Irony From LeBlanc

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Given that LeBlanc has modernized Le Tour to the point where, IMO, epic no longer applies, it
seems ironic that the official 2004 TdF poster has jerseys of a retro design from when the Le Tour
was an epic sporting

event.

Quoted message said:

See: letour.frindex.htmlOpen ↗

Just out of curiosity, what "modernizations" are you talking about?

And, what was not "epic" about this year's tour?

fyi, definition of "epic"

adj.
1.. Of, constituting, having to do with, or suggestive of a literary epic: an epic poem.
2.. Surpassing the usual or ordinary, particularly in scope or size: "A vast musical panorama...
it requires an epic musical understanding to do it justice" (Tim Page).
3.. Heroic and impressive in quality: "Here in the courtroom... there was more of that epic
atmosphere, the extra amperage of a special moment" (Scott Turow).

"GaryG" <garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Given that LeBlanc has modernized Le Tour to the point where, IMO, epic

no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

longer applies, it seems ironic that the official 2004 TdF poster has jerseys of a retro design
from when the Le Tour was an epic sporting

event.

Quoted message said:

See: letour.frindex.htmlOpen ↗

Just out of curiosity, what "modernizations" are you talking about?

And, what was not "epic" about this year's tour?

fyi, definition of "epic"

adj.
1.. Of, constituting, having to do with, or suggestive of a literary

epic:

Quoted message said:

an epic poem.
2.. Surpassing the usual or ordinary, particularly in scope or size: "A vast musical panorama...
it requires an epic musical understanding to do

it

Quoted message said:

justice" (Tim Page).
3.. Heroic and impressive in quality: "Here in the courtroom... there

was

Quoted message said:

more of that epic atmosphere, the extra amperage of a special moment"

(Scott

Quoted message said:

Turow).

Shorter overall distance. Fewer mountain stages. Fewer stages. Do a google search and you'll find
this has been discussed here at length.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shorter overall distance. Fewer mountain stages. Fewer stages. Do a

google

Quoted message said:

search and you'll find this has been discussed here at length.

If you ask me, the real ongoing irony is that he keeps making changes to alter the perceptions the
public has about (alleged and real) drug use. However, he does this by shortening is and making the
courses easier. The resulting increases in average speed end up evoking...allegations of drug use.

Maybe he short reduce the number and length of the stages but outlaw deep dish rims, increase the
number of climbs, add back the traditional "Paris Roubaix" stage, etc. IOW, make is tougher again
where people are not looking. Let's face it, it can't be that difficult to fool the rumor mongers.

"Nick Burns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shorter overall distance. Fewer mountain stages. Fewer stages. Do a

google

Quoted message said:

search and you'll find this has been discussed here at length.

If you ask me, the real ongoing irony is that he keeps making changes to alter the perceptions
the public has about (alleged and real) drug use. However, he does this by shortening is and
making the courses easier. The resulting increases in average speed end up evoking...allegations
of drug use.

Leblanc is right though.

Making it shorter means that it is more possible for riders to recover day to day without using
recovery enhancing drugs.

Longer distances not only beats them up more, but gives them less time to rest. Point to point stage
races like that are a nonstop whirlwind of activity when the stages get too long. Packing,
unpacking, moving, fighting traffic getting to new hotel, getting massages, eating, etc. A big mess.

The worst drug abusers? The support staff. After the riders are put to bed, they have to keep
working. Poor [censored].

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Making it shorter means that it is more possible for riders to recover day to day without using
recovery enhancing drugs.

Perhaps so, perhaps not. That was the theory, but the Vuelta is shorter than the Tour and it appears
that the riders may make up for it by racing harder. The net effect appears to be that when you
trade off slightly longer less intense stages for slightly shorter more intense stages, the total
exercise loads aren't really all that different. Therefore, the "demand" for recovery-enhancing
drugs may be just as great.

Lucia, et al. (2003). "Tour de France versus Vuelta a Espana: Which is Harder?" MSSE 35(5):872-878.

This is only one study, and I have some quibbles with how they measured total exercise load, but it
is food for thought.

I said:

The net effect appears to be that when you trade off slightly longer less intense stages for
slightly shorter more intense stages, the total exercise loads aren't really all that different.
Therefore, the "demand" for recovery-enhancing drugs may be just as great.

BTW, my plot of the timepath of TdF average speeds vs. distance is still up at:
mywebpage.netscape.comtdf.pngOpen ↗

It is additional support for the idea that riders compensate for shorter distances by riding harder,
which is yet another oddball way of saying that shorter stages don't necessarily decrease the demand
for performance- or recovery-enhancing drugs.

Recall, btw, that Le Monde was citing this year's record high average speed as evidence that the
riders were doping, without looking at the trend to shorter distances.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I said:

The net effect appears to be that when you trade off slightly longer less intense stages for
slightly shorter more intense stages, the total exercise loads aren't really all that different.
Therefore, the "demand" for recovery-enhancing drugs may be just as great.

BTW, my plot of the timepath of TdF average speeds vs. distance is still up at:
mywebpage.netscape.comtdf.pngOpen ↗

It is additional support for the idea that riders compensate for shorter distances by riding
harder, which is yet another oddball way of saying that shorter stages don't necessarily decrease
the demand for performance- or recovery-enhancing drugs.

Recall, btw, that Le Monde was citing this year's record high average speed as evidence that the
riders were doping, without looking at the trend to shorter distances.

I remember seeing one of Ferrari's pieces recently where he was quoting his favored VAM figures for
a late-season classic. He said they were climbing at 2100-2200 m/hr, vs. 1700-1800 in the Tour, and
attributed the difference to the much greater intensity of a one-day race. Shorter does mean faster.

Probably blasphemy around here, but I've thought for some time the major tours are too long, and
need to be brought down to say, 16 days; through three straight weekends with intervening weekdays.
Plenty of time for the cream to rise and the weak to crack, and it might accomplish a couple of
things. One, increase the likelihood that the major GC players would ride more than one event at
full chat, and two, free up enough space on the calendar for another top level national tour to grow
and flourish. Perhaps even one in some backward place like... the U.S. Of course the TDF would have
to let go of its supreme dominance, which will never happen, so...

SB

Steve Blankenship said:

I remember seeing one of Ferrari's pieces recently where he was quoting his favored VAM figures
for a late-season classic. He said they were climbing at 2100-2200 m/hr, vs. 1700-1800 in the
Tour, and attributed the difference to the much greater intensity of a one-day race. Shorter does
mean faster.

Not necessary. Given a rule of thumb 5% loss in speed per doubling of distance of an effort, given
the 200 meters climbed by that climb relative to the on order 1200 meters gained on the HC climbs in
the Tour, a reduction in VAM of 6^(ln(1.05)/ln 2) = 13% is expected. A further increase is expected
from the grade -- 11% on that one versus typically 8% for the HC climbs. Add RR and these become
effective grades of 11.5% and 8.5%, approx. If the 8% grade is ridden at typically 50% speed on the
flats (approx 25kph), then (1/2)^3*0.9 (assuming 10% RR losses on the flats) =
11.3% of power is wasted to air. OTOH, the 11% grade will lose approx (8.5/11.5/2)^3(0.9) = 4.5% of
power to air. This is an additional 7% loss in VAM.

Combine the two and one expects the 200 meter 11% climb to be ridden at approx 18% faster (per VAM)
than the 1200 meter 8% climb. Right on target.

The difference in the Tour is the fraction of riders able to sustain these climb rates, more than
the climb rates of the top riders.

Dan

"Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I remember seeing one of Ferrari's pieces recently where he was quoting his favored VAM figures
for a late-season classic. He said they were climbing at 2100-2200 m/hr, vs. 1700-1800 in the
Tour, and attributed the difference to the much greater intensity of a one-day race. Shorter does
mean faster.

The greater intensity is also due to the singular focus of a one day race. There are no dual or
multiple agendas (i.e. GC or points jerseys) to dilute teams' objective of getting their best rider
to the finish line first, rather than some form of damage control.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Nick Burns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

>

Shorter overall distance. Fewer mountain stages. Fewer stages. Do a

google

Quoted message said:

search and you'll find this has been discussed here at length.

If you ask me, the real ongoing irony is that he keeps making changes to alter the perceptions
the public has about (alleged and real) drug use. However, he does this by shortening is and
making the courses easier.

The

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

resulting increases in average speed end up evoking...allegations of

drug

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

use.

Leblanc is right though.

Making it shorter means that it is more possible for riders to recover day

to

Quoted message said:

day without using recovery enhancing drugs.

I am addressing perception.

Quoted message said:

Longer distances not only beats them up more, but gives them less time to rest. Point to point
stage races like that are a nonstop whirlwind of activity when the stages get too long. Packing,
unpacking, moving,

fighting

Quoted message said:

traffic getting to new hotel, getting massages, eating, etc. A big mess.

The worst drug abusers? The support staff. After the riders are put to

bed,

Quoted message said:

they have to keep working. Poor [censored].

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I remember seeing one of Ferrari's pieces recently where he was quoting

his

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

favored VAM figures for a late-season classic. He said they were

climbing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

at 2100-2200 m/hr, vs. 1700-1800 in the Tour, and attributed the

difference

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to the much greater intensity of a one-day race. Shorter does mean

faster.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The greater intensity is also due to the singular focus of a one day

race. There are no

Quoted message said:

dual or multiple agendas (i.e. GC or points jerseys) to dilute teams'

objective of getting

Quoted message said:

their best rider to the finish line first, rather than some form of damage

control.

Agreed; I oversimplified. But Dan appears to have taken care of that... ;-)

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I remember seeing one of Ferrari's pieces recently where he was quoting

his

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

favored VAM figures for a late-season classic. He said they were

climbing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

at 2100-2200 m/hr, vs. 1700-1800 in the Tour, and attributed the

difference

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to the much greater intensity of a one-day race. Shorter does mean

faster.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The greater intensity is also due to the singular focus of a one day

race. There are no

Quoted message said:

dual or multiple agendas (i.e. GC or points jerseys) to dilute teams'

objective of getting

Quoted message said:

their best rider to the finish line first, rather than some form of damage

control.

That is why the monuments deserve a lot more attention than they get. I would love to see VAM
figures from Lombardia.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<LC_lb.17198

Quoted message said:

Shorter overall distance. Fewer mountain stages. Fewer stages. Do a google search and you'll find
this has been discussed here at length.

Not to derail your campaign against the power structure of cycling, but the length of the grand
tours (3500 km max.), number of days, stages, rest days, length of time trials, max and avg. length
of stages are all specified by the UCI, not Leblanc.

-Amit

"Amit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<LC_lb.17198

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shorter overall distance. Fewer mountain stages. Fewer stages. Do a

google

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

search and you'll find this has been discussed here at length.

Not to derail your campaign against the power structure of cycling, but the length of the grand
tours (3500 km max.), number of days, stages, rest days, length of time trials, max and avg.
length of stages are all specified by the UCI, not Leblanc.

-Amit

LeBlanc began and pressed for the changes staring years ago. He's spoken of it many times. The UCI
has worked with him, particularly after the 98 scandal when the excuse for drug use was that the
major Tours and racing season were too difficult thereby encouraging drug use.

"Amit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<LC_lb.17198

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shorter overall distance. Fewer mountain stages. Fewer stages. Do a

google

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

search and you'll find this has been discussed here at length.

Not to derail your campaign against the power structure of cycling, but the length of the grand
tours (3500 km max.), number of days, stages, rest days, length of time trials, max and avg.
length of stages are all specified by the UCI, not Leblanc.

-Amit

Leblanc's initiative began in 1987 for the 1988 Tour.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

LeBlanc began and pressed for the changes staring years ago. He's spoken of it many times. The UCI
has worked with him, particularly after the 98 scandal when the excuse for drug use was that the
major Tours and racing season were too difficult thereby encouraging drug use.

You know who maintains that the most?

The riders.

Of course you know better.