Tour De France 2014

[Duke Nivram]

I read about that earlier today. I think its a great idea. I wonder if they will accept the challenge.

i like that idea

 

[Jummeltje]

It's insane.
The more the crowd wants athletes to go faster, longer, deeper, harder, further, the more they
have to push their limits...
Three grand tours in a year is not healthy, specially not on the level those specific guys compete.

Like this you're just stimulating the use of doping.
And putting a reward on it is really nasty.
Tinkoff knows that people are willing to go over their limits for big amounts of money

 

[jrd5497]

If they weren't racing 3 Grand Tours they would be on their bikes training for 4 to 6 hours a day, or doing other week long tours. There is time to recover in between each of those events. Its not like these guys stop riding their bikes after a tour, they go on to race Crits for money after winning the TdF. If their legs were really trashed they wouldn't be doing that. They just have to give up some of the spring classics if they want to go after 3 Grand tours. It can easily be done.

 

[Jummeltje]

No unfortunatly i fully disagree. Riding 3 weeks in race is something totally different then training.
Not only the amount of hours that you sit on your bike counts. Also in which intensity you do that. 6hours of training you don't do in a high
heartbeat zone. You keep your hartrate low. In the average TDF stage you are not.
You are racing there.

Beside that, i don't think Tinkoff wants Froome, contador, quintana and Nibali to just attent and become number 121, 145, 166, 172.
He wants them on the podium. To win such a big race you gotta have a peak moment. You have to be in your best shape.
This top shape can only be reached twice a year. And each time can last only 2-3 weeks.

And about the Crits.. I've been doing those a couple of years ago. They need amateurs to fill the peloton. On forehand
is signed on contract already who is going to win. It goes fast anyway, but for professionals that is nothing else then training a bit
and collecting their money. That has nothing to do with a hard race.

 

[Patient_Cero]

No unfortunatly i fully disagree. Riding 3 weeks in race is something totally different then training.
Not only the amount of hours that you sit on your bike counts. Also in which intensity you do that. 6hours of training you don't do in a high
heartbeat zone. You keep your hartrate low. In the average TDF stage you are not.
You are racing there.

Beside that, i don't think Tinkoff wants Froome, contador, quintana and Nibali to just attent and become number 121, 145, 166, 172.
He wants them on the podium. To win such a big race you gotta have a peak moment. You have to be in your best shape.
This top shape can only be reached twice a year. And each time can last only 2-3 weeks.

And about the Crits.. I've been doing those a couple of years ago. They need amateurs to fill the peloton. On forehand
is signed on contract already who is going to win. It goes fast anyway, but for professionals that is nothing else then training a bit
and collecting their money. That has nothing to do with a hard race.

Yet when all those people who won two and three grand tours in the past won, they were racing a lot more on average than riders of today. They had too because the paydays weren't there yet and to be a professional meant racing, not book tours and multimillion dollar sponsorships. It's possible, and if all the contenders enter the same races they will all be on the same playing field for deciding which race(s) is going to be the priority and suits them the best for potentially winning.

As far as doping, you think there is any less incentive because they can afford more time "off" now as compared to the Indurain and Armstrong days and before? It just means getting better with their program to meet the added testing and less off cycle recovery, nothing more. While the Peloton may arguably be cleaner as a group, the top 5% are just smarter and nothing has changed as far as using except what and how they are doing it.

 

[Jummeltje]

Yet when all those people who won two and three grand tours in the past won, they were racing a lot more on average than riders of today. They had too because the paydays weren't there yet and to be a professional meant racing, not book tours and multimillion dollar sponsorships. It's possible, and if all the contenders enter the same races they will all be on the same playing field for deciding which race(s) is going to be the priority and suits them the best for potentially winning.

As far as doping, you think there is any less incentive because they can afford more time "off" now as compared to the Indurain and Armstrong days and before? It just means getting better with their program to meet the added testing and less off cycle recovery, nothing more. While the Peloton may arguably be cleaner as a group, the top 5% are just smarter and nothing has changed as far as using except what and how they are doing it.

You cannot compare the past with cycling today. (even though you are maybe one who still screams that everything was better in the past
If you start doing that then there are so many examples to find that cycling then is not as cycling is now.
Want an example?
Eddy Mercxx, he won almost everything in his career: Paris Roubaix, TDF, Giro, World championship.
He was able to win mountain stages, timetrials, classics and also mass sprints.
In your way of reasoning cyclist could still be able to be the best sprinter and climber at the same time, because in the past that was also possible.
I think we both now that is nothing but a fairytail. The level of cycling came so much higher these days.
That explains that a cyclist nowadays cannot be the whole year on a super level like in your good old times.

Nobody ever won 3 grand tours in a year.
Some won 2 in a year but there have been only 7 in history.
All those guys have been caught for doping. Which implies that a human body on itself cannot reach that level
twice (probably already not even once) a year.
And you see also that it happened more often in the past then nowadays.
In the last 20 years it happened only twice. While Eddy Mercxx did it three years in a row in the 70s.
There you have another example that shows that cycling in the past was different then cycling now.

1. 1949 Fausto Coppi: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
2. 1952 Fausto Coppi: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
3. 1963 Jacques Anquetil: Ronde van Frankrijk en Spanje
4. 1964 Jacques Anquetil: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
5. 1970 Eddy Merckx: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
6. 1972 Eddy Merckx: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
7. 1973 Eddy Merckx: Ronde van Italië en Spanje
8. 1974 Eddy Merckx: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
9. 1978 Bernard Hinault: Ronde van Frankrijk en Spanje
10. 1981 Giovanni Battaglin: Ronde van Italië en Spanje
11. 1982 Bernard Hinault: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
12. 1985 Bernard Hinault: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
13. 1987 Stephen Roche: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
14. 1992 Miguel Indurain: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
15. 1993 Miguel Indurain: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
16. 1998 Marco Pantani: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
17. 2008 Alberto Contador: Ronde van Italië en Spanje

I was not talking about more time 'off'' in relation to doping. I'm talking about doping in relation to money.
If you could earn 5dollar for winning the tour the france, nobody is as dumb to start training 6 hours a day and even put
disgusting medicals in there body for that amount. People are doing that because there is big money involved. Being the
best in a sport brings you a lot of fame and money. But to become the best you have to beat all the others, so you try
to find ways to be better then others.
And how does those money and fame get involved in sports.... Through spectators. The more people are watchin it, talking about it,
the sponsor etc etc. ----> How do you get people to watch? By making the sport spectaculair to watch. If you don't put mountains
in the TDF nobody will watch, why? Because it's boring. So we as a crowd want more and more and more from the athletes.
Nobody is watching to female cycling because the average amateur is better then the female peloton.
It has to be attractive to watch. If Usain Bolt would win all his 100meters in 10 seconds, he would not be the star he is now.
People hope that he will break a new world record.
An initiative like Tinkoffs to put amazing amounts of money for doing something even more heavy is asking for the cyclists
to push their limits. They will use doping anyway, but putting crazy amounts of money on crazy ideas is a provocation to let people
do things they shouldn't.

 

[Patient_Cero]

You cannot compare the past with cycling today. (even though you are maybe one who still screams that everything was better in the past
If you start doing that then there are so many examples to find that cycling then is not as cycling is now.
Want an example?
Eddy Mercxx, he won almost everything in his career: Paris Roubaix, TDF, Giro, World championship.
He was able to win mountain stages, timetrials, classics and also mass sprints.
In your way of reasoning cyclist could still be able to be the best sprinter and climber at the same time, because in the past that was also possible.
I think we both now that is nothing but a fairytail. The level of cycling came so much higher these days.
That explains that a cyclist nowadays cannot be the whole year on a super level like in your good old times.

Nobody ever won 3 grand tours in a year.
Some won 2 in a year but there have been only 7 in history.
All those guys have been caught for doping. Which implies that a human body on itself cannot reach that level
twice (probably already not even once) a year.
And you see also that it happened more often in the past then nowadays.
In the last 20 years it happened only twice. While Eddy Mercxx did it three years in a row in the 70s.
There you have another example that shows that cycling in the past was different then cycling now.

1. 1949 View attachment 109290 Fausto Coppi: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
2. 1952 View attachment 109291 Fausto Coppi: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
3. 1963 View attachment 109292 Jacques Anquetil: Ronde van Frankrijk en Spanje
4. 1964 View attachment 109293 Jacques Anquetil: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
5. 1970 View attachment 109294 Eddy Merckx: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
6. 1972 View attachment 109295 Eddy Merckx: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
7. 1973 View attachment 109296 Eddy Merckx: Ronde van Italië en Spanje
8. 1974 View attachment 109297 Eddy Merckx: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
9. 1978 View attachment 109298 Bernard Hinault: Ronde van Frankrijk en Spanje
10. 1981 View attachment 109299 Giovanni Battaglin: Ronde van Italië en Spanje
11. 1982 View attachment 109300 Bernard Hinault: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
12. 1985 View attachment 109301 Bernard Hinault: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
13. 1987 View attachment 109302 Stephen Roche: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
14. 1992 View attachment 109303 Miguel Indurain: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
15. 1993 View attachment 109304 Miguel Indurain: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
16. 1998 View attachment 109305 Marco Pantani: Ronde van Italië en Frankrijk
17. 2008 View attachment 109306 Alberto Contador: Ronde van Italië en Spanje

I was not talking about more time 'off'' in relation to doping. I'm talking about doping in relation to money.
If you could earn 5dollar for winning the tour the france, nobody is as dumb to start training 6 hours a day and even put
disgusting medicals in there body for that amount. People are doing that because there is big money involved. Being the
best in a sport brings you a lot of fame and money. But to become the best you have to beat all the others, so you try
to find ways to be better then others.
And how does those money and fame get involved in sports.... Through spectators. The more people are watchin it, talking about it,
the sponsor etc etc. ----> How do you get people to watch? By making the sport spectaculair to watch. If you don't put mountains
in the TDF nobody will watch, why? Because it's boring. So we as a crowd want more and more and more from the athletes.
Nobody is watching to female cycling because the average amateur is better then the female peloton.
It has to be attractive to watch. If Usain Bolt would win all his 100meters in 10 seconds, he would not be the star he is now.
People hope that he will break a new world record.
An initiative like Tinkoffs to put amazing amounts of money for doing something even more heavy is asking for the cyclists
to push their limits. They will use doping anyway, but putting crazy amounts of money on crazy ideas is a provocation to let people
do things they shouldn't.

I wasn't comparing similarities, I was specifically pointing out that it is different today, money(current contracts/sponsorships) affording opportunity as one of the significant factors. They HAD TO race back then to get paid, they (top 5%) can pick and choose today. No point in being the best at everything, just an illustration to endure. Like now, should they all compete in the same races it will be about who can endure. They will still shine in their respective disciplines of opportunity, be it climber, TT, etc.

You are correct, no one has won 3 in a single season. I misspoke to my source...my fault. To counterpoint, of those seven that did win two in a season, not all have tested positive for drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France
Indurain, Hinault, Roche (was accused only) never tested positive or admitted.

I was talking about time off from doping cycles because it's relevant...they are going to do it regardless if they race 3 times or 30 in a season. The more races they do the less they can dope to keep up as they will crash their endocrine system if they start abusing to keep up with the volume of races and training...not to mention the exponential increases of getting caught from the volume of in-competition testing.

Again, for the contenders of this "offer" the money is a moot point. They can afford to not win it, although they won't refuse if they decide to participate and win. Quintana is lowest on the totem pole and by comparison to the average joe or the field, he is hardly hurting.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-athletes/alberto-contador-net-worth/
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/327733/Chris-Froome-s-6m-Tour-de-Bunce
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...e-signed-28-million-contract-with-Astana.aspx
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/quintana-to-stay-at-movistar-in-2014

It's all about ego and that's what he's hoping will drive them to say yes, the money is a formality for their time and for spectators to clamor about. Case in point, no bites for the three race deal and barely a half commitment for even doing a double next year. I believe Contador had made his intentions on the Giro/Tour prior to the initial Tinkov offer even being presented, so that still not a factor.

http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/n...t-not-happen-in-2015-but-remains-keen-on-idea


In current news, Astana just got popped for test number three. This is my shocked face

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/29647353





.

 

[Ex_Oakley_employee]

No unfortunatly i fully disagree. Riding 3 weeks in race is something totally different then training.
Not only the amount of hours that you sit on your bike counts. Also in which intensity you do that. 6hours of training you don't do in a high
heartbeat zone. You keep your hartrate low. In the average TDF stage you are not.
You are racing there.

Beside that, i don't think Tinkoff wants Froome, contador, quintana and Nibali to just attent and become number 121, 145, 166, 172.
He wants them on the podium. To win such a big race you gotta have a peak moment. You have to be in your best shape.
This top shape can only be reached twice a year. And each time can last only 2-3 weeks.

And about the Crits.. I've been doing those a couple of years ago. They need amateurs to fill the peloton. On forehand
is signed on contract already who is going to win. It goes fast anyway, but for professionals that is nothing else then training a bit
and collecting their money. That has nothing to do with a hard race.

Some days in the Tour will be more of an easy day out than a 1.5-2 hour training session. HR is a pretty irrelevant metric but FWIW last year I was at the Tour (working) and was given a look at the some ride data, there were guys with a HR average of 90 for the day and had put out less than 200w average for the day ( I could manage that no problem at all).

But I get your main point, it's impossible to peak more than a couple of times a year, in fact even the second time is difficult enough.

Anyway glad to see some cycling chat going on here, cycling and Oakley got hand in hand in fact it was how I found my way to working for the company through previous links.