Sherps
-
Posts
97 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Tartan Army Message Board News
Media Demo
Posts posted by Sherps
-
-
13 hours ago, Parklife said:
He used to ride sideways, now thanks to all those amazing "marginal gains", he rides up hills for 25 mins at 6.6 W/kg
You really have a hard-on for the guy.
You don't know how much he weighs and you don't know what his power output was, so you have no way of knowing he was knocking out 6.6 watts per kilo.
It wouldn't surprise me if he was, though, as I've said before on this thread, it's what Froome specialises in - short bursts of effort at FTP on mountain top finishes or in time trials, the rest of Team Sky do the vast majority of the work. With the obvious exception of the time trials, the only three times Froome's even come out from behind a teammate's wheel and put in a real dig was the descent into Louchon; the break with Sagan, Thomas and Bodnar; and the quickly-halted attack on the Ventoux.
For Sky's "marginal gains", just read "$5 million a year bigger budget than any other team" - they can afford to have 4 guys on their team who would be genuine GC contenders in their own right all pulling for Froome to win.Bardet and Porte also only finished 42 and 33 seconds slower than Froome, so assuming they're lighter than Froome, why no surprise at their w/kg?
-
4 hours ago, Toepoke said:
Are you allowed to complete part of the route minus a bike?
No, and had Froome taken to fell running under any other circumstance he'd have been DQ'd.
A rider was thrown out of the race last year because he got in a team car which then drove just 100m down the road, to pick up his spare bike. The 100m cost him his place in the race.
There's also a very famous incident where Jens Voigt had to complete a Pyrenean descent and more on a borrowed child's bike because he crashed and broke his, and his teams cars had already passed him. -
5 hours ago, Angus_Young said:
it was a LOT cheaper to do it all separately, so I think I'll be steering clear of Travel Agents.
Definitely this.
Any time I've went I've just booked the flights I wanted directly with the airline, then booked the room directly with the hotel as and when the price was best.Hotels have so many offers or opportunities to get a great deal that you just don't get with a travel agent, expedia etc.
For instance, if you book a room at a specific nightly rate, then later on see the same room at the same hotel being advertised at lower rate, call or e-mail the hotel and they will amend your booking to the reduced rate - not something that can happen with a package pre-booked through a third party.
You could also sign up for a players card on-line, like Total Rewards, which covers all the Caesars properties, or M-Life, which covers MGM properties. Through these players cards you get e-mail offers for reduced room rates and sometimes an automatic reduction in the rate published on the web. They're also used for recording your playing time when you actually get there, which may end up in a free meal or a night in the hotel being knocked off your bill, depending on how much you play on the tables, slots etc. -
If you really don't care about the hotel, stay at the Flamingo. Hotel isn't the greatest, but it's cheap and the location is excellent.
If you want the best combination of value, location and hotel, stay at Mirage or The Cromwell.
If you can get a room within your budget, though, stay at Caesars or any of the City Centre properties (Vdara, Aria etc).As mentioned above, don't stay off strip, and if you can, stay as near to Bellagio/Caesars/Paris/Flamingo as you can, as you're in the middle of everything.
-
7 hours ago, Parklife said:
Who do you think isn't?
Chris Froome's evolution to a guy who gets dropped by even modest climbers on modest climbs, to the greatest climber in the history of the sport may well be down to sleeping on volcanoes and the "marginal gains" that Dave Brailsford loves to talk about... Or maybe it's down to dope.
I have no idea who is doping, who isn't doping, if it's even happening at all, or if everyone's at it.
What I do know, though, is that anyone that speaks with any level of certainty on the subject is ultimately wrong, and those who speak with certainty that it is happening but not on who or how are definitely wrong.The whole Froome thing has been done to death, so I'll skip the argument about whether he's clean or not. What i will say, though, is that he's not even the best pure climber on Team Sky, never mind the best climber in history. He's very, very good at a 30mn effort, which, combined with the ability of Thomas, Poels, and before them Porte etc, to protect him until he's ready to make that effort, is crucial to him winning the tour.
3 hours ago, phart said:All the teams with a few clean folk (basically how it has been since I can remember). Misusing TUE, next generation EPO, steroids specifically testosterone cultivated from animals instead of plants (much harder to detect), various other drugs which aren't know to testers yet. , with the look away attitudes of the sponsors and governing body who can provide a much better spectacle with dopers than without.
This has been the trend in cycling for decades the question should be, what evidence do you have it has stopped?
I enjoy the spectacle it's not fair and open competition though.
TUE misuse is something that I could see as a viable way to gain an unfair advantage - for instance, Asthma diagnosis and medication use. No idea if it goes beyond that, though.
It also stands to reason that I have no evidence that doping has stopped, but I don't think that anyone could argue that it's still going on to the extent it was in the early nineties to...say...2009. There is no Floyd-Landis-Stage-17-2006-type performances anymore, performances they euphemistically term "superhuman" or "out of this world". If someone has a bad day, they're generally finished, and no one rips the field to shreds consistently anymore - Froome has lost time to his rivals in the third week in each of his tour wins.2 hours ago, thplinth said:Why does cycling give itself such a hard time about doping when most other sports pay it lip service and dont really give a shit. It is very self defeating for the sport. I know this windbag who refuses to watch the Tour as 'they are all cheating' yet he bores the arse off me about the tennis. How naive are these pricks. Any sport with serious money to be made is going to have a drug problem where drugs can give you an edge. It is just economics.
I don't think cycling does (or did) give itself a particularly hard time about doping, it's basically been dragged into that situation by the press and French/Italian/US authorities.
If anything, the reaction to the Festina affair and Operacion Puerto by some of the riders themselves proves they were quite happy to keep doping, and the UCI's involvement with Armstrong shows they weren't particularly bothered about it either, so long as it kept everyone interested, as you intimate yourself. Baseball was exactly the same - when Bonds, Sosa and McGwire were hitting balls out of the park, no one cared how they were doing it.
The minute guys started falling off their bikes during races, like Jesus Manzano, because they'd been given bovine blood products, though, or were dieing in their beds at night because their blood's so thick, public opinion, driven by the written press, started to turn against them. And like you say, once the public turn against you, the money goes too.I'd also say there is very little money in cycling now, and definitely nothing like there was 10 or 20 years ago, but I'd also say the lengths that some more unscrupulous people are willing to go to to succeed are probably not being replicated nowadays because the rewards are not there.
If you are Peter Sagan you could still probably command a couple of million a year, but a neo-pro domestique is probably only on around 40-50,000 euro a year. -
If Froome doesn't crash, he'll win.
I'd love to see Quintana do it, but his individual climbing talent just isn't enough to overcome the combination of the set tactical plan and the domestiques to make it work, and Froome's ability, that Froome/Sky have.
The Giro this year was so open and exciting purely because Sky lost their leader, so had no reason to strangle the race, which is something they excel at doing with the TdF.3 hours ago, Parklife said:The complete absence of doping chat in the media is pretty illuminating. Like everyone has just thought "ah feck it, let's just enjoy the freak show".
Serious question. Who do you think is doping, what are they doping with and how are they doing it?
-
Collum beating the spread on cards tonight and England draw/Wales win double last night has me back in profit against the bookie.
-
Bet365's Asian handicap line on cards in this game was 4, with over that being 2.25/1.
That's like a double your money giveaway with Collum refereeing.
-
Cubs
in Other Sports
They're the Cubs, so they'll manage to "Cubs it up" somehow.
They'll easily win their division and will probably have the best NL record, but will then get the Wild Card winner in the NLDS, which will probably be either Washington or the Mets, and they'll lose.
Like Hibs and the Scottish Cup, the Cubs are forever fated to be ultimately unsuccessful, no matter how good they look earlier in proceedings.
-
21 hours ago, yourname said:
I know about them classifying a climb differently based on where it is in the stage, so I see where you are coming from. But ignoring where it occurs in a stage, the ratings are correct? Basically I did my first cat 2 the other day and want to boast about it.
I'm not sure you can ignore where it occurs in a stage, as that's a factor that race organisers use that Strava doesn't. As such, you could hypothetically have the same mountain with a different categorisation in different races. Strava's categorisation never changes, it's just length in metres multiplied by average gradient, the total number you get gives you the categorisation Cat 4 > 8000 Cat 3 > 16000, 2 > 32000, 1 > 64000, HC > 80000.
However, in saying that, I'm pretty sure that Strava ratings would come pretty close to what a climb would be categorised in a race anyway, there's just no way to prove it.Congrats on climbing a Cat-2, by the way. That's an achievement no matter how mountain classifications compare.
If it's not too nosy a question, what was it?
8 hours ago, Jacobite said:And the most important part. What gear an old car required to get up the hill.
LOL.
If old Henri Desgrange's motor couldn't get up it, it was HC.
-
On 07/05/2016 at 5:26 PM, yourname said:
Hey Lads, for anyone more experienced with cycling, are the climb classifications on sites/apps like Mapmyride or strava the same as the ones in the grand tours? As in, if one of those sites says a climb is a 3, would it also be classed a 3 in a grand tour, or would the classification change?
No, they're not, as Grand Tour classification takes in to account where on a stage the climb occurs, and a range of other factors, as well as length and gradient.
There are obviously other nuances on things like Strava where a segment might not actually match up exactly with where a Grand Tour climb may start/finish.
If personal experience counts for anything, I've climbed a Vuelta mountain-top finished that was classed as a Cat-1 climb in the actual race, but that Strava classed as Cat-2.
-
The "National Winner Criteria", as discussed on this very board every year, throws up any one of nine, I believe.
The Druids Nephew, Saint Are, Shutthefrontdoor, Goonyella, Kruzhlinin, Triolo Dalene, Just A Par, Rocky Creek and Maggio.
-
1:30 Altior
2:10 Douvan
2:50 Carole's Destrier
3:30 Nichols Canyon
4:10 Polly Peachum
4:50 Measureofmydreams
-
2 hours ago, Fairbairn said:
Just never got round to it. Started watching it a couple of times and never got passed the second episode. My mate has been banging on about it for years so as I've recently got Net Flix I thought I may as well give it another go. It's OK but I've yet to see what all the fuss is about although I'm informed season 2 is when it kicks in.
Save yourself the time and don't bother.
Breaking Bad is, by a comfortable margin, the most over-hyped programme in the history of television.
-
Mechanical doping still puzzles me a bit.
Whatever you use must be big enough to be able to knock out a certain wattage to make it worth having, but it must also be light enough so the weight of the device doesn't completely negate the power it produces. And it still has to be able to fit in to a seat tube.
On this case specifically, why use it in CX?
Surely of all the cycling disciplines, CX may be the one where using a motor helps the least, with all the time off the bike, descents, muck, water etc.
The UCI have obviously found something as they've impounded the bike pending further investigation and the rider has seemingly came up with some rubbish excuse about it being her friends bike, but there's been no confirmation around what kind of device it was.
-
Any roadies been to Majorca? Discussing going away somewhere for +/-5 days in April, but I'm worried there's not enough options and will end up repeating climbs?
Have a look at Girona also.
It's the European base for a lot of pro teams and there's about 50 pros living there either permanently or during the road season.
Plenty of options for different types of rides along great roads with very little traffic.
It's a great little place for a night out also.
Don't know of anywhere else of equal size that has such a high standard and volume of places to eat out.
-
Saw them earlier in the year when I was over, building a good team - maybe they'll break the curse...
They'll need some more pitching if they want to break the curse.
Arrieta's been amazing this season and Lester will always be above average, but they need some more depth in the rotation.
Their young bats are great and will continue to be so for the next few years, but pitching wins championships.
A fact proven by the relative ease with which the Mets, and their seemingly endless supply of brilliant young pitchers, seem to be ending the Cubs season sooner rather than later.
-
A very interesting and thought provoking article on Chris Borland, the recently-retired 49ers LB, by the always brilliant Mark Fainaru-Wada and his brother.
-
Cracking race today.
Alpe d'Huez never fails to disappoint.
Great tactics by Movistar to get Anacona up the road, to pace Quintana up the climb.
Valverde's attacks kept the Sky boys honest for a long time also.
Wout Poels, who's been quietly brilliant for the whole tour, did a massive bit of work for Froome, though.
Bring on the Vuelta...
-
Its perfectly possible that froome is clean now but was his sudden rise to top level clean ?
Will anyone ever know ?
What did Wiggins think of Froome ? Was suspicion of Froome the reason behind Wiggins' dislike of him?
It's the sudden rise that has everyone wondering about Froome.
There's multiple reports that when he was at the World Cycling Centre they knew he had potential, it was just a case of whether he could realise it. He's still a terrible bike-handler now and the stem-staring, elbows-out position he has is unorthodox to put it kindly, so you can still see that any improvement he has made is confined to his legs and his lungs. He also had Bilharzia between about 2009 and 2013, and reports suggest his form coincides with how well his treatement was going at any given time.
As such, the guy has as many explanations as those who think he's doping have evidence (whether substantial or not) to back up their theories, so ultimately it comes down to what any one person chooses to believe. Like most things in life, people will form an opinion and then find evidence to back up that opinion, instead of looking at it objectively.
I don't think we'll ever know about Froome, though.
If he was going to fail a test, I think it would have happened by now; If he's clean, it's almost impossible for him to conclusively prove he's not doping to his doubters, and I doubt they'd believe hm no matter what he did anyway; and he doesn't have and ego like Armstrong where he'd bring the whole thing down himself.
Big day today. Looks like a mental finish firing doon a big mountain
Hopefully Tejay can hold off Contador. Pretty resigned to Froome and Quintana being 1 and 2, but still hope for Tejay regarding a podium finish for my 33/1 ew.
Day off today so get to watch it live - that on the computer in the kitchen, next to the wee telly wi the firestick on the golf, as I have a small interest on Garcia ew at 125/1. Beers may be taken.
The descent in to Gap was just another part of the race, until 2003 when Joseba Beloki crashed and ended his career, and Armstrong decided to ride through a field. Now it's the most exciting part of the stage.
If the GC contenders were at the front today, I'd fancy Nibali as he's by far the best descender, but I think a breakaway should win today.
Teejay may survive in 3rd today and Wednesday, but I don't see him holding on up to La Toussuire and Alpe D'huez on Friday and Saturday.
Contador, Valverde or both will take time off him.
-
This marginal-gain stuff is nothing new.
Hinault used to get his soigneurs to carry him up stairs to save his legs.
There was talk on C4 last night that Froome's going to release all his training, race and bio-passport data after the tour, for his whole career, to try and satisfy the doubters.
I think the guy could go to whatever lengths possible and some people still wouldn't believe he's clean.
-
Just another tour crash to add to Laurens' collection.
-
Surprised it took until post 8 until someone mentioned doping.
There's no doubt Astana should have at least lost their world tour licence (which probably would have ended the team in any case) for the amount of positive tests coming out of their team and their feeder team.
I don't see why Nibali should be banned for the indiscretions of the Iglinsky brothers, though.
Also, there is no such thing as a clean sport. Some sports merely appear clean due to poor doping controls or not a lot of press coverage of those who test positive.
-
Looks like Hudson's going on the DL also, Jim, creating space for Peavy.
Nothing serious apparently, just needs the rest. The guy is 40 after all.
McGehee's definitely away this time. Giants are looking for another team to take him on and give him more playing time. Unfortunately the vast majority of his salary remains on SF payroll.
Completely agree about Duffy. Doing sterling work.
Part of a completely home grown infield also.
They're plugging away nicely considering the amount of time Pence, Cain and Peavy have been missing, and also now they've lost Aoki for a considerable time.
I can see a couple of trades happening before the deadline, though. Perhaps another experienced back-up outfielder and maybe another bullpen arm.
2016 Tour De France
in Other Sports
Posted
I've followed Ross Tucker on Twitter for a while, ever since he did a episode of The Cycling Podcast with Jeroen Swart, another South African physiologist.
They were both discussing the tests Froome did at the end of last year's tour at the GSK labs in England, at which Swart was present, which were also featured on an episode of The Cycling Podcast (unfortunately behind a paywall) and made up the basis of this article - http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk/ .
The article is interesting and makes some good points, but Richard Moore has had to write for a non-cycling publication, so it's not as in-depth as the podcast itself.
The most important thing that came from the article is that Jeroen Swart, when comparing data from Froome's tests when at the UCI training centre in 2007 to those done in 2015, saw no magical transformation in his numbers, he was just lighter and better trained.
Ross Tucker is the ultimate cycnic when it comes to Froome and cycling in general, so it doesn't surprise me that he would doubt Froome's performance.
As he admits himself, though, he has no evidence to prove his cynicism correct and freely admits in the podcast you linked to that his lack of data leaves us "all speculating in the darkness with our eyes closed here". So even though he doubts Froome himself, he admits he has nothing to back it up with.
Scepticism in cycling is sometimes a good thing and, going on the past twenty years, it's no wonder that a lot of people think like you and Ross Tucker.
To say "This is by far the most ridiculous Tour of the past 10 years", is massive hyperbole or just bad memory, though. 2006 was the year of Operacion Puerto and Floyd Landis, 2007 was Rasmussen and Vino's Astana team withdrawal, 2008 was Ricardo Ricco and Bernard Kohl, 2010 is Contador and his contaminated beef etc etc.
I don't think I'm sticking my fingers in my ears, and as i said earlier in the thread I've no doubt they're still pushing the boundaries of what is legal (TUE abuse etc), but I don't see any performances as "superhuman" as happened in the '90's and 00's.
In any case, today's stage was a good one. Bambi on Ice.
Unsure why Quintana and Porte didn't attack more when Froome was on Thomas' bike. Maybe they think the battle for yellow is as over as everyone else does? Nice to see Bardet still had the balls to go for it.