Tour de France

Pretty interesting info-graphic comparing prize money between Wimbledon & TDF

One stat not included.

The empirical fact that Tennis is ultimately better than cycling.

Lies.

He's taken the bait, but for how long!

Why do more people watch Wimbledon on TV then.....?

I can only assume that the retard who came up with that fact based it on the the idea that viewing figures are cumulative, 3.6bn divided by 21 is about 18m. More than 18m people watch Wimbledon.

I bet viewership figures would increase if they had broadcast live doping.

If you think Tennis/Football is free of doping then your deluded, tennis players hardly even get tested as well

Isn't 3.5bn /21 actually 160m?

Which still seems off, 160m a day might be exposed to the Tour in some way e.g. highlights but it seems high still.

Ugh, the Skybots were back today.

Poor Quintana

Fucking hell Froome's climb today looked suspicious.

In what sense, it was something like 12% slower than the previous fastest times on a road that has recently been resurfaced (Mt Ventoux is infamous for having a pretty poor road surface)

I think the climb itself was something like the 2nd fastest (behind a doped up Armstrong) and comfortably a minute or two faster than a bunch of doped up athletes previously, combined with the fact he's also put in very good TT times it looks mighty fishy. He's dicking on the field like Armstrong in his prime. Obviously I hope he's clean and its all circumstantial but I find it very hard to believe he can be getting close to the times doped up cyclists posted and not be on something.

Oh and I think I remember hearing he was riding in a head wind today. So a mountain climb within 2 seconds of the biggest drugs cheat of recent times into a head wind and you don't think the questions are valid at all?

Added some more to my post above but a few news outlets and journalists have said one reason perhaps for Sky's performances compared to the rest of the peloton are the improvements in coaching, guys like Tim Kerrison who used to be a swimming & rowing coach have now come over to cycling and a few other teams have followed suit. So now the training is a lot different to how it was in the 90's and the Armstrong Era, the rise of EPO may well have led teams to become lazy, why find better clean training methods when you can just use EPO or Blood bags to get a boost. Basically the point is EPO stagnated cycling training and were only now seeing the benefit of better coaching because of guys from other sports coming in.

Sorry not being overly concise, its late!

We'll see, I guess. Cyclings problem is that the suspicion is always there, and will be for years to come. My personal opinion is that doping of some level is currently going on in 90% of sports (sports where actual sporting prowess isn't required, like Cricket, aside) and there's a constant cat and mouse game going on between testers and athletes with testers always playing catch-up. So I'm not exactly critical of Froome or suspect him just because it's cycling, but rather because I think those of achievements as massively suspect any way and cycling providing such an easy means of comparison through its drugs chequered past just highlights that.

Froome was like the terminator on that stage, world class performance.

Where's my boy Nibali?

Froome was like the terminator on that stage, world class performance.

Where's my boy Nibali?

Did you complain when Movistar were 'doing a sky' last Sunday and again on Friday?

Its just sad to me that especially in cycling anyone who performs to a high level is put under so much scrutiny, ill admit i am a fan of Froome and Sky and questions should be asked but ive seen so many people see performances and flat out say 'he's doping'. The sad part is said rider cant prove he's not doping it can only be proved he is, so theres something of a no win situation, as long as that riders passing tests there will still always be people saying he's doping weather it is the case or it isn't and people just seem to be doing it with Froome based on largely un-quantifiable 'facts' like climb times, VAM & W/Kg.

Also people seem to pick and choose who to suspect and who not to suspect which seems to be based on which team they ride for which just goes to show their suspicions are misguided.

Well, there is an ever increasing number of instances where performances that looked to good to be true turned out to be too good to be true, and I'm conviced today was one of them.

No doubt sport science has gone a long way, that teams like Sky have more ressources than any other before, that technological doping has also helped (GB's OlympicTrack team last year was the prime example), but Wiggins and Froome poping up as the same time as Aicar become known isn't a coincidence.

As for people not talking on Sky it's still a very young structure so it's comprehensible no-one has talked yet.