Search results for:

General,

Not sure what you mean by typical British Response - but those last few days of the tour were hardly set up to make to the GC blitzed, whereas the Tour this year had a couple of mountain stages followed by a Time Trial.

The fact is that those relatively less difficult stages towards the end meant that it was almost a foregone conclusion - the commentators on Eurosport and ITV were all trying desperately hard to make viewers believe there was some kind of sting in the tail, but in reality they knew it that opportunities were limited.

Whether you are British or not, the end of that Tour was far from exciting.

Jeez, #231, I think I must be a bit of a traditionalist and I don't think I gave it (the Pro event in the US) much chance. I am a bit of grumpy git and don't like change. Watching an event in quaint European villages sits well with me, that's what I have always watched - the scenery is part of the enjoyment for me. The switch to the US freeways was a bit of a leap for my anti change old school ways. It took away the enjoyment for me. My comment was a tad biased.

As for the silence over the last few days from people on the Vuelta, I think it says it all. The final stage procession seemed to start about 4days ago. In all the event was alive for just a few days, the rest was fairly mundane - with no change in the GC (or even threat to it) in the last 4 days - that can hardly be good for an event.

With only one individual time trial - you have to wonder how this year's race produced a winner that demonstrated all round skills?

I was disappointed by the last few days - which is so annoying given it was building to a bit of climax - then nothing. I don't think the Vuelta has done much to dismiss claims that it is now a much poorer sister to the Giro and the Tour.

What a finish. Awesome stuff from Froome. Good call though AndyP - you can hardly blame Cobo for not covering the inside - he looked blown. He got 2 yards over the finish and looked like he didn't know what to do. That may catch up with him tomorrow.

Was hugely disappointed with the rest of the Sky bunch though. I am trying to work out what their roles are. So far I can only assume they are there just in case Froome or Wiggins puncture so that when they get to the back of the Peloton there are some friendly faces waiting for them.

I watched a bit of that race. Hardly flowing through the mountain tracks of the Alps or back roads of a Spanish village.

Fucking massive freeways!

I suspect there was a bit of money to attract the big names.

It looked dull though.

Wiganwill, I guess I was a bit trusting as a 20year old new to cycling and without access to the same kind of media attention these days. As I said before the UCI needed to hide matters after Voets Festina exploits. I firmly believe that the UCI actively hid Armstrong's doping to save cycling. Sponsors would have disappeared. The Tour may well have ended. As a consequence, you had to look much harder to find info on riders and drugs - most were still relatively naive too.

As for this Vuelta, it has only got lively in the few stages - but that is more to do with the British riders. Sky entering a 'B' Team, the Schlecks went across to some Pro Event in America, and the loss of interest from HTC has left it well and truly lower than the other two tours.

A Grand Tour? Not so sure anymore - there must surely be a more logical calendar for the Grand Tours.

Surprisingly though, I am looking forward to the Tour of Britain.

Wiganwill, some good points there and I completely agree with you that not talking about drugs led to the position in the 90s and so on. But I am not saying that we should not talk about them - they should never be forgotten - I am just suggesting that perhaps we should not be so quick to believe that everyone is on drugs.

I am sure it is not clean, and history has taught us that doping controls (largely because the UCI were so reticent) were always behind the testing. But for the most part I would like to believe that riders were clean when winning events.

Drugs didn't ruin my enjoyment of cycling in the 90s, Pantani's climbing in 98 was something to behold - hindsight tells me why - Armstrong brought many new fans into the sport, but hindsight tells they have been brought on the back of a fraud. I enjoyed cycling at the time, I was fucking livid when I found out why. I am not going to maintain naivety but I am not going to tar everyone with the same brush. I want to believe in the blood DNA passport thing and to hope that Cycling and the testers are in control. I am still massively concerned that known dopers are still in the sport - how Riis can be a director is beyond me, a lot of the dodgy soigneurs are still active too. We still need much tougher punishments.

However, I want to believe whoever wins this vuelta is clean, as I want to believe that Evans and the Schlecks fought out an exciting tour (it was a good one). I want to think Evans had better tactics, and I want to believe that the Schlecks just messed up and are just weak. I don't want to think Evans' soigneur is better than the Schlecks.

So is that it then, all winners of grand tours, are dopers - they must need help doping, so their soigneurs are assisting them - then they are not going to just be sorting out the tour winners, so the team members as well?

Its not logic to suggest that just because one rider won the GC on drugs that were rife and for the most part undetectable, that every winner from now on is on drugs.

The 90s and 00s were awful, the UCI had backed themselves into a corner by their own part in the omerta, the cover up. Armstrong should have tested positive in 96, not for drugs but because his testicular cancer would have showed up massive levels of testosterone (Alan Stubbs the footballer failed a test for the same reasons). Pantani was on Cocaine through large parts of his professional career - he tested positive once and was allowed back in.

Things have changed, now the world and the media have woken up - sponsors have. In addition, more is known about physiology and diets. I am sure it is not 100% clean but it's a different peloton these days. That's why I want to believe the riders are clean, and if not, then they will get caught. If I think everyone who is doing well is on drugs, well that's just depressing. It almost sounds like people want them to be on drugs, so they can moan about cyclists being on drugs like the old days. That ain't right. Give them a chance or cycling will never move on.

Come on folks, drugs? really.

What is the point in watching a sport if you pull apart all the people who are doing well. If Wiggins wins, is that good because he is clean? Do we only seem to think that others are not clean? Is there a Spanish blog somewhere saying the same about Wiggins?

None of us know for sure what is going on, and all this talk of drugs does not help the sport. I for one will watch to the end of the Vuelta and if Cobo wins because of an amazing climb, then so be it. If he is then done, then so be it. But I am not going to judge the sport based on no facts. The whole of the 90s and 00s were killed for me because of doping, Riis, Pantani, Armstrong and Flandis (amongst others).

To say Cobo looked like he was on drugs because he didn't celebrate is unfair and not helpful.

I wouldn't say Wiggins is a far weaker rider than Froome. And as for Sky leadership, I think it is fair to say that Froome is showing a new side to his abilities that not many could have seen coming to this extent.

I don't think the leadership is that bad - although they have a massive dilemma now. Wiggins or Froome - or use both in a cunning way to catch Cobo.

Horatio, completely agree. The pressure is off now, Wiggins is not such a target anymore, on top of that, Froome is in there too. The others are going to have to mark each rider which complicates matters. That said, I hope SKY don't just settle for a place on the podium and pick a couple of days to really lay into Cobo.

Wednesday's stage looks like the toughest left, nowt compared to today, but could be an opportunity to lay in a sustained attack.

On top of that Rabobank may even think about taking some risks for Molema and will look to hunt down Cobo too. He will have to be very wary of the attacks.

The remaining Sky riders should come into play for the last week. They have been next to useless on the climbs.

I think they will regroup tomorrow and go for broke next week.

My money is still on a British rider.

Oliver, Thanks very much for that.

Carson, thanks for the link.

I can't find any footage at the minute on the inter web, but it would appear the Eurosport (not BritishEurosport that is showing motoGP) is on air from 4pm.

ITV4 claim to show coverage but they have British Touring Cars on today, and online their coverage has not yet started - with no indication when it will!

Big hairy balls.

Onelesscardigan, where can I watch it live?

What is a LMNH?

Why do people on these Blogs get so agitated.

Actually Woodie I never criticised him at all. That would be daft of me because I don't know much about Paul Watson. I was referencing a book which say he was taken to the Tour as a climber based on his showing in England. If this were the true reason for having him as a climber then if anything I am criticising this decision.

As for being a class rider, I am sure he was but in the context of the Tour, he was out of his depth, and Connor's take on his part in that British Team (which was the first British Based pro to take on the Tour) was not exactly filled with evidence of class.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/348110/anc-halfords-paul-watson.html

This is a good interview with Paul, who comes across as a thoroughly decent chap, but hardly passionate about cycling. His race card shows he was towards the top in England, but couldn't/wouldn't compete in Europe to the same high levels.

I hope this goes some way to calming you down.

One more tough day, probably the toughest out of the lot.

Wiggins and Froome did really well today, but I think tomorrow could be a 5minute stage win so they have to stay completely on it and track all the attacks - which frankly they have done absolutely superbly. Still concerned about the lack of help in the Sky team, it almost seems a strange that this is their the majority of their B team on show.

Still it's a rest day Monday, so all to give tomorrow.

Wiggins still in red, his lead being nibali'ed at. Did anyone see what I did there?

Back to back tough stages now with huge climbs. Tomorrows is a 16km run in up nearly 1000m, and then on Sunday a monster stage with a huge climb of over 1200m in 12km.

From there, the stage profiles look fairly steady. I think Wiggins could take some time out of Nibali on the punchier climbs and flatter stages over the remaining week where Nibali is not the strongest. This is because I think the SKY team is much more suited to these types of stages as opposed to the big lumps of rocks with cloud round the top.

If Wiggins can stay in contention in the next couple of days I may even put my mums house on him winning.

Speaking of Mountains, I was reading Jeff Connor's excellent account of the Halfords Pro team (the Uks first pro team to enter the Tour de France). They selected a group of riders who they thought could make it to Paris and picked Paul Watson as the climber - solely on the basis he won the King of the Mountain jersey in the Milk Race - the tour of the UK.

Thats like me standing at the foot of Everest because I managed the climbing wall at the local go ape centre. I thought that was hilarious.

Item 8 - Nitto bar - Could you let me know what the clamp size is? Will go lower than the £30?

Can you give it to me for free?

I don't suppose the fork is for a 650 wheel is it?

I am not going to give up.

I am not saying that the sport is clean but I am a damn sight more relaxed that in the days of Willy Voet (the first dodgy soigneur - Festina 1998). I had heard about this article a few days ago and I was taken aback.

The first defence, they were for personal use, was strangely the same defence as Voet gave.

A decent article is here:

http://cyclopunk.blogspot.com/2011/06/more-belgian-busts-who-is-sven-s.html

Interestingly this quotes:

But a brief search of BMC's own website reveals the existence of one Sven Schoutteten, rather embarrassingly listed as a soigneur

More interestingly, I can no longer find this name on the team list.

Furthermore, it is also interesting that Viaene (head soigneur) looked after Lance Armstrong, who I think it is fair to say is one of the biggest frauds in cycling (I am probably im his black book list now). Hincapie, who has been claimed to have testified against Armstrong and admitted his own doping, is in the BMC team. Sciandri is on the team also. He worked with Cecchini who developed under the tutelage of Conconi (the worst doping dope of them all). Cecchini also worked with Bjarne Riis and Jan Ulrich. Both admitting doping after long stints in denial.

The fact remains that whilst the old guard (the lot from the 80s and 90) are still around there will always be significant connection to confirmed doping. In time the family tree will dilute the blood line and hopefully the testing and ethos will change to breed a new type of cycling. But for now the sport still readily welcomes back dopers with open arms, whether it is this lot at BMC, Riis as a race Director, or even Virenique doing commentary on Eurosport, there is way too much connection to the old days to be sure Cycling is clean - and way too much acceptance of the old doping ways.

Unfortunately though, this completely ignores the many athletes who can no longer take comfort in cycling, the myriad of junior and upcoming pros trying too hard to keep up and lost their lives. Or athletes like Pantani driven to a world of despair, depression and death due to a reliance on illegal substances.

Welcoming back dopers ignores train wreck that leaves a wake of destruction and lives ruined. In my opinion Armstrong is the driver of that train.

Hyperbole,

Just a bit of lighthearted fun.

In light of an amazing day, British cycling apart, does anyone want to throw in any predictions for the rest of the race.

I am not sure whether it is heart or head, but I feel like this could be Wiggins' Tour. He stayed out of trouble in the first week, and a few of the other pre-race contenders are now languishing. Tomorrow's stage finish is tough, followed by really tough mountain days on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

I think he can do it.

PinkGottiMobbs

My original comment was:

*So technically I was correct. Froome (born and raised in England - if you count Kenya) as being the first not Scottish Brit to wear the Red Jersey.*

I was well aware Mr Froome is Kenyan. I was attempting, using what I thought was obvious sarcasm and banter, to justify a false remark I made earlier about Froome being the first Brit to wear the red shirt at the Vuelta.

It really is a shame when you have to go to lengths to explain yourself.

PinkGottiMobbs

My original comment was:

*So technically I was correct. Froome (born and raised in England - if you count Kenya) as being the first not Scottish Brit to wear the Red Jersey.*

I was well aware Mr Froome is Kenyan. I was attempting, using what I thought was obvious sarcasm and banter, to justify a false remark I made earlier about Froome being the first Brit to wear the red shirt at the Vuelta.

It really is a shame when you have to go to lengths to explain yourself.

There you go, correcting me again.

Where were you when I was doing my GSCDs?

andy.w

I knew there would be someone out there to put me right. Good article that.

Wright, David Millar and Cavendish all won on the opening day and held whilst the next couple of stages were not that tough.

Robert Millar is Scottish and they want independence, so I am not counting him.

Wikipedia tells me that Wright was born in Bishop Stortford but raised in Belgium - he even says his English was very poor as French was his first language. It's in Wikipedia so it's true.

So there we have it, the first three don't count because they won too early, Millar (R) doesn't count because he probably doesn't want to be British.

And Wright was basically a French speaking Belgium.

So technically I was correct. Froome (born and raised in England - if you count Kenya) as being the first not Scottish Brit to wear the Red Jersey.

I think you will find I got out of that predicament with sound logic and faultless reason.

No need to apologise.