[Davsters]

(Original post by TheMagicRat)
I don't think anything I said was stupid. I was offering my interpretation of the race. You've offered yours and yours isn't stupid because that's exactly what it is, an interpretation.

I read your comment and thought it implied the Tour had an effect on their performance which is just plain wrong. If you didn't mean that then sorry.

[TheMagicRat]

(Original post by Davsters)
I read your comment and thought it implied the Tour had an effect on their performance which is just plain wrong. If you didn't mean that then sorry.

Oh right, the Froome bit? Yeah, I can see how it could be seen that way but that wasn't what I meant. I was just pointing out that he was so good in the Tour and he was clearly tired after the days efforts.

I'm still not explaining it well enough. It still seems like I'm linking them both.

I was saying it's unusual, especially based on his Tour form, to see him visibly struggling so that was evidence that he, and probably the others, were too tired to bridge the gap on their own.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

(Original post by Davsters)
And most of you have just demonstrated how little you know about cycling.

Firstly, it is normal for a break to form and for it to put a significant distance between itself and the peloton. The British tactic was perfectly reasonable in trying to set the race up for a sprint finish. Other than Cavendish the other team members are poor sprinters so if they had decided to go off in a breakaway they would have been beaten - a sprint finish with Cav was their best option. They presumed they could bring it back to sprint finish because they expected that other nations with good sprinters (e.g. Germany - Greipel) would help to birng the breakaway group back - a by no means stupid assumption. Greipel has beaten Cav in a number of one-on-ones so it was by no means a foregone conclusion that Cav would have won the sprint.

Any mention of the TdF being in the legs is also a pile of w*** (someone in the quote said something along those lines.) Like Cav said, why comment on something when you know jack s***e about it? On rest days in the Tour they still rode tens if not hundreds of kilometres. On time trial days they rode the route twice, once in the morning and once for the real thing. Many of the other riders in the Olympics also rode the Tour (including the winner, Vinokourov) so to even mention it is down right retarded. Froome and Wiggins went off the back because they'd been trying to bring the break back on their own! The BBC interviewer showed just how little he knew.

No more stupid comments.

Whether the interviewer was right or wrong in what he said, the way cavendish responded was just annoying and he just came across looking like a stroppy prick.

[Davsters]

(Original post by TheMagicRat)
Oh right, the Froome bit? Yeah, I can see how it could be seen that way but that wasn't what I meant. I was just pointing out that he was so good in the Tour and he was clearly tired after the days efforts.

I'm still not explaining it well enough. It still seems like I'm linking them both.

I was saying it's unusual, especially based on his Tour form, to see him visibly struggling so that was evidence that he, and probably the others, were too tired to bridge the gap on their own.

Oh right. Then in that sense I completely agree. You really need 7/8 cyclists to effectively control a peloton and bring a break back.

(Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
Whether the interviewer was right or wrong in what he said, the way cavendish responded was just annoying and he just came across looking like a stroppy prick.

I'd expect an interviewer to ask reasonable questions and to at least attempt to educate themselves on the sport on which they are reporting.

[silent ninja]

Can someone explain this Cavendish business? Negative tactics of teams? Other teams not aiding Britain/preventing them from winning? Eh? I am genuinely confused why they're calling foul. It's a race, weren't they too slow? I don't understand cycling and the BBC has offered little in the way of commentary to explain anything.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/v...141925318.html

The BBC coverage has been crap so far. One article said "failed to win gold" -- so what was won? Bronze? Nothing mentioned! A general lack of details in many sports has spoiled the coverage. They also hop around randomly. Clearly they've spread resources very thinly and it shows.

[spacepirate-James]

Anything good today to watch out for?

[whyumadtho]

Some powerful drives from Nigeria.

[Deshi]

Don't rain ffs

[whyumadtho]

Honeybone for GB out of men's sabre.

[Muffin Head]

(Original post by KingMessi)
Yes. I have a choice of Putney, Richmond, Hampton Court or Kingston and I don't know where to go.

I went to Putney on the North side of the river, near Putney Bridge LUL station. Was quite busy

[KingMessi]

Looking forward to the woman's road race later, though I unfortunately don't have time to go and watch it live...

[KingMessi]

(Original post by Muffin Head)
I went to Putney on the North side of the river, near Putney Bridge LUL station. Was quite busy

Nice. I was intending to go to Putney Bridge, but Richmond was closer and we left late - or so we thought.

[Serentonin]

(Original post by Davsters)
And most of you have just demonstrated how little you know about cycling.

Firstly, it is normal for a break to form and for it to put a significant distance between itself and the peloton. The British tactic was perfectly reasonable in trying to set the race up for a sprint finish. Other than Cavendish the other team members are poor sprinters so if they had decided to go off in a breakaway they would have been beaten - a sprint finish with Cav was their best option. They presumed they could bring it back to sprint finish because they expected that other nations with good sprinters (e.g. Germany - Greipel) would help to birng the breakaway group back - a by no means stupid assumption. Greipel has beaten Cav in a number of one-on-ones so it was by no means a foregone conclusion that Cav would have won the sprint.

Any mention of the TdF being in the legs is also a pile of w*** (someone in the quote said something along those lines.) Like Cav said, why comment on something when you know jack s***e about it? On rest days in the Tour they still rode tens if not hundreds of kilometres. On time trial days they rode the route twice, once in the morning and once for the real thing. Many of the other riders in the Olympics also rode the Tour (including the winner, Vinokourov) so to even mention it is down right retarded. Froome and Wiggins went off the back because they'd been trying to bring the break back on their own! The BBC interviewer showed just how little he knew.

No more stupid comments.

Finally someone who actually has a clue. Was reading this thread getting more and more frustrated about how stupid people were being


Apparently Cancellara's arm isn't broken, but he's unsure about whether he'll be healed enough to do the TT.

[KingMessi]

Well done to Becky Adlington - best GB performance thus far? Looked like an extremely comfortable swim for her.

[Deshi]

(Original post by KingMessi)
Well done to Becky Adlington - best GB performance thus far? Looked like an extremely comfortable swim for her.

3 people went quicker than her in the next heat

[Deshi]

She qualifies as the slowest! And they were telling her too slow down in her heat.

[whyumadtho]

Colin Oates of GB in Judo quarter-final.

[whyumadtho]

Korea really need to tighten their defence in handball; Croatia have simply run through them far too often.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

(Original post by Serentonin)
Finally someone who actually has a clue. Was reading this thread getting more and more frustrated about how stupid people were being


Apparently Cancellara's arm isn't broken, but he's unsure about whether he'll be healed enough to do the TT.

So because people don't quite understand a sport they are stupid?

[Roobsa]

Uzbekistan artistic gymnast Luiza Galiulina provisionally suspended from competiting in Olympics for failing a drugs test.

Naughty naughty.