Tour de France 2016

Good point Will, I have to confess that I was being a stereotypical white cis male and only thinking about the male peloton. I had heard there are a few out female cyclists.

It was for the lols.

Pippo Pozzato - not Pelizotti

Thanks. From my very basic Italian (10% fluent on Duolingo) it seems to be a case of top ladz bantz involving someone stealing Marco Bandiera's phone.

https://twitter.com/PippoPozzato/status/490879323050885121

(Edit: I.e. what Andy just said)

What a prat

Lui è eterosessuale.

^ Phrases I never get in Duolingo.

Nice photo essay in the Grauniad:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/ng-interactive/2016/jul/19/how-french-village-bedoin-mont-ventoux-gears-up-for-tour-de-france-photo-essay?CMP=ema-3391

In the last kilometres of the race, Kittel’s teammate Dan Martin flatted with 25km to go but Etixx-QuickStep was looking after Kittel’s mechanical at the time. Team Sky helped Martin, which ensured he kept his ninth place overall. In the end, Kittel finished 61st in Paris.

Anyone see this? Chapeau to Team Sky for helping when his own team was more concerned with the stage win. Just an idea Dan, but I'll say this now: you'll never win a GT with Etixx.

https://mobile.twitter.com/chronoswatts/status/757622939198058497

I love a good graph

@Fox @T-V

@Jimmy_Fingers

Chapeau to Team Sky for helping

erm... good sports, but I thought it wasn't allowed?

Very true, hadn't thought of that.

If there's no cameras or commissaires it didn't happen

That's different, it's taking a wheel from a rival competitor. Martin took a wheel from a team car.

And, as @dubtap says, if the commissaires and/or press didn't see it, it didn't happen.

(On a serious note, usually there are two cars per team in the convoy, but for the Paris stage that is restricted to one, so presumably there is some kind of dispensation which allows other teams to support riders when there sole team car is occupied elsewhere).

@dubtap begs the question, how did @andyp find out about it ;-)

jokes aside, I know the last stage is something special and the commissaires might turn a blind eye. but it is not allowed to give assistance to a rider that is not on the team, see 2.3.029 of

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/17/73/59/2-ROA-20160603-E_English.PDF

Sometimes roman numerals are not the best design choice: https://twitter.com/rapha/status/757839113307377666

Rather curious L'Equipe article wistfully musing on the mystery of Chris Froome, bemoaning the missed opportunity on Ventoux for him to be liked, English translation here:

http://julesark.tumblr.com/

It's a very wordy way to say that Froome is a bit odd.

Spot on really. Froome has zero personality or charm. And should never be forgiven for half wheeling his own team leader.

Quite enjoyed that, minus the accusations in the last paragraph. Although this (also from the last paragraph) is good:

This was the theatre of structured public relations, exactly where the public demands authenticity.

That's just an outright assassination!

On the author (Philippe Brunel):

http://pelotonmagazine.com/pages/aerogramme-day-17-philippe-brunel/

http://inrng.com/2010/12/brunel-the-cipollini-of-the-press-room/

I'm going to try and pick up a copy of a book of his (An Intimate Portrait of the Tour De France: Masters and Slaves of the Road - seems to be out of print), but while searching I came across this gem!

http://elibrary.com.ng/UploadFiles/file0_2221.pdf

You're welcome, everyone.

I thought it was already well established that the UCI rules were not really rules, more guidelines that are open to interpretation?

I think some people have still not forgiven Froome for not failing a doping test yet and all the fabled 'scepticism' coming to nought.

Can't they afford fact checkers at l'Equipe? (Merckx was punched in 75, not 74).

I know British journalism isn't always of the highest quality, but the stylised prose that French sportswriters use is, to quote Francois Thomazeau, bullshit.

Such an Anglo, Andy - the analytical is deep within you. Embrace the continental.

This is excellent! (from the link I posted above)

Is Lance Armstrong a “success”? The question may seem absurd. After all, Lance has won the Tour de France a record-breaking seven consecutive years, been named the Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year four times, survived cancer against long odds, helped and inspired millions through his Lance Armstrong Foundation and Livestrong web-site, and in the process achieved fame and fortune. As we’ll see, however, Lance would arguably not be a success on many classic philosophical accounts of success and human achievement. What lessons should we draw from this apparent clash? Should we reject the philosophical theories, or rethink our view of Lance? What is “success”? What counts as a truly successful human life?