Tour de France Stage 20: Pinot wins on Alpe d'Huez, Froome poised to win second yellow jersey

ianrobo wrote:

I had to listen to this stage and the only question is why in the 4 Alpine stages did NQ leave it so late. No chance of catching up and today was for show, not serious.

Froome deserves to win for what he did in the Pyrenees but Movistar with their team blew it.

Yeah, they were poor as a team. I think Valverde almost undermined Quintana. Boardman actually reckons they had dual captaincy. They'll fix that next year.

Sorry, I must have been watching a different stage. NQ started attacking 50K out, practically unheard of for a GC contender nowadays. On top of that he attacked a couple of times on the alp before it stuck and 'lost' only by a minute or so. If Froome had folded on the final climb it would have been celebrated as a fantastic (late) victory. By waiting they wouldn't have had to defend the jersey for so long as sky have had to. Talented ride by NQ.

crikey wrote:

The big problem with the current 'Yeah, but they're all dopers' attitude towards cycling is that it blinds people to the rest of the sport; if all you can see is doped/not doped in some hard core cynical 'I won't be fooled because I'm way too smart' way, you really miss the point.

If you feel that way, don't watch it.

If people are doping, we'll find out soon enough. In the meantime stop reducing every ride to some comparison of watts per kg.

Sounds like you have your own doubts.

Personally I have no problem believing that they dope (we don't know one way or the other). I believe they all have different 'preparation', some require assistance in just getting through a GT. I believe that the incentives to dope and the disincentives (getting caught) are small. Name a big athlete that has been caught doping in competition? It all happens retrospectively and mostly through third party evidence.

The problem I have is a) people naively thinking that top sport is not artifice (thereby putting athletes on a pedestal which they don't entirely deserve, b) it affects the way that young people develop in the sport (either talented athletes are dissuaded from exploring their talent because they cannot take that 'magical' next step to pro level, or that they think they must take drugs) and c) where teams control performance that it takes the competitive element away. Sometimes this is blatant, other times less so.

I think there is evidence that the TdF is more 'human' than the Giro and Vuelta, but to deny that doping goes on rather makes it easy for the 'authorities' and professionals get away with it. If there's anything that people should take away from Armstrong is that the profit motive should not exceed the need to keep sport clean.

But if you said it's been a good TdF I would agree with you. Froome has dealt with a lot and come through the winner. Chapeau.

It's depressing to see people condemning Froome as a drug cheat with not a shred of evidence. I think he's clean, and if you think otherwise you should at least list your reasons, not just make a casual throwaway comment. He's never tested negative, no-one who has worked with him has ever accused him of cheating (unlike Armstrong), his performances are demonstrably within the range of a non drugged athlete, and he's one of the most tested athletes in history. He's just put in the effort of a lifetime and I think he deserves huge, huge respect for that. Watching him struggle to limit his losses to Quintana was an unforgettable duel. Let's enjoy it.

crikey wrote:

Sulking then....

What would proof of a completely clean peloton look like to you?

I once asked a very similar question in the Clinic. Utter bafflement from all concerned. It's far easier to maintain that studied cynicism - means you can never be proven wrong and you can keep your place in the circle jerk.

Simon_MacMichael wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

He came ahead by over a minute, his gear must be better than froome's

You meant "gearing," yes? Damn autocorrect, eh?

Dig @ dope sceptics