Tour '04 prediction
View Full Version : Tour '04 prediction
I just saw the WCP 4-hour video for the '03 Tour.
It was a fantastic race, but the video is somewhat lacking.
* The commentary is often incorrect -- errors almost exceed accurate commentary. Surely with the
time scales of producing a video, the commentary need not be "live" or "virtual live".
* All the short stages get badly neglected, with key moves omitted. The problem here is that they
simply show the finish of the stage. Instead of 4 minutes of a rider soloing to the finish, how
about spending 20 seconds showing his attack? So essentially the editing is only the most
trivial possible.
* Too much time is spent in between-stage commentary, showing faces. It isn't that much time, but
clearly when covering a 21-stage race in 120 minutes, time is precious. There's no need to ever
show faces.
Anyway, based on this video, I have to make the following prediction for the 2004 Tour:
1. Ullrich: underprepared in '03, yet clearly extremely strong. Training early this year. He smells
his chance, and may even be hungrier for the win than Lance, who already has his five.
2. Armstrong: will be making trans-Atlantic flights during Tour preparation time. Hardly the way to
achieve needed improvement despite diminished capacity from being a year older.
3. Beloki: A serious threat, but probably lacks that extra bit to finish ahead of Armstrong.
4. Mayo: uphill time trial on L'Alpe d'Huez replaces a flat time trial
5. Hamilton: 1 flat ITT aren't enough to make up for time lost to Mayo, especially with mediocre
Phonak TTT.
6. Heras: free at last, free at last, ....
7. Haimar Zubeldia
8. Simoni: if you can win the Giro, you should at least be able to come in eighth in the Tour
9. Leipheimer: riding as team second this year, like '01 Vuelta. Should do well.
10. Vinokourov: burns matches for Ullrich this year.
Dan Connelly wrote:
> I just saw the WCP 4-hour video for the '03 Tour.
>
> It was a fantastic race, but the video is somewhat lacking.
>
> * The commentary is often incorrect -- errors almost exceed accurate commentary. Surely with the
> time scales of producing a video, the commentary need not be "live" or "virtual live".
But simply re-running the live feed is cheap. Maybe Phil & Paul can just work a little more on real-
time accuracy. That's the biggest problem with 'em. Mostly, they do great.
> * All the short stages get badly neglected, with key moves omitted. The problem here is that they
> simply show the finish of the stage. Instead of 4 minutes of a rider soloing to the finish, how
> about spending 20 seconds showing his attack? So essentially the editing is only the most
> trivial possible.
I agree. Sometimes very neat things happen in flat stages. Stage 8 of 2001 was an example, and it
was given 45 seconds on the 4-hour DVD.
> * Too much time is spent in between-stage commentary, showing faces. It isn't that much time, but
> clearly when covering a 21-stage race in 120 minutes, time is precious. There's no need to ever
> show faces.
I like the filler and background on the DVD. Oh, I've watched the 10-hour version. There's a "lot"
of insight and some very informative rider interviews about much of the action.
--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"
Raptor wrote:
> Dan Connelly wrote:
>
>> I just saw the WCP 4-hour video for the '03 Tour.
>>
>> It was a fantastic race, but the video is somewhat lacking.
>>
>> * The commentary is often incorrect -- errors almost exceed accurate commentary. Surely with the
>> time scales of producing a video, the commentary need not be "live" or "virtual live".
>
>
> But simply re-running the live feed is cheap. Maybe Phil & Paul can just work a little more on real-
> time accuracy. That's the biggest problem with 'em. Mostly, they do great.
If getting P&P to do a reasonable re-commentary is too costly, get someone else. What's said is more
important than who says it. Ligget's a great guy, but his commentary in the 2003 tape was useless.
He was essentially clueless about what was happening.
>> * All the short stages get badly neglected, with key moves omitted. The problem here is that they
>> simply show the finish of the stage. Instead of 4 minutes of a rider soloing to the finish, how
>> about spending 20 seconds showing his attack? So essentially the editing is only the most
>> trivial possible.
>
>
> I agree. Sometimes very neat things happen in flat stages. Stage 8 of 2001 was an example, and it
> was given 45 seconds on the 4-hour DVD.
>
I wrote "short stages". I should have written "flat stages", although even the mountain stages could
have used smarter editing. For example, on Virenque's solo stage win, they didn't even show his
attack, nor did they show any summit crossings other then the last.
>> * Too much time is spent in between-stage commentary, showing faces. It isn't that much time, but
>> clearly when covering a 21-stage race in 120 minutes, time is precious. There's no need to ever
>> show faces.
>
>
> I like the filler and background on the DVD. Oh, I've watched the 10-hour version. There's a "lot"
> of insight and some very informative rider interviews about much of the action.
Every second of face is one second less racing. They can talk over the race video coverage if they
want. That's what Duffield does. At least you can ignore him and watch the riders.
Dan
Raptor wrote:
> Sometimes very neat things happen in flat stages. Stage 8 of 2001 was an example
Yeah! And stage 8 of 2002 too, btw.
So where are the predictions in all this? Here are mine at present, subject to change due to
illness, injury, lack of form and retirement.
1. Ullrich
2. Beloki
3.Hamilton
4.Valverde
5..Armstrong
6. Vino
7. Odessa's husband
8. Mayo
9. Basso
10. Simoni
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:mXEJb.5448$gz2.3697@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> Raptor wrote:
> > Dan Connelly wrote:
> >
> >> I just saw the WCP 4-hour video for the '03 Tour.
> >>
> >> It was a fantastic race, but the video is somewhat lacking.
> >>
> >> * The commentary is often incorrect -- errors almost exceed accurate commentary. Surely with
> >> the time scales of producing a video, the commentary need not be "live" or "virtual live".
> >
> >
> > But simply re-running the live feed is cheap. Maybe Phil & Paul can just work a little more on
> > real-time accuracy. That's the biggest problem with 'em. Mostly, they do great.
>
> If getting P&P to do a reasonable re-commentary is too costly, get someone else. What's said is
> more important than who says it. Ligget's a great guy, but his commentary in the 2003 tape was
> useless. He was essentially clueless about what was happening.
>
>
> >> * All the short stages get badly neglected, with key moves omitted. The problem here is that
> >> they simply show the finish of the stage. Instead of 4 minutes of a rider soloing to the
> >> finish, how about spending 20 seconds showing his attack? So essentially the editing is only
> >> the most trivial possible.
> >
> >
> > I agree. Sometimes very neat things happen in flat stages. Stage 8 of 2001 was an example, and
> > it was given 45 seconds on the 4-hour DVD.
> >
>
> I wrote "short stages". I should have written "flat stages", although even the mountain stages
> could have used smarter editing. For example, on Virenque's solo stage win, they didn't even show
> his attack, nor did they show any summit crossings other then the last.
>
> >> * Too much time is spent in between-stage commentary, showing faces. It isn't that much time,
> >> but clearly when covering a 21-stage race in 120 minutes, time is precious. There's no need
> >> to ever show faces.
> >
> >
> > I like the filler and background on the DVD. Oh, I've watched the 10-hour version. There's a
> > "lot" of insight and some very informative rider interviews about much of the action.
>
> Every second of face is one second less racing. They can talk over the race video coverage if they
> want. That's what Duffield does. At least you can ignore him and watch the riders.
>
> Dan
B. Lafferty wrote:
> So where are the predictions in all this? Here are mine at present, subject to change due to
> illness, injury, lack of form and retirement.
>
> 1. Ullrich
> 2. Beloki
> 3.Hamilton
> 3.Valverde
> 5..Armstrong
> 6. Vino
> 7. Odessa's husband
> 8. Mayo
> 9. Basso
> 10. Simoni
>
I posted mine in my first post of this thread:
1. Ullrich
2. Armstrong
3. Beloki
4. Mayo
5. Hamilton
6. Heras
7. Zubeldia
8. Simoni
9. Leipheimer
10. Vinokourov
Armstrong 5th? That's bold. I'd take the bet in a second that Armstrong won't finish lower than 4th.
Valverde and Basso are decent choices, but predicting a Valverde dead heat with Hamilton for the
podium is even bolder than the Armstrong pick :).
Dan
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:6yGJb.5468$To3.1382@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > So where are the predictions in all this? Here are mine at present,
subject
> > to change due to illness, injury, lack of form and retirement.
> >
> > 1. Ullrich
> > 2. Beloki
> > 3.Hamilton
> > 3.Valverde
> > 5..Armstrong
> > 6. Vino
> > 7. Odessa's husband
> > 8. Mayo
> > 9. Basso
> > 10. Simoni
> >
>
> I posted mine in my first post of this thread:
>
> 1. Ullrich
> 2. Armstrong
> 3. Beloki
> 4. Mayo
> 5. Hamilton
> 6. Heras
> 7. Zubeldia
> 8. Simoni
> 9. Leipheimer
> 10. Vinokourov
>
>
> Armstrong 5th? That's bold. I'd take the bet in a second that Armstrong won't finish lower
> than 4th.
>
> Valverde and Basso are decent choices, but predicting a Valverde dead heat with Hamilton for the
> podium is even bolder than the Armstrong pick
:).
>
> Dan
I missed the post with your list. Bold, perhaps. Often wrong in the past, absolutely. I put
Armstrong in 5th because of how he looked in LBL. It was the first real hint that the aging process
is catching up to him. He couldn't do what he clearly wanted to do in LBL and the Tour confirmed
he's getting long in the tooth. Udo Bolts says much the same in the latest Cycle Sport. Right or
wrong, it's going to be a great Tour in 04. I would love for Levi to win if only to watch Odessa's
performance. :-)
In article <6yGJb.5468$To3.1382@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, Dan Connelly
<d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > So where are the predictions in all this? Here are mine at present, subject to change due to
> > illness, injury, lack of form and retirement.
> >
> > 1. Ullrich
> > 2. Beloki
> > 3.Hamilton
> > 3.Valverde
> > 5..Armstrong
> > 6. Vino
> > 7. Odessa's husband
> > 8. Mayo
> > 9. Basso
> > 10. Simoni
> >
>
> I posted mine in my first post of this thread:
>
> 1. Ullrich
> 2. Armstrong
> 3. Beloki
> 4. Mayo
> 5. Hamilton
> 6. Heras
> 7. Zubeldia
> 8. Simoni
> 9. Leipheimer
> 10. Vinokourov
>
>
> Armstrong 5th? That's bold. I'd take the bet in a second that Armstrong won't finish lower
> than 4th.
>
> Valverde and Basso are decent choices, but predicting a Valverde dead heat with Hamilton for the
> podium is even bolder than the Armstrong pick :).
>
> Dan
I'd like to see Simoni finish high up as well. He cooked himself in the Giro last year, and I really
think it was the heat that did him in. I think it did nearly everybody in! I think he'll kill
himself to make up for his awful time at the tour.
B. Lafferty wrote:
> I missed the post with your list. Bold, perhaps. Often wrong in the past, absolutely. I put
> Armstrong in 5th because of how he looked in LBL. It was the first real hint that the aging
> process is catching up to him. He couldn't do what he clearly wanted to do in LBL and the Tour
> confirmed he's getting long in the tooth. Udo Bolts says much the same in the latest Cycle Sport.
Well, Bolts says he won't win. I say he won't win. But 5th? Maybe. But that's a big drop.
WRT LBL --
2003:http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2003/worldcup03/lbl03/?id=results 20 Lance Armstrong (USA) US
Postal presented by Berry F 0.50
2004:http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2002/worldcup02/LBL02/?id=results 65 Lance Armstrong (USA) US
Postal Service 8.12
He was far better in 2003 than 2002.
Amstel Gold:
2005:http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2002/worldcup02/amstel02/?id=results 4 Lance Armstrong (USA) US
Postal Service @ st
2006:http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2003/worldcup03/amstel03/?id=results 8 Lance Armstrong (USA) US
Postal Service @ 8 sec
Somewhat better in 2002 than 2003
I hardly see a strong signal in the classics.
In the Tour in 2003, he suffered in the heat. Heat affects different riders differently. Yet at no
time in the race did he show the form he had in 2002. Even @ Luz Ardiden, he was able to open a gap,
but the gap was quickly controlled by Ullrich and company. Indeed, they were able to pull the gap
down from 50+ seconds to 40+ seconds near the finish. And in the prologue, he was hardly
exceptional. He was strong in the second time trial, of course. But that was 2003.... this is 2004.
He's on the road from superior to simply competitive.
He blamed a poor preparation. Maybe. But this year's won't be better, if he's shuttling across the
Atlantic. To the contrary. So consider a stronger Ullrich with Vino as support, a stronger Beloki, a
stronger Mayo.... I can't consider him the favorite. But 2nd or maybe 3rd. Not 5th. Neither Hamilton
nor Valverde will finish above Armstrong (assuming Armstrong finishes). Not this year. 5th might be
a good pick for '05, if he does the Tour.
Dan
In article <JwHJb.5481$G_3.4@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > I missed the post with your list. Bold, perhaps. Often wrong in the past, absolutely. I put
> > Armstrong in 5th because of how he looked in LBL. It was the first real hint that the aging
> > process is catching up to him. He couldn't do what he clearly wanted to do in LBL and the Tour
> > confirmed he's getting long in the tooth. Udo Bolts says much the same in the latest Cycle
> > Sport.
>
> Well, Bolts says he won't win. I say he won't win. But 5th? Maybe. But that's a big drop.
(snipper)
> In the Tour in 2003, he suffered in the heat. Heat affects different riders differently. Yet at no
> time in the race did he show the form he had in 2002. Even @ Luz Ardiden, he was able to open a
> gap, but the gap was quickly controlled by Ullrich and company. Indeed, they were able to pull the
> gap down from 50+ seconds to 40+ seconds near the finish. And in the prologue, he was hardly
> exceptional. He was strong in the second time trial, of course. But that was 2003.... this is
> 2004. He's on the road from superior to simply competitive.
My recollection is that Ullrich seems to deal with heat pretty well, while Armstrong deals better
with cool weather. So, considering the heat of '03, LA didn't lose as much time as one might
expect to Ullrich, especially taking into account his A) 'lack of form', B) 'poor preparation',
C) 'getting old', or D) all of the above. Hypothetically speaking, if there hadn't been the heat
wave, he should have been further ahead (all other factors being the same).
> He blamed a poor preparation. Maybe. But this year's won't be better, if he's shuttling across the
> Atlantic. To the contrary. So consider a stronger Ullrich with Vino as support, a stronger Beloki,
> a stronger Mayo.... I can't consider him the favorite. But 2nd or maybe 3rd. Not 5th. Neither
> Hamilton nor Valverde will finish above Armstrong (assuming Armstrong finishes). Not this year.
> 5th might be a good pick for '05, if he does the Tour.
>
> Dan
I'd agree with that: podium or nothing.
--
tanx, Howard
"Girls won't touch me 'cuz I got a misdirection..."
Pere Ubu
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-55100E.15045203012004@netnews.attbi.com...
> In article <JwHJb.5481$G_3.4@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote:
>
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> > > I missed the post with your list. Bold, perhaps. Often wrong in
the
> > > past, absolutely. I put Armstrong in 5th because of how he looked in
LBL.
> > > It was the first real hint that the aging process is catching up to
him. He
> > > couldn't do what he clearly wanted to do in LBL and the Tour confirmed
he's
> > > getting long in the tooth. Udo Bolts says much the same in the latest
Cycle
> > > Sport.
> >
> > Well, Bolts says he won't win. I say he won't win. But 5th? Maybe.
But
> > that's a big drop.
>
> (snipper)
>
> > In the Tour in 2003, he suffered in the heat. Heat affects different riders differently. Yet at
> > no time in the race did he show the form he had in 2002. Even @ Luz Ardiden, he was able to open
> > a gap, but the gap was quickly controlled by Ullrich and company. Indeed, they were able to pull
> > the gap down from 50+ seconds to 40+ seconds near the finish. And in the prologue, he was hardly
> > exceptional. He was strong in the second time trial, of course. But that was 2003.... this is
> > 2004. He's on the road from superior to simply competitive.
>
> My recollection is that Ullrich seems to deal with heat pretty well,
> while Armstrong deals better with cool weather. So, considering the heat
of
> '03, LA didn't lose as much time as one might expect to Ullrich,
especially
> taking into account his A) 'lack of form', B) 'poor preparation', C) 'getting old', or D) all of
> the above. Hypothetically speaking, if there hadn't been the heat wave, he should have been
> further ahead (all other factors being the same).
>
> > He blamed a poor preparation. Maybe. But this year's won't be better, if he's shuttling across
> > the Atlantic. To the contrary. So consider a stronger Ullrich with Vino as support, a stronger
> > Beloki, a stronger Mayo.... I can't consider him the favorite. But 2nd or maybe 3rd. Not 5th.
> > Neither Hamilton nor Valverde will finish above Armstrong (assuming Armstrong finishes). Not
> > this year. 5th might be a good pick for '05, if he does the Tour.
> >
> > Dan
>
> I'd agree with that: podium or nothing.
Consider though, Indurain finished 11th in 1996.
B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> Consider though, Indurain finished 11th in 1996.
>
>
Good point.
This was a year after winning by 4'35". LeMond, after what might have been his 5th (winning by
2'16"), finished 7th. Merckx finished 2nd, a year after winning by 8'04". Hinault finished 2nd a
year after winning by 1'42".
So the end can come quite suddenly. Yet I stand by my prediction.
Dan
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:bZBJb.5362$jY.750@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> I just saw the WCP 4-hour video for the '03 Tour.
>
> It was a fantastic race, but the video is somewhat lacking.
>
> * The commentary is often incorrect -- errors almost exceed accurate commentary. Surely with the
> time scales of producing a video, the commentary need not be "live" or "virtual live".
I have the 12 hour discs and to tell you the truth errors in commentary never bothered me much. I've
been a annoucer for races before so I know how hard it is to keep everything straight.
>* All the short stages get badly neglected, with key moves omitted.
> The problem here is that they simply show the finish of the
stage.
> Instead of 4 minutes of a rider soloing to the finish, how about spending 20 seconds showing
> his attack? So essentially the
editing
> is only the most trivial possible.
When you have the long solo but not the attack you show what you've got. And remember that they
can't be in the right place at the right time all the time. For instance, there are breaks going off
the front of the main group all the time. You can't expect them to get all of them and even if they
get 75% they are still likely to miss the one that sticks.
> 1. Ullrich: underprepared in '03, yet clearly extremely strong.
Training
> early this year. He smells his chance, and may even be
hungrier
> for the win than Lance, who already has his five.
I agree completely. Moreover, Jan was ALWAYS capable of winning. It was his motivation that was
lacking since his first win after which we saw the incredible eating machine.
> 2. Armstrong: will be making trans-Atlantic flights during Tour preparation time. Hardly the way
> to achieve needed
improvement
> despite diminished capacity from being a year older.
I see this as essentially no problem since I believe that training in the Rockies is twice as good
as training in the Alps.
> 3. Beloki: A serious threat, but probably lacks that extra bit to finish ahead of Armstrong.
Beloki and Heras will neutralize each other.
> 4. Mayo: uphill time trial on L'Alpe d'Huez replaces a flat time
trial
Mayo, like Heras is a steep climb specialist if memory serves. That being the case I don't believe
that he'll win L'Alpe.
> 5. Hamilton: 1 flat ITT aren't enough to make up for time lost to
Mayo,
> especially with mediocre Phonak TTT.
Don't sell Tyler short.
> 6. Heras: free at last, free at last, ....
And a real bozo over 3/4's of the stages.
> 7. Haimar Zubeldia
TT specialist? Why name him?
> 8. Simoni: if you can win the Giro, you should at least be able to
come
> in eighth in the Tour
Or better. However, the Giro is one sort of GT and the Tour another. I don't think that Gilberto can
match Tyler in the big mountains.
> 9. Leipheimer: riding as team second this year, like '01 Vuelta. Should do well.
I've always seen Levi and Bobby as two of a kind. Both lucked into good positions and both hesitated
because they couldn't believe it. They may have squandered their only chances from being too
conservative.
> 10. Vinokourov: burns matches for Ullrich this year.
Vino is a bullet and could actually lead most of the race.
"Tom Kunich" <tkunich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>For instance, there are breaks going off the front of the main group all the time. You can't expect
>them to get all of them and even if they get 75% they are still likely to miss the one that sticks.
>
How do you figure those odds?
> > 2. Armstrong: will be making trans-Atlantic flights during Tour preparation time. Hardly the way
> > to achieve needed
> improvement
> > despite diminished capacity from being a year older.
>
> I see this as essentially no problem since I believe that training in the Rockies is twice as good
> as training in the Alps.
I think he'd be better off in the Smokie Mtns. He doesn't need the Rockies for altitude training,
and the Smokies are steeper, IIRC.
"Marlene Blanshay" <blanshay@total.net> wrote in message
news:blanshay-0301041809580001@192.168.1.3...
> In article <6yGJb.5468$To3.1382@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, Dan Connelly
> <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote:
>
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> > > So where are the predictions in all this? Here are mine at present,
subject
> > > to change due to illness, injury, lack of form and retirement.
> > >
> > > 1. Ullrich
> > > 2. Beloki
> > > 3.Hamilton
> > > 3.Valverde
> > > 5..Armstrong
> > > 6. Vino
> > > 7. Odessa's husband
> > > 8. Mayo
> > > 9. Basso
> > > 10. Simoni
> > >
> >
> > I posted mine in my first post of this thread:
> >
> > 1. Ullrich
> > 2. Armstrong
> > 3. Beloki
> > 4. Mayo
> > 5. Hamilton
> > 6. Heras
> > 7. Zubeldia
> > 8. Simoni
> > 9. Leipheimer
> > 10. Vinokourov
> >
> >
> > Armstrong 5th? That's bold. I'd take the bet in a second that
Armstrong
> > won't finish lower than 4th.
> >
> > Valverde and Basso are decent choices, but predicting a Valverde dead heat with Hamilton for the
> > podium is even bolder than the Armstrong pick
:).
> >
> > Dan
>
> I'd like to see Simoni finish high up as well. He cooked himself in the Giro last year, and I
> really think it was the heat that did him in. I think it did nearly everybody in! I think he'll
> kill himself to make up for his awful time at the tour.
I'm going to try to get my wife to agree to let me get a second Cannondale if Simoni makes the
podium. But first I'll have to explain who Simoni is.
B. Lafferty wrote:
> I'm going to try to get my wife to agree to let me get a second Cannondale if Simoni makes the
> podium. But first I'll have to explain who Simoni is.
Let Ashlyn do the closing argument.
Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
>>>2. Armstrong: will be making trans-Atlantic flights during Tour preparation time. Hardly the way
>>> to achieve needed
>>
>>improvement
>>
>>> despite diminished capacity from being a year older.
>>
>>I see this as essentially no problem since I believe that training in the Rockies is twice as good
>>as training in the Alps.
>
>
> I think he'd be better off in the Smokie Mtns. He doesn't need the Rockies for altitude training,
> and the Smokies are steeper, IIRC.
>
>
Since I'm recovering from a case of hepatitis A which I managed to smuggle across the southern
border, I am rather susceptible to any sort of exertion right now. For Christmas, I flew across the
country to (PST<->EST) to visit family. In each case, I was severely fatigued for two days following
the trip -- just wiped out tired. Granted, the same would happen from even the most trivial training
ride. (my current training ride is to spin around the block -- that's enough. And it's a small
block....) But the point is crossing even 3 time zones is a significant fatigue factor. Crossing 7
or whatever is much worse.
When training for the Tour, to not be able to direct all of ones physical resources to the task is a
compromise, and Armstrong can hardly afford a compromise. Sure -- maybe if he stays for a month or
more, and makes the trip only once, he'll maybe be okay. But if he's making monthly weekend
excursions, in my opinion, forget it. There's no chance.
And WRT altitude training. He already uses a tent. Why's he need the Rockies?
Dan
In article <ZcMJb.5635$7u6.5090@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, Dan
Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote:
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
> >
> >>>2. Armstrong: will be making trans-Atlantic flights during Tour preparation time. Hardly the
> >>> way to achieve needed
> >>
> >>improvement
> >>
> >>> despite diminished capacity from being a year older.
> >>
> >>I see this as essentially no problem since I believe that training in the Rockies is twice as
> >>good as training in the Alps.
> >
> >
> > I think he'd be better off in the Smokie Mtns. He doesn't need the Rockies for altitude
> > training, and the Smokies are steeper, IIRC.
> >
> >
>
> Since I'm recovering from a case of hepatitis A which I managed to smuggle across the southern
> border, I am rather susceptible to any sort of exertion right now. For Christmas, I flew across
> the country to (PST<->EST) to visit family. In each case, I was severely fatigued for two days
> following the trip -- just wiped out tired. Granted, the same would happen from even the most
> trivial training ride. (my current training ride is to spin around the block -- that's enough. And
> it's a small block....) But the point is crossing even 3 time zones is a significant fatigue
> factor. Crossing 7 or whatever is much worse.
It's more about the change to your body clock, not the distance. I fly frequently across 3 or more
time zones and any fatigue is more a result of the difference or change in rising and sleeping, and
not getting dehydrated on the plane. When I flew to Fiji we left at 11pm from LAX and got off the
plane 10+ hours later at 6 am Fiji time. My body clock was off no more than an hour. Going to Europe
can be similar with an overnight flight from the Western USA. Getting a comfortable (reclining)
seat/chair in first class or business class helps a lot too.
-WG
In article <FoIJb.6966$6B.2673@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote:
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message news:YOURhoward-
> 55100E.15045203012004@netnews.attbi.com...
> > In article <JwHJb.5481$G_3.4@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> > Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote:
> > > I can't consider him the favorite. But 2nd or maybe 3rd. Not 5th. Neither Hamilton nor
> > > Valverde will finish above Armstrong (assuming Armstrong finishes). Not this year. 5th might
> > > be a good pick for '05, if he does the Tour.
> > >
> > > Dan
> >
> > I'd agree with that: podium or nothing.
>
> Consider though, Indurain finished 11th in 1996.
Well, I did consider that. Then I wondered, "Would Armstrong willingly -finish- in 11th?" I'm not
so sure he would.
--
tanx, Howard
"Girls won't touch me 'cuz I got a misdirection..."
Pere Ubu
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
news:ZcMJb.5635$7u6.5090@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Since I'm recovering from a case of hepatitis A which I managed to smuggle across the southern
> border, I am rather susceptible to any sort of exertion right now.
Dumbass -
Is that why you've been sort of absent for the last year?
Hep is nasty stuff. Hope you get better.
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
