Tour Aftertaste
Posted in Blog on 29. Jul, 2009
I have been sitting on this post for awhile. Waiting to post it for a few days, struggling with finding a clear message in all of it. It started it after watching the Ventoux stage and talking about the weird tactics but was really spurred by reading an article in the Wall Street Journal. I like reading the WSJ, the writing is generally above the quality of our local paper & I do like to read non-cycling publications’ view of cycling as sport. So when I see a column called ‘The Count’ with the heading, ‘Contador’s Other Quest: Best Climber Ever’, written by Reed Albergotti. This short column basically says, statistically, AC is the best climber in the Tour ever because of the Vertical Meters Ascended ratio of 6,116 (feet:hour- converted) up the Verbier climb. This betters numbers of:
Riis- Hautacam ‘96 @ 6,048
Pantani- Alpe d’Huez ‘95 @ 5,974
Leblanc- Hautacam ‘94 @ 5,914
Armstrong- Alpe d;Huez ‘04 @ 5,852
Ullrich- Alpe d’Huez ‘97 @ 5,842
He continues to speculate, AC, may be the ‘perfect cyclist to break Mayo’s record up the Ventoux of 55:51′. We never really did find out due to the abnormal, but logical, tactics of the strongest riders in the race up that climb. Maybe AC was trying to prove there is an ‘i’ in the word ‘Equipo’ and had no reason to ride the climb at full capacity. The author of the WSJ article sites, Ross Tucker, a South African physiologist’s blog, “Science of Sport” as the basis for his data. *Warning* heading to that blog may lead to the mental equivalent of a tangled ball of twine, about the case he is making for why the riders are riding at the paces recorded.
Everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusion as to why these things happen. (Remember, the Leblanc stage was the Indurain stage where Stuart came around only at the finish in the fog). Then there is this article from Sports Illustrated that tries to help explain the differences in culture on the other side of the pond. Which leads me to – nowhere.
There’s really nothing new here, but is an interesting attempt to explain two separate but related topics, well worth the time to read.
Some say this Tour was Hinault/Lemond ‘86 all over again- but there are others that will say it is more Visentini/Roche Giro ‘87. That’s probably a little better analogy, but the drama that has followed is really pretty silly.
In the end of all this, I still have no clear message other than the part I found most compelling about this Tour were the Cavendish finishes, yet a cheeky Hoshovd winning the Green Jersey. I look forward to getting a John’s eye view of it from JG when he gets back.
Great post JK….I watched every stage and it is amazing to see these guys ride day after day. My issue with this tour was with AC. He made every mountain stage look so easy. I thought he was going to pull out a book and start reading at one point. The stage with the Schleck Bros was insane. Both of them had pain on thier faces and AC was having a conversation. It was great tour otherwise. I hope everything stays the same.
I’m looking for the new patron of the peloton. Lance was great while it lasted, but I don’t think he can be the boss again. He’ll get another year past his prime, while AC and AS get closer to their prime. But neither of these two seem to be leaders. AC just rides like he wants to with little sense of teamwork and AS worries about dropping FS. Landis and Vino have a patron personality but blew the opportunity. I don’t know about their leadership abilities but the guy that rode on Cadel’s team did some nice work in the hills and Brice Feillu had a very nice ride. Cavendish has the personality, but a sprinter won’t run the peloton. If Columbia had a real overall threat you’d have your patron.
Can Boonen be called the patron of the classics?
Voigt, Jens Voigt, however he probably doesn’t have too many years left as a pro.
great post JK. I found this tour pretty exciting but mostly because of the subplots: George Hincapie v. Garmin, hushovd v. cavendish, resurgence of french riders, unconventional Tour format, etc. Basically it was just a fun Tour to watch.
Also, thanks for the link to the SI article. One particular point really struck a cord, “In the U.S., bike racing is a way out too — a way out of high school hell for geeky middle-class boys blown off by the jocks and cheerleaders.” I’ve shared these sentiments for awhile and believe it contributes to negative behavior like race facing etc.
I know I’m speaking in general terms and it doesn’t apply universally to everyone (even though I was one of those kids). Its almost like those “geeky middle-class boys” are paying everyone back for all those years of snubs experienced as high schoolers. Riding with a chip on their shoulder because “the skinny kid no one paid attention to” is finally good at something and is going to let everyone know about it. I think it manifests itself in race facing, unfriendliness to noobs, etc.
Like I said, I know it doesn’t apply to everyone. Just a thought.
Love ze link to Georges Sorel. Great handlebar tape boutiques in all the hot spots. Too bad no photos from the zenith of ze Luc Leblanc marketing juggernaut.
What are you people talking about? ‘Great Tour’, ‘pretty exciting’, etc. Ze list boys! Ze list! What about ze list? I think, and maybe I’m wrong, you miss JK’s point. Ze list AC heads is full of…. well, you figure it out. Riis ‘96… come on. Leblanc ‘94 (his greatest year, but, and it pains me to say it, also happened to be his year on Festina, more than just sitting on Indurain at work there I fear), Mayo… , Pantani… Ullrich…. Armst….. you get ze point. Does the list point out he’s the best climber or what it likely takes to be the best climber? Both, I suspect (‘He made every mountain stage look so easy.’ Now that’s to the point being aired BBB…). And ze “Science of Sport” article begs the question, Ignore the elephant in the room?? If not, what to do about it?
I think ze SI article is antiquated at best. An old view of a new world of cycling. I don’t find it particularly relevant in today’s world. 25 years ago I would have agreed 100%. Now, non. For one, if nothing else, the criminal investigations and intervention of the police in France and Italy point to the opposite of what the article states. As JK stated, it leads to – nowhere.
As for comparisons to the past, ze Tour was really neither Lemond/Hinault nor Roche/Vistinini. Both of those battles had 2 legitimate contenders (the incumbent and his better prepared team mate in both cases) toe to toe battling one on one for days. This Tour never came close to that sort of drama (the only drama here was created by a certain attention starved ego in interviews after the finish, not on the road). Once the TTT was over, AC was never in danger, and was never challenged by anyone, least of by his own team mate. Hinault took Lemond to the brink daily, winning 3 stages, the KOM jersey, leading by over 5′ at one point, playing head games at the dinner table, all of which clearly affected Lemond. AC was clearly not worried and not affected by his team mate, nor was he ever in danger of being attacked by him. Vistinini had the pink jersey, won the key TT, had the support of 7 team mates and his directeur sportif (that part appears to be the most similar to this year), was attacking Roche in the mtns daily, and dropped out only after a crash and apparent exhaustion. Roche, like Lemond, was placed in real trouble on the bike every day. AC? Never in trouble… not even once.
In the end, it wasn’t AC that made this TdF boring, it was everyone else. There were no legit attacks in the mtns for 2 weeks of racing… And after that you could count them on both hands. LA considered Wiggins sprint for the line at 300m at Arcalis an attack… Wow. Cycling has changed, and not for the better.
Other than Hushovd doing his Kelly/Zabel impersonation, while Cavendish did his Abdu/Cipollini impersonation, it was the most boring TdF I’ve seen in 27 years.
I agree, our standards for a dramatic tour have deteriorated. When is the last time a favorite attacked in the mountains before the last climb? Floyd? Evans doesn’t count ’cause he ceased being a contender pretty early on.
Bruyneel’s legacy is a boring formula for winning tours. I’d buy stock in it, but I can’t say it’s inspiring or fun to watch. Watch 1985,86,87 or 89 if you want an exciting tour,
One radio per team, one freq per race. Sufficient for safety warnings and race radio can announce the gaps and pass calls for service. Make the riders use their heads and take a chance.
I agree it wasn’t as exciting as I had hoped. Lots of fanfare, little actual excitement. Fun, though, because it’s the tour and you don’t get to have breakfast every morning for a month watching cycling at any other time of the year in the USA.
And I, too, am suspicious of Contador. Unfounded, perhaps, but suspicious. Yes. I am suspicious of the way Spain handled Operation Puerto and continues to bury the information, at his relationship with former coaches, and at his amazing success. I remember reading an article a few years back about the statistical improbability of a certain rider’s dominance over other top-rated professionals. Those other top-rated professionals were caught doping, rendering the improbability almost an impossibility in my eyes. Now, Contador is ruling the peloton and no one can even touch him. He was never in jeopardy. I’d like to think it’s his mother’s piaya, but methinks otherwise.
I need that reciepe.
Everyones favorite training rides and routes should be free and clear this weekend, I however hope that I make it out alive….
http://centralwisconsinhub.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20090804/WDH0505/308040030