This TdF left me cold

Cobblestones said:

Maybe what was wrong in this tour is that the riders were riding using defensive tactics from the EPO era in a (hopefully) post-EPO time.

You're not factoring in the change in rules this year that eliminated time bonuses. That has a huge impact on whether it's better to attack or better to wheelsuck and get the same time as your competitors.

[quote="Cobblestones"]I enjoyed this year because I think it gave a glimpse back to pre-EPO times. Exhausted riders, frequent change of jerseys etc.

On the other hand, I understand why some people here were left cold. I think I figured out the reason. Look at the top ten and how many stage wins they have among them:

1) Sastre (1)
2) Evans (0)
3) Kohl (0)
4) Menchov (0)
5) Vandevelde (0)
6) F. Schleck (0) (1 discounting SD wins on stage 10)
7) S. Sanchez (0)
8) Kirchen (0)
9) Valverde (1) (2 discounting Ricco on stage 6)
10) Valjavec (0)

So among them, the top 10 managed to get 2 stage wins (4 if you discount all SD riders). I haven't gone back in time to check, but this must be a low point.

QUOTE]

Why are people discounting the SD wins. To my knowledge the only sample I have heard from Ricco to come back positive was his TT sample (Eventhough I heard it was his stage 6 sample also) But Pieopli has not returned a Positive test, his win still count, and even if he did, then Cobo would get credit for the win. Eventhough SD has withdrawn there team, the accomplishments aren't wiped out.

Cobblestones said:

To continue the analysis...

I think you are on to something here. It did not seem like there was much of a battle. It was just a clump of contenders following each other around. Even when Menchov faltered on the Alpe, no one was willing to stick a knife in him so he clawed his way back. The high points, as far as the conteders go, turned out to be Kohl and Sastre on Prato Nevoso and Sastre on the Alpe.

I am not even all that happy about Sastre. His win on the Alpe was great, but he seemed to be mostly anonomous before that. It is like F. Schleck was used to fake out Evans, so Sastre could slide into home plate at the last moment. Great teactics by CSC, but it did not leave me with a lot of enjoyment for the overall race.

To extend that last point, and this is probably just my distorted impression, everyone was riding against Evans. It was usually left to him, even though he had no team, to set pace on climbs. Menchov did sometimes help in the Pyranees. All Vande Velde could manage was a few weak ass attacks before fading back into the group as soon as they were covered. After Vande Velde crashed and lost a chunk of time, it looked like it would come down to Evans and Menchov. Then out of the blue, Sastre wins it.

Giving Sastre's win an even worse taste in my mouth is the belief that the whole CSC team is doped. Not just doped a little but really doped. So it's not like Evans had to ride with a [censored] team against a good team, but he had to ride with a [censored] team against a team of supermen who never get tired.

Capt.Injury said:

Why are people discounting the SD wins. To my knowledge the only sample I have heard from Ricco to come back positive was his TT sample (Eventhough I heard it was his stage 6 sample also) But Pieopli has not returned a Positive test, his win still count, and even if he did, then Cobo would get credit for the win. Eventhough SD has withdrawn there team, the accomplishments aren't wiped out.

The last three tours are difficult to judge in that respect. I don't know whether anything was found in Piepoli's (or Cobo's) test. IIRC Piepoli admitted to using Micera. Ricco was busted for Micera. Since it stays in your body for about 2-4 weeks, it is likely Ricco took it before the start of the tour, so stage 6 should be discounted. But this is just guesswork. Maybe Ricco took his Micera after his stage 6 win.

Last year, Vino's victory should be discounted I would say. What about Chicken? He was never busted for anything. Should his stagewins count (I'd say yes).

2006, Landis can be removed I think.

Anyway, I think the first two weeks of the TdF were very exciting. Remember how the first stages were fought out. Remember the drama in the Pyrenees. I think the Alpine stages were a little bit of a letdown. Maybe the riders were too tired at that point?

I don't know whether time bonuses would do the trick. It's not really much time. IIRC time bonuses on mountain stages are a relatively new addition anyway. I think the lack of stage wins of top-ten finishers made this tour a little bland. None of the contenders had a real killer instinct. That might change next year. It was also a difficult TdF with many HC mountains. I think it should be made a little bit easier to allow maybe for more aggressive riding.

Bro Deal said:

I think you are on to something here. It did not seem like there was much of a battle. It was just a clump of contenders following each other around. Even when Menchov faltered on the Alpe, no one was willing to stick a knife in him so he clawed his way back. The high points, as far as the conteders go, turned out to be Kohl and Sastre on Prato Nevoso and Sastre on the Alpe.

I am not even all that happy about Sastre. His win on the Alpe was great, but he seemed to be mostly anonomous before that. It is like F. Schleck was used to fake out Evans, so Sastre could slide into home plate at the last moment. Great teactics by CSC, but it did not leave me with a lot of enjoyment for the overall race.

To extend that last point, and this is probably just my distorted impression, everyone was riding against Evans. It was usually left to him, even though he had no team, to set pace on climbs. Menchov did sometimes help in the Pyranees. All Vande Velde could manage was a few weak ass attacks before fading back into the group as soon as they were covered. After Vande Velde crashed and lost a chunk of time, it looked like it would come down to Evans and Menchov. Then out of the blue, Sastre wins it.

Giving Sastre's win an even worse taste in my mouth is the belief that the whole CSC team is doped. Not just doped a little but really doped. So it's not like Evans had to ride with a [censored] team against a good team, but he had to ride with a [censored] team against a team of supermen who never get tired.

I think you have it right. People need to realize that the Tour is a series of stages, and it's those stages that make the overall race exciting. Just because 5 people are within 2 minutes of each other on GC doesn't make it exciting. If the peloton rode as a group for 20 stages, they'd enter Paris, with all 190 of them at the same time. Would that be exciting?

An exciting race is made by watching the MOST talented racers take it to each other. As much [censored] as I give Cadel, really the others were no different. Menchov and VdV were just as bad minus the hysterics....okay that's a little extreme (no one sucks as bad as Cadel), but you get my point. VdV I think was actually the worst as he would interview after the stage and talk about how much more he could've given. Okay, then WTF is wrong with you? Do you not want to win? No one, with the exception of Sastre, made a single move to try and win this race. If Cadel was Indurain and could put 5 minutes into his opponents on a ITT then I would say his strategy was sound. Problem is he's not Indurain...in fact he couldn't even draft off Indurain.

If people want to watch an exciting tour then let in the best riders and don't arbitrarily exclude them. These guys sucked it up big time. We all know pro cyclists dope and they did once again this year. It's just they kept out the dopers that are worth a damn.

Moller said:

Kimmage sums up this thread;

But not everyone was pleased. No, back in the press room, some of the muppets who had glorified the Robo-cop years were bemoaning the lack of “spectacle”. They had spent so much time with their heads up the arses of the cheats, they had forgotten:this is how it looks when it’s clean.

Kimmage doesnt remember when it was clean either. NO one has seen the TDF clean.

fscyclist said:

I think you have it right. People need to realize that the Tour is a series of stages, and it's those stages that make the overall race exciting. Just because 5 people are within 2 minutes of each other on GC doesn't make it exciting. If the peloton rode as a group for 20 stages, they'd enter Paris, with all 190 of them at the same time. Would that be exciting?

An exciting race is made by watching the MOST talented racers take it to each other. As much [censored] as I give Cadel, really the others were no different. Menchov and VdV were just as bad minus the hysterics....okay that's a little extreme (no one sucks as bad as Cadel), but you get my point. VdV I think was actually the worst as he would interview after the stage and talk about how much more he could've given. Okay, then WTF is wrong with you? Do you not want to win? No one, with the exception of Sastre, made a single move to try and win this race. If Cadel was Indurain and could put 5 minutes into his opponents on a ITT then I would say his strategy was sound. Problem is he's not Indurain...in fact he couldn't even draft off Indurain.

If people want to watch an exciting tour then let in the best riders and don't arbitrarily exclude them. These guys sucked it up big time. We all know pro cyclists dope and they did once again this year. It's just they kept out the dopers that are worth a damn.

what a refreshing and insightful post. thank you for sharing.

additionally, had the tour organizers let in all the best riders, evans would have been but a footnote in these gt discussions as his abilities would not have propelled him to the podium or top 5 at all.

fscyclist said:

If people want to watch an exciting tour then let in the best riders and don't arbitrarily exclude them. These guys sucked it up big time. We all know pro cyclists dope and they did once again this year. It's just they kept out the dopers that are worth a damn.

Are you doing a call for decadence or decline?

I enjoyed this years TDF.

fscyclist said:

People need to realize that the Tour is a series of stages, and it's those stages that make the overall race exciting. Just because 5 people are within 2 minutes of each other on GC doesn't make it exciting. If the peloton rode as a group for 20 stages, they'd enter Paris, with all 190 of them at the same time. Would that be exciting?

'zactly

Just as doped as ever, but with a dopey crew this year.

We will get the excitement back, just need to get the riders.

It always goes in stages (no pun intended), we just had an incredible run of maniacs for decades, it is just a temporary slump. Pantani, Armstrong, Cipollini, Ullrich, it goes on ond on................dope or not, those guy's were out of control.

When you have to pin your hopes on someone like Evans..............it's over.

Clean race? My ass.

I don't understand why people think that this tour sucked...

Firstly, on Hautacam and Alpe GC riders started to attack each other on bottom slopes of the climb. Menchov crashed on Prato and this stage was full of action. I could understand the criticism about mountain stages of last year’s Vuelta… but not this time…

Secondly, people complained that Galibier is usually the highest point of Tour and begged to add Bonette or Iseran to the route. Now they got Bonette... and there are complaints again...

Thirdly, people always said there are too many stages for the sprinters in the first week. Now they had Super Besse finish. What was wrong there? It was the way it should finish when the riders are fresh... there weren’t many stages for the sprinters in the first week.

Fourthly, CSC tactics on Alpe was one of the smartest in my recent Tour memory.

Fifthly, people complained that Tour usually visits the same mountains. This time we had new finish at Prato and Tour also hasn’t finished at Jausiers before. I think we had a very good mix of classical and new mountains this year.

Sixtly, I enjoyed first stage very much - it is good idea to have challenging road stage. I was usually bored to see short prolouge (I would prefer TTT or a real TT (some 20km)).

[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana]It seems there is a lack of constructive criticism regarding this year’s Tour. And once again Tour is bad because it cannot be good… I think we should appreciate the route of this year’s Tour and I can’t wait for October to see how mountain stages for 2009 will look like… I think it was the best GT in recent years...[/font][/font]

guncha said:

I don't understand why people think that this tour sucked...

Firstly, on Hautacam and Alpe GC riders started to attack each other on bottom slopes of the climb. Menchov crashed on Prato and this stage was full of action. I could understand the criticism about mountain stages of last year’s Vuelta… but not this time…

Secondly, people complained that Galibier is usually the highest point of Tour and begged to add Bonette or Iseran to the route. Now they got Bonette... and there are complaints again...

Thirdly, people always said there are too many stages for the sprinters in the first week. Now they had Super Besse finish. What was wrong there? It was the way it should finish when the riders are fresh... there weren’t many stages for the sprinters in the first week.

Fourthly, CSC tactics on Alpe was one of the smartest in my recent Tour memory.

Fifthly, people complained that Tour usually visits the same mountains. This time we had new finish at Prato and Tour also hasn’t finished at Jausiers before. I think we had a very good mix of classical and new mountains this year.

Sixtly, I enjoyed first stage very much - it is good idea to have challenging road stage. I was usually bored to see short prolouge (I would prefer TTT or a real TT (some 20km)).

[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana]It seems there is a lack of constructive criticism regarding this year’s Tour. And once again Tour is bad because it cannot be good… I think we should appreciate the route of this year’s Tour and I can’t wait for October to see how mountain stages for 2009 will look like… I think it was the best GT in recent years...[/font][/font]

I think there are a lot of people who swoon at the thought of the cyclists throwing themselves into reckless breakaways and attacks regardless of circumstances. For them, mere professionalism, team tactics, and intelligent decisionmaking are "boring". I don't really have a problem with that viewpoint. On the other hand, I find it amusing that the same people who wring their hands incessantly about how the sport needs more excitement are the first ones who will sling the "doper" label at a great individual performance. It's not that the sport is any less exciting than it ever was. It's just that these days, if you particularly like or dislike a cyclist, it's easy to rationalize a disappointing result by simply turning up your nose and saying "doper".

And given that this smarmy exercise in rumormongering and character assassination appears to be the only enjoyment many people get out of the sport, it's not suprising to me that, in comparison to other major sports, it is struggling for market share.