If you think that means anything you might want to look at the people above..... Taking shit out of context to try and prove whatever bullshit agenda you have is fine until people smarter than you tell you about it.
I'm sorry but it does mean something, it's not cherry picking dodgy data to suit an argument. The main group yesterday climbed that beast in 45.31 (1 second faster for Valverde) on very wet roads with a headwind, that is ridiculously fast for those conditions and it was such a large group aswell which makes it even more of a joke. If it was dry and without the headwind they go under 45 which would put them in some very infamous company.
All my point was that he only mentioned one rider when the rest were right there because he clearly has an agenda not based on truth.
Debating the speed of the climb as a whole is a totally different story.
People look at numbers like this and even though they are little more than a curiosity, there are simply far too many other variables to consider to make any sort of serious inferences, you still have people with their own agenda trying hard to make some sort sky is doped type comment.
Thomas rode faster than Armstrong. Okay sounds really damning doesn't it? Of course so did Pinot and the rest of those guys yesterday but of course Thomas was in the business of 'ruining' the race by protecting darth vader himself. Of course when you say Thomas rode 27th fastest plateau de belle ascent it doesn't sound so damning. So let's twist it and say he rode faster than Armstrong that fits the agenda so much better.
Of course when times don't really cut it, we start to take other conditions and try to make out these were superhuman performances as we were on very wet roads and a fierce headwind. The wet roads from what I could see made the riders a lot more cautious on previous climbs and descents, but do they have significant impacts on mtf times? Do we have data on what headwinds were on previous attempts?
For me, the riders did go really hard on yesterday's ascent. Conta put his guys on the front and he, nibbles and Movistar tried to use it to attack Froome and TvG. It was quite an interesting period of attacking, I did find it strange that they didn't keep it going when it appeared as if they had Thomas on the ropes. I think they were close to their limits and when it was clear Froome and TvG were not going anywhere they stopped.
I did find it encouraging for the Alps though that the big guns were mainly all there. Why did Pinot, Conta, Nibali do so badly a couple of days ago? Not just in comparison to Froome and the skybots but to everyone else? Pinot for me has had a bit of a morale issue, something has played on Nibali's mind and Conta's recovery may be a bit slower... Who knows?
For me, the riders did go really hard on yesterday's ascent. Conta put his guys on the front and he, nibbles and Movistar tried to use it to attack Froome and TvG. It was quite an interesting period of attacking, I did find it strange that they didn't keep it going when it appeared as if they had Thomas on the ropes. I think they were close to their limits and when it was clear Froome and TvG were not going anywhere they stopped.
You are right that these things need a context. I haven't got time to go through the 2004 Plateau de Beille ascent but it was on an equivalent sort of stage, but there was no rain and the time gaps make it seem that it was raced just as hard as today: https://www.procyc...?id=100882
I don't know what to think about this performance today. The headwind is probably the reason the group was so large, as it clearly was going to hurt the attackers more than the chasers, who can sit in and gain more than the usual drafting advantage uphill. 5.89 W/kg certainly seems more achievable but with the whole context of the headwind, etc, I really don't have a lot of confidence.
Quick thoughts on #TDF15 - if you watched cycling through the 90s & Postal era, today would've made you more uneasy than Tuesday
If you think that means anything you might want to look at the people above..... Taking shit out of context to try and prove whatever bullshit agenda you have is fine until people smarter than you tell you about it.
I'm sorry but it does mean something, it's not cherry picking dodgy data to suit an argument. The main group yesterday climbed that beast in 45.31 (1 second faster for Valverde) on very wet roads with a headwind, that is ridiculously fast for those conditions and it was such a large group aswell which makes it even more of a joke. If it was dry and without the headwind they go under 45 which would put them in some very infamous company.
All my point was that he only mentioned one rider when the rest were right there because he clearly has an agenda not based on truth.
Debating the speed of the climb as a whole is a totally different story.
OH THAT'S YOUR WHOLE PROBLEM... You're reading too much into stuff.
I said that simply because Valverde has the fastest time as he was one second ahead. If that had been Pinot, I would've said "Pinot as fast as Armstrong". If that had just been the whole group on s.t., I would've said "they were as fast as Armstrong".
And regarding "agenda not based on truth", I can only say there's a reason we call him Piti like we call Rodriguez Purito.
Smowz wrote:
Of course when you say Thomas rode 27th fastest plateau de belle ascent it doesn't sound so damning. So let's twist it and say he rode faster than Armstrong that fits the agenda so much better.
No, I don't twist anything.
Putting into context makes it easier to understand for those 99% of Daily members that don't know how often Plateau de Beille was used as a final climb in the TdF.
27th is very relative to that number. 27th after one use is bad, 27th after two times isn't particularly impressive, 27th after 6 times maybe is.
Edited by cio93 on 17-07-2015 10:46
To be fair the fact that they cruised basically whole stage before Plateau de Beille probably aided those times big time. They were fresh so it was basically a 20 km stage for them.
It still doesnt explain the Thomas freakshow though.
Gosh it's only normal that those times are being made. For 10-20 years it's normal that technology has advanced and been introduced into sport more. Moreover, the riders are currently much fresher in general as new methods for getting rid of lactic acid have been implemented. What really bothers me is how could the UCI allow the whole peleton get so doped back in the 90s and the 00s.
Smowz wrote:
Thomas rode faster than Armstrong. Okay sounds really damning doesn't it? Of course so did Pinot and the rest of those guys yesterday but of course Thomas was in the business of 'ruining' the race by protecting darth vader himself. Of course when you say Thomas rode 27th fastest plateau de belle ascent it doesn't sound so damning. So let's twist it and say he rode faster than Armstrong that fits the agenda so much better.
No, it's not twisting something into fitting an agenda, similar to what cio said, it's a statement of fact that puts the riders' performance yesterday into much better context than simply saying they rode the climb in 45:38, which is the 20th fastest time on the climb. And if you bear in mind that 8 of the 26 times ahead of Thomas were from yesterday, and the other 22 were from the EPO heyday, yes that is pretty damning.
Of course when times don't really cut it, we start to take other conditions and try to make out these were superhuman performances as we were on very wet roads and a fierce headwind.
This is context being added to the numbers in an attempt to make more sense of them. What's the sense in criticising a lack of context, and then going on to criticise the context as an agenda?
You're reading too much into stuff. 
