How big of a "time penalty" if any will come from the illegal feed zone? I think if Froome had not won the stage, it would be maybe a financial fine. Winning the stage in the fashion he did, after illegally obtaining a team feed bag when no one else could makes me think that maybe he should get a 6 minute penalty. That would put him like a minute and a half behind Mollema and Contador. Make him earn the yellow back in the Alps. I was really bummed when Qunitana got dropped, if he doesn't have any major injuries accidents, he should be a real force to contend with in the next year or two.
I was pumping my fist(s) for Armstrong during his second of 7 wins. Dominant performances .. after that, I was full of suspicion but it was still fun to watch. I remember watching Floyd's miracle recovery day thinking: this is great stuff but I hope he's not on something. I did the same for Alberto. Fun to watch but he was on something. Cadel, I think, was clean.
Froome? I am twice bitten, forever shy. His rides up hill and against the clock in this tour have been uncharacteristic and superhuman .. much like all the other assisted rides. A part of me hopes they don't catch Sky. It would really be bad for the sport, but I suppose it will mean a return to pure racing.
That thing on stage 13? Wow.
What's fun about watching doped up cyclists blowing the field away?
They might as well be riding mopeds.
Accusing a rider solely because of an excellent performance, relative to other riders, is ridiculous. It's like saying your co-worker is embezzling because she shows up at work with a fancy sports car.
It's absurd to suggest that Froome and/or Sky are the only ones in the peloton who would have access to a Super Secret Doping Formula. That has never been the case. I.e. you can't use the idea that "rider x beat everyone else" as proof of doping.
Someone is going to win on Ventoux. Someone is always going to win. The only way to stay at the top is to put in a consistent performance, and to push it when it really counts.
Is Quintana doping? Nieve? Rolland? Kreuziger? Ten Dam? They all put in outstanding performances today. Why not accuse the whole peloton? Why watch at all, if you're going to declare that the winner is doping because he... won?
To me, what this really expresses is a skepticism of the sport (despite cyclists doing the same crap as everyone else), as well as a general dislike of Sky and/or Froome.
I don't dislike Froome. I like that he love to race even when he really doesn't have to. My suspicion is a lot of riders are still doping. Why the eyes towards Froome? How many riders in the history of the Tour could put almost two minutes on Contador on a climb? I am talking about a climb in the Tour not a prep race.
If we have been hearing for 10 years about an up and coming rider named Froome being the next great thing I would still be wary of such a beating, but it would be in the realm of possibilities. The fact is up until a 2nd place ride in 2011 Froome had done next to nothing as a pro, and now the best or used to best cannot even ride his wheel.
He is not winning a 10 seconds he is winning climbs by minutes.
"Rivendells do not rock; they jamboree."
"I love the bike. Itís my meditation. I think I am Ďbike-sexual." - Robin Williams
I forgot to mention I would love to see how Contador's climb time compares with his 2009 climb time. I suspect it must be much slower than 2009 for him.
No one disputes that someone has to win?
Its the manner of the victories that is causing concern, and its not just a few on an internet forum, suspicion is clearly rife as in interviews questions are being asked and even former riders are speaking out on live TV/Radio.
As you say, some great rides today........completely blown out of the water by another rider who has turned into superman since joining Sky.
And not to mention the food station fiasco, what exactly do you think sky were saying with that? Blatant cheating, or are we going to hear a ''we didn't realise''? Of course they know the rules, but decided that the rules do not matter, personally i think it shows the ethics of the team and you can guarentee the peloton are of the same thinking.
We won't get fooled again
I'd say that the histories of Froome (and Porte) in no way suggest that they were about to become world beaters - until 2011 that is, and now Porte can ride at the head of the field for miles, and Froome can ride away from anyone who is anyone on Ventoux, and look fresh at the finish. I'd love Sky to be clean, but it's getting very difficult to believe it.
I find it to be remarkable also that Porte came back in the manner he did after having his meltdown. Reminiscent of Landis' stage 17.
At the end of the day, money talks. Take for example, Armstrong. He just downsized to a ~USD2,000,000 home in Texas. He is set for life financially.
Maybe the calculation is about the money and not about clean racing.
I have never believed Team Sky to be clean. I have my suspicion about even Wiggin's win last year. Anybody remember that Brailsford hired Geert Leinders? To refresh your memories, Dr. Leinders was a Rabobank doping doctor during the time "the chicken" and Thomas Dekker were busted for doping.
Yes, definitely yes, Froome's ride today is just not from guts and glory.
Doping is not about the drugs or the biotechnology any more.
It's all about not getting caught.
I'm certainly no expert, but I hadn't seen anything that screamed "doping" to me from Froome thus far, but when I saw him just turn on the afterburners and leave everyone behind, I just thought "wtf" how is that even possible?
oh dear, what will you weirdos whinge about when the tour is over and Froome is cleared of any doping allegations
I wanna believe Froome is clean, but my head just won't let me!