Dear ASO (I want my EPO!) . . . - Page 3

I think most people took it in the spirit of irony and comedy it was meant, except the irony bypassed holier than thou types. I think every now and then you are going to get a tedious winner. Ulrich was a tedious bastard to me.

I really agree with that...some of the comments I've heard are like people who say they like football, but they get annoyed if the QB isn't constantly throwing long bombs for touchdowns. Which is great when it happens, but it's generally not very often. Lotsa plays for inches, and some call that boring.

Maybe people who thought they liked cycling, really kind of don't all that much.

__________________
So what?

+1.

Did everyone in this forum just start watching the tour in the last 10 years? There was plenty of incredible racing prior to EPO, HGH and modern drug cocktails, and IMO the racing before the Indurain era was better than it ever has been since. This tour on the other hand is the most pathetic excuse for a bike race I've ever seen. Your local Cat 5 squirrel crash fest is more exciting. These guys just keep looking at each other making faces and waiting for the other to feign an attack, because god forbid, no one will actually make a real one. And Sastre's performance, was it good? Sure, but nothing to go in the history books.

The only guy who gave us some spice was Ricco and he's gone. Never liked the kid, but at least he had some talent and balls.

Oh and how could I forget Cavendish, who must've idolized Pettachi...A sprinter who blows his load in 7 days then calls it quits. What a pussy. I'll go back to the days of Kelly anyday.

Indurain era was the breakthrough of the EPO era was it not? Your not just depressed because wheelsucking pussy is still looking good on the GC are ya?...

I think some of them are looking around at each other because they can't afford to win and be dope tested.

And how often did Indurain smoke it with attacks in the mountains?...

EDIT - Sorry FS... I misread your post... I see you said "before" the Indurain era. My bad.

__________________

There are some valid points inbetween some of your tongue in cheek comments FS.

I'll ask you a question. Do you think the Tour would have been better or spicier if either F Schleck or Sastre rode for a team other than CSC?

Cadel and Menchov have turned themselves inside out suffering like dogs but are diesels only capable of following, not really able to attack in the high mountains. VDV is probably happy to be there, Valverde cracked and Kohl's motor isn't big enough and he's on his last legs. My opinion is that with 2 GC contenders on CSC and A Schleck and a strong team as back up everyone is a bit scared to really have a go.

Hahaha...you win today..no way, you win...no, no, after you...

__________________
So what?

Read my post again, I said "BEFORE the Indurain era".

But Indurain did have immense class and did attack in the mountains when needed. Difference is, Indurain was soooo smooth, you didn't even realize he was attacking. He rode Virenque, Chiappucci, and a host of other climbers off his wheel without even getting out of the saddle. Need I post video again as a remembrance.

And yes I am upset that a wheelsucking pussy might win the tour - it shows that the race is in real trouble and certainly isn't going to help cycling be seen as a legitimate sport.

The only comment I agree with is your second point.

No question that having 3 of the most talented riders in this race on the same team negates some excitement. Andy is by far the most talented and I wonder what he could've done if Riis let him go. I'm still puzzled by Riis' tactics in the last 2 alpine stages, but I think his riders failed him. Certainly they did okay, but with the two Schleck's and Sastre I think Riis could've put significantly more time into his rivals. Looking at the footage, I think the weak link was Frank, and he just didn't have it in him to make the moves he had to make. Andy was stuck in a support role and unable to put the minutes he likely could have into his rivals. That left Sastre to hold the cards, and frankly I think he is the least talented of the three.

The rest of the guys you mentioned are top ten guys but IMO none of them are what you would think of as a Tour winner or top contender, and certainly none of them rode like one. Every 5 years or so you have 2-3 riders that are truly special, and those guys go on to win the Tour. I think those two right now are Basso and Contador - but they aren't racing because the governing bodies of cycling are moronic, corrupt, and grossly incompetent. Would FIFA or the NFL allow such shenanigans? Anyway, I digress.

This year's tour is like we're watching the Tour in 99-06 without LA, Ullrich, or Pantani. Or before that without Indurain, Rominger, or Zulle. Or in the pre-Indurain era (for Cranky's benefit), imagine a race without LeMond, Delgado, Fignon, Hinault, or Roche. What would those races have looked like? Well, probably a lot like this one.

Cadel Evans is a top contender to my mind but = a slightly less aggressive 2008 version of Joop 'the rat' Zoetemelk IMO. Like Joop he has to race to his strenghs, can hurt himself, has ridden an intellgent race, but things need to fall into place. With Evans its not blazing guns in main street stuff, but in the end its about winning, not looking pretty doing it. Menchov really tried on the bottom of Alpe d'Huez but didn't have it. Menchov is nails though.

Basso and to a lesser extent Contador got pretty much what they deserved IMO, plus Contador would not have won last year without Robochicken in the race. So there!

Agree on Frank Schleck, I don't think he has been capable of dropping Evans significantly. His bro lost chunks of time with a crook stomach IIRC, but has been very impressive. Evans et al were fortunate that the circumstances on Alpe d'Huez meant that Andy wasn't able to go with Sastre. A Sastre/A Schleck tandem would have got at least another 30 seconds and the race would have been over IMO. As it is the CSC boys didn't sound very confident in the interviews about their chance to win overall.

"Dreadfully boring"?? There are 5 riders within 2 minutes of each other with one TT left to go - really, just about any one of them could win.

What's really dreadfully boring is watching one guy put minutes on the other favorites in the first tt/ttt and then ride like a robot for the rest of the Tour with no hint of ever being in trouble. For 7 years straight. There was never anything whatsoever interesting during Armstrong's reign, save the one year ('04?) when it looked like maybe he was in a bit of trouble. Which he squashed on the next mountain stage.

Save the Indurain years, I don't think there's ever been a more boring period for the Tour than from about '99 through to last years edition.

+1

I started 'watching' the tour in the 1977 (AFAIR). I lived in Europe and 'watching' it was to see a few minutes of the race on TV and reading about it in the newspapers. The TV coverage (IIRC) was a few stationary cameras mounted on the Cols and on the finish line. Maybe you would have mobile (not necessarily live) coverage from the last parts of stages. I don't remember when live coverage of whole stages started (that happened only a few years ago with the Giro). So, I cannot honestly say that the Tour de France is more or less exciting now than it was then (and I would assume neither can most of you unless you were physically there). From what I understand, attacks were often induced by the presence of TV cameras. The absence of earpieces made it more likely for breakaways to succeed etc.

Anyhoo, this year's edition does not feature great characters such as Lemond, Hinault, Armstrong or even Indurain (I liked Indurain as character although he won his tours not precisely in any spectacular fashion). This year's winner will most likely be a one-timer. A fair comparison for me from the pre-EPO era would therefore be a rider such as Joop Zoetemelk (a very consistent rider), Pedro Delgado, or Stephen Roche. Even then a direct comparison would be hard to do since times have changed so much.

From newer history, one-timers were Bjarne Riis, Jan Ullrich, Marco Pantani (all of them heavily doped) and Oscar Pereiro (remember what a great and deserved win that was). I don't know in which category I should put Contador.

Finally, I think that TT ability should be less decisive for a Tour de France victory. With the exception of Pantani and Pereiro, I think during most of recent years, the overall winner was more a TT specialist (with climbing abilities) than not. IMHO, climbing specialists (with TT abilities) are shortchanged. Even with this year's 'skewed' parcour in favor of climbers, we'll most likely see the TT 'specialist' Evans beat the climber Sastre. I think in average, both types of riders should have more equal chances to win this thing overall.

Sorry for the slightly off-topic stuff.

Personally, I find the mountain stages to be far more interesting than the flats or the TTs, so I would definitely like the race to be more skewed in favor of climbers vs. time trialers. Maybe the crackdown on EPO will swing the pendulum back to the climbers. Rules that favor more aggressive riding in the mountains (time bonuses, etc.) would help.

I'll concede that 01, 02, 04, and 05 fit your description to a tee. However, 99 was exciting, as the result was totally unexpected and most were waiting for him to crack. In 2000, we had Armstrong, Ullrich, and Pantani together for the first time as Tour de France champions- the last 3 champs battling it out- the excitement was palpable even if the end result now looks obvious. Also, the USPS teams of 99 and 00 were quite weak- precious little mountain support. 01 started off promising as Telekom was loaded, but it did not happen. For my money, 2003 was the most exciting Tour since 1996- w/ the sheer shock of Indurain failing, or even 1989. Armstrong, Ullrich, and Vino within 15 seconds going into last mountain stage, and the winner up for grabs until Ullrich crashes in the ITT. 04, 05 zzzzzzzzz. 06 was exciting as well, although partially due to poor tactical racing, and the Landis ride which seemed much better then than it does now. 07 was very disappointing, as it was process of elimination that chose the winner, although the Chicken was amazing until excluded.

This Tour was exciting from a competition standpoint. The only team that could have supplied fireworks in the Alps was CSC, and it did somewhat, but this would have been a more exciting Tour if their top riders were split, or, what we all wanted to see, were fireworks on the Croix De Fer. The Schleck's and Sastre should have pulling their starting and stopping attacks up that climb, and CSC should never have paced the peloton up.

Would have been interesting to see if the Alps would have grounded the SD team, but we'll never know.

You're right about 1999, 2000 and 2003. Unfortunately, it is very easy to see all the Armstrong years as one bland and boring stretch of monotony.