imagine how they could plan a completely "Lance nuetral" route. More likely, they'd plan the route to encourage a close race, which would do more to increase interest than a runaway by anyone.

FWIW, I think most of the European cycling community would rather he didn't win. In particular, I think the notion of an American being the first to win 6 rankles. There's a huge tradition at stake... he'd be besting the famous greats (at least in TdF wins), and we Americans *are* still the new guys over there.

has it occurred to anyone that, rather than wanting armstrong to lose, the stdf just wants someone else -- anyone else -- to win?

That is the same thing. Its not like they thought 'we must make a route to help armstrong to win' in the 5 years past.
If they're changing the route for the purpose of having someone else to win, that means they're changing it so Armstrong has a lower chance of winning. That would be pathetic, like the FIA changing rules to try to keep Schumacher from winning.

The only real problem I see with the 2004 race proposal is the TTT. The whole 2:30 idea is rediculus, in my mind.

Tell me if I am wrong on this. I think the route chosen by the 2004 TDF organizers is designed solely with one purpose in mind and that is, to make sure Lance is defeated. The TTT is early again, and there are only a few mountain stages. They claim there are six, but they're not extremely difficult, so how many are truely considered "mountain stages" by the elite of the elite? The way I see it, the organizers are probably hoping that the Boys in Blue win the TTT and are then too exhausted to help Lance when the the mountains arrive. Leaving Lance on his own against well rested rivals with their well rested teammates. That's how I see it. Am I wrong?

I agree that there are too few real mountain stages. However... The TTT *has* to come early to ensure that as many teams as possible hasn't lost any/too many riders. There are five flat stages and a rest day after the TTT, why should TT specialists going less than 3kph faster than the slowest team (if the results are similar to this year's TdF TTT) be so much more exhausted than the other teams to be unable to help Armstrong in the mountains?

The two road stages with uphill finishes are the 12th and 13th stage. On the 12th stage the finishing climb is La Mongie. Last time the Tour had a stage finish there (first mountain stage in 2002), Armstrong won. On the 13th stage the finishing climb is Plateau de Beille. Last time the Tour had a stage finish there (again in 2002 and, like then, the day after La Mongie), Armstrong won. (The 2002 results are here (http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2002/tour02/?id=stages).) Clearly two stages designed with the only purpose to make Armstrong fail ;).

Alpe d'Huez is a climb that is more favorable to a spinner as a road stage climb. As a TT stage a high gear rider like Ullrich can set a pace suitable to himself and not risk being dropped by other's attacks. The ASO might wish for someone to take the fastest ascent record from a certain Marco...

The only other mountain stage that could play a major role in the GC is stage 17 to Le Grand Bornard (could end up like stage 19 in this year's Vuelta if the GC is still close, and it also includes (though early in the stage) the two highest mountains in the 2004 TdF).

Back to the new TTT rule. It is a step in the right direction. I would like it to only count in the Team Classification. Otherwise, one might argue that the members of the best team each day should be awarded bonus seconds (I don't, but I don't think it is too far out). Another option is to not have a TTT at all, which would be even less of a change - when was the last time the Giro had a TTT? By the way, I am sure there is a cut of time for the TTT; otherwise I am very interested to see a quote/link that confirms the lack of it.

That's how this European that wants someone else (nothing personal, but it would be even harder to explain to non-cyclists why Armstrong isn't the greatest of all time) to win looks on this route: To create a tight race that neither favors or disfavors any of the favourites.

But I would have liked to see more high Alpine mountain passes.

/Csson

The two road stages with uphill finishes are the 12th and 13th stage. On the 12th stage the finishing climb is La Mongie. Last time the Tour had a stage finish there (first mountain stage in 2002), Armstrong won. On the 13th stage the finishing climb is Plateau de Beille. Last time the Tour had a stage finish there (again in 2002 and, like then, the day after La Mongie), Armstrong won. (The 2002 results are here (http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2002/tour02/?id=stages).) Clearly two stages designed with the only purpose to make Armstrong fail ;).


Next year they are going up different routes than 2002, for each of those climbs. The 2002 routes were tougher, with steeper gradients. So you can't really say that it plays into Armstrong's favor.

2002 - LA MONGIE - 12.8 km de montée à 6.8 %
2004 - La Mongie Ascent of 15 km at a 5,7% gradient

2002 - PLATEAU-DE-BEILLE - 15.9 km de montée à 7.8 %
2004 - Plateau de Beille Ascent of 18,5 km at a 6,4% gradient

Stage 15 has an uphill finish, too.

My only problem with this whole deal is the TTT. Whatever route they choose everyone has to follow it. I'm a LA fan but if he is beaten so it goes. I just hope that he is beaten fairly and not by LeBlanc messing around with the times in the TTT.

Armstrong will lose next year. Anyone wish to place bets?

Next year they are going up different routes than 2002, for each of those climbs. The 2002 routes were tougher, with steeper gradients. So you can't really say that it plays into Armstrong's favor.

2002 - LA MONGIE - 12.8 km de montée à 6.8 %
2004 - La Mongie Ascent of 15 km at a 5,7% gradient

2002 - PLATEAU-DE-BEILLE - 15.9 km de montée à 7.8 %
2004 - Plateau de Beille Ascent of 18,5 km at a 6,4% gradient

Stage 15 has an uphill finish, too.

Well, not as different as they might appear.

La Mongie is a ski resort on the eastern slope of Col du Tourmalet, there is only one road from Ste Marie de Campan (850m). In 2002 the finish was at 1715m, in 2004 it will be at 1696m. They have moved the finish line 200 metres. In 2002 they counted the climb from Ste Marie de C. (resulting in the higher average climb), and in 2004 they have decided to count the start of the climb 2km before Ste Marie de C (since the road doesn't climb as steep there it produces a lower total gradient).

I'm not certain about Plateau de Beille, though (I have misplaced my map of that area). However, I found this map (http://www.bikepyrenees.com/hi/cols/mapbeille.gif) that clearly shows that there is only one road to the Plateau. This leads to the conclusion that the organizers have done the same thing they did with La Mongie: Making the climb look longer at the expense of a lower average gradient. The main road that the road to Plateau de Beille begins from is not very steep (about 2-4%) in that area. Since they come from the same direction, I believe that the final 20kms are identical (except that the finish line is 33 metres lower in 2004).

I'm not saying that it plays in his favor, I'm saying that it doesn't play against him :).

Stage 15 doesn't appear to me to be a place for a GC contender to attack (unless someone does a Simoni (2003 Giro - stage 10) and attacks early on the Chalimont). It feels more like a stage for a strong opportunist to attack at the bottom of the short finishing climb.

/Csson

Armstrong will lose next year. Anyone wish to place bets?


I don't know...he was in Indianapolis a couple of weeks ago and said that he took last year for granted. They had won pretty easily the last few years, but he went on to say that he's not sure that it's he's getting older or if everyone else is that much better...but, he did say that he would not take anything for granted this year. He will be VERY ready.

Reminds me of that line from "Blazing Saddles"..."don't shoot him, you'll just make him mad."

The Tour organizers want a competitive race. This year's was huge. The Tour was interesting again for the first time since before '98 (when it was interesting, but not due to sport). Can't blame them.

It comes down to preparation and performance, though, right? There's a TTT, mountains, ITT. Some variations on a theme, but it still comes down to the rider and his team. If Amstrong loses, the last thing you're likely to hear him say is "LeBlanc beat me".

I love the "French people are arrogant" comments. Pot, meet kettle...

If Amstrong loses, the last thing you're likely to hear him say is "LeBlanc beat me". :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

I love the "French people are arrogant" comments. Pot, meet kettle... :lol:
:beer:

10 bucks says he wins

On this TTT thing....... you think someone is going to spot Lance 2:30 and expect to win? :roflmao:

So who here is going to have any kind of respect for a team that sits up and coasts through the TTT because they're assured a minimum loss? Now how many of those teams know that absolutely nobody just raised their hand? I'm not saying I agree with the rule change, but I really don't think any team is going to try any less hard on the TTT. Remember how much sportsmanship there is in cycling and try to say with any conviction that a team wouldn't try their damndest even with the new rule in effect.

Why would they go all out, after they know they're going to be down by over 2'30"? (time checks...) They wouldn't need to slow down to, say, 20mph... but they will let up a bit.

Looking back over the route, I don't think its all that bad. One stage that I will definetly be looking forward to is stage 17. The Col du Glandon and Col de la Madeleine are early in the stage... two very hard climbs (I wondered what the riders thought of the Madeleine as I noticed last year, it looks like its tougher than Vontoux!), followed by a 2nd cat (Col de Tamié), then a 1st cat (Col de la Forclaz), and lastly the Col de la Croix-Fry, 12,5 km at a 6,8% gradient. It peaks and then there is 12km to the finish, mostly all down that mountain. Sadly, our leader will be on the defensive by this time, but hopefully we will see some great attacks from those trying to break the yellow jersey :D

ohh how I'd like to see Lance win a tour where he won a road stage that didn't have a mountaintop finish. Stage 17 for 2004 is my only hope :lol:

I do not think the organizers want Lance to lose. They are just trying to keep it close until the very end.

on page one of this some guy wrote: "The French are an arrogant people who disdain anything and everything American".

pots and kettles?

TrekRider,
I wonder if you could substantiate your claim about the French. I assume you speak the language and have travelled to France on numerous occassions to meet the French people? Or perhaps you have spent time studying French culture, history and literature to gain a deeper understanding of their lives? Please tell me you at least have a friend who is French and that you don't surround yourself with isolationist Americans who think that any not "Made in the USA" is crap.

What an ignorant statement...

Everyone is paying so much attentiont o the time limit on the TTT. What about the ITT? You have to take into account that Lance will put time into the riders who are not good time trialists. A rider like Mayo may put pressure on in the mountains but when it comes to the ITT's he will lose a boat load of time. There are plenty of oppotunities and places that lance can make up enough time to win the tour. I think the TTT rule will make the tour closer, but Lance has the ability to do what he needs to win. The new rule would give a rider like Tyler Hamilton a real chance at winning, which i wouldnt mind at all.

Yeah. I LOVE the uphill ITT! Seems taylor-made for LA.