KING OF THE HILL! 👑 | La Vuelta a España Stage 16 Highlights | Eurosport Cycling 

Well they have a few stage wins. But not what they were after, that's true

I am sorry but I don’t understand why he was pushing so hard for polka dot I am feel so bad 😭 he could have prevented this by just riding safe and just chasing green fuck mayne

​@@evachee7594in other words, what you mean to tell us is this: he could have stayed in bed today and the crash wouldn't have happened...

Cant be many who have won points and mountains jersey. Would have been special

For the last two years the Valueta has been the most exciting of the three

It's funny, people say Pogacar is exciting but to me he makes races boring. Even the 2022 and 2023 Tours when he lost the entire race was sucked up by his energy, insecurity and antics.

I'm enjoying it a lot more than the Tour. It's a much more open race, and it's also wonderful to not have the seemingly endless focus on a certain sprinter...

@@Sajidov3 ur just mad cuz he is so much better than anyone else and is going to become best ever xd cope harder

@@benbreakdance I'm a casual cycling fan. He may very well be that much better, but it makes the sport worse for spectators.

At the point he dropped, which other GC rider had support? In the end he losses time on the final climbs when its just about having the legs.

@@brunospasta spot on

Correct. There are, like, 10 GC riders within a cat's throw of the podium. I find this very good racing indeed. And none of them are, at all, 2nd tier riders. This is a great race.

Even though i love WvA attacking i agree, it was NOT needed to go ahead of the group. Just grab the mtn points and do a relaxed downhill since he did not need the green points.

@@GonzoJohnny Facts 💯. Agreed and love the attacks but too risky on a crappy weather day.

Was he leading the group this would most probably not have happened.

@@sutiitrci true, most probably.

He is playing smart. 5s is like nothing to him, but it makes a lot of pressure on red jersey. Also he can rest after every stage when not wearing red jersey. While Ben O’Connor has all those interviews after every stage.

BOC‘s strategy will be to hold on as good as possible and maybe get 3. in the end

I agree

It's not going to happen. A few more brutal mountain stages and a TT still ahead; that's in Roglic's favor.

@@hansschotterradler3772 sure..

😮😂😂😂😂

@@skoromoh_wdym “sure…”? Roglic is better on mountains and atleast a minute or 2 faster in the TT.

@@ScrayWZ Rogla is going to win in overall time. He is strong. I know it . 4924

I think he has to....because of regulations, because the sponsors want to be seen with their names on the jersey, do they not?

What?? 😂😂

Just kept mas’ wheel, he doesnt need to attack to drop BOC, hes just alot better in the mountains. At this point I feel like he isn’t even exerting himself.

No he wont lol, he wont even be in the red jersey by then, roglic is atleast a minute quicker, but most likely even more.

Well, he was the architect of his bad luck today. A little bit anyhow; and I am a HUGE WvA fan!!! I hope that he is cool for Canada and of course Zurich. He looked pretty banged-up. :-(

Not really bad luck when you crash by yourself. He overcooked the corner.

Fine, don't watch. We don't care

Yeah, don't mention the guy who is on his way to winning the GT for the 4th time, a record. 😂

@@GonzoJohnny For me Carapaz is more fun watching. It’s a better attacker than the rest of the field. He doesn’t even have the same level of support as Roglic. He has nothing to loose, I hope he blows up the race in a few days

@@nar49130Carapaz is nowhere near Primoz Roglic. Roglic has 3 Vueltas, Giro + 2nd and 4th at TDF and Olympic Gold in TT

@@nar49130 You claim Carapaz is a better attacker. So why is he not in the lead? 😂🤣 Where are his 5 Grand Tour wins?

@@juancarlosjuancarlos4629 U know nothing, but i get it he is your countryman,i can respect that--But rogla is amazing and Vuelta is his again

Surprised that someone hasn't come through to blame disc brakes yet.

@@rlm4471 In a way they are, riders beleive that discs brakes can slow/stop them more than they could on rim brakes (they can't because it's the traction of the tyre and ability of the rider that dictates this). So you get unconscious additional risk taking occuring with disc brake users than for rim brake users. Same with helmet wearing, this has an even worse outcome regards safety and is shown in the statistics globally, not just for pro cycling but everyday cycling and all other sports where helmet wearing is forced. The data is irrefutable, but thing won't go back despite the fact we know wearing helmets, even on building sites makes for worse outcomes than without. PPE as a whole is utterly bunk, it's dangerous and creates far more deadly outcomes than without. By the way, I've 30+ years in health and Safety and will never wear a helmet riding my bike, it can never 'save my life' as some claim and will always increase the chances of being in a crash by a significant margin

@tonyfranklin8306 I agree regarding brakes. Can you point me to some of the helmet data you're talking about? Can't say that I agree about PPE as a whole. Goggles have saved my eyes from chemical spills, and ear muffs have saved my ears from hearing loss.

​@@rlm4471 Well the thing is, when we wear PPE we take more risks, those around us take more risks, more so when they don PPE (Such as seatbelts/airbags/steel shell in the case of motorists). We don't mean to but it's what happens. And the overall effects of PPE is negative. We saw this with seatelts, the truth of things were hidden from parliament in the Isles report. There's no single paper that documents helmets = worse, because that's not what the powers that be want. They want populations in fear, a world created that spends countless billions on 'safety' whilst also not making things safer when you dig a bit below the surface of the claims. The global elites don't want people riding bikes (it's not very profitable and the plebs are not so easy to control compared to being in motors), so their puppet governments in the West throw the responsibility onto the vulnerable (like green cross code for kids) to not get killed, which has zero effect on that. It's 99.9% on what the person presenting the greater harm does that changes the outcomes. I looked at 20+ years worth of Ice Hockey data which shows increased head and neck injuries when helmet wearing was introduced (offset was a reduction in cuts) Boxing, the ABA found that since headguard wearing was brought in, concussions rose massively, such that they now have removed them for the men (my younger brother was a decent amateur and I asked him about pre headguard and post and how the difference in people fighting changed, how glancing blows on a guard spun the head around causing more brain rotation injuries). Again, more cuts since they got rid but fewer concussions. The comparison between gridiron and rugby (I've played a bit of gridiron but a lot of rugby) is stark, CTE in the US for males is circa 3 million, mostly due to playing a contact sport that 'protects' its participants by adorning a hard shell helmet. The additional risk taking between the two contact sports is massive. not just in using the helmet as a weapon, but the extreme physicality in gridiron, whereas in rugby though the contact is huge (and I've a few broken teeth for my troubles) the concussion and overall injury rates are not remotely on the level of NFL or even college players. only since they changed the rules regards targetting using the helmet with extreme penalties particularly at college level, have concussions reduced. Rgds cycling, in Australia (And NZ) we have the baseline of pre helmet laws and post. We saw a focus on the vulnerable to armour up and away from motorists such that the trend of injuries and deaths of people riding bikes going down was immediately reversed. Not just that but many just gave up riding bikes, teenage girls in one state cycling numbers dropped by circa 90%. There was and still is a determined attempt by Australian government to prove that helmets work, one individual, Jake Olivier, a state sponsored lackey has come out with multiple papers 'proving' that helmets save lives, the so called research is fundamentally flawed. In fact Olivier even ignores his own rules regards cherry picking research when it comes to meta analysis. Check out cyclehelmets.org for a little insight. In my time coming along in Health, Safety and Hygiene in the food industry, I was looking beyond my field in the 1990s. The increase in hi-vis/hard hats and PPE in general was really ramped up in that period due to the push with RIDDOR, and yet when the data came through, it showed an increase in injuries in the workplace despite the fact we had seen a huge reduction of employees in the really dangerous industries such as mining, fishing, forrestry, Steel/Foundry, Agriculture. Any reductions in killed or injured were placed at the door of PPE, and yet this was just a lie. Same with seatbelts, deaths and injuries of motorists dropped for drivers and front passengers it seemed, but back seat passengers, pedestrians, people riding bikes suffered a huge increase in KSIs (this is the bit hidden from parliament). However, the reductions were mostly due to police cracking down on radials and crossply tyres, crackdown on drink driving, on speeding and better highway infrastructure that was redesigned to reduce incident rates. So as roads got more dangerous due to seatbelt wearing drivers taking ever more risks, fewer people cycled, more people drove and roads got more deadly, fewer people cycled, more people drove and so on. The health effects are massive. And then we move forward to cycle helmet wearing, when the UCI brought about compulsary helmet wearing in the mid 00s (on the back of a false claim that a helmet would have saved the life of the poor sod going off the cliff egde on the pro tour) we saw more deaths in the 10 years after than we did pre helmets in the pros. Despite increased safety protocols, despite improvement in brakes, grippier tyres, more marshals at corners and around road furniture. One study asked pros from pre and post helmet wearing regards injuries/crashes and time off the bike. Overwhelmingly post helmet rules the injuries/crashes were higher. We can visually see this in the pro ranks today were multiple crashes are the norm, and it's been like that for quite some time since helmet wearing was a thing. We then turn to cycling in general, in the UK in 2005, we had circa 3000 injuries of people riding bikes according to the governments stats, move forward to 2019, the journey numbers were the same, per journey there was a slight increase in distance travelled (extended riding in the enthusiast ranks I'd guess), but injuries had increased by 50%! To compare, every other road user type had seen a reduction in KSIs, even moped riders, yet people on bikes somehow were involved in more incidents and getting hurt at a significantly higher rate that went right against the trend of injury reduction in all other road users, with no increase in cycling. (See Road CC whom reported this using the info CUK had put out) I had already checked reports from the US, in New York, one of the first places to really introduce/coerce helmet wearing, same thing, I checked France, Germany (were helmet wearing is massive), even Spain and Canada were rules were introduced to force people to wear, increases not decreases. France forced u14s to wear, it reduced kids riding bikes with no safety improvement. Canada, increase in injuries post helmet laws. NZ, same, even Netherlands has seen an increase in those killed since their big push for people to wear helmets, though e-bikes is also having a significant impact on collisions and deaths for multiple reasons., again, against a background of more cars being bought and no increase in cycling. The roads are more deadly as drivists beleive people are more protected, thus take greater risks, wearers feel more protected so they take greater risks (Same on building sites and elsewhere) and the victim blaming increases taking focus away from those presenting the harms to those that are much more vulnerable. All the whilst the plastic hats do virtually nothing in terms of protection. In fact increase the chances of head strikes due to increased circumference of the head with a helmet on (You see this on building sites a LOT even now), plus increased head weight/kinetic energy. This is even more apparent with children wearing helmets were the extra weight is a signficant factor as well as the extremity being increased massively, more so the smaller the child. This all adds up to negative outcomes as more PPE is thrown into the mix and ignorance of how we really reduce incidents from occuring. Even in your scenario, if you were not wearing goggles how would yourself and those around you change what you do/did? An anecdote, a mate crashed in Spain, went far too fast down a long section and came off into a wall smashing his knee. I said to him , Phil, if you weren't wearing a helmet how would you have approached things, would you have gone slower. yes was his answer. repeat that almost every single time for helmet wearers. The number of crashes I hear helmet wearers have and that it's aved their lives is off the charts. And yet if this were so, we'd have seen tens of thousands of cyclist deaths before helmets were a thing. I just go by what I've unearthed, the official line is Helmets/PPE = good, my findings scattered across mutliple industries and sports/casual lesiure activities says it's worse, MUCH worse! Changing how we approach things is another matter, I have next to zero influence, talking about these things at next level up gets you a great big 'fuck off'. The powers that be have such a hold on things that nothing will change. I wonder how Fred Dibnah survived so long without PPE (ok he had a flat cap), well I do know, he did health and safety at a level that most people can't grasp. Sorry that's long, but it's a snippet/tip of the iceberg as to what's really going on in the world and beyond PPE/H&S in general.