I hope we get to see the Peto of old, even if for just a season.

I noticed Groenewegen is on the start list for JV. Also curious to see how Remco goes with no race days in the legs.

Honest question - is there some controversy I'm not aware of regarding the sprint at Amstel Gold? Like the finish line camera wasn't actually over the finish line? Because from the picture it's clear that Wout is (just barely) ahead.

Yeah basically thats it. You can tell from the ads in the background that the finish camera is right near the leading edge of the white portion of the finish line. Its supposed to be as practically near the actual black finish line as possible. The several inches of discrepancy means its entirely possible Pidcock technically overtook WVA before the true, official finish line.

There's room for that sort of thing I guess when the thin black line is explicitly the official finish line, while the finish photo just in front of it is explicitly the official means of determining the winner

---

Me: https://carnivoreendurance.blogspot.com/...ever-comes-next.html

Latest: Colorectal Cancer is in the News Again. Don't Blame Red Meat
https://carnivoreendurance.blogspot.com/...news-again-dont.html

In the finish line photo I saw everything in the background is blurry (which is how finish line cameras work) so I'm not sure how to tell where the camera actually was, unless there's another shot of the camera itself and where it was positioned. It's a big miss by the race though if they actually setup the camera on the wrong line - it's hard to believe that would happen in a race of this caliber.

Yates looks tough to beat unless Bernal has overcome back issues. Hope Nibali skips GC and stage hunts for glory. Maybe he and Peto in some breaks?

ttusomeone wrote:

In the finish line photo I saw everything in the background is blurry (which is how finish line cameras work) so I'm not sure how to tell where the camera actually was, unless there's another shot of the camera itself and where it was positioned. It's a big miss by the race though if they actually setup the camera on the wrong line - it's hard to believe that would happen in a race of this caliber.

Its blurry because its such a tiny fraction of space being captured. But the blurry colors from the bottom are the white, green, yellow of that lemon. If the camera were properly located, the blurry backdrop would be red

Image here

---

Me: https://carnivoreendurance.blogspot.com/...ever-comes-next.html

Latest: Colorectal Cancer is in the News Again. Don't Blame Red Meat
https://carnivoreendurance.blogspot.com/...news-again-dont.html

Thanks for sharing - I hadn't seen that specific shot. Interesting.

Sepp only 7 seconds off GT and Porte in Romandie prologue. Big improvement. Bar Hirschi finished ahead of Top Ganna.

Yates is a tough one to predict. He looks untouchable until he doesn't. Not just at the Giro a few years back, it seems to be the case every race. He is either the best or far from it - not a lot of in between. I'm hoping we get the "Boogie Night's" version all three weeks though because he is fun to watch when he is on form and looking to bury people.

---

"It's good enough for who it's for" - Grandpa Wayne

Yeah, Sepp was probably the biggest "didn't expect him to do that well" surprise today.

Really impressive ride by Dennis. Ineos obviously on fire.

What should the finishing text on that photo finish: https://cyclingtips.com/...nish-at-amstel-gold/

By definition the camera can't be set up in the wrong place, but the visual lines can put in the wrong place.

According to UCI regulations, the photo finish verdict is final, because the finish line is what the photo finish says it is.

“The finish occurs at the instant that the tyre of the front wheel meets the vertical plane rising from the starting edge of the finishing line. To this end, the verdict of the photo finish shall be final,” says section 1.2.100 on page 41 of the UCI regulations.

That photo finish is not a potentially flawed visual representation of who won, but the unequivocal determinant of it. The rider who wins the photo finish, wins the race.

But yes, making sure the visual guidance (i.e. the lines in the road) reflects where the actual finish line is, should be priority.

You can argue it's semantics, but that interpretation is backwards from reality. The finish photo is the official method of determining who crosses the finish line first, but it does not define the finish line. The official explicit line is the black line on the road. The camera not properly positioned "on the starting edge of the finishing line" means they did a poor job of validating the result, not that the finish line was somewhere other than the official marking on the road

---

Me: https://carnivoreendurance.blogspot.com/...ever-comes-next.html

Latest: Colorectal Cancer is in the News Again. Don't Blame Red Meat
https://carnivoreendurance.blogspot.com/...news-again-dont.html

Except from a rules perspective, it's actually the opposite. The organizers did a poor job of aligning the visual representation of the finish line with the actual finish line, which is the finish line camera.

Ok last post because we're going in circles,

That said, no... It's literally not. The finish camera in no way shape or form defines the finish line. There is only one official UCI definition of a finish line - "the finish line is a 4cm wide black line on top of a white band 72cm wide"

The camera is the tool to determine who crosses the line first. The finish line exists with or without the camera. As you quoted, breaking the plane rising up from the leading edge of the finish line dictates the finish. The camera was in error because it literally wasn't on the leading edge of the actual, real finish line, not because they failed to approximate on the ground where they'd be filming

---

Me: https://carnivoreendurance.blogspot.com/...ever-comes-next.html

Latest: Colorectal Cancer is in the News Again. Don't Blame Red Meat
https://carnivoreendurance.blogspot.com/...news-again-dont.html

Great, glad you agree with me since the photo finish is the official finish.

I'd love to see Sepp or Porte get a result. GT as well. Rumour here from a few riders is that there is a new H7379 test being trialed and that pharmaceutical has been widely abused for 7+ years and likely more. Whilst technically not illegal, it could potentially be retroactively tested and that is how some of the Aderlass blokes are cooperating to inform and obtain reduced sentences. Depending on country there are different punitive implications. The interesting part is that retroactive tests probably can't pick it up and if the passport looks legit, well then, well....we move on. So I am told. This is the new era of doping, where things look so legitimate that they can not be reasonably detected via historical data of chemical data. Big data, I mean BIG DOPING! ;)

The other implication is that H7379 was/is older than the newest analogue of the better products. Chemists can talk better than I can as I think my terminology is maybe not accurate altogether. None apparently technically break codes as far as I have heard so retroactive action might and likely will not be applied, but as always the fun thing is that the large pharmaceutical companies make these products. Merck, Amgen (the most hilarious race sponsor).

I don't care much I suppose anymore. I get what is happening and that these things have actual benefit to life itself, though I find it intriguing that there are just new ways of finding those old tricks + some. I just want to know what they are and what the actual human cost and benefit are. We see really amazing things. We see really amazing loss. Lifting, American footie, Futbol, Running, Triathlon, Cycling all come with a cost. I wish I could see the input and output honestly. I couldn't care less what those inputs and outputs are, but I want to see what it amounts to. Was living a clean sporting life good for me now, in 5/10/20/50 years? How about in other sports? What would have happened otherwise? I don't ever question what having been clean meant to my sleep, but what I am curious about is what it did to lives. Some great ones are cut short. Some of the worst are not. Some of the good people are cut short. Some of the worst not. This is complicated, but I love data and wish we could get some real damn data on all of this and honestly, if people want to dope let them. Just like lifting, give them their own league and let them go at it. It would be neat to see. For the rest strictly enforce something that actually is real.

Instead we live in a bullshit zone where we act like the EPL, Serie A, NFL, NBA, UCI, MLB, etc. are all amazing puritanical sport. I am frustrated by it all (and not just because I'm some mediocre dude just trying to be okay after a fucking crash. I will get better and still never be that upper tier and I'm cool with that.) I just want to know data.

How good?
What improvement physically?
How were things mentally?
What was it?
At what cost in the long term?
- Mentally first
- Physically second

Meh. I'm done. Probably not the place to rant with a new mum in a room away and 3 day old babe in the house. Mum is sleeping with a baby who is pissed with a chestless father trying to comfort his daughter at 4 in the morn. God bless all who suffered this most enduring of posts.


I do want some damn answers though!

Back on track. I'm curious to see if Ineos backs Dennis. He was a monster to put that performance in.

Yeah baby! The LR balance slowly gets better. One day the leg feels like shit and the next few it feels stronger again. I'm heading back to parity, even if the rides are pretty meager at this point.

2 hours @ 260W is PFF from "meager" :)

PFF?

Pretty Fucking Far!

One of my best recent road races was 2 hours @310W. So hopefully the 50W difference between meager and my best is pretty significant. :)

You sound more sleep deprived than anything else. Probably don't need the rest of us to tell you that you are far from mediocre, but in case that might help, here it is: 1800 kJ over 1 hr 51 works out to be 270 W average. Most amateur racers never sniff that sort of number, recovering from injury or not, and certainly not at your mass. So you still got that going for you :)


Also, you seriously buried the lede here. Congrats on the birth of your new-born child, especially after what you two went through last year. Also explains the sleep deprivation.

Ahh gotcha lol. Its just a change of pace from what I'm used to. I should be GRATEFUL! Living in gratitude is where its at, but its easy to default to the sourpuss side of things.

I'm exhausted at this point even hitting 12 hours a week on the bike (though there is another 10 hours in physio work and pool work). Aerobically things don't really suck, but a 2 hours ride is my longest back so far I think and it really made me muscularly sore. Thankfully my physio is keeping things moving in the right direction and the endless pool at home is well....endlessly boring but seems to be holding my aerobic base in place. I really want to do an effort to see where I am actually at, but mentally I don't think I am there and my physio wants me to wait another few weeks until I stomp anything out. I think all of the swimming will prevent drastic losses, but I bet I am at least 50 watts under my 20 minute power and probably more than that.

:) <- A million times over. I won the entire cycling spring with her and my wife.

We waited so long to share with most friends and family until we knew all was well, but Madeleine Orlagh was born healthy although a bit early. Mum and baby are well; dad is in full panic attack mode thinking about teenage years and how to prevent a daughter from wanting to dress in the future like these 13 year old prosti-tots running round these parts.

Alas likely why my older brother coined me as the little turd growing up. I suppose that is what I was being. I hope my legs will get back to efforts like yours because they sure aren't right now! Aren't you also at altitude?