Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Tour de France (2023 from p54)
Comments
-
Cafc43v3r said:NornIrishAddick said:There's a lot of really good cyclists retiring this year. Quite a few I'll miss.
I really wished that Pinot could have won yesterday (one of the reasons I really like the French teams is that there's no way they've managed effective doping, just as soon as a rider looks to be doing reasonably well, they just collapse). I've never fully got over Tommy Voeckler.
After what was undoubtedly a thrilling Tour, I hate the way that I'm questioning whether so many of those involved had their performances artificially enhanced.
Someone I follow on Twitter was suggesting that pro-cycling needs to introduce a salary cap - a very few teams have the outstanding riders (Jumbo Visma probably had 3 or 4 that would have been team leaders anywhere else), and I find the idea tempting.
Successful breakaways have become much rarer than they used to be.
The top two this year were reasonably equally matched (with Jumbo Visma clearly stronger), which is why this year's Tour was as exciting as it was.
As I understand it the idea is that, if it was possible to have 5 or 6 top teams that were much of a muchness, more equality would mean closer GC races and more excitement.
0 -
NornIrishAddick said:Cafc43v3r said:NornIrishAddick said:There's a lot of really good cyclists retiring this year. Quite a few I'll miss.
I really wished that Pinot could have won yesterday (one of the reasons I really like the French teams is that there's no way they've managed effective doping, just as soon as a rider looks to be doing reasonably well, they just collapse). I've never fully got over Tommy Voeckler.
After what was undoubtedly a thrilling Tour, I hate the way that I'm questioning whether so many of those involved had their performances artificially enhanced.
Someone I follow on Twitter was suggesting that pro-cycling needs to introduce a salary cap - a very few teams have the outstanding riders (Jumbo Visma probably had 3 or 4 that would have been team leaders anywhere else), and I find the idea tempting.
Successful breakaways have become much rarer than they used to be.
The top two this year were reasonably equally matched (with Jumbo Visma clearly stronger), which is why this year's Tour was as exciting as it was.
As I understand it the idea is that, if it was possible to have 5 or 6 top teams that were much of a muchness, more equality would mean closer GC races and more excitement.
Break aways stuck in sprint stages this year, which must be unusual? And Vingegaard didn't actually win a proper stage.
Having two teams is certainly better than having one, like SKY were. It also didn't help that Ineos used it as a testing ground so hopefully next year they will be up there in the GC as well.
I often think salary caps are normally solutions for problems that don't really exist or because people can't be trusted to live within their means.0 -
Cafc43v3r said:NornIrishAddick said:Cafc43v3r said:NornIrishAddick said:There's a lot of really good cyclists retiring this year. Quite a few I'll miss.
I really wished that Pinot could have won yesterday (one of the reasons I really like the French teams is that there's no way they've managed effective doping, just as soon as a rider looks to be doing reasonably well, they just collapse). I've never fully got over Tommy Voeckler.
After what was undoubtedly a thrilling Tour, I hate the way that I'm questioning whether so many of those involved had their performances artificially enhanced.
Someone I follow on Twitter was suggesting that pro-cycling needs to introduce a salary cap - a very few teams have the outstanding riders (Jumbo Visma probably had 3 or 4 that would have been team leaders anywhere else), and I find the idea tempting.
Successful breakaways have become much rarer than they used to be.
The top two this year were reasonably equally matched (with Jumbo Visma clearly stronger), which is why this year's Tour was as exciting as it was.
As I understand it the idea is that, if it was possible to have 5 or 6 top teams that were much of a muchness, more equality would mean closer GC races and more excitement.
Break aways stuck in sprint stages this year, which must be unusual? And Vingegaard didn't actually win a proper stage.
Having two teams is certainly better than having one, like SKY were. It also didn't help that Ineos used it as a testing ground so hopefully next year they will be up there in the GC as well.
I often think salary caps are normally solutions for problems that don't really exist or because people can't be trusted to live within their means.0 -
I just hope they stick with the idea of putting some mountains in the first week. That really changed the dynamic of the racing, and I’m sure the reason why breakaways worked.3
-
SomervilleAddick said:I just hope they stick with the idea of putting some mountains in the first week. That really changed the dynamic of the racing, and I’m sure the reason why breakaways worked.1
-
SomervilleAddick said:I just hope they stick with the idea of putting some mountains in the first week. That really changed the dynamic of the racing, and I’m sure the reason why breakaways worked.0
-
0