Jonas Vingegaard the best male cyclist of 2023? This one has caused a fair bit of discussion... the more fan-friendly achievements and riding style of Tadej Pogačar and Mathieu van der Poel beaten by the dominant, crushing efficiency of the Tour de France winner.
I'd say Van der Poel's done more than enough in 2023 to earn the title: Milan–San Remo, Paris-Roubaix, World Championships, that's a titanic hat-trick, although admittedly facilitated by 'off' periods like at the Tour de France where we barely saw the watt-smashing Dutchman away from Jasper Philipsen's leadout.
[Alex Broadway/SWpix.com]
The case for Tadej Pogačar, the sheer weight of victories, 17 in all. Flanders, Amstel, Flèche Wallonne, Lombardia, two stages of the Tour, Paris-Nice, but he was of course beaten comprehensively by Vingegaard at the big one.
[LaPresse/RCS Sport]
In comparison, Vingegaard's 2023 had more victories than I expected, 16, including the Tour de France, Dauphiné, Itzulia Basque, a Tour stage win, two Vuelta stages, and multiple more week-long stage race stage victories.
[ASO/ Pauline Ballet]
A few thoughts from fans on L'Équipe's post...
"I like how everyone is saying Pogi because he won more one day races but when it came to racing Jonas straight up in by far the biggest season race over 21 straight stages he got destroyed by over seven minutes."
"MvdP and Pogacar had better season."
[Zac Williams/SWpix.com]
"The whole season should be taken into account, not just the Tour de France. But the fact that L'Équipe and the Tour are both French says it all." (TOUR DE FRANCE IS FRENCH SHOCKER... who knew?)
"Everyone knows that Jonas could have won two Grand Tours if he wanted to — so well deserved — but MvdP is a strong contender."
Get in the comments with your thoughts, I'm interested to see where you lot stand...
I might have to dust off the poll machine for this one...
Add new comment
83 comments
I'm not anti-vax, but it is undoubtedly true - given numerous well-done analyses by experience and reputable researchers of large data-sets - that the 2 most widely administered covid vaccines can cause heart issues above background rates in under 40s. It is well established that these issues occur at the highest rates in young males - Moderna being the highest. It is also well established that young, healthy males were at no noticeable risk of covid.
It must be noted that these studies are based on observational data. Such data is, unfortunately, lower quality than RCT data. We do not have RCT data because these vaccines were fast-tracked through the regulatory processes and then most populations in western countries were heavily coerced into taking them. As a result, ability to do further RCTs in cohorts like, say, young people, is quite limited as nearly all the population has already had the medication.
I am not trying to cause an argument here. I'm just stating what I think are well established facts, or obvious consequences thereof in the case of the very last claim. If they sit uncomfortably with some readers, it is - I would say - because on reflection these were not good acts/policies to have carried out (wrt younger cohorts most obviously - even "back then").
That this has given fuel to "anti-vaxxers" is the inevitable result. A number of eminent people warned about that risk before those policies were enacted, when the kites were being flown, and they were not heeded.
And yet you spout anti-vax tropes and dont provide any quantification of risks and highlight one (Vaccination risk) whilst downplaying another (Covid damage risk) without providing relative magnitudes between them.
You are an anti-vaxxer and I claim my £5.
In simple terms, fuck off.
Yah I'm strongly pro-vax but very suspicious and concerned (young asymptomatic male who experienced post-Moderna pericarditis) of the ones that haven't gone through the proper process.
Vaccines are medicines, that need testing, not a Messiah to be blindly followed: it's like we've already forgot the lessons of thalidomide.
Very disappointed in the comments that don't realise the burden of proof lies on the pharmaceutical companies to prove their medicine works as intended, not on us to prove it doesn't.
The COVID vaccines were tested though - the speed of development made it seem like they were skipping safety procedures, but they instead skipped the waiting parts of getting the results and regulatory approval. The first vaccines were developed early in 2020 due to having the genetic makeup of SARS-CoV-2 and decades of previous research on coronaviruses. They also used the research into HIV vaccines so they could call upon a toolkit of safe weapons against various viruses - almost like assembling LEGO (probably a bit more complicated though).
We have learned lessons from Thalidomide and safety/testing protocols have been vastly improved since then. As I understand it, the big problem with Thalidomide was that they didn't test it on pregnant animals before testing it on pregnant humans. When they did test it on pregnant rats and rabbits, they found foetus deformities.
Ultimately, as with a lot of health issues, it boils down to the statistics - are you more likely to encounter problems with catching COVID or encounter side effects of the vaccines. The rate of lingering side effects (i.e. not just a sore arm or feeling a bit tired for a week) for the vaccines have been very low, so there's a very strong case for getting the protective effect as SARS-CoV-2 likes to go on an organ rampage and obviously can cause serious illness and death.
You're right that the burden of proof of safety lies with the pharmaceutical companies and that's exactly what happened.
The lead in to the ASL is a bit of a tricky one as it is open to individual rider risk assessment.
A lot depends on the traffic in front of me -
1. if its mainly cars and if I can get 'safely' (as in intact, up-right and still alive) to the ASL.
2. if there are trucks, busses and very large panel vans (such as the hi-topped, long-wheelbased ones that are almost but not quite 7.5tonners (you know the ones)), that depends on what my spidey senses tell me.
For both 1 and 2 above, how long the light has been red for is a primary deciding factor in if I attempt to move up or not. If it's just changed to red, then I'm likely to move up.
If I'm not sure, or its been red for a while, then I'm more likely to stay put.
For 2 above, if the light has just turned red, then I'll move up on the off-side of the vehile, unless there is an empty lane to the nearside. I'll move right up the ASL box and try to make eye contact with the driver so they know I am there. I might attempt to sign to the driver my intentions - especially if the lane is a combiend straigh-ahead/turn lane, so they have an idea of where I am going. This can have mixed reception, however, I get more thumbs up and smiles than shrugs of indifference and diliberate looks away (yes, I know they could be humouring me, but it shows that they have *seen* me).
At any time, I will not sit alongside a bus, truck or large panel van on the inside, and would pass them on the offside, rather than the nearside unless there is a clear empty lane on the nearside.
Has anyone seen the Jeremy Vine video yet where Jason Donovan nearly gets taken out by a TfL bus?
Do we have to watch it and report back so you don't have to watch the overlays ?
Awful driving.
At one point one of them says 'great helmet' but don't say 'you should wear it properly then'.
JV waves the bus driver past and JD stops pedalling whilst pulling over to the kerb!
The bus driver should have ignored them both and just held back, but they didn't really help the situation having a chummy chat in the middle of a junction.
Now there's nothing wrong with having a chat with someone else on a bike. It's actually one of the nice things about active travel, the sort of interactions with other people that would never happen when driving. Proper cycling infrastructure would make this a totally safe thing to do. It's perhaps not the best idea on a dark, wet, congested road though.
You may want one of those after stocking up here.
The Ghostface Killah is the current best grand tour rider, I think it's fair to say, but he doesn't feature at all outside a few stage races unlike Pogi and MvdP so he's not an all-rounder like they are.
With the unstoppable domestique team of the RZA, the GZA, Ol Dirty Bastard, Inspectah Deck and Method Man how could anyone come close to the performance of the Ghostface, no one could be iller.
I think the point is that in stage races, which are indeed his priority, he features very heavily in every single one.
TdF route reveal today...
I'm shocked, simply shocked , to discover that the police don't understand basic road laws or the Highway Code, as they apply to cyclists
I am glad road.cc included that paragraph from the HWC. I remember reading it, but still have a little doubting voice when I pass between kerb and queue of vehicles.
Does it feel like Police Social Media is sometimes run like it is a punishment for an officer?
"Right Dave, you blasted your sirens at an 8 year old for not wearing a helmet, so you gotta handle X today"
My annoyance at this social media stuff is not just the (incorrect and dangerous) signal it sends to drivers, but more importantly how it shows up police knowledge and action. The officer that posted this may be the one that attends to you once someone has driven into you as you cycle along. And they will find a way to explain why it is your fault, irrespective of circumstances or law.
With regards who posts this, I'm not sure who handles social media. I do know that often cycle camera video submissions are viewed not by specialist officers, but by 'regular' officers who are on desk duty that week, perhaps because of an injury sustained that week. So more like your regular neighbourhood cop than a traffic cop.
I'd like to think officers aren't routinely employed to post stuff on social media, and its just some back office staff working for the police pr team, doing that classic they think it sounds right, so it must be, that we get hit with by drivers daily.
Doesn't mean the police aren't as badly informed, see the recent WMP stop, just not sure we can blame them directly for the tweets.
The only one I have seen comment is surrey police where the sgt was a traffic cop and had to defend himself by stating he tweets in his on time.
I've seen individual coppers with twitter accounts, which as you say they do on their own time,that's fair enough, and they rarely make a mistake like this on law or the HC, but the main police force accounts, got to be somekind of clerical staff, hasn't it ?
Maybe not but it hardly matters if they're all as badly informed as each other.
Pages