Giro d'Italia
-
I hope all those non-helping non-attacking motherfuckas from yesterday blow up today, especially the two who rode off Dumoulin all day.
-
If Froome has an unfair advantage it is his team.
Without them he couldn't have blown all the other teams before he attacked yesterday.
Several times on other days they dragged him back when in trouble.
Dumoulin needed a team effort like that today, because he had no uphill sprint. He needed everyone exhausted by the time they reached the base of the climb. But he doesn't have a team of that calibre.
Bennett would be further ahead with a good team too.
-
Final "competitive" stage last night and the only really big thing that happened was Thibault Pinot blew up on the second climb and eventually finished 45 minutes behind the winner.
There was a bit of fun up the final climb as Dumoulin attacked Froome (and vice-versa) and Carapaz attacked Lopez, but neither were successful and they eventually finished in a group sprint.
George finished half a minute behind these fireworks, closely marked by Konrad and Bilbao who were the two guys he had a realistic chance of overtaking in the standings. So he gained a place to get the eighth I thought he deserved - though I think he's had a better tour than Bilbao and Konrad, who've sort of snuck their way into their positions as others have faltered.
George's lieutenant Gesink finished second on the stage - he might well have won it if Yates hadn't blown up yesterday, because the Stage winner was Yates' key lieutenant, Nieve.
On Froome, Willie makes some reasonable points, but I think some counterpoints are that:
(i) This time last week, several times, Froome was struggling to hang onto the coat-tails of not just Dumoulin and Yates but the lead group. But yesterday he was able to blow everyone away, ride 80kms facing the breeze on the most brutal stage of the Tour and put substantial time into Dumoulin, who at least was getting some respite and help from Pinot and Reichenbach. Here's what George has to say about riding the 30kms across the flat - and he was getting plenty of help from Pozzovivo.
Homepage
Team Visma | Lease a Bike is een oer-Hollands professioneel topsportteam dat 365 dagen per jaar zichtbaar is en op het hoogste niveau presteert.
(ii) Froome's already under a doping cloud.
As I said earlier, who really knows. They'll doubtless bottle Froome's piss and stick it in a freezer somewhere and, if he was doping, maybe in ten years they'll have a test to find it.
If he wasn't doping, he can put some dogshit in an envelope and post it to Lance Armstrong!
-
@chris-b But part of that is because Froome knows that you win a three week tour in the third week.
Also you are wrong about a week ago. A week ago Froome won the major mountain stage handsomely.
You are thinking of the first week. Having had a couple of falls Froome was off the pace on the road stages then. Still did well in the time trial though. (He was likely overweight too, so he still had some energy left for week three).
Meanwhile Dumoulin is known to struggle with the final stages of a Grand Tour. This is not the first one he has lost in the last two days.
-
They're the same excuses we saw when Armstrong was winning. The difference was he had a pedigree before becoming a world beater.
-
@chester-draws Actually, I was thinking of Stages 11 and 15 both of which he struggled on.
I don't think Dumoulin has really faltered at all - last couple of days he's still been probably the second strongest rider or at least very close to it. Froome has ridden one extraordinary stage to snatch the title off him. Given that Froome is the subject of a yet to be resolved failed drugs, I don't think it's at all strange that many people's eyebrows are raised.
I guess the real question is - would you be absolutely stunned to find out a year or two from now that Froome had been doping?
-
No, I wouldn't be stunned to find Froome was doping. Thing is, he already is. Just sort-of legally.
Then again, there are very few sports people I would be surprised by now.
I understand the Armstrong reference, but someone has to be the best. Froome currently is that person. He's only just winning, mind you -- not the way Armstrong won at all.
Before doping Eddie Merckx blitzed cycling in a way that Froome doesn't come close to achieving. The best cyclist is the best cyclist, and that is particularly apparent in the long tours, where bad patches can be fixed.
For the record, I was convinced Armstrong was a drugs cheat long, long before it became official. I was in France when the drugs thing blew up big time. I followed his evasions and tricks quite closely. I'm not at all one of those people that don't want to believe something bad.
I also watched Froome in the same way. His behaviour is very different. He cheats legally. He rides a lot of races where he is tested, for a start.
-
@chester-draws We are probably not too far away in our views then - there's many people I'd be disappointed in, but few that I'd be surprised about and - unfortunately - especially in cycling.
Since Froome is the best cyclist, he has a target pinned on his back and at least he seems realistic enough that it's something that comes with the territory.
On Eddy Merckx - have a listen to this interview of his NZ contemporary Tino Tabak. He starts talking about rampant drug taking (amphetamines) in pro-cycling the early 1970s around 8.30 - unfortunately Kim Hill somewhat derails the discussion by interrupting - but eventually he gets the story out. Again at 24.40 he's talking about "injecting himself"...or not!
There's a recent biography of Tino (the basis for this interview) I've been meaning to get for a while.
