Strathlubnaig
Guru
- Location
- Alberta
twitter lit up over the cavendish shoulder charge incident. Polarised opinions obviously. Brian Smith reckons accidental, Steve Bauer reckons malicous intent. tbc......
I take your point but I thought it was a reasonable comment in the context of everything else they say.
You know, picking on one line from the whole piece to destroy their argument is a bit like calling foul based on the evidence of one climb from a whole three week tour.
I did, in fairness, say that I didn't have a problem with SIS, but rather with some of the other VAM analysts. It was just that sitting on the fence line they threw in there that annoyed me. I'd hardly call it trying to destroy their argument though. Just trying to contextualize it.
I'm as much of a power data geek as anyone. But it always needs context to be helpful.
Now if we could see Froome's and Porte's data file from Saturday, I'd be all over that. And you'd need both to interpret correctly.
I think I agree with Boardman, it looked as if Cav shifted his weight in anticipation of the collision rather than as part of a deliberate nudge
That was my first response when I saw it live, in fact I missed the sprint because I was concentrating on the crash. Then he nicked the guys recorder when he was asked about the crash, so I reckon, deliberate. Frustration boiling over. Should be a DQ unless the judges see it more Boardman's way but if I was a judge, DQ.My call, without reading anyone else's opinion, that's a dq. It looked deliberate and dangerous to me and not a 'racing incident'. I reckon Cavendish maybe saw red after being caught behind a slowing lead out man and took 'revenge'. Irresponsible and no place for it. Now I'm off to see what the guys that matter say!
Just stumbled on this link, it seems none of the Tour climbs times are actually timed. So sports scientists estimates of power output are in turn based on estimated times from someone with a stopwatch watching the TV coverage? Really??
http://www.ridemedia.com.au/?p=10280
Having just read Tyler Hamilton's book - which I recommend by the way; despite seemingly now benefitting further from his doping - he uses an analogy of a match box. The match box contains a set number of matches. As you use one, it burns out. You then light another one when required but you will run out of matches eventually. Now, using that analogy for the climb on Saturday? would it be fair that Sky burnt quite a few matches and paid the price on Sunday? I cannot remember if he was referring to BBs (Blood bags) or micro doses of Edgar (EPO) but it works for me in context with Sky recent performance.