Professional Cycling For the Fans - TdF Observation

For me, the names at the top of the standings are not all that glamorous-have not even heard of some of them but admit I don't follow professional cycling that closely. However so far I think I've enjoyed watching this year even more than past few years. I think a lot of it is seeing the teamwork, strategy and individual skills. Today's stage was a good example. How the fella won had a lot to do with experience and strategy. Also the fact that some teammates being stronger on the climbs than the GC contenders is intriguing. Also the ruling at the finish line on one of the sprints. I hope the remaining stages continue to be interesting.

I thought todays stage was boring. No action except over the last 10 kms from the breakaway and nothing else to excite. Team members may be stronger in certain disciplines on certain days than the GC contenders but The TDF requires overall skills.

But watching every day live on TV and it is building up to something good. Others can't understand how I find a big group of riders in a line or bunch doing nothing except pedal interesting- but there is always something going on that will bear a relationship later in each days stage.

No spoilers please. I'm watching today's stage when I get home. At least I know I can fast forward to the last 10 km.

I really enjoyed yesterday's stage. I wonder what might have happened if Froome and Van Garteren had been left to their own devices. I also hope they stay clean. I don't think the sport can take too many more doping scandals.

I wonder what might have happened if Froome and Van Garteren had been left to their own devices.

I suppose long term it would be about the same as a baseball lead-off hitter swinging for the fence. Once in awhile it might work but the team results are maximized when everybody performs their job.

There have been complaints that the Tour is getting too "predictable", as it seems to follow the same pattern year after year lately as far as the various jersey competitions are concerned.

There have been complaints that the Tour is getting too "predictable", as it seems to follow the same pattern year after year lately as far as the various jersey competitions are concerned.
The GC was pretty predictable from 1999 to 2005.

There have been complaints that the Tour is getting too "predictable", as it seems to follow the same pattern year after year lately as far as the various jersey competitions are concerned.



These complaints are as old as the race. Those who don't like the results always complain. In 1974 Eddy Merckx was asked by the organisers not to compete, because he'd won four in a row and there was such hostility among the French public at the thought of a Belgian equalling Anquetil's record. And in 1975, on his way to winning five, he was punched in the kidneys by an outraged fan on one of the climbs. Having him win was, apparently, "boring" and bad for the race.

There's nothing especially predictable about this year's Tour.

These complaints are as old as the race. Those who don't like the results always complain. In 1974 Eddy Merckx was asked by the organisers not to compete, because he'd won four in a row and there was such hostility among the French public at the thought of a Belgian equalling Anquetil's record. And in 1975, on his way to winning five, he was punched in the kidneys by an outraged fan on one of the climbs. Having him win was, apparently, "boring" and bad for the race.

There's nothing especially predictable about this year's Tour.

How about that, we agree? Ever since Bobet put together a team effort to drag him to the GC win in 53-54-55 there have been formulas that when done correctly will produce results. That is one of the perks of the team system, the team can help in the GC, Sprints, Climbs and team standings. One of the greats Anquetil never seemed to race any harder than necessary to with the GC. LeMond may have been an exception and he used to hang it all out.

For me, the names at the top of the standings are not all that glamorous-have not even heard of some of them but admit I don't follow professional cycling that closely. However so far I think I've enjoyed watching this year even more than past few years. I think a lot of it is seeing the teamwork, strategy and individual skills. Today's stage was a good example. How the fella won had a lot to do with experience and strategy. Also the fact that some teammates being stronger on the climbs than the GC contenders is intriguing. Also the ruling at the finish line on one of the sprints. I hope the remaining stages continue to be interesting.

My thoughts exactly - every single word. And even if it seems a little boring at times, I always enjoy the virtual tour through France and seeing the old structures still standing since Medieval times. And it's comforting to learn that they too have days when their legs don't work as expected.

On the boring side, I admit that I often fall asleep during the TV coverage of the middle of the stage. Phil & Paul's droning voices, plus the standard race strategy (an early break takes off with nobody significant in it, the pack lets them go, then the Yellow Jersey or sprinter's teams start hauling it in at a rate of 1 minute per 10 km, day after day), plus it's just a bunch of guys pedaling bikes.

But it really is quite interesting when you can look beneath all that and see what's really going on. The five races within the race (this would be the competitions for the four jersey classifications plus the competition for the stage win). Seeing if anyone is having a bad day. Trying to figure out why someone is attacking at a certain time or place, or why one of the teams is rapidly accelerating. Watching plans not work or backfire (Sagan trying to bridge up to the break on the descent before the intermediate sprints and failing, or Cadel's beautifully set up break with Tejay, only to get gapped by TVG once the attack is made. The climbing stages are always interesting, as guys attack and other guys go off the back.

But I do think that the coverage on the flat stages could be reduced considerably, focusing on the intermediate sprint and the final 20 km to the bunch sprint at the end. Phil & Paul also get it wrong quite often, regarding what's going on. I find ex-US-based pro Scott Moninger's comments to be far more perceptive, but it does helpl to listen to the analysis to get a better understanding of what's happening; this gives a much greater appreciation and thereby less boredom.

The live reports on Velonews, where a number of knowledgeable guys are commenting on the action as it happens, is also a good source (much better than the rather static live reports on cyclingnews.com).

Like anything else, the more background knowledge you have, the more interesting it gets. But yeah, I still fall asleep during the long, flat sections where nothing is happening!

Luis

Oh, and as well, Team SKy's task is to make the race as boring as possible. It's just the way good team tactics work when you're leading. It's up to the guys who are not leading to light it up!

Luis

There's nothing especially predictable about this year's Tour.

Correct. Evans was supposed to dominate more, he hasn't. BMC looks stronger on paper and is not on the hills. Sky is doing a MUCH better job then had been expected of them, reminds me of the old Postal and Discovery days. Wiggins is riding a boring race - on TV, but is doing exactly what he needs to do to win. Froome and Nibali are keeping the race interesting. Schleck looks lost without his brother - are we sure they aren't twins ?.

One observation I had after yesterday was how, as always, the top riders blow off the peloton when the hill gets steep. You wan't to know who will be high on GC next week ?, look at yesterdays stage.

Just the scenery is worth watching some of the coverage. I'm not much of a cycling fan, but you've got to appreciate the magnitude of the the individual efforts, the team efforts and the logistics. When all is said and done I'm going to wonder whether the winner is the best cyclist or just the best cyclist of the nine on a very strong team. Could the winner succeed on a middle-of-the-road team?

I find I ride better and harder with less internal whining, after a few days of watching these guys. Especially on the hills. I can see how steep it is, I can see the suffering. I went up a local long hill Thurs, one I've done maybe 6 times this season. Prior I had maybe maintained 8-9mph. On Thurs I was steady at 11. I'm always thinking "I'm twice the age, 50% or more heavier and can do 2/3 the pace, but other then those small things, I'm the same".

I've enjoyed watching the Brits revel in their glory, since they're no good at anything else, particularly football.


:innocent:

But it really is quite interesting when you can look beneath all that and see what's really going on. The five races within the race (this would be the competitions for the four jersey classifications plus the competition for the stage win). Seeing if anyone is having a bad day. Trying to figure out why someone is attacking at a certain time or place, or why one of the teams is rapidly accelerating. Watching plans not work or backfire (Sagan trying to bridge up to the break on the descent before the intermediate sprints and failing, or Cadel's beautifully set up break with Tejay, only to get gapped by TVG once the attack is made. The climbing stages are always interesting, as guys attack and other guys go off the back.

I think the more you understand any sport the more interesting it becomes.

To me, baseball is the least interesting sport in the world. (I've never watched Cricket). It's like watching grass grow and some of the fields are artificial so there isn't even that. I've got friends, though, who LOVE baseball. They can not only plot every pitch but they complain there isn't enough time between pitches for them to think about all the various possibilities.

I guess that's why they have both chocolate and vanilla. I love watching the tour.

When the peloton isn't all doped up, the 20-somethings dominate, as would be expected. They just recover better. Froome and Van Garderen would both be at the top if the strongest natural riders were the ones that got support.

But rumors of Wiggins doping still seem totally plausible at this point. He is riding with the same control exhibited by Armstrong. If you have an unnatural advantage, the smart guys don't try to show off (like Riccardo Ricco in 2008), they just control their team and win in a boring, ineluctable way.

In general, I think that doping is way down. It is the only explanation for the success of the French riders.

And rdtompki's point re team support is very good. Cavandish is scratching to stay at front in the sprint finishes without his lead out train.

In general, I think that doping is way down. It is the only explanation for the success of the French riders.


Sacre bleu!

My thoughts exactly - every single word. And even if it seems a little boring at times, I always enjoy the virtual tour through France and seeing the old structures still standing since Medieval times. And it's comforting to learn that they too have days when their legs don't work as expected.
+1

Heard a comment this morning and I think it sums up the TDF leaders completely.

Naming names but Wiggins could win--Froome could win---- but it is the team that will win. Without the members of the team working for them--Neither will win.

On the doping side- it is probably there somewhere. It is the same in every sport but at least cycling is taking steps to stop it. They catch the cheats- they take action against them and they advertise the fact that they have caught abd banned the Offenders. Taken a good few years to happen but any professional rider now knows that it is not worth taking drugs as if you do---You will be caught. Not possibly could be caught---YOU WILL BE CAUGHT

Just the scenery is worth watching some of the coverage. I'm not much of a cycling fan, but you've got to appreciate the magnitude of the the individual efforts, the team efforts and the logistics. When all is said and done I'm going to wonder whether the winner is the best cyclist or just the best cyclist of the nine on a very strong team. Could the winner succeed on a middle-of-the-road team?

Yes. Evans won last year despite BMC being weak. And there have been many similar examples in the past. But it is very difficult for an individual to succeed in the face of sustained assaults from those supporting other riders.


When the peloton isn't all doped up, the 20-somethings dominate, as would be expected. They just recover better. Froome and Van Garderen would both be at the top if the strongest natural riders were the ones that got support.

But rumors of Wiggins doping still seem totally plausible at this point. He is riding with the same control exhibited by Armstrong. If you have an unnatural advantage, the smart guys don't try to show off (like Riccardo Ricco in 2008), they just control their team and win in a boring, ineluctable way.

In general, I think that doping is way down. It is the only explanation for the success of the French riders.

And rdtompki's point re team support is very good. Cavandish is scratching to stay at front in the sprint finishes without his lead out train.

I agree and disagree. TeeJay is not yet the finished article. Froome may be. But Froome isn't a babe in arms, he's 27. Top stage racers generally don't reach their peak until their late twenties, with some notable exceptions. It takes many years to develop the stamina.

Who knows about doping? But Wiggins and Sky are dominating while climbing significantly slower than did Armstrong, Pantani, Ulrich. Even Kloden used to climb quicker than they are now. That may be a cause for optimism. And Wiggo's climbing style is largely the product of his physiology. He's a world-class time -triallist. What he is good at is putting out sustained power, and managing his effort so he can stay close to the red line, but not cross it, for the required time. What he can't do is the rapid accelerations of the true grimpeurs. So I don't think the way he climbs is in itself indicative of doping.

Finally, Cavendish's win on stage two was a classic example of how to win a sprint without being led out. Were it not for a pretty horrific crash that trashed his chances for two days (he was still pretty beaten up the following day) we might have been talking about him having won three stages already. Obviously a train would help - you could argue that one of its main advantages is to make crashes less likely.


Taken a good few years to happen but any professional rider now knows that it is not worth taking drugs as if you do---You will be caught. Not possibly could be caught---YOU WILL BE CAUGHT

This isn't true, I'm afraid. Doping moves on. I am optimistic that the use of EPO has been substantially reduced, but my guess is that the dopers are now concentrating not on boosting performance, but on enhancing recovery. To the best of my knowledge there is no test to detect micro dosing of human growth hormone, and I'd bet on that being the drug du jour.

I believe Froome will opt out of his Sky contract this winter, some team will offer him a lead position for next years TdF.

There have been complaints that the Tour is getting too "predictable", as it seems to follow the same pattern year after year lately as far as the various jersey competitions are concerned.

That is why the Giro d'Italia is a better one to watch. Less predictable.

But overall the television coverage with the high definition quality is really a big improvement from say 3 years ago.

Taken a good few years to happen but any professional rider now knows that it is not worth taking drugs as if you do---You will be caught. Not possibly could be caught---YOU WILL BE CAUGHT

Sadly, I don't think so. The dopers are always a step ahead of the regulators.

My theory is that Lance never failed a drug test because he only boosted his chemistry to the threshold of the test. If you do that, I could see how eating a hormone enhanced steak really could be enough to push you over the limit. The latest charge against Lance has to do with witnesses of the dopeing process rather than blood levels.

I believe Froome will opt out of his Sky contract this winter, some team will offer him a lead position for next years TdF.

"Opt out"? Someone will have to buy him out, as Sky bought Wiggins out of Garmin. And Sky have deeper pockets than any other current team, as I understand it.

Besides, it may well not be in Froome's interests. He'd have to consider the quality of the support that would be available to him elsewhere. He's currently in the strongest, best funded team on the pro tour. And there are three GTs. If I were managing Sky I'd be letting Froome lead a team in this year's Vuelta or next year's Giro. He's only 27. He could pick up a GT or two if he's good enough, and then inherit the team leadership for the TdF from Wiggo maybe the year after next. That would be the smarter choice, IMO.

Yes. Evans won last year despite BMC being weak. And there have been many similar examples in the past. But it is very difficult for an individual to succeed in the face of sustained assaults from those supporting other riders.



I agree and disagree. TeeJay is not yet the finished article. Froome may be. But Froome isn't a babe in arms, he's 27. Top stage racers generally don't reach their peak until their late twenties, with some notable exceptions. It takes many years to develop the stamina.

Who knows about doping? But Wiggins and Sky are dominating while climbing significantly slower than did Armstrong, Pantani, Ulrich. Even Kloden used to climb quicker than they are now. That may be a cause for optimism. And Wiggo's climbing style is largely the product of his physiology. He's a world-class time -triallist. What he is good at is putting out sustained power, and managing his effort so he can stay close to the red line, but not cross it, for the required time. What he can't do is the rapid accelerations of the true grimpeurs. So I don't think the way he climbs is in itself indicative of doping.

Finally, Cavendish's win on stage two was a classic example of how to win a sprint without being led out. Were it not for a pretty horrific crash that trashed his chances for two days (he was still pretty beaten up the following day) we might have been talking about him having won three stages already. Obviously a train would help - you could argue that one of its main advantages is to make crashes less likely.



This isn't true, I'm afraid. Doping moves on. I am optimistic that the use of EPO has been substantially reduced, but my guess is that the dopers are now concentrating not on boosting performance, but on enhancing recovery. To the best of my knowledge there is no test to detect micro dosing of human growth hormone, and I'd bet on that being the drug du jour.

Yep - I pretty much agree with everything. And we've both read the same power statistics as they've varied from year to year. They are definitely down from historical highs. Laying low on the power pills, while "enhancing" recovery seems to be where the focus probably is in the peloton these days.

These complaints are as old as the race. Those who don't like the results always complain. In 1974 Eddy Merckx was asked by the organisers not to compete, because he'd won four in a row and there was such hostility among the French public at the thought of a Belgian equalling Anquetil's record. And in 1975, on his way to winning five, he was punched in the kidneys by an outraged fan on one of the climbs. Having him win was, apparently, "boring" and bad for the race.

There's nothing especially predictable about this year's Tour.

+1

I watch every year and love the coverage. I used to have to follow it in the paper and catch highlights on ABC on Sunday if I was lucky.

The between can be boring which leads me to this post. Hoping Morkov can hold on as my wife is Danish and the inlaws back home would be well pleased with a win

+1

I watch every year and love the coverage. I used to have to follow it in the paper and catch highlights on ABC on Sunday if I was lucky.

The between can be boring which leads me to this post. Hoping [******] can hold on as my wife is Danish and the inlaws back home would be well pleased with a win

NO SPOILERS PLEASE, or this thread will have to be moved to pro.

NO SPOILERS PLEASE, or this thread will have to be moved to pro.

It's going there anyway.

Moved from 50+ to Pro.

It's been a bit painful to watch Euskaltel since Samu crashed out. They have tried multiple times to get into a break and pull a stage win but I worry about the Tour Points they will be missing out on. I hope the Vuelta comes with Anton in good form and they can make some of those points up and keep their licence.

I am enjoying the coverage on the TDF. I am watching the TDF on NBC Sports and find the action to be very appealing. The Phil and gang may fumble from time to time but their knowledge on the riders and the whole TDF makes up for it. My love for cycling and my bikes keep me tuned in from stage to stage.

My favorite riders may not have a chance to win the tour or are not participating at the moment but I still find the The Tour very interesting. There is a lot going on between all the jersey winners , like the point system and so on to call The Tour a success. I must admit the crashes also are part of the action that may change a riders fate in a instance.

My question would be if a rider was found to be doping and a team mate of his won a jersey would the other team members be sanctioned? Would the riders loose their jersey if a rider that doped assisted in a win? I feel there should be more consequences to a rider that doped than just a suspension or a ban from cycling. Should teams be held also liable?

Yep - I pretty much agree with everything. And we've both read the same power statistics as they've varied from year to year.
The pro peloton only started using power meters in the late 80s. As in, after the infamous 1987 tour. Power statistics aren't consistently available for the last 25+ years of riding.

For decades, there has been a reasonably close correlation between total distance of the Tour and average speeds of the winner. In the 1970s, the average speed was around 35.5kph, and the average Tour distance was 3900k. In the 1980s, 36.7kph / 3819km. 90s, 39kph / 3789km. 00's, 40.34kph / 3506km.

It is incorrect that "Tour speeds are off their record highs;" there hasn't been a significant deflation in the Tour's average speeds in recent years. The fastest Tour was in 2005 (41.6kph), but that was an exception. The average speed of the Tour hasn't dropped below 39kph since 1994.

If you knock out hilly TT's, average ITT speeds of the winners have barely budged over the past 15 years. There was a big jump when riders switched to aerobars and TT-specific bikes, but after that speeds stabilized in the 49-51kph range. That's despite all the changes in doping, TT bike optimizations, reduction in overall Tour length, the elimination of split stages, and reduction in the number of ITT's. (Or, these changes are canceling each other out.)

The 2011 ITT was noticeably slower (45.8kph) -- that's the slowest since 1985. But there has been no real trending changes since 2000.


In other words: I don't think you can look at the stats and, on that basis, definitively detect any real changes in either direction due to doping.

The pro peloton only started using power meters in the late 80s. As in, after the infamous 1987 tour. Power statistics aren't consistently available for the last 25+ years of riding.

For decades, there has been a reasonably close correlation between total distance of the Tour and average speeds of the winner. In the 1970s, the average speed was around 35.5kph, and the average Tour distance was 3900k. In the 1980s, 36.7kph / 3819km. 90s, 39kph / 3789km. 00's, 40.34kph / 3506km.

It is incorrect that "Tour speeds are off their record highs;" there hasn't been a significant deflation in the Tour's average speeds in recent years. The fastest Tour was in 2005 (41.6kph), but that was an exception. The average speed of the Tour hasn't dropped below 39kph since 1994.

If you knock out hilly TT's, average ITT speeds of the winners have barely budged over the past 15 years. There was a big jump when riders switched to aerobars and TT-specific bikes, but after that speeds stabilized in the 49-51kph range. That's despite all the changes in doping, TT bike optimizations, reduction in overall Tour length, the elimination of split stages, and reduction in the number of ITT's. (Or, these changes are canceling each other out.)

The 2011 ITT was noticeably slower (45.8kph) -- that's the slowest since 1985. But there has been no real trending changes since 2000.


In other words: I don't think you can look at the stats and, on that basis, definitively detect any real changes in either direction due to doping.

I have heard a few racers state that the dope just made life more comfortable and easy to compete. Less painful to maintain high outputs for longer periods of time. But did not make you all that much faster. In fact, the doping may have best served training interests allowing very hard intense workouts that could be recovered from which would build very high fitness levels. This would explain why Armstrong would do little racing. He could get more out of training while doping and reduce his chance of getting caught. Back then, little if any, out of race testing was done I believe.