Comments on: Le Tour de France http://www.half-dozen.net/blog/?p=339 Where active minds can pause to catch their breaths. Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:25:37 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: glitterminded http://www.half-dozen.net/blog/?p=339&cpage=1#comment-41841 glitterminded Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:49:50 +0000 http://www.half-dozen.net/blog/?p=339#comment-41841 just visiting your blog to say "hello" hope your doing good. :) just visiting your blog to say “hello” hope your doing good. :)

]]> By: Fast Cars http://www.half-dozen.net/blog/?p=339&cpage=1#comment-459 Fast Cars Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:45:57 +0000 http://www.half-dozen.net/blog/?p=339#comment-459 <strong>Le Tour de France</strong> Corporate sponsorship seems to take over all successful sports eventually.... Le Tour de France

Corporate sponsorship seems to take over all successful sports eventually….

]]> By: russ http://www.half-dozen.net/blog/?p=339&cpage=1#comment-458 russ Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:05:29 +0000 http://www.half-dozen.net/blog/?p=339#comment-458 I agree that there's far too much focus on Lance Armstrong. Yes, the breakaways, the strategy, and maneuvering are all great, and I enjoy watching bicycle races of all types. What bothers me, and leads to my lack of understanding of the Tour, is the "All riders finishing in the same bunch are awarded the same time" rule. Why not a rally where the finishing times are added together to determine the winner? Why take the times, smooth them out, then add in bonuses? When two riders finish within a second, their times should reflect that. If the winner beats the second-place finisher by a second, his totals should reflect that instead of the adjusted nine seconds (0-20 over (1-12)). Why inject bonuses into a competition that could be more easily determined based on performance alone? You're right. I don't understand. I agree that there’s far too much focus on Lance Armstrong.
Yes, the breakaways, the strategy, and maneuvering are all great, and I enjoy watching bicycle races of all types. What bothers me, and leads to my lack of understanding of the Tour, is the “All riders finishing in the same bunch are awarded the same time” rule.

Why not a rally where the finishing times are added together to determine the winner? Why take the times, smooth them out, then add in bonuses? When two riders finish within a second, their times should reflect that. If the winner beats the second-place finisher by a second, his totals should reflect that instead of the adjusted nine seconds (0-20 over (1-12)). Why inject bonuses into a competition that could be more easily determined based on performance alone?

You’re right. I don’t understand.

]]> By: LA http://www.half-dozen.net/blog/?p=339&cpage=1#comment-457 LA Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:58:43 +0000 http://www.half-dozen.net/blog/?p=339#comment-457 Which all just goes to show how little you understand the Tour and what it is all about. There is enormous encouragement to rave - why do you think there are all those breakaways. The only problem with the Tour is Mr Amstrong who is just boring. Which all just goes to show how little you understand the Tour and what it is all about. There is enormous encouragement to rave – why do you think there are all those breakaways. The only problem with the Tour is Mr Amstrong who is just boring.

]]>