So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005

80 watchers

Wriggling Snake Jul 2015 11:22am, 15 Jul 2015 9,812 posts	0 Wriggling Snake I should calm down
gcwenn Jul 2015 11:25am, 15 Jul 2015 780 posts	0 gcwenn No WS, you should not calm down, i could not have put it better myself!!!
eL Bee! Jul 2015 11:29am, 15 Jul 2015 19,934 posts	0 eL Bee! Ooh! Shiny bicycles. And skinny blokes riding so hard that their faces go grey ...and shiny bicycles
Chrisull Jul 2015 11:47am, 15 Jul 2015 7,646 posts	0 Chrisull How did el Bee get all those shirt icons?
Nelly Jul 2015 11:52am, 15 Jul 2015 2,591 posts	0 Nelly * letour * without the gaps
The Teaboy Jul 2015 12:13pm, 15 Jul 2015 13,099 posts	0 The Teaboy Climb times are likely to be faster this year because so many stages are shorter. The epic alpine mountain stages aren't 200+km like in the past. They're 130-160km range which means the riders will be fresher and will be able to race more rather than being last man standing. I think that the shorter but more interesting routes will promote more exciting tours as it will encourage attacking riding every day.
Chrisull Jul 2015 12:22pm, 15 Jul 2015 7,647 posts	0 Chrisull Ta! >>I don't like comparisons of average speeds, times up climbs with respect to previous years as think >>it is not helpful and doesn't tell the full story. >>You can't compare an average speed across different grand tours over the years because the >>parcours is different each time On its own yes, one, two or three sets of results are not indicative of anything, but a 6 or 7 year trend fills in a little bit of a picture. It might be windy one year, rain all the next, a mountainous course one year, a time triallers the next, but these things even themselves out. You'd expect times to go up and down a bit surely... not just up: See: bikeraceinfo.com
Nellers Jul 2015 1:18pm, 15 Jul 2015 29,814 posts	0 Nellers So if an athlete is head and shoulders above the opposition then they are likely to be doping? Hence Froome is under suspicion, and Bolt is under suspicion. Has anyone checked Chrissie Wellington's old samples? Before I get lynched by the Tiathletes out there I'm actually saying that because I think to suspect anyne because they're the best is a crock of shit and I don't think Chrissie doped at all. Far from it. She was a freak of nature and physically better suited to her even than her competitors. And freaks of nature sometimes stumble upon the sport that suits them so sometimes you get genuine clean exceptional performances that make everyone else scratch their heads. And sometimes you get those performances because someone doped. If Froome is this good because he's doping and the whole of cycling is riddled with doping then why should we believe that he is doping so much more effectively than the rest?
stuart little Jul 2015 1:45pm, 15 Jul 2015 941 posts	0 stuart little Nellers - it's not being better at doing than someone else, is being a better responder to doping than someone else. (Armstrong is the case in point here as he responded better than his team mates hence was the team leader) On Froome, I suspect vrap is probably right - right up to the edges of legality (if not morality) to gain an advantage, but wouldn't surprise me if he was past the line either
The Teaboy Jul 2015 1:50pm, 15 Jul 2015 13,100 posts	0 The Teaboy The Tucker/Festinaboy analysis work is based around drawing a picture of what is possible one pixel at a time. They fully accept there is no black and white doping alarm. There are performances that are clearly doped such as in the Pharmstrong/Pantani era (6.7W/kg...) and those that are likely not. Froome has produced two performances in his career where he has summarily destroyed the best - Ax-Les-3-Domaines in 2013 and yesterday. According to the analysis and accepting margins of error and the assumptions, those performances lay in the very upper bounds of what is predicted by undoped human physiology. They fall into that grey area. Clearly if the margins of error fall one way it is probably undoped, if they fall the other it is probably doped. It is because we can't know those contextual factors that we are left with an element of doubt. If it is clean, then Froome is both blessed and cursed for being a highly gifted and exceptionally well trained athlete.