who's watching the TDF coverage?

[Arjun Mendiratta]

The race is certainly getting exciting.

I think the uncertainty regarding the team leader benefits both Bruyneel and Armstrong, and as such they will cultivate it for as long as they are able.

 

[Bwood]

originally posted by Ned Hoey:

originally posted by VLM:

Did anyone see it? Sounds like he put it to Lance. Wonder if he looked back at him like Lance did to Jan.

Yeah, I saw it. Contador is well known for being the best at sudden accelerations. This wasn't an attack at Lance. This was against Evans and the other contenders in the group. The team thing for Lance to do
was mark Evans or anyone attempting to chase Contador which he did. This was the final few kilometers,
Lance did not seem incapable of following but it would have been improper if he had. There's a lot more to go. Lance may indeed be riding to be second, it's hard to say, but I expect he will keep himself to at any moment be in a position to take over if AC falters.

That's what I thought.

It's still too early to determine Armstrong's capacity, although I think you'd guess he just can't go with Contador's quickest acceleration moves. Both he and Contador marked Evans easily when Evans tried to separate from the contenders group at the end of the climb.

 

[Ned Hoey]

Seems according to reports that Team orders were to ease off, mark attacks but let Nocentini take yellow so Astana wouldn't have to defend it yet. Apparently Contador ignored orders and attacked anyway, possibly hoping to take the jersey and thus force Astana to defend him wearing it. He fell six seconds short because the winds were too strong, which is the reason Lance thought today was not the day and another reason why he didn't try to go with Contador.

I sense at some crucial point we may see a showdown between Armstrong and Contador, unless Lance
is simply planning to not race to win, which is hard to imagine. Today Contador showed his hand, gambled but it didn't work. I hope Bruyneel can keep this from dividing the team.

 

[Bwood]

originally posted by VLM:

I think part of the reason that Lance is so hated is because of the Anglo-Saxon way he approached the race. He was so methodical and had how and where he was going to win planned out (people forget that Indurain started this first, he basically won by destroying everyone else in the ITT). He has 6 fewer stage wins than Hinault and 12 fewer than Merckx.

VLM sometimes you think too much. I think the reasons for the Lance hate are really much simpler. A provincialism, nationalism, and redneck spirit that makes it easy to dislike someone from the US, especially someone not inclined to show deference towards your culture. Not unlike the the rabid redneck anti-French Freedom Fries view that is so common in the US, particularly in the southern U.S. where jokes about French surrender and lack of masculine fortitude are de rigeur. And imagine if a Parisien showed up and hit 84 home runs in one season and acted, well, too French and not American enough. It's really pathetic on both sides.

If you saw the Armstrong and Bruyneel interviews today. it's clear Contador's move on Friday has created some team concerns. The Alps will be interesting.

 

[Ned Hoey]

originally posted by Bwood:
I think the reasons for the Lance hate are really much simpler. A provincialism, nationalism, and redneck spirit that makes it easy to dislike someone from the US, especially someone not inclined to show deference towards your culture. Not unlike the the rabid redneck anti-French Freedom Fries view that is so common in the US, particularly in the southern U.S. where jokes about French surrender and lack of masculine fortitude are de rigeur. And imagine if a Parisien showed up and hit 84 home runs in one season and acted, well, too French and not American enough. It's really pathetic on both sides.

If you saw the Armstrong and Bruyneel interviews today. it's clear Contador's move on Friday has created some team concerns. The Alps will be interesting.

Lance can be kinda brusque, at least from a Gallic perspective. Combine your observation with a lack of
comprehension of his scientific training, which produced such dominating performances, and you have a perfect target in this doping charged environment.
While the French tend to like a story of a suffering tragic hero overcoming the odds to win, which his cancer comeback was, when he went on to be "too successful" they turned.

 

[maureen]

originally posted by Bwood:
I think the reasons for the Lance hate are really much simpler. A provincialism, nationalism, and redneck spirit that makes it easy to dislike someone from the US, especially someone not inclined to show deference towards your culture.

although hate is perhaps overstating it, I'll tell you why I don't like him - he seems like a crappy husband and father - all that time training with small children at home and then he leaves - what a jerk - I think even sheryl crow began to think so.

 

[Arjun Mendiratta]

although hate is perhaps overstating it, I'll tell you why I don't like him - he seems like a crappy husband and father - all that time training with small children at home and then he leaves - what a jerk - I think even sheryl crow began to think so.

i think even lance's admirers would concede that he's a jerk, and i would certainly agree. however, it may no longer be realistic to expect great athletes to be great individuals as well.

 

[Bwood]

originally posted by maureen:

originally posted by Bwood:
I think the reasons for the Lance hate are really much simpler. A provincialism, nationalism, and redneck spirit that makes it easy to dislike someone from the US, especially someone not inclined to show deference towards your culture.

although hate is perhaps overstating it, I'll tell you why I don't like him - he seems like a crappy husband and father - all that time training with small children at home and then he leaves - what a jerk - I think even sheryl crow began to think so.

See, this is why I'd prefer not to know any details of his personal life. I don't want to know if Thierry Henry was a shithead to his family, or Roger Federer is a cheapskate, or Tiger Woods is a facist, or Thierry Allemand is a jerk or one of my favorite writers is a horrible spouse, or Cervantes was a womanizer, or Homer wasn't a good tipper. As a sports fan, or a wine drinker, or reader, I just want to be able to respond to thing it is that person does without the coloring of celebrity gossip or biography.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

Bing Crosby, too.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Bwood:

originally posted by maureen:

originally posted by Bwood:
I think the reasons for the Lance hate are really much simpler. A provincialism, nationalism, and redneck spirit that makes it easy to dislike someone from the US, especially someone not inclined to show deference towards your culture.

although hate is perhaps overstating it, I'll tell you why I don't like him - he seems like a crappy husband and father - all that time training with small children at home and then he leaves - what a jerk - I think even sheryl crow began to think so.

See, this is why I'd prefer not to know any details of his personal life. I don't want to know if Thierry Henry was a shithead to his family, or Roger Federer is a cheapskate, or Tiger Woods is a facist, or Thierry Allemand is a jerk or one of my favorite writers is a horrible spouse, or Cervantes was a womanizer, or Homer wasn't a good tipper. As a sports fan, or a wine drinker, or reader, I just want to be able to respond to thing it is that person does without the coloring of celebrity gossip or biography.

Hear, hear.

By the way, I think Lance hatred is more the French media than the French, at least those I talked to when I was there and he was winning regularly. It may have changed since they accused him of doping. Why, by the way, do we doubt that he doped? Surely given what's happened with Tour winners in the last few years, it would be near miraculous if he had not?

 

[Ned Hoey]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Why, by the way, do we doubt that he doped? Surely given what's happened with Tour winners in the last few years, it would be near miraculous if he had not?

Has never failed a test? We can start with that.

Of course, I don't think there was an officially approved or reliable test for EPO till 01 or 02.
It's situation where people cite the evidence they prefer to believe and go around and around.
Considering his stature and visibility, the fact that if he had doped and managed to evade ever testing positive is pretty miraculous too. As you point out the others seem to get caught sooner or later.

 

[Arjun Mendiratta]

originally posted by Ned Hoey:

Has never failed a test?

I don't think this line has much merit after the events of the last few years in both cycling and track and field. I'm sure that there are good reasons to believe that Lance isn't doping, but this isn't one of them.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Ned Hoey:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Why, by the way, do we doubt that he doped? Surely given what's happened with Tour winners in the last few years, it would be near miraculous if he had not?

Has never failed a test? We can start with that.

Of course, I don't think there was an officially approved or reliable test for EPO till 01 or 02.
It's situation where people cite the evidence they prefer to believe and go around and around.
Considering his stature and visibility, the fact that if he had doped and managed to evade ever testing positive is pretty miraculous too. As you point out the others seem to get caught sooner or later.

The TDF people said, after his last victory, that they did have lab evidence of doping. It was of course contested. But to my mind, and without knowledge of chemistry, only of reading newspaper stories, the evidence was better than the evidence against Clemens, who I certainly believe doped (even though it used to be said that pitchers didn't do that because they didn't need bulk)and at least as good as that against Bonds.

Just as an aside, I think the uproar over doping is completely hypocritical. We demand of athletes things that unaided human beings cannot do and reward them for doing it way past an age at which any human being can be reasonably expected to do anything like it and than become shocked and affronted when they do what they have to do to meet those demands. So it doesn't bother me that Armstrong doped. I just think it a form of innocence to think that he has not.

 

[Ned Hoey]

originally posted by Arjun Mendiratta:

originally posted by Ned Hoey:

Has never failed a test?

I don't think this line has much merit after the events of the last few years in both cycling and track and field. I'm sure that there are good reasons to believe that Lance isn't doping, but this isn't one of them.

I hesitate to engage in doping discussion. Also I'd rather not take on the role of Armstrong apologist other than to say, officially that's the case.

Jonathan I think you are referring to an unofficial and highly controversial leaking of an alleged result of a test of an alleged Armstrong B sample from '99, done seven years later. That episode raised as many questions about ethics, motives and methods of the lab as it did about Lance doping.

I'm thinking more about the race going on right now and I thought today's stage was disappointing,
since it failed to generate any real competitive heat. A poorly designed stage IMO.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Ned Hoey:

originally posted by Arjun Mendiratta:

originally posted by Ned Hoey:

Has never failed a test?

I don't think this line has much merit after the events of the last few years in both cycling and track and field. I'm sure that there are good reasons to believe that Lance isn't doping, but this isn't one of them.

Jonathan I think you are referring to an unofficial and highly controversial leaking of an alleged result of a test of an alleged Armstrong B sample from '99, done seven years later. That episode raised as many questions about ethics, motives and methods of the lab as it did about Lance doping.

Set the question of motives and ethics aside since part of the point of my post is that the whole doping story and the hunt to identify "guilty" athletes raises question of ethics and motives enough not to care if Armstrong doped. But that's not the same as saying that he didn't.

From my memory of the rest of the controversy--and as I said, I don't know chemistry--I didn't think it was any more likely that he hadn't doped than that Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens hadn't.

 

[Ned Hoey]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I didn't think it was any more likely that he hadn't doped than that Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens hadn't.

And in this case, I suggest not making that assumption. Doing so makes a smear campaign effective,
just by "leaking" the "result". If someone is pursuing an agenda, they've succeeded.

 

[Tom Glasgow]

Not much the TDF officials can do to set up the race if Astana doesn't want to defend the yellow jersey this early.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Ned Hoey:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I didn't think it was any more likely that he hadn't doped than that Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens hadn't.

And in this case, I suggest not making that assumption. Doing so makes a smear campaign effective,
just by "leaking" the "result". If someone is pursuing an agenda, they've succeeded.

Barry Bonds information is all leaking. Clemens information hardly comes from an agenda free source. My assumption comes from the much larger basic situation that given what we expect from athletes, the rewards availabe if they meet those absurd expectations and the absolute absence of them if they are merely extraordinary in their performance, they will use the advantages available to them if they have a reasonable expectation of getting away with it.

 

[VS]

Contador rules!

(No, not the wine.)

 

[Warren Edwardes]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by Rahsaan:

originally posted by maureen: um, well, sort of like those hills - hard to get up, then hard to get down

Is that somehow an issue related to competitive bikers in general?

Yes. It turns out that endlessly banging a bike seat into the nerves and plumbing in your tender regions is not the best thing for their function.

Can give false positive PSA, too.

Ah! Does that also apply to Gleason scores and Gleason sums?

Maybe I haven't got prostate cancer after all!