Trail wrote:Yeh, I think doping science vs testing/blood passports means that the doping is more micro-dosing rather than the full on top ups that were going on with Lance, meaning you don't see the huge gaps that you used to and that things come back more to race craft, team tactics etc.

Getting rid of the race radios with the team directors whispering in their ears could make the racing more interesting too. Escapists like Bauer may have more chance of success without the team directors analysing the gap and telling the team how hard they had to go to catch them and GC people may be able to sneak off in breaks without the whole of the opposition knowing about it and shutting it down early on.

or just BEEEEF doping - seems to be ok now
certainly with you on race radios. much more fun - a la roma maxima last year and kadri
I dont reckon "safety concerns" hold water really
Imagine cobbles and no race radio

You can have a "race radio" channel with one impartial announcer that all the teams are on for safety concerns if the "safety" of radios is valid?

Is anyone with MySky having problems with their recordings?
For the second time so far last nights stage stopped about 1.5 hours in to what was a 5 hour recording. Can't play the last few hours, keeps thinking it's finished.
Lucky I've got all the Track cycling to watch now.

Trail wrote:You can have a "race radio" channel with one impartial announcer that all the teams are on for safety concerns if the "safety" of radios is valid?

I think we are at crossed purposes. I agree 100% with you. "safety concerns" seem to be used to radios to give course safety information. safety can be assured by a single impartial channel and remove the DS chatter which could actually increase risk.

Trail wrote:

RHR_Rob wrote:is it just me or does Nibali look just too good? he seems to have some of those Armstrong burst of accelleration.

Nibs probably would have been looking at 3rd if both Froome and Contador were still in the race... and maybe 4th if Quintana had entered, but it is all relative. Doping is still rife no matter what people try and tell you. Huge natural talent + years of hard work and sacrifice + will to win + some drugs to keep up with the others who are doping = winners. I just don't believe that any of the top guys are doing it clean... What I think is interesting is that the same drugs are rife in professional football, yet how many people ever have you seen banned from football for doping.

For that matter Team Sky with "We train harder and more scientifically than anyone else" sounds a heck of a lot more like the propaganda of the teams Lance used to race for?

I doubt it !!!!

Nibs had a 2 second leaving England.
He thrashed Contador over the cobbles and I suspect Froome would have performed even worse than Contador over the cobbles.
The Sky team appeared weak, although Saxo looked good.
Nibs did a good time trial. Froome may have done a fraction better but not by much, he certainly would not have beaten the time of Tony Martin.
Also Nibali finished with a time gap over 7 minutes, which was a lot more than Froome finished with in the 2013 edition. Also some of the riders to finish in the top 10 places this year also finished in the top 10 last year - so that is a good benchmark.

Also like any sport : to win you need to start and you need to finish.
There are plenty of great athletes who have for instance never won a Olympic gold medal due to injury, bad luck or just choking on the big
occasion.

Nibali probably wouldn't have finished in the top 10 if 9 2001 Lance Armstrongs, Contador and Froome had all finished.

...What's everyone's point? He was the best rider who was able to finish a grueling race. As deserving winner as any who have gone before. Potentially shitloads more deserving than some (assuming doping controls are now working properly and he's clean).

I wondered too if he was juiced when I saw his assplosive attacks... but he was riding with people who weren't on his level. Those attacks would have probably looked much less insane if the other top fellows were still in the race.

I tend to agree with Kookaburra, although of course we'll never know. He certainly looked the business on stages 2 and 5, and at no stage did he look droppable. In fact, most of the time he looked like he was busting to go - how quickly did he jump when Horner attacked on Hautacam?

I agree with kooks and oli and babs too. although I admit to being a little surprised at how good Nibbles went, I think concluding dopage is a long bow to draw.
gains were small. overall times were not surprising. time gaps were not huge. no total domination as in Postal days (except the surprise on the cobbles that nibs had been really focussed on but this was more a technical than aerobic domination). Nibbles race-craft was superb.
doesn't add up to certain doping - but in reality, as in all sports , only the participant truly knows.
While I would have loved to have seen bertie win( i have forgiven him and I love his style of racing), the dumbass did something stupid and fell off. he certainly looked better then nibbles earlier in the season but to conclude he would have beaten him - it certainly isn't clear. he could have lost time in the TT and may have struggled to get away on the climbs.
sky were weak all year and looked unlikely to dominate in the mountains as they had in the past. they had been doing a poor job of looking after froome earlier in the season and in the TDF and the resulting accident was not entirely unpredictable - if you ride at the back half of the bunch in the tDF. froome was unlikely to be strong on the cobbles even in good nick. he probably/possibly would have taken time in the TT but again may have struggled to get away on the mountains.
I guess we will never know but we do know one thing -nibbles finished -the others didn't.
he rode his bike faster over the whole course
he wins

Yep. To finish first, first you have to finish [/cliche]