Monuments to Grand Tours: Prudhomme & Change
by ursula on Apr 27, 2009 10:53 PM EDT
Email
Print
Chris wrote something yesterday that just rang true that I think needs repeating:
On that last point, this is a big development. Alberto Contador will be the overwhelming favorite, but the only way to make it interesting would be to drum up another young, powerful rider with most or all of the same qualities, AND have him ride for a team that is deep in talent, aggressive, experienced, and knows specifically how to win a Tour. Up till now it was maybe looking like the usual suspects (ranging from utterly suspect to something more, like Sastre) banging their heads against the Astana juggernaut. Problem solved, today. I wouldn't make Andy the favorite, but I do like how the next five or so Tours are shaping up.
Today Cosmo went even further with this:
All Saxo Bank, all the time. I really would have liked to have seen some more fight out of the other teams today, but I suppose I can take heart in the fact that there's a cyclist who can win classics and grand tours again. Hooray!
I too feel the excitement of this amazingly talented kid achieving his first breakthrough win. At the same time part of me was wondering, is he really that good? Can we now expect him to win the Tour sometime in the next several years? Maybe this year? How normal is that, winning a Grand Tour and a Monument in the same year or even a Monument and a Grand Tour in a career? Such things can be researched....
Below is a list of all riders who won a Monument and a Grand Tour in their careers, with the specific races specified, from most recent to Coppi and Bartali, post WWII time:
- Danilo DiLuca: 2007 both LBL and Giro; 2001 Lombardia
- Alexandre Vinokourov: 2005 LBL; 2006 Vuelta
- Damiano Cunego: 2004, 7, 8 Lombardia; 2004 Giro
-Tony Rominger: 1989 Lombardia; 1992, 3, 4 Vuelta; 95 Giro
- Laurent Fignon: 88-89 MSR; 82-83 Tour; 89 Giro
- Sean Kelly: 84, 86 P-R; 83, 85, 91 Lombardia; 84, 89 LBL; 86, 92 MSR; 1988 Vuelta.
- Bernard Hinault: 80 LBL; P-R 1981; 84 Lombardia; 78-79, 81-81, 85 Tour, 80,82,85 Giro; 83 Vuelta.
- Felice Gimondi: 65 Lombardia; 74 MSR; 67, 69, 76 Giro; 68 Vuelta
- Eddy Merckx: 69, 75 Flanders, 69, 71-73, 75 LBL, 69, 71-72, 75-76 MSR, 71-72 Lombardia, 68, 70, 73 P-R, 69-72, 74 Tour, 68, 70, 72-74 Giro, 73 Vuelta
- Jacques Anquetil: 66 LBL; 57, 61-64 Tour; 63 Vuelta
- Ferdi Kubler: 51-52 LBL, 50 Tour.
Let's look further:
- Only two riders have won what A Schleck will attempt this year: victories at both LBL and the Tour in a single year. Hinault and Merckx. Those two also did the double in a single year: 1980 (obviously) for Hinault, and 1969, 71-72 for Merckx. So... do you think Andy Schleck will join such company this year? Neither do I. It would be fun to be proven wrong but... I'm not seeing it.
- Only one other rider (besides the Cannibal and Badger) has won any Monument and any Grand Tour in a single year: Killer in 07 with his LBL/Giro double. We'll get to him later.
But go further into these stats:
- Since Hinault did the double in 1980 no one has paired up any Monument with the Tour, even in different years. What was at one time uncommon but do-able for the best riders has for the last 29 years not been done. Again, no Monument winner has also won the Tour and vice versa. Not Contador (obviously). Not Lance, Not Indurain, Lemond, Fignon, Kelly, Anquetil, Motta, Gimondi, Bobet, or Leman. Not even Pereiro! (rimshot).
So what's the Tour's problem-because as we see above it's the Tour that's the problem and not LBL or Lombardia, as they do some overlapping lately with the Vuelta and Giro. IMO the answer just goes back to the idea that the Tour de France is so extreme in what it requires to win. You need to be a certain type of rider and if you are not that type exactly, the most you can hope for is second but you probably won't get close to the podium. All-rounders? Yeah, right. It might seem to our eyes that the riders who win LBL should be able to win the Tour because they used to back in the day. LBL winners are good climbers. They are tough all round riders. Champions. But they aren't Tour champions. Somehow they just don't have that consistency over three weeks in both the TT's and the mountaintop finishes. We have said that here at Podium Cafe the last couple of years about Valverde. But it's not just Valverde; it's all LBL winners these decades. It's Bartoli and Kelly too. And you have to include baby Schleck.
Look at this from the other side. The Tour tends to have repeat winners. You get Merckx, Hinault, Lance, Indurain, Anquetil, Lemond, Fignon, Thevenet, and Bobet. Together these nine riders won 37 Tours in 52 years. The Tour loves a champ. And don't we all think Contador's gonna win several more Tours? I will go so far as to say that while it seems like some Tours are closely contested, if a prior winner is racing, bet the house on that guy.
At present, there isn't room in the Tour for actual racing between riders like there used to be decades ago because the riders and teams have learned how to game the system. Have you read old stories of rider x winning a stage by 10 minutes, only to see his rival, rider z, return the favor the next day? Just doesn't happen any more. Why? Because once the Tour's course became basically the same every year (some flat stages to open up, a TT, one set of mountains, a couple flat stages, the other mountains, a couple flat stages , a deciding TT, then the Champs d 'Elysses) the riders inevitably adapted and slowly they type of riding that would win the race became a formula. Contador has the formula down; so did Lemond. And here's the kicker: once you attune your body to winning the Tour you've practically eliminated yourself from winning any one day race. Again, see what Valverde is doing this year. He's literally doing a makeover so that he no longer has those inevitable bad days that take him out of the race.
So the Tour these days is actually hyper-specialized. Many types of riders may race it but only what 2-4 riders can actually win it. These days each major race selects it's winners from a certain range of body types. It's laughable to think of Alberto Contador winning Paris-Roubaix, or Tom Boonen winning the Tour. Or it would be laughable if the joke hadn't long been played out.
I've been a real killjoy here. Is there any hope for baby Schleck? Can the essence of what the Tour has become be changed? Yes.
All of what I've said above is a lead up to this sentence: THE most exciting race this year has been Stage 7 of Paris-Nice. The Bert Bonk race. Why? The short answer is because Christian Prudhomme loved it. He talks about making the Tour more interesting. He along with all of us are right now staring down the barrel of Alberto Contador beating Lance's record number of Tour wins, baby Schleck or no, and he is looking into making the race more wide open. Fortunately for him he has Paris-Nice to tinker with besides the Tour. So this year he did a mountain top finish on stage 6 followed by this LBL-like stage 7 (see the profile on the side). 
By doing that he surprised Bert and Astana making for not only a wide open stage but also a more fun final stage where Bert attacked, hard. It was compelling stuff because it was so unexpected. Look back at the race threads if you want: we tifosi were going bonkers in a way we haven't in any other race-not Flanders or P-R or MSR or LBL any other race, as fun as they were.
So I see Prudhomme doing more of that stage 6-7 combo from P-N in the Tour itself. When he does it'll be the first step towards making the race accessible to another group of riders: the hilly Classic specialists. To me this is the first step to making these Grand Tours more interesting. It would give the Andy Schleck's a chance just like it gave Lulu Sanchez (and Frank Schleck and Sylvain Chavanel) a chance last March. They need to give more types of riders a chance at winning. To do that the decisive stages must at times favor different types of riders. You got a problem with 50 km of Paris-Roubaix in the Tour? Why not give Stijn Devolder a real chance at winning the Tour? Why not do the same for Fabian Cancellara? Why must the decisive stages always be either a TT or a mountain top finish? Why have the same sequence of stages every year?
I think in ten years we'll be seeing very different Tours than we are seeing now. And Andy Schleck will win a Tour de France. Just not this year.
67 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hmm... Schleck that bad?
You are saying he can only win the TdF if the tour changes? I disagree. He could win the tour just as it has been. He has finished on the podium in a grand tour and would have again last year at the Tour de France if he wasn’t supporting his team leader. He is 23. The fact that he can win LBL is secondary to the fact that he is a great climber who could be an ok TT’er. He is on one of the few teams that could win the Tour.
I don’t disgree with what you are saying is going to happen to the Tour. I think this was actually started by the Giro, in, for example, the course DiLuca won. The Giro and now the Tour seem to be trying to put more, say, classicish stages in. That is, stages where agressive guys could gain 2 or 3 minutes but not on pure killer climbs, rather on deciding where to spend energy. Of course the Giro has to have a bunch of killer climbs just for fun anyway.
At the TdF for the last 20 years or so with only a few exceptions it has been survive until the third week, eke out a little advantage on TT’s or on a specific mountain top finish and take it in. I think ASO and RAI are trying to force riders to be more aggressive earlier, or at least allow riders to spend energy early and get meaningful separation. In that way you could get 2 minute swings back and forth. I doubt the 10 minute swings could come back unless race radios were abandoned. Even if strong teams try to force the pace in these nasty hilly stages there will be isolation, so even that is taking a chance.
It seems like mountain TT’s are popular now too, but I don’t see how that fits exactly.
for Andy to win this year
he needs Bert to bonk….or the Astana infighting going out of control.
the accountant is a better climber and a better TTer IMO. Best chance to beat him is still Levi’s way – if he’s on another team – beat him in a long flat TT and minimize your loss in the mountains.
I really wasn't talking this year actually.
Rather over his career that, barring disaster, will be the next 10 years or so. I personally do not think the Tour will remain the current way much longer. I think in ten years there will be a quite different look, so this will be slightly off.
10 years
who else would be there?
I don’t want to look that far ahead, no point in it.
I just don’t rate him highly as some others do.
as for how the tour will be like, ha, for all we know they could take out TTs altogether. but do I think it’s likely? no way, same as for the Alpine stages. nothing against Ardennes guys, but I don’t think they make good GT champs.
great post and comments
uno punto de clarification:
’twas actually the Vuelta that started experimenting with stages. For a couple of years they posted a parcours that was primarily comprised of shortish stages.
The Giro has followed suit in tinkering with the template, and to some degree the Tour has too. Part of the Tour’s difficulties stem from tradition, the other part from geography: The Pyrenees and Alps ain’t moving, and there are only so many ways of getting between them.
In some ways, Italy has the best geography for a constantly varying stage race (although . . . I do wish that there was a one-week Tour of Greece . . .)
I give Andy a real good chance this year.
I think Saxo will be more than enough of a match for Astana, and that goes for Andy vs. Contador mano y mano. Either way I like how it turns out for my VDS results, because I have them both.
Nope...not a chance...
Astana’s team could split into 2 teams and both still probably beat Saxo. They don’t have a rider that can challange Levi or Bert. They time trial way too well for Saxo’s leaders and then in the mountains they would have to absolutely destroy their team to get that time back.
by Vlaanderen90 on Apr 28, 2009 8:15 AM EDT up reply actions
It's hard to say who's the better climber
because I’m can’t think of instances where they went head-to-head, besides Pais Vasco of this year.
Andy is just as good a TT rider as Contador, but again they haven’t gone head-to-head.
by brunopitton on Apr 28, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't think Andy will beat Bert at the Tour this year.
But he’ll be a contender and for years to come.
The Tour better not get easier, even more mountains would be better
if the classics guys can’t win it, oh well, it’s not there for classics guys to win, it’s a GT. But if they do what they have at the Giro, put two classics type stage before two big mountain stage(stages 14-17) then I would like that. But the Tour is already unique this year, so maybe something crazy will happen.
In Chauncey we trust!
Well Said
and I hope you’re right. I’d love to see that happen. I vote for more long, flat, windy TTT’s.
"I get paid to hurt other people. How good is that? How good is that?
I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, that's good." Jens!
You are looking at it the wrong way
Andy isn’t a classics-rider with an outside chance to win the Tour. He’s a Tourrider with an outside chance to win a classic.
I do think you are right though to suspect the Tour-parcourse will be made anticontadorian in the coming years if things evolve the way we suspect they will.
Like Tiger-proofing Major tournament golf courses?
Maybe your are right about young Andy. What do I know?
Well one thing (of several that I am aware of) that I did not put into this post was the influence of a rider’s team. Obviously team strength is a big factor and it often makes a difference between winning and losing. At least that’s what Cadel tells me.
We saw at LBL basically what we saw at last year’s Tour: one team way stronger than the rest. I could imagine that Saxo could have had one of 3-4 riders win the other day: Andy, Frank, Kolobnev, maybe CA, depending on when they launched that rider. So maybe, by that logic, I shouldn’t focus on Andy winning so much as thus exclusive with winning a Tour. But then again, they surely won’t have the #1 team at this year’s Tour so they won’t be able to boss the peloton again even if Kloden isn’t there.. And Bert is no sap like Cadel.
As another matter I am now fascinated by Valverde and his Tour prep to the point where I hope CONI doesn’t lock him up pre-Tour so we can see if what he is doing really make a difference. Can Valverde reinvent himself as he seems to be trying? I wasn’t sure how serious he was until he basically used LBL as training. this is a different Alejandro. Of course I’d like a pony too.
Certo
He is a stage racer, with the engine to win a classic or two, and specifically the hilly classics. Liège, Amstel, and Lombardia, maybe San Sebastian. He should have a Flèche Wallonne win in him also. But he’ll never have the speed to be a consistent one day rider. Both Cunego and Valverde are faster than he is when it comes to acceleration. He won Liège because he attacked on the section of course that suited him best – the steepest bit of climbing – and then had the engine to finish the deal.
Lombardia
Wouldn’t Lombardia be the best chance for a GT-winner to score a monument? The main course if over, time for dessert?
"Non-cyclists. The emptiness of those lives shocks me." Tim Krabbé
it's an interesting article/view
It was Henri Desgranges that first made the Tour de France so great to begin with – in large part because he kept construction crazy stages (and having crazy rules), to make winning truly an amazing achievement.
A little bit of Henri’s spirit in Prudhomme is a good thing (I think)
formerly known as cyclingchallenge
Not too much though
That Desgranges guy was a pure sadist. Forcing riders to repair their own bikes unaided, not allowing riders to receive drinks while riding etc. etc.
"Non-cyclists. The emptiness of those lives shocks me." Tim Krabbé
agreed but
it’ be pretty exciting to see this year’s ventoux stage if derailleurs were illegal ;)
formerly known as cyclingchallenge
fixies for the whole stage
and everyone on the same gears. And on the same AMF bikes. Wearing t-shirts with their team-names sharpied on . . .
[oops . . . free-associating there . . .]
Henri Desegranges view was to make the Tour so hard that only one person finished.
If you changed the course so you tried to give the hilly classic specialists a chance it would probably be nullified because of a juggernaut team like Astana.
Astana has a team that can time trial with the best of them, they can easily stay in their on the flat stages, they can climb like nobody else.
The mountains and TT’s are always decisive because the riders make it that way…They can simply go faster than the competition and make the race. They have the strongest teams and they can simply just ride until it is time for business to be done.
The guys who would go into the Tour trying to win would just spend less time at altitude and start training in the Ardennes if the course was going to be L-B-L style. You still have to time trial, and A. Shleck would lose too much time no matter the course.
The only reason Francesco Moser won the Giro in 1984 was because the organizers took out the high mountains and put more time trial miles and it was a snore fest.
If you want excitement, just take out race radios. Look at the AToC this year. Astana was caught out when Mancebo just went up the road and they couldn’t get any time numbers…
Yes dump radios and power meters.
I think that would shake things up a lot. You could have radios if they were all tuned to the same band so emergency info could be given. But no distances to riders on the radio. Also if you eliminate the onboard power measures, you force riders too use their own feel of their bodies. One other luddite rant, isn’t anybody else a little put off with electric shifters? What next, battery assists up mountains?
Luddites
I don’t mind onboard power metering at all, because I don’t think it changes very much. We haven’t had it very long on race-day machines, anyway.
Electronic shifting doesn’t bother me at all. I’ve never been happy with derailleur reliability, so why not improve it? Of course, I’m not sure I understand why the UCI insists on seat tubes, either.
I agree that race radios should be limited though. Maybe in the last 50k of every stage at the Tour they should turn them off.
No.
but agree on limiting the type of info. available to riders from the radios. The radios make the race safer by limiting the need to go back to the team car.
If you take away power-meters, you should also take away all sorts of bike computers/speedometers. Power meters are useful—and they’re really just a mechanism for fine-tuning how the rider is aware of their body.
I’ll mention the elephant in the discussion though: we’re all assuming that Bruyneel will unleash the Astana-armada the way that he has for the last several years (and before that it was the Banesto brigade . . .). But the inverse of the Bert-bonk stage was Bert’s isolation—throughout P-N the vaunted Astana-armada n’existe pas.
Now, the response is: that’s March, just wait ’til July when the big boys are on the team. Ok, could be. (And I missed the one-week spanish races—was Astana crushing there, or was it Bert + a team-mate or two (like Horner)?).
But . . . (pardon the intrusion of American football arcana here): in the early to mid-80s the NCAA was worried about the dominance of low-scoring, run-happy offenses because tv viewers found these offenses boring (think Nebraska or Oklahoma). So . . . they thought . . . and thought . . . and changed the definition of offensive holding. While there were other significant rules changes, the change that allowed blockers to have the palms of their hands extended towards oncoming defenders transformed modern American football.
And . . . it also changed the desirable characteristics of offensive linemen, because it changed the nature of their primary activity. And that opened the door even more widely to the use of steroids.
So . . . where I’m headed: the Astana-armada method of racing the GTs is roughly equivalent to the super boring run-dominated offenses of the late 70s and 80s. It works, but it’s deadly dull tv. To change it, you not only have to change the course, but you have to change the characteristics of the team riders. [And now I say something really rude]: in other words, you make it much more difficult to have a systematic doping program within your team, so that someone like Frankie Andreu is able to take multi-k pulls in the Alps . . .
The alternative looks like the Bert-bonk stage, or LBL: a controlled attack fest that is also a chess match.
ASO have banned tv screens
Unless they are only visible from the back seat. Don’t want the drivers to watch tv while driving. Feltet speculates about what is going to happen, if the mechanic will drive and the DS will sit in the back seat or if the mechanic will tell the DS what happens.
Oh my, I've just fallen in love with Roger De Vlaeminck's sideburns.
by TheFigurehead on Apr 28, 2009 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes on electric shifting.
My objection is purely aesthetic, though. I like the fact that the bicycle is a piece of machinery that despite being incredibly high tech, is also fully mechanical. It’s your body movements that provide the full force for everything that happens. Electronic shifting undermines the elegant simplicity.
:| Radios are very important for safety
Plus Saxo has mede an art out of using radios for tactics. Removing radios would only make it easier for the brainless power train.
Lance made an art out of using the radio too...only attacking when he was told to.
He was made a slave to that thing…When Bruyneel told him to ride hard. Radios shouldn’t be needed for going back to the car and checking in or getting a repair…you can do that without one. You can do safety …just don’t do it where the riders are getting extra info and time splits so they can just methodically chase down the break.
I also think that safety in cycling is taken care of pretty well. All that really is needed for safety is a lot of police officers, some bullhorns if they need to announce something, and some big signs to alert if a downhill is dangerous.
by Vlaanderen90 on Apr 28, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
If you feel like disputing Columbias DS' then be my guest
But it doesn’t change the fact of Saxo Bank having radio communication as a very important aspect of their elaborate tactics.
And honestly, do you really believe Lance had to be told to attack on the last mountain?
Isn't that the point though?
Make the riders form their own tactics on the road rather than have the DS give them step-by-step instructions?
Ah but that's not how it works :D At least not in the CSC/Saxo case
The team has “generals”, who usually are older more experienced riders(and not the favourite they are riding for) who makes the assessments and decisions according to the plan they made with the DS in the “war room” before the race.
Radios are important for reporting back how fast a breakaway is going(do they need to break the pace of the peloton more), when/where to have riders fall back from a breakaway and to get track data from weather posts planted ahead(things like wind direction).
But Andy didn't win it the same way as the riders you group him with
Andy has proven to be very consistent over 3 weeks, which riders like Cunego and Valverde lacks.
I think what makes a rider like Valverde so good in the classics is the fact that he digs really deep in the sprint, but that also means he has to rest the day after which makes him inconsistent in tours.
Proven? Consistent? Not at all.
Andy’s been in two Grand Tours so far.
At the 07 Giro, where he finished 2nd he did have one of day in the mountains, stage 15. He also lost some time at the TT’s. I’m being a hard ass here but I say that the Giro tends to be more forgiving to riders who have off days in a way that the Tour definitely isn’t.
At the 08 Tour, Andy was definitely not consistent. That 24th place finish on the way to Hautacam, stage 10, destroyed any GC hopes for the kid and relegated him to riding support for his brother and Sastre. It should be noted that on the same stage Valverde’s 16th place finish was widely acknowledged as killing his GC hopes. Andy did worse than Alejandro. So while many here will quibble with me lookinhg hard at Andy’s 07 Giro, there is no way anyone could say that his 08 Tour was consistent.
So far he has the profile of a Ardennes specialist who falters in the three week grind of a Grand Tour.
Podium in a GT means proven in my book
Not as the next dominator but certainly as a possible winner. You don’t get on the podium at any Grand Tour by chance. He is too young to make any prediction about how many GT’s he will win I agree. Even if he wins none in the next two years, by the end of that time I think we’ll see what he looks like, time trial development and team leader mindset.
But you are not noticing the difference between the Giro and Tour
And since right now Riis is taking the Lance approach to the Grand Tours, i.e. Tour or bust and screw the Giro and Vuelta, you have to note how different the two races are. Being proven in the Giro doesn’t mean proven in the Tour. Ask Happy Puppy.
He was just 21 at the 07 Giro.
A lot can happen in two years physiologically. A lot of commentators said Andy was the strongest rider on the Alpe last year.
He’s not a good Ardennes specialist because his sprint is horrible.
by brunopitton on Apr 28, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
I think you are proving my point.
At the Tour it’s all about consistency and Andy has not shown that yet. So what if some experts thought Andy was strongest at the Alpe? He sucked big time at the Hautacam and that made his Alpe ride meaningless in terms of the GC.
Yes just like Bert lost Paris Nieace
But I think both of them learnt to eat even when not feeling the hunger.
Anyway, Andy is still young and can at least get another couple of white jerseys. :)
Contador didn't win a GT until 25.
Andy still has two years to learn before he has to “match” Contador.
Yeah he didn't win a grand tour earlier because he almost died...
His first grand tour was the 2005 Tour. He was 31st. Then he was locked out of the 2006 tour. Then in 2007 he won the Tour…his second Grand Tour.
by Vlaanderen90 on Apr 28, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
And Andy's first he finshed second.
Contador was also brought up more slowly than Andy. We won’t know who’s really better for another 5 years i think
Then how about Andy's first TdF performance then?
He was a helper but ended up 12’th(or is it 11?) while also winning the white jersey even thought he was a domestic and had gone sugar cold on a stage.
12
is far from 1st….
and really, he’s not a domestique. he went into the race as a protected rider, and we were all asking who would be the leader for CSC out of the 3, if I remember correctly….
Isn't it 11 chminey sweeper got caught?
Anyway, 12 is a lot closer to 1’st than than 31 just like winning the youth classification is better than ending up as 3’rd.
Andy was a protected rider because of his climbing abilities and as part of the teams strategy to weaken the competition with multiple attacks. But he had to take care of himself when they were isolated.
Not forgetting that Andy wasn’t allowed to attack which most likely could have brought him longer up in the GC.
You can try to spin as much as you want, but there’s no changing that Andy’s palmares are more impressive than Contador’s at the same age.
Now does the 3 years younger Andy need to beat Contador to be at the same level now that he reach the age Contador won TdF? No more than Contador had to beat Rasmussen, second will do.
Just like he’ll be allowed to have sugar chocks for 3 more years. :p :)
Couldn't remember any off day in the 07 Giro so I had to look it up.....
On the monster stage in the rain passing San Pellegrino and Passo Giau with the finish on Tre Cime di Lavaredo, first time GT-rider A.Schleck, aged 21, lost a minute to dopefiend Diluca, 16, 20 secs to Giro-winners Simoni and Cunego and finished ninth. The stage was won by Il Sacco di Shitto Riccardo Ricco from a breakaway.
I think that is the kind of off-days GC-riders dream sweet dreams of having.
Consider that piece of anti-Andy evidence de-bunked. ursula and Alberto sitting in a tree. kay- eye-ess-ess………
I'd say you prove his point
Giro 2007
we have Di Luca, Cunego, Simoni, some other Italians…of course no Basso.
Italians aren’t really good at stage racing I’m afraid…
Losing time in TTs doesn't mean he is inconsistent :p
And the ’08 mistake was repeated by Contador in Paris Niece, actually most big GT riders have tried going sugar cold. :)
Lance, Joux Plane
Do I have that right? Somewhere during the Lance Tours there was a famous bonk, anyway.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
![This is funny on so many levels. [Html should open bigger]](http://cdn3.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/239959/flagged_small.jpg)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
