Jan's problem just got bigger

And I've just realised that from the viewpoint of being a cycling fan I
don't care. This Tour has been so incredible, open, and active with all
the "stars" gone, and maybe it being a little bit cleaner has made the
difference, but this has been SO much more fun.
Not missing the "stars" at all.
Bill C

Bill C said:

And I've just realised that from the viewpoint of being a cycling fan I
don't care. This Tour has been so incredible, open, and active with all
the "stars" gone, and maybe it being a little bit cleaner has made the
difference, but this has been SO much more fun.
Not missing the "stars" at all.

1. Why are you sure this is a clean tour?
2. Why are you sure that the loss of talent is irrelevant?

The thing with Lance, Ullrich and Basso is that they rarely had bad days
and got clobbered by 5 or 10 minutes. That's what seperates a podium
finish from 5th place (well, not this year). You can attribute the fact
that the tour has been volatile this year to it's now cleanliness. You
can just as easily say that the guys left are not as consistent as last
year's top 5 finishers. Both explanations work.

This isn't just you. It's been said repeatedly that the tour is
different because it's cleaner. It's as if talent and natural ability
are held irrelevant. That viewpoint seems limited.

Bill C said:

And I've just realised that from the viewpoint of being a cycling fan I
don't care. This Tour has been so incredible, open, and active with all
the "stars" gone, and maybe it being a little bit cleaner has made the
difference, but this has been SO much more fun.
Not missing the "stars" at all.
Bill C

I'm a big Jan fan and that won't change.

But I fully agree with you on this one.

Bill C said:

And I've just realised that from the viewpoint of being a cycling fan I
don't care. This Tour has been so incredible, open, and active with all
the "stars" gone, and maybe it being a little bit cleaner has made the
difference, but this has been SO much more fun.
Not missing the "stars" at all.
Bill C

It's sometimes asserted that everyone uses EPO. So what's the evidence
that it is cleaner

Could be that EPO use, combined with the maximum limit on hemocrit,
tends to level the playing field. The people who have a naturally
high hemocrit and the people who work at altitude to get a high
hemocrit have no advantage over the EPO users. They all end up near
the maximum hemocrit limit.

Perhaps the French are at a bit of a disadvantage on this since the
French official's are more rabid about fighting drugging and it is
relatively easy for the French police to get a search warrant.

Quoted message said:

1. Why are you sure this is a clean tour?

Indeed. The same teams and teamdirectors wich have been cheating are
still there.

Quoted message said:

2. Why are you sure that the loss of talent is irrelevant?

The thing with Lance, Ullrich and Basso is that they rarely had bad days
and got clobbered by 5 or 10 minutes. That's what seperates a podium
finish from 5th place (well, not this year).

Yep, I have little doubt that Basso or Jan would have made mince meat
out of everyone this year.

I doubt that cycling is any cleaner. Maybe it is talent, but more
important, this TdF misses leaders. No Lance, Basso or Jan is a HUGE
difference. According to what I read off other pro's: Both Jan and
Lance were hugely respected, riders even felt awe. Both Jan and Lance
got free passage through the peloton, other pros made space for them.

Don't forget that not only Lance was a superstar, Ullrich himself has a
career that is comparable with a grandee as Zoetemelk. There is noone
in the peloton who comes close to even their shadow. And that absence
is being filled by runners-up who are not used to having to carry the
weigth and are afraid to make their own decisions.

The result is a crazily attractive TdF 🙂

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

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

And I've just realised that from the viewpoint of being a cycling fan I
don't care. This Tour has been so incredible, open, and active with all
the "stars" gone, and maybe it being a little bit cleaner has made the
difference, but this has been SO much more fun.
Not missing the "stars" at all.

1. Why are you sure this is a clean tour?

Well, the laff@me line says that Landis did a record ride and so HAD to be
dirty.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And I've just realised that from the viewpoint of being a cycling fan I
don't care. This Tour has been so incredible, open, and active with all
the "stars" gone, and maybe it being a little bit cleaner has made the
difference, but this has been SO much more fun.
Not missing the "stars" at all.

1. Why are you sure this is a clean tour?

He wrote cleaner, not clean. It most certainly is cleaner. That seems hard
to dispute.

Tim Lines said:

1. Why are you sure this is a clean tour?

I don't think it's clean, only an idiot would think that. I do think
it's cleaner because at least one source, and many riders who very
likely were doping have been eliminated.

Quoted message said:

2. Why are you sure that the loss of talent is irrelevant?

It's irrelevant to the entertaining nature of the race. Granted, with
Lance gone, we could've had this type of race even with the missing
leaders, but I'd bet that it would've looked like almost all the
"negative racing / defensive" Tours especially since the limits of
those racers, on their programs were pretty well know.
Without them we are dealing with huge amounts of unknowns and teams
don't have a handle on the strategy.
That has made it much more entertaining for me.

Quoted message said:

The thing with Lance, Ullrich and Basso is that they rarely had bad days
and got clobbered by 5 or 10 minutes. That's what seperates a podium
finish from 5th place (well, not this year). You can attribute the fact
that the tour has been volatile this year to it's now cleanliness. You
can just as easily say that the guys left are not as consistent as last
year's top 5 finishers. Both explanations work.

Agreed, I'm sure that they are both factors.

Quoted message said:

This isn't just you. It's been said repeatedly that the tour is
different because it's cleaner. It's as if talent and natural ability
are held irrelevant. That viewpoint seems limited.

Again I agree, but to argue that there has been NO effect from the
doping push is limited too.

Bill C

In article
<[email hidden]>,

routebear said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And I've just realised that from the viewpoint of being a cycling fan I
don't care. This Tour has been so incredible, open, and active with all
the "stars" gone, and maybe it being a little bit cleaner has made the
difference, but this has been SO much more fun.
Not missing the "stars" at all.

1. Why are you sure this is a clean tour?

He wrote cleaner, not clean. It most certainly is cleaner. That seems hard
to dispute.

It's easy. I dispute it.

--
Michael Press

Dumbass said:

Bill C said:

And I've just realised that from the viewpoint of being a cycling fan I
don't care. This Tour has been so incredible, open, and active with all
the "stars" gone, and maybe it being a little bit cleaner has made the
difference, but this has been SO much more fun.
Not missing the "stars" at all.
Bill C

It's sometimes asserted that everyone uses EPO. So what's the evidence
that it is cleaner

Could be that EPO use, combined with the maximum limit on hemocrit,
tends to level the playing field. The people who have a naturally
high hemocrit and the people who work at altitude to get a high
hemocrit have no advantage over the EPO users. They all end up near
the maximum hemocrit limit.

Perhaps the French are at a bit of a disadvantage on this since the
French official's are more rabid about fighting drugging and it is
relatively easy for the French police to get a search warrant.

Jan who?

routebear said:

He wrote cleaner, not clean.

OK.

It most certainly is cleaner. That seems hard

Quoted message said:

to dispute.

What evidence supports that?

in message <[email hidden]>, Bill

C (') said:

Tim Lines said:

1.  Why are you sure this is a clean tour?

I don't think it's clean, only an idiot would think that. I do think
it's cleaner because at least one source, and many riders who very
likely were doping have been eliminated.

And others who were getting their cornflake sprinkles from other sources
will have suddenly become a lot more cautious.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

A message from our sponsor: This site is now in free fall