ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Now we have something / quite-a-lot to discuss and celebrate.
Richard Fairhurst
Posts: 2029
Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by Richard Fairhurst »

Paulatic wrote:of course the usual mentioning of riders, with no hope or action at the time, from countries I reckon they must sell the program to. Levi Leipheimer was always the perfect example of it. I used to count how many times they mentioned his name in every show.

Oh, absolutely. P+P are mostly employed by NBC (US network); ITV, and Channel 4 before them, get their commentary at an affordable rate because of this. I think Ned Boulting says as much in one of his books.
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by Tonyf33 »

As much as I think Sherwin is a rather annoying 'commentator' and his constant referencing the same old stuff every stage/every tour, he pales into insignificance compared to Eurosports' Carlton 'for goodness sakes' Kirby, after all these years he still makes the same mistakes, still calls riders incorrectly, still can't call situational aspects of pro cycling.
The before and after of the actual riding on ITV4 is fine, you can't even guarantee when Eurosports highlights are going to be on as their scheduling is awful and you could end up recording waterpolo instead of the titled programme.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by mjr »

I don't mind the travelogue bits. Makes a change from "front end of the main field" and so on. The conspicuous thing is that Phil and Paul almost never mention doping at all, even when it is relevant... but I guess they're both ex racers and one was Motorola's PR director.

I prefer Ned and Millar for commentary: the Tour of Yorkshire was a good example; but I agree that the highlights don't have enough time for Chris Boardman, let alone another ex pro. However, I'm sure I remember Mr Boardman trying commentary alongside Hugh Porter for one World Championships and that wasn't good (and not just Mr Porter trying to out gaffe Phil)... so keep him with Gary Imlach and send Millar to commentary IMO.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Norman H
Posts: 1331
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 4:39pm

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by Norman H »

mjr wrote:

The conspicuous thing is that Phil and Paul almost never mention doping at all, even when it is relevant...


I find it hard to forgive Phil Liggett for his his past defence of Lance Armstrong. Given the extent of Armstrong's power, I can understand not wanting to jeopardise his career but at times it would border on the sycophantic.
old_windbag
Posts: 1869
Joined: 19 Feb 2015, 3:55pm

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by old_windbag »

I must admit to liking the two phils commentary, they're like murray walker to F1( retired ) and peter alliss to golf. Perhaps its preferring these to some of the duller younger replacements. I think David Millar has shown himself to be a good commentator and chris boardman too. I also like the views of France and the little history snippets ( from the organisers guide ) it's all part of making what can be long drawn out sections of inactivity into more interesting TV. I'm sure it does help the tourist authority in France, I think it looks a beautiful place.
Where lance armstrong is concerned I was always a fan of his ability and enjoyed the ulrich-pantani-armstrong battles, it saddened me to find out the whole drug scandal. He was far from alone in the activity but his denials made the truth worse rather than manning up and admitting it earlier. But it appears Merckx too was not without scandal in areas like this and it makes you wonder in the 60's, 70's how many victories were based on enhancement by drugs not detectable by tests of the day. Yet Merckx is seen as a cycling hero and David Millar is accepted by many and history is quietly forgotten.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx#Doping

I don't condone taking performance enhancing drugs but for someone to have hardware technology on a bike that improves their efficiency relative to their competitors equipment is not dissimilar, a performance advantage. It will never be a level playing field even with zero drug taking as it boils down to human power output, conversion eficiency etc with technology playing its part. Perhaps having identical bikes in the peleton would equalise everything to some extent but theres simply too many other factors that affect the outcome. Also we have evolving rules that allow some substances banned in the past or vice versa, as in society where laws change over time such that capital offences of the past are just minor infringements today. How do we decide the heroes and villains of sport past and present.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by mjr »

old_windbag wrote:Where lance armstrong is concerned I was always a fan of his ability and enjoyed the ulrich-pantani-armstrong battles, it saddened me to find out the whole drug scandal. He was far from alone in the activity but his denials made the truth worse rather than manning up and admitting it earlier.

Nonononono, it wasn't just the denials. It was that he went beyond that, bullying and suing... but going back to P&P, I don't think they've ever retracted some of their worst support for Lance. As far as I know, Phil still reckons Lance was "a great athlete", as he said in 2013 (Lance was banned for life in 2012) http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13716 ... hlete.aspx

Sort of incredible that his commentary is still bought in by the channel that also uses Chris "life bans" Boardman :lol:
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
old_windbag
Posts: 1869
Joined: 19 Feb 2015, 3:55pm

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by old_windbag »

I think Lance Armstrong had he been without drugs would still have performed athletically very well... hes a great athlete in the physical sense, but not a great athlete in the moral sense. The documentary on the beeb covering the things he did to cover up showed how extensive his power was. The documentary "death on the mountain" about Tom Simpson was good and one of his team mates of the day alluded to the fact it was well known within their ranks that many took additives to improve performance. Had the events not conspired that day perhaps he'd be doing ITV4's commentary now and we'd see him as a clean sporting legend.
Having seen most of my revered childhood TV stars put away for child sex scandals it now makes me wonder just how drug free my childhood athletic heroes were particularly after reading the Merckx info.
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by pwa »

We have all learned something from Armstrong. Mainly, be careful how you choose your heroes. As mjr said, Armstrong was guilty of a lot more than doping. He is not quite down there with Jimmy Saville (deliberate understatement), but he's pretty low in my estimation. Phil Liggett is just a romantic who finds it hard to admit that a lot of what he has been commenting on over the years has been pretty crap underneath. Liggett is a victim of the lies.
Last edited by pwa on 9 Jul 2015, 7:56am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by mjr »

old_windbag wrote:The documentary "death on the mountain" about Tom Simpson was good and one of his team mates of the day alluded to the fact it was well known within their ranks that many took additives to improve performance.

Yes, and I think it was still fairly widely known within their ranks at least up until Armstrong, according to the books by Millar and Hamilton and so on. How can two ex-racers and long-time commentators like Phil and Paul not have known? Did they really think "after the Festina Affair I don’t think there were any teams that [did] any kind of organised doping"?

pwa wrote:As mjr said, Armstrong was guilty of a lot more than doping. He is not quite down there with Jimmy Saville, but he's pretty low in my estimation.

Armstrong's not dead yet... there might still be time :-(
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Norman H
Posts: 1331
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 4:39pm

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by Norman H »

pwa wrote

Liggett is a victim of the lies.


I don't think so.

It's pretty obvious that no cycling journalist could have been unaware of what was going on. With very few exceptions they all chose to remain silent. I find this disappointing but hardly surprising given the extent and power of the conspiracy and the retribution that could be, and was, dished out. Armstrong was a leading player in that conspiracy. Phil Liggett went way beyond this “code of silence”, he actively pleaded the case for Armstrong's defence.
Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by Tonyf33 »

LIggett is a fool if for one second he thought LA wasn't a serial doper!
I wasn't that much into the race scene but even I knew that you don't overcome cancer, losing all that training for one thing and then turn in the performances he was in such a short turnaround. I said on some forum or another years back that I knew he was doping and got shouted at by all the LA fanboi's :roll:

pwa wrote:He is not quite down there with Jimmy Saville, but he's pretty low in my estimation

That quite frankly is a disgusting statement, what are you hinting at by stating "not quite"? Are you in fact making a comparison of 'evilness' between a serial child molester and a sportsperson whom cheated on a serious level to win in his sport (whilst 99% of his peers were also doping cheats :roll: ), get a grip for gods sakes, LA is nothing at all 'down there' with that piece of work :evil:
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by pwa »

Tonyf33 wrote:LIggett is a fool if for one second he thought LA wasn't a serial doper!
I wasn't that much into the race scene but even I knew that you don't overcome cancer, losing all that training for one thing and then turn in the performances he was in such a short turnaround. I said on some forum or another years back that I knew he was doping and got shouted at by all the LA fanboi's :roll:

pwa wrote:He is not quite down there with Jimmy Saville, but he's pretty low in my estimation

That quite frankly is a disgusting statement, what are you hinting at by stating "not quite"? Are you in fact making a comparison of 'evilness' between a serial child molester and a sportsperson whom cheated on a serious level to win in his sport (whilst 99% of his peers were also doping cheats :roll: ), get a grip for gods sakes, LA is nothing at all 'down there' with that piece of work :evil:


Tonyf33, I think you are deliberately misunderstanding my meaning. Of course Saville's crimes were in a totally different league to Armastrong's doping. What makes Armstrong worse than a mere doper is his bullying, harassment and threats to those around him. He knowingly made other people's lives a misery. He is a nasty piece of work. Not as bad as Saville, a comparison I made because an earlier post had made reference to Saville and other disgraced celebrities. The words "not quite" were ill advised in print (rather than verbal) form because it was possible for someone to fail to appreciate the use of understatement for effect. But if you think I underestimate the evil of Saville, think again.
User avatar
Spinners
Posts: 1678
Joined: 6 Dec 2008, 6:58pm
Location: Port Talbot

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by Spinners »

I can only comment on the evening highlights package but I think ITV4 have got things spot on.
Cycling UK Life Member
PBP Ancien (2007)
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by thirdcrank »

I've been recording the live programme and then watching it during the evening, skipping the adverts and watching some of the quieter moments at X 2 speed. Fascinating stuff. I sometimes wonder if the commentators are watching the same images that I am, but overall, they do a pretty good job.

I think you have to recognise that Phil Liggett is always diplomatic and to some extent deferential: a sort of cycling Pangloss for the 21C. eg When ACPO policies were crushing the life out of road racing in the UK, he was always lavish in his praise of the police co-operation in facilitating events. Compare his comments on the decision to neutralise and then stop the race after the crashes the other day, with what Chris Boardman had to say.

FWIW, I'm beginning to think that Paul Sherwin is getting past his sell-by date, especially if Jens Voigt could be used more. Both have vast experience of professional bike racing but it's a long time since Paul S was racing. I used to find David Millar a pain, but since he returned from his ban I've found him really informative swo he's another recently retired rider who's worth more involvement.

I'm also pleased that the magazine-type stuff isn't allowed to displace coverage of the racing. Let's remember the days when we were grateful for the half-hour slot on Channel 4: twenty minutes when you allowed for all the ads. That was barely a few minutes of highlights, concluding with the last few K's of the stage, presented as though they were live while half the time available was spent on studio pundits aping soccer programmes and features emphasising things like how much a racing bike cost. At least now we have access to plenty of coverage of the racing from expert cameramen (and possibly women?)
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
old_windbag
Posts: 1869
Joined: 19 Feb 2015, 3:55pm

Re: ITV4 Tour Coverage.

Post by old_windbag »

I think the balance at present on the live and highlights is pretty good. I do remember the once a week highlights summary back in the late 90's, later I had to purchase a goodmans freeview box from argos as they moved it onto ITV4 but improved the coverage( 30 mins each night ). God forbid we ever lose the cycling coverage of so many ITV4 events to SKY etc, sport should be freely accessible by all. I happily pay my license fee for the Beeb as I know they produce high quality programming/radio( exclude bbc3 ) and cover sports well and professionally but ITV4 has excelled in this area too even with adverts which now we can skip past. Keep it up I say. One interesting aside about the Beeb, I always have watched F1 and baulked at the loss of 50% of the live races..... yet I'm finding the highlights better as they cut all the 1 hour build up of complete flannel. Suzy( alluring in her new specs ), Eddie and David have an hour of if's, why's and wherefore's of basically nothing. "Oooh lewis couldn't wear his favourite underpants this morning do you think that'll give Nico the advantage on the grid", so lets hope the ITV4 coverage doesn't go that deep as I feel F1 has lost something. I prefer items on the technical aspects and comparing F1 past and present, brundle was good at that.... that would be good to see on the cycling too I feel.
Post Reply