As most of you well know by now, the General Classification (GC) within the Tour de France is done and dusted for another year, barring of course the extreme circumstance of Bradley Wiggins being beamed up by UFO and never returning.
Admittedly, I’ve turned off the TV early most nights and returned to bed at a still modest time, knowing the result would be predictable. So, to put it in one word, the tour has been, well, disappointing.
Cavendish scores second Tour stage win
There are certain problems with how the Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO) have managed the tour this year, which has brought it to the disappointing level.
Firstly, within the peloton, there has been little or no motivation to attack on any of the climbs. While I give full credit to Sky for dominating and setting a tough tempo for others to follow, it almost felt like teams were scared to do anything, just so they did not leave their team leader isolated against the black and blue train.
While that is an understandable excuse, the boring racing that ensues is not. Pre-2008, when there were time bonuses at the end of stages and at sprint points along the course, there was a motivation to be the first man over the line. Even if it was only for what could have been a few meaningless seconds.
If the ASO decide to backflip on their decision and reinstate time bonuses, the question arises of “How much time should be given?” I’m of the opinion that it should, in essence, be a sliding scale, based on the difficultly of the climb. Even using the current King of the Mountains points system and converting it into time gaps is a feasible idea that would be simple to follow and would cause some form of attacking racing, none of which has been shown in this year’s tour.
This year, the case is that attacking riding is being punished and, as such, frowned upon by the peloton. That isn’t in the spirit of the sport. As Thomas Voeckler showed last year, watching creative and flamboyant riding leads to a better, more exciting tour.
While adding time bonuses might be seen as ‘artificial’, as a fan, I pose this: Which tour would you rather go back in time and watch. This year’s supposed bore fest, or a tour in Lance Armstrong’s era?
If I were to choose, I’d go with the man who ran through a field to avoid a crash, and still had the dexterity to keep going.
Munchkin
Roar Rookie
As for time bonuses, it is a great idea! and I agree with the author of this article, thank you.
Munchkin
Roar Rookie
Quote: "Which tour would you rather go back in time and watch. This year's supposed bore fest, or a tour in Lance Armstrong's era?" I would rather watch this great man who fought till he dropped during the tour de france and never gave up! He is courageous with his fight with cancer and the lance armstrong foundation and what he has done so far for all cyclists, the twitter ride he did in Adelaide also! I would rather watch Lance and the likes of Phil Anderson, Thomas Voeckler, Scott Sutherland, Rupert Guiness who is a great writer and the likes of Sean Kelly the sprinter back when he was still racing, the likes of Robbie McEwen, Bradley Wiggins and team sky and the list is endless so to say that the sport has drug in it when you have such great people coming back from adversity, is absurd. Why! Because were you there? Did you see him take the drug or anyone else and what circumstances can you prove it? I stand by this till this day! Unless you have reasonable evidence and it is beyond reasonable doubt, you have nothing to say on the drugs saga. Leave people be with their sport, thankyou.
hamleyn
Roar Guru
I'm of the opinion that I'd rather the race be settled without the incentive of time bonuses. This year, no team has been able to respond to Team Sky's utter dominance. Which has made the racing boring. But I don't think time bonuses are the answer. Dscaper made a great point before: the last few years in the Tour, we've seen a ridiculous amount of crashes and bad crashes at that. Putting time bonuses back is akin to "pouring petrol on the fire": all its going to do is exacerbate the problem. My other main point was that I would like to see the GC settled on its own merits. At last year's Vuelta, Chris Froome would have actually won the race had time bonuses been removed. And I think that rather takes the gloss off Cobo's win. Mind you, the race actually has to be close for time bonuses to have that effect. In my mind, there are three reasons why this year's Tour has been a bit boring (I haven't actually watched a single stage finish this year): 1) Despite the time trial kilometres seemingly favouring him, Cadel's form just hasn't been up to scratch. His preparation was too interrupted by illness and injury. I don't think he's ridden a bad race but he's not the same Cadel Evans he was last year. I think it just goes to show that, unless you are Alberto Contador, it really does have to be "your year" to win it, which it has for Wiggins, who's been winning since February. 2) The course this year wasn't as difficult as last year. I'm not saying its been easy but there were more mountaintop finishes and tougher climbs. Next year's 100th edition route is rumoured to be absolutely epic so hopefully that may go some way to resolving the problem. I also think that because there's been so many crashes this year, a lot of people have played very very safe and been somewhat too defensive. 3) Chris Froome wasn't able to attack. Put aside my own personal feelings of suspicion about Froome's performance (no-one bursts onto the scene like he does without something suspect about them), if he'd been allowed to go for it himself, he would quite easily have won this Tour. He's far and away a better climber than Wiggins and damned near as good a time trialler. He'd easily be Yellow, which is a bit disappointing really. It reminds me a bit of the 2008 race: Cadel Evans was the best rider in that Tour, but Carlos Sastre was the leader of the best team and therefore won yellow. Froome has been the best rider at the Tour this year but because Wiggins was leader, Wiggins gets to win Yellow.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
My 'conclusion' is inconclusive. I don't know who to believe and that taints my view when extraordinary results are recorded. Do I hope they're clean? Sure do. Am I confident they're clean? I just don't know. To make matter worse the testing regime is being inadvertently called into question through the USADA/WADA efforts to charge Armstrong and previously 'clean' competitors in various sports admitting to doping. While others have appealed guilty verdicts. So I am sure I am not the only one who is confused and somewhat disappointed.
Blinky47
Guest
The problem with this year's boring tour is that there was no one capable of challenging Sky. If one of the other teams had a rider of Froome's ability to attack on the climbs we would of had an exiting race. As to time bonus's pehaps having them for the mountains only may be an option.
liquorbox_
Roar Rookie
I think the only way to increase the attacks is to limit the ability of a team to buy all of the talent, or to be able to afford to train for an entire season for one event. This obviously cant happen in either case. Sky has shown a desire to win the TDF, and this planning has taken a few years to achieve, they have to perfect riders for their plan and they have executed as planned. The only thing that could have affected them would be to force your way into their train with a shoulder and disrupt them. Even so, they would have still won. You cant have a salary cap on cycling that is really enforceable, I am sure that the winners of Grand tours are well paid, but they would also take a pay cut to earn the honour of winning, so the money is not a way to even out talent. You cant use UCI points either as the domestiques dont really earn a lot of points as they fade off and dont usually come in the top placings. Bonus time would not be effective to somve this years issues either, Froome would have just won every mountain and got all of the time.
Jock
Guest
DSCAPER, you are spot on. well said
Dscaper
Guest
And your conclusion is based upon what exactly? Some cyclists go fast, some cyclists who go fast took drugs, therefore all fast cyclists take drugs? The only marker that can be used in professional sport is that of the drug test. If they return negative, then they didn't do drugs. If they return positive, then they did. If you have a problem with it being possible to avoid detection, then surely the burden of proof must be placed upon the one making the allegation, and not the target of same said allegation. Even the worst court of law would take that argument apart. Either way, the doping discussion is covered elsewhere.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
"What we are watching is the result of a set of clean athletes in an ever cleaner sport taking it to the next level..." Are you sure? I do not know what to believe regarding doping vs natural performance anymore.
MC
Guest
Top comment, Sky have changed the game it''s up to the others to react. The tour stands out because it awards stage winners (races in their own right), it credits climbers, but GC is the crown not because it's a fluke or a chance, but because its a test match, the ultimate challenge. Sky went with Wiggins this year, dependent on course next year it may be Froome, EBH, Gerrant Thomas or Porte, each good enough to be in with a shout.
Dscaper
Guest
Balance time again... Quote "Firstly, within the peloton, there has been little or no motivation to attack on any of the climbs. While I give full credit to Sky for dominating and setting a tough tempo for others to follow, it almost felt like teams were scared to do anything, just so they did not leave their team leader isolated against the black and blue train. " It's not that they were scared, it was purely down to the vicious tempo they laid down day, after day, after day. Basso, Horner and alot of other good riders have repeatedly said that it was not through want of trying, but when Team Sky constantly pushed 420-430Watts, there was nowhere to go - if you broke, you had nowhere to hide. Excluding the TT to follow, the average speed of the hole Tour so far is 40.5km/hr - 2nd fastest ever behind Lance's Disco in 2005. It's nothing to do with motivation or fear - the only answer is to think of ways of slowing them down, or improving team output. Another huge danger is what effect time bonuses would have on the 1st week of the Tour. This year it all seemed to get a bit stupid until it reached the point of absurdity with the Metz crash. Putting time bonuses in the mix would be akin to pouring petrol on a fire - 200 riders, from the GC'ers to the tail-enders looking for contract negotiation points climbing over each other. Sure, it makes great TV, but we were very lucky someone didn't get killed in the Metz crash. Lastly, I'd like to see what the GC looked like if you retrospectively gave time bonuses according to the finishing order for the Tour so far. I'd hazard a guess that it would have made no difference whatsoever. Quote: "This year, the case is that attacking riding is being punished and, as such, frowned upon by the peloton. That isn’t in the spirit of the sport. As Thomas Voeckler showed last year, watching creative and flamboyant riding leads to a better, more exciting tour." This mythical beast that you call Spirit comes from the want of winning - the same want that gave us an era of doping, the same want that put Tommy Simpson to the sword on the side of a lonely mountain - it's the want of winning, nothing more, nothing less. Quote: "Which tour would you rather go back in time and watch. This year’s supposed bore fest, or a tour in Lance Armstrong’s era? " What we are watching is the result of a set of clean athletes in an ever cleaner sport taking it to the next level - a level where you don't go back home for 2 months over winter and eat pies. What you saw back in the Lance era was a faux-sport; so bent out of shape by drugs and deception that even if it is never proven that Lance used drugs that those attacks on far-away hills were just a lie. I don't want those days back, even though I remember loving every minute of them. Quote: "If I were to choose, I’d go with the man who ran through a field to avoid a crash, and still had the dexterity to keep going." Do you think that Garmin Sharp would agree with you after the Metz crash? Or David Millar who now sports possibly the coolest tattoo of a chain-ring ever? Laurens Ten Dam tweeting after: "Lots of blood and screaming. Carnage"? Oscar Freire with his newly punctured lung and broken ribs? This isn't about having dexterity, as the Metz crash proved. Millar said he was in the 3rd-wave of riders to hit the crash - and he still never had time to avoid it as they were going so fast. I'm sorry, but if it comes down to choosing boring and safe over spirited panache and possible deaths, then I'll take the former thanks. I like my heroes alive.