1. Peter Velits has always shown a lot of promise. I always saw him as an alright climber too.
2. Cobo, yes probably doped.
3. Sep Vanmarcke is actually pretty under-rated in my opinion. I always thought he was quite highly regarded with Topsport, and Boonen is in no way a Top sprinter. Plus its a one day race so weird results are a little more possible than a 3 week GC result.
4. No, that was the coke
5. Tiernan-Locke, its quite possible. I dont have anything against that point.,
6. Westra was always a good hilly/TT rider. I remember in 09 when I first noticed him and thought he must be a pretty good rider. That result doesn't shock me that much.
7. He apparently has some of the best recuperation of anyone, and if I'm not mistaken he got into 3rd through a breakaway.
felix_29 wrote:
If Froome had the potential to win a GT, the managers would have known that from his training data and would try to renew his contract asap.
Training data can not really reflect potential. Cavendish was told when he joined t-mobile that he would not finish a World Tour stage, let alone win one, because his training stats/output did not stack up again others and what was required to compete.
But look at him now!
Froome was doing really good in the Vuelta, so he must have had promising numbers in his training data a month or so before the race started. That would have shown his potential to do well in GTs, and Sky would have renewed his contract.
It´s right that the the training data alone does not show how far a rider can improve, but i think i explained why that isn´t necessary in Froome´s case.
the_hoyle wrote:
Over the last couple of days (since the thread was created) I have reading the comments that people of put, and I thought I would throw in my 2 cent, as the saying goes. (Apologies if any of this is repeating what has been said already. There was a hell of a lot of things said and I can't remember it all )
I have been a big Wiggo fan for years, from his days on the track to his adventures on the road, and have also read his autobiography, so yes my point of view may be a little 'biased', but points of view are like arseholes... everyone has one, whether people like it or not.
He trained in Tenerife because, like Alakagom said, it is isolated, and quiet, and away from the press/media, and the team can train in peace. Also, there is a big arse volcano there, so plenty of training up mountains, and at altitude. If you can find somewhere that is like that, and easily accessible for a big cycling team, then you should forward your suggestions to Sky directly, cos you obviously know something that they don't, and might even get offered a job with them.
And for those that question him losing the weight, but still keeping the power in the TT, yes it is possible. It is all about how you put it on the road, through technique and position. Contador, for example, is a great climber, and an equally good TT rider. If he hadn't buggered up with some dodgy steaks, he would be up there in the Tour now with Wiggo.
So... now on to Froome. Yes, I will admit it is a little suspicious, and a shock to the system. He has gone from average rider/domestique to great climber/domestique in about 12months. And looking from the outside, the doping finger can be pointed at him. But can I bring other riders into this argument who have pulled great results out of nowhere in the cycling world:
Ok, I know that there are only 7 examples above, but people need to remember that surprise results have happened before from riders who we do not expect to do it, but can we not just congratulate these riders for what they have been able to achieve through dedication, training and generally putting in the hard work? Also, can we also remember the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty'... If they are caught, and are shown to have doped, then ok, I will one hold my hand up, and admit I got it wrong!
But will all those pointing the doping fingers at Sky and Froome admit they were wrong if they are proved to be clean, or will you just say that they are taking something that cannot be detected, or think up more excuses to why they haven't been 'caught' yet?
So that is my point I wanted to say, so feel free to agree, question or pull it apart as much as you want!
* Contador doped. Thanks for helping prove the point.
** Froome didn't go from A to B in 12 months. He did it in the amount of time it took him form hsi last race before the Vuelta to the Vuelta!
1. Velits, not sure, but I'm pretty sure Canc was using it as a form Builder, not on form. Plus, he's a dgood climber and used his break to gain time.
2. He is suspicous for sure. But he also used strategy like Sastre in 2008. It is suspicous though, and I think he did dope.
3. Vannmarcke out sprinted an off-form Boonen. He was prepping for Ronde, Roubaix. Why would he peak in February?
4. Boonen has always been great at cobbles, and ddn't have much competition since Cancellara wasn't there. But taking a look at the team doctor's history he very well could have dopedr
5. Tiernen Locke racing at the Conti level He's the same age as Froome, 27, but has just now gotten results. Of course, he's winning 2.1 races, where you don't need a pedigree, and Froome is finishing 2nd in the Vuelta where you do. But Tiernen Locke could be doping.
6. Look at Paris - Nice. Where do you see a big summit finish. Westra is a time trialist, and that's what mattered.
7. De Gendt wasn't near the big guns in the previous summit finishes. He gained five minutes with an attack, and we knew he could time trial. Look at the Tour de Suisse stage last year, same thing. No, he never had the leader's jersey at the Giro.
*** So there are really no examples for you.
**** Armstorng never failed a test. Do you think he doped?
*****There are several ways to mask dope. Some never get caught due to this, and since no one is gonna rat out anyone else on the team, no veidence might ever come. that doesn't mean they aren't doing it.
Edited by baseballlover312 on 10-07-2012 23:48
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Rin wrote:
If they want a nice place to train, why don't they do it in Azerbaijan? Also a quiet place
Or Cyprus if you want a better example as it's actually good for cycling
Well you best do what I suggested and tell Sky about these places then
felix_29 wrote:
If Froome had the potential to win a GT, the managers would have known that from his training data and would try to renew his contract asap.
Training data can not really reflect potential. Cavendish was told when he joined t-mobile that he would not finish a World Tour stage, let alone win one, because his training stats/output did not stack up again others and what was required to compete.
But look at him now!
Froome was doing really good in the Vuelta, so he must have had promising numbers in his training data a month or so before the race started. That would have shown his potential to do well in GTs, and Sky would have renewed his contract.
It´s right that the the training data alone does not show how far a rider can improve, but i think i explained why that isn´t necessary in Froome´s case.
whose to say he didnt have great training data and asky werent just waiting?
the_hoyle wrote:
Over the last couple of days (since the thread was created) I have reading the comments that people of put, and I thought I would throw in my 2 cent, as the saying goes. (Apologies if any of this is repeating what has been said already. There was a hell of a lot of things said and I can't remember it all )
I have been a big Wiggo fan for years, from his days on the track to his adventures on the road, and have also read his autobiography, so yes my point of view may be a little 'biased', but points of view are like arseholes... everyone has one, whether people like it or not.
He trained in Tenerife because, like Alakagom said, it is isolated, and quiet, and away from the press/media, and the team can train in peace. Also, there is a big arse volcano there, so plenty of training up mountains, and at altitude. If you can find somewhere that is like that, and easily accessible for a big cycling team, then you should forward your suggestions to Sky directly, cos you obviously know something that they don't, and might even get offered a job with them.
And for those that question him losing the weight, but still keeping the power in the TT, yes it is possible. It is all about how you put it on the road, through technique and position. Contador, for example, is a great climber, and an equally good TT rider. If he hadn't buggered up with some dodgy steaks, he would be up there in the Tour now with Wiggo.
So... now on to Froome. Yes, I will admit it is a little suspicious, and a shock to the system. He has gone from average rider/domestique to great climber/domestique in about 12months. And looking from the outside, the doping finger can be pointed at him. But can I bring other riders into this argument who have pulled great results out of nowhere in the cycling world:
Ok, I know that there are only 7 examples above, but people need to remember that surprise results have happened before from riders who we do not expect to do it, but can we not just congratulate these riders for what they have been able to achieve through dedication, training and generally putting in the hard work? Also, can we also remember the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty'... If they are caught, and are shown to have doped, then ok, I will one hold my hand up, and admit I got it wrong!
But will all those pointing the doping fingers at Sky and Froome admit they were wrong if they are proved to be clean, or will you just say that they are taking something that cannot be detected, or think up more excuses to why they haven't been 'caught' yet?
So that is my point I wanted to say, so feel free to agree, question or pull it apart as much as you want!
* Contador doped. Thanks for helping prove the point.
** Froome didn't go from A to B in 12 months. He did it in the amount of time it took him form hsi last race before the Vuelta to the Vuelta!
1. Velits, not sure, but I'm pretty sure Canc was using it as a form Builder, not on form. Plus, he's a dgood climber and used his break to gain time.
2. He is suspicous for sure. But he also used strategy like Sastre in 2008. It is suspicous though.
3. Vannmarcke out sprinted an off-form Boonen. He was prepping for Ronde, Roubaix. Why would he peak in February?
4. Boonen has always been great at cobbles, and ddn't have much competition since Cancellara wasn't there. But taking a look at the team doctor's history he very well could have dopedr 5. Tiernen Locke is young and imprving, unlike fRoome who randmly becomes great at 27.
6. Look at Paris - Nice. Where do you see a big summit finish. Westra is a time trialist, and that's what mattered.
7. De Gendt wasn't near the big guns in the previous summit finishes. He gained five minutes with an attack, and we knew he could time trial. Look at the Tour de Suisse stage last year, same thing. No, he never had the leader's jersey at the Giro.
*** So there are really no examples for you.
**** Armstorng never failed a test. Do you think he doped?
*****There are several ways to mask dope. Some never get caught due to this, and since no one is gonna rat out anyone else on the team, no veidence might ever come. that doesn't mean they aren't doing it.
Lol, Tiernan Locke is 27
Quick Alakagom, put this in your sig! Edited by valverde321 on 10-07-2012 23:24
1) Peter Velits had shown more talent than Froome. A lot more. And, so far, that's been a one off, something that can be explained by many things, including dope, yes, but also by a weakened field (and route, it sucked balls).
2) If Cobo was clean, I'll eat my computer.
3) It's called form. The Omloop comes early in the season, while most cobbled riders want to peak in early april. Not rocket science.
4) Boonen and Cancellara are both incredibly talented and most possibly doping as well. Both have shown talent since very, very early in their careers.
5) Peaking for races that other use as training? Most possibly. And he's not subject to the Bio Passport so...
6) & 7) Ah Vacansoleil, that funny team that signed Mosquera, and Riccò, and Hoogerland, and Lhotellerie and...
Edited by kumazan on 10-07-2012 23:28
felix_29 wrote:
If Froome had the potential to win a GT, the managers would have known that from his training data and would try to renew his contract asap.
Training data can not really reflect potential. Cavendish was told when he joined t-mobile that he would not finish a World Tour stage, let alone win one, because his training stats/output did not stack up again others and what was required to compete.
But look at him now!
Froome was doing really good in the Vuelta, so he must have had promising numbers in his training data a month or so before the race started. That would have shown his potential to do well in GTs, and Sky would have renewed his contract.
It´s right that the the training data alone does not show how far a rider can improve, but i think i explained why that isn´t necessary in Froome´s case.
whose to say he didnt have great training data and asky werent just waiting?
Knowing the numbers and resign prior the Vuelta = saving a few 100k bucks.
the_hoyle wrote:
Over the last couple of days (since the thread was created) I have reading the comments that people of put, and I thought I would throw in my 2 cent, as the saying goes. (Apologies if any of this is repeating what has been said already. There was a hell of a lot of things said and I can't remember it all )
I have been a big Wiggo fan for years, from his days on the track to his adventures on the road, and have also read his autobiography, so yes my point of view may be a little 'biased', but points of view are like arseholes... everyone has one, whether people like it or not.
He trained in Tenerife because, like Alakagom said, it is isolated, and quiet, and away from the press/media, and the team can train in peace. Also, there is a big arse volcano there, so plenty of training up mountains, and at altitude. If you can find somewhere that is like that, and easily accessible for a big cycling team, then you should forward your suggestions to Sky directly, cos you obviously know something that they don't, and might even get offered a job with them.
And for those that question him losing the weight, but still keeping the power in the TT, yes it is possible. It is all about how you put it on the road, through technique and position. Contador, for example, is a great climber, and an equally good TT rider. If he hadn't buggered up with some dodgy steaks, he would be up there in the Tour now with Wiggo.
So... now on to Froome. Yes, I will admit it is a little suspicious, and a shock to the system. He has gone from average rider/domestique to great climber/domestique in about 12months. And looking from the outside, the doping finger can be pointed at him. But can I bring other riders into this argument who have pulled great results out of nowhere in the cycling world:
Ok, I know that there are only 7 examples above, but people need to remember that surprise results have happened before from riders who we do not expect to do it, but can we not just congratulate these riders for what they have been able to achieve through dedication, training and generally putting in the hard work? Also, can we also remember the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty'... If they are caught, and are shown to have doped, then ok, I will one hold my hand up, and admit I got it wrong!
But will all those pointing the doping fingers at Sky and Froome admit they were wrong if they are proved to be clean, or will you just say that they are taking something that cannot be detected, or think up more excuses to why they haven't been 'caught' yet?
So that is my point I wanted to say, so feel free to agree, question or pull it apart as much as you want!
* Contador doped. Thanks for helping prove the point.
** Froome didn't go from A to B in 12 months. He did it in the amount of time it took him form hsi last race before the Vuelta to the Vuelta!
1. Velits, not sure, but I'm pretty sure Canc was using it as a form Builder, not on form. Plus, he's a dgood climber and used his break to gain time.
2. He is suspicous for sure. But he also used strategy like Sastre in 2008. It is suspicous though.
3. Vannmarcke out sprinted an off-form Boonen. He was prepping for Ronde, Roubaix. Why would he peak in February?
4. Boonen has always been great at cobbles, and ddn't have much competition since Cancellara wasn't there. But taking a look at the team doctor's history he very well could have dopedr 5. Tiernen Locke is young and imprving, unlike fRoome who randmly becomes great at 27.
6. Look at Paris - Nice. Where do you see a big summit finish. Westra is a time trialist, and that's what mattered.
7. De Gendt wasn't near the big guns in the previous summit finishes. He gained five minutes with an attack, and we knew he could time trial. Look at the Tour de Suisse stage last year, same thing. No, he never had the leader's jersey at the Giro.
*** So there are really no examples for you.
**** Armstorng never failed a test. Do you think he doped?
*****There are several ways to mask dope. Some never get caught due to this, and since no one is gonna rat out anyone else on the team, no veidence might ever come. that doesn't mean they aren't doing it.
felix_29 wrote:
If Froome had the potential to win a GT, the managers would have known that from his training data and would try to renew his contract asap.
Training data can not really reflect potential. Cavendish was told when he joined t-mobile that he would not finish a World Tour stage, let alone win one, because his training stats/output did not stack up again others and what was required to compete.
But look at him now!
Froome was doing really good in the Vuelta, so he must have had promising numbers in his training data a month or so before the race started. That would have shown his potential to do well in GTs, and Sky would have renewed his contract.
It´s right that the the training data alone does not show how far a rider can improve, but i think i explained why that isn´t necessary in Froome´s case.
whose to say he didnt have great training data and asky werent just waiting?
Knowing the numbers and resign prior the Vuelta = saving a few 100k bucks.
or checking to see if he can perform over 3 weeks
2nd in vuelta and currently 3rd in tdf, fairly good value for money
Still, Tiernan-Locke had results in some rather small races. Froome comes from nowhere to finish 2nd in the freaking Vuelta and now is about to do the same in the Tour. You can't compare the two of them.
Also Tiernan Locke did well at those races, and it was later noted that there was no drug testing at any of them.
As said before bringing up other riders and saying they dope is pretty pointless, because most of them are suspected as dopers by the people you are arguing against, and even then, none of their results were as out of no where as Froome's.
[url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182]Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
felix_29 wrote:
If Froome had the potential to win a GT, the managers would have known that from his training data and would try to renew his contract asap.
Training data can not really reflect potential. Cavendish was told when he joined t-mobile that he would not finish a World Tour stage, let alone win one, because his training stats/output did not stack up again others and what was required to compete.
But look at him now!
Froome was doing really good in the Vuelta, so he must have had promising numbers in his training data a month or so before the race started. That would have shown his potential to do well in GTs, and Sky would have renewed his contract.
It´s right that the the training data alone does not show how far a rider can improve, but i think i explained why that isn´t necessary in Froome´s case.
whose to say he didnt have great training data and asky werent just waiting?
Knowing the numbers and resign prior the Vuelta = saving a few 100k bucks.
or checking to see if he can perform over 3 weeks
2nd in vuelta and currently 3rd in tdf, fairly good value for money
You don´t want to get it. If a team has a really promising rider, they try to resign him as early as possible and not after he did a GT podium. Many teams tried to sign Froome, so why should SKY take the risk of loosing him?
the_hoyle wrote:
Over the last couple of days (since the thread was created) I have reading the comments that people of put, and I thought I would throw in my 2 cent, as the saying goes. (Apologies if any of this is repeating what has been said already. There was a hell of a lot of things said and I can't remember it all )
I have been a big Wiggo fan for years, from his days on the track to his adventures on the road, and have also read his autobiography, so yes my point of view may be a little 'biased', but points of view are like arseholes... everyone has one, whether people like it or not.
He trained in Tenerife because, like Alakagom said, it is isolated, and quiet, and away from the press/media, and the team can train in peace. Also, there is a big arse volcano there, so plenty of training up mountains, and at altitude. If you can find somewhere that is like that, and easily accessible for a big cycling team, then you should forward your suggestions to Sky directly, cos you obviously know something that they don't, and might even get offered a job with them.
And for those that question him losing the weight, but still keeping the power in the TT, yes it is possible. It is all about how you put it on the road, through technique and position. Contador, for example, is a great climber, and an equally good TT rider. If he hadn't buggered up with some dodgy steaks, he would be up there in the Tour now with Wiggo.
So... now on to Froome. Yes, I will admit it is a little suspicious, and a shock to the system. He has gone from average rider/domestique to great climber/domestique in about 12months. And looking from the outside, the doping finger can be pointed at him. But can I bring other riders into this argument who have pulled great results out of nowhere in the cycling world:
Ok, I know that there are only 7 examples above, but people need to remember that surprise results have happened before from riders who we do not expect to do it, but can we not just congratulate these riders for what they have been able to achieve through dedication, training and generally putting in the hard work? Also, can we also remember the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty'... If they are caught, and are shown to have doped, then ok, I will one hold my hand up, and admit I got it wrong!
But will all those pointing the doping fingers at Sky and Froome admit they were wrong if they are proved to be clean, or will you just say that they are taking something that cannot be detected, or think up more excuses to why they haven't been 'caught' yet?
So that is my point I wanted to say, so feel free to agree, question or pull it apart as much as you want!
* Contador doped. Thanks for helping prove the point.
** Froome didn't go from A to B in 12 months. He did it in the amount of time it took him form hsi last race before the Vuelta to the Vuelta!
1. Velits, not sure, but I'm pretty sure Canc was using it as a form Builder, not on form. Plus, he's a dgood climber and used his break to gain time.
2. He is suspicous for sure. But he also used strategy like Sastre in 2008. It is suspicous though.
3. Vannmarcke out sprinted an off-form Boonen. He was prepping for Ronde, Roubaix. Why would he peak in February?
4. Boonen has always been great at cobbles, and ddn't have much competition since Cancellara wasn't there. But taking a look at the team doctor's history he very well could have dopedr 5. Tiernen Locke is young and imprving, unlike fRoome who randmly becomes great at 27.
6. Look at Paris - Nice. Where do you see a big summit finish. Westra is a time trialist, and that's what mattered.
7. De Gendt wasn't near the big guns in the previous summit finishes. He gained five minutes with an attack, and we knew he could time trial. Look at the Tour de Suisse stage last year, same thing. No, he never had the leader's jersey at the Giro.
*** So there are really no examples for you.
**** Armstorng never failed a test. Do you think he doped?
*****There are several ways to mask dope. Some never get caught due to this, and since no one is gonna rat out anyone else on the team, no veidence might ever come. that doesn't mean they aren't doing it.
Lol, Tiernan Locke is 27
Quick Alakagom, put this in your sig!
Yes, but he is racing Continental races. You don't have to be great to win them prior results don't come into account. They do for a 27 year old finishing 2nd in the Vuelta.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
felix_29 wrote:
If Froome had the potential to win a GT, the managers would have known that from his training data and would try to renew his contract asap.
Training data can not really reflect potential. Cavendish was told when he joined t-mobile that he would not finish a World Tour stage, let alone win one, because his training stats/output did not stack up again others and what was required to compete.
But look at him now!
Froome was doing really good in the Vuelta, so he must have had promising numbers in his training data a month or so before the race started. That would have shown his potential to do well in GTs, and Sky would have renewed his contract.
It´s right that the the training data alone does not show how far a rider can improve, but i think i explained why that isn´t necessary in Froome´s case.
whose to say he didnt have great training data and asky werent just waiting?
Knowing the numbers and resign prior the Vuelta = saving a few 100k bucks.
or checking to see if he can perform over 3 weeks
2nd in vuelta and currently 3rd in tdf, fairly good value for money
You don´t want to get it. If a team has a really promising rider, they try to resign him as early as possible and not after he did a GT podium. Many teams tried to sign Froome, so why should SKY take the risk of loosing him?
dont know, perhaps they had a reason, surprisingly i dont know what goes on inside pro teams
surly if other teams want him, he has some talent/ability?
the_hoyle wrote:
Over the last couple of days (since the thread was created) I have reading the comments that people of put, and I thought I would throw in my 2 cent, as the saying goes. (Apologies if any of this is repeating what has been said already. There was a hell of a lot of things said and I can't remember it all )
I have been a big Wiggo fan for years, from his days on the track to his adventures on the road, and have also read his autobiography, so yes my point of view may be a little 'biased', but points of view are like arseholes... everyone has one, whether people like it or not.
He trained in Tenerife because, like Alakagom said, it is isolated, and quiet, and away from the press/media, and the team can train in peace. Also, there is a big arse volcano there, so plenty of training up mountains, and at altitude. If you can find somewhere that is like that, and easily accessible for a big cycling team, then you should forward your suggestions to Sky directly, cos you obviously know something that they don't, and might even get offered a job with them.
And for those that question him losing the weight, but still keeping the power in the TT, yes it is possible. It is all about how you put it on the road, through technique and position. Contador, for example, is a great climber, and an equally good TT rider. If he hadn't buggered up with some dodgy steaks, he would be up there in the Tour now with Wiggo.
So... now on to Froome. Yes, I will admit it is a little suspicious, and a shock to the system. He has gone from average rider/domestique to great climber/domestique in about 12months. And looking from the outside, the doping finger can be pointed at him. But can I bring other riders into this argument who have pulled great results out of nowhere in the cycling world:
Ok, I know that there are only 7 examples above, but people need to remember that surprise results have happened before from riders who we do not expect to do it, but can we not just congratulate these riders for what they have been able to achieve through dedication, training and generally putting in the hard work? Also, can we also remember the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty'... If they are caught, and are shown to have doped, then ok, I will one hold my hand up, and admit I got it wrong!
But will all those pointing the doping fingers at Sky and Froome admit they were wrong if they are proved to be clean, or will you just say that they are taking something that cannot be detected, or think up more excuses to why they haven't been 'caught' yet?
So that is my point I wanted to say, so feel free to agree, question or pull it apart as much as you want!
* Contador doped. Thanks for helping prove the point.
** Froome didn't go from A to B in 12 months. He did it in the amount of time it took him form hsi last race before the Vuelta to the Vuelta!
1. Velits, not sure, but I'm pretty sure Canc was using it as a form Builder, not on form. Plus, he's a dgood climber and used his break to gain time.
2. He is suspicous for sure. But he also used strategy like Sastre in 2008. It is suspicous though.
3. Vannmarcke out sprinted an off-form Boonen. He was prepping for Ronde, Roubaix. Why would he peak in February?
4. Boonen has always been great at cobbles, and ddn't have much competition since Cancellara wasn't there. But taking a look at the team doctor's history he very well could have dopedr
5. Tiernen Locke is young and imprving, unlike fRoome who randmly becomes great at 27.
6. Look at Paris - Nice. Where do you see a big summit finish. Westra is a time trialist, and that's what mattered.
7. De Gendt wasn't near the big guns in the previous summit finishes. He gained five minutes with an attack, and we knew he could time trial. Look at the Tour de Suisse stage last year, same thing. No, he never had the leader's jersey at the Giro.
*** So there are really no examples for you.
**** Armstorng never failed a test. Do you think he doped?
*****There are several ways to mask dope. Some never get caught due to this, and since no one is gonna rat out anyone else on the team, no veidence might ever come. that doesn't mean they aren't doing it.
Boonen had just won stage at Tour de San Luis and Tour of Qatar, so he wasn't as off-form as you suggest. Ok, I will admit it isn't important race for him, and was building towards RVV and P-R, but surely he would have wanted to carry on from San Luis and Qatar. And he didn't have much competiton? So the likes of Hayman, Flecha, VanSummeren, Boom, Terpstra, Ballan etc aren't competition to him?
Contador did dope yes, and I wasn't denying that... but that was from some dodgy meat during the Tour. But if he hadn't eaten it, and the whole steak thing didn't happen, would you still say that he doped?
And I know there are several ways to mask doping agents etc. I did a 12,000 word dissertation on doping in the tour for my university degree, so I know what is done, and the resorts that riders go to stop being found out.
Boonen had just won stage at Tour de San Luis and Tour of Qatar, so he wasn't as off-form as you suggest. Ok, I will admit it isn't important race for him, and was building towards RVV and P-R, but surely he would have wanted to carry on from San Luis and Qatar. And he didn't have much competiton? So the likes of Hayman, Flecha, VanSummeren, Boom, Terpstra, Ballan etc aren't competition to him?
Contador did dope yes, and I wasn't denying that... but that was from some dodgy meat during the Tour. But if he hadn't eaten it, and the whole steak thing didn't happen, would you still say that he doped?
And I know there are several ways to mask doping agents etc. I did a 12,000 word dissertation on doping in the tour for my university degree, so I know what is done, and the resorts that riders go to stop being found out.
Yes, Contador must have doped other times
Astana for example (proven dodgy history, that may reappear soon)
And im never too sure about SaxoBank (thanks to Riis)
the_hoyle wrote:
Over the last couple of days (since the thread was created) I have reading the comments that people of put, and I thought I would throw in my 2 cent, as the saying goes. (Apologies if any of this is repeating what has been said already. There was a hell of a lot of things said and I can't remember it all )
I have been a big Wiggo fan for years, from his days on the track to his adventures on the road, and have also read his autobiography, so yes my point of view may be a little 'biased', but points of view are like arseholes... everyone has one, whether people like it or not.
He trained in Tenerife because, like Alakagom said, it is isolated, and quiet, and away from the press/media, and the team can train in peace. Also, there is a big arse volcano there, so plenty of training up mountains, and at altitude. If you can find somewhere that is like that, and easily accessible for a big cycling team, then you should forward your suggestions to Sky directly, cos you obviously know something that they don't, and might even get offered a job with them.
And for those that question him losing the weight, but still keeping the power in the TT, yes it is possible. It is all about how you put it on the road, through technique and position. Contador, for example, is a great climber, and an equally good TT rider. If he hadn't buggered up with some dodgy steaks, he would be up there in the Tour now with Wiggo.
So... now on to Froome. Yes, I will admit it is a little suspicious, and a shock to the system. He has gone from average rider/domestique to great climber/domestique in about 12months. And looking from the outside, the doping finger can be pointed at him. But can I bring other riders into this argument who have pulled great results out of nowhere in the cycling world:
Ok, I know that there are only 7 examples above, but people need to remember that surprise results have happened before from riders who we do not expect to do it, but can we not just congratulate these riders for what they have been able to achieve through dedication, training and generally putting in the hard work? Also, can we also remember the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty'... If they are caught, and are shown to have doped, then ok, I will one hold my hand up, and admit I got it wrong!
But will all those pointing the doping fingers at Sky and Froome admit they were wrong if they are proved to be clean, or will you just say that they are taking something that cannot be detected, or think up more excuses to why they haven't been 'caught' yet?
So that is my point I wanted to say, so feel free to agree, question or pull it apart as much as you want!
* Contador doped. Thanks for helping prove the point.
** Froome didn't go from A to B in 12 months. He did it in the amount of time it took him form hsi last race before the Vuelta to the Vuelta!
1. Velits, not sure, but I'm pretty sure Canc was using it as a form Builder, not on form. Plus, he's a dgood climber and used his break to gain time.
2. He is suspicous for sure. But he also used strategy like Sastre in 2008. It is suspicous though.
3. Vannmarcke out sprinted an off-form Boonen. He was prepping for Ronde, Roubaix. Why would he peak in February?
4. Boonen has always been great at cobbles, and ddn't have much competition since Cancellara wasn't there. But taking a look at the team doctor's history he very well could have dopedr
5. Tiernen Locke is young and imprving, unlike fRoome who randmly becomes great at 27.
6. Look at Paris - Nice. Where do you see a big summit finish. Westra is a time trialist, and that's what mattered.
7. De Gendt wasn't near the big guns in the previous summit finishes. He gained five minutes with an attack, and we knew he could time trial. Look at the Tour de Suisse stage last year, same thing. No, he never had the leader's jersey at the Giro.
*** So there are really no examples for you.
**** Armstorng never failed a test. Do you think he doped?
*****There are several ways to mask dope. Some never get caught due to this, and since no one is gonna rat out anyone else on the team, no veidence might ever come. that doesn't mean they aren't doing it.
Boonen had just won stage at Tour de San Luis and Tour of Qatar, so he wasn't as off-form as you suggest. Ok, I will admit it isn't important race for him, and was building towards RVV and P-R, but surely he would have wanted to carry on from San Luis and Qatar. And he didn't have much competiton? So the likes of Hayman, Flecha, VanSummeren, Boom, Terpstra, Ballan etc aren't competition to him?
Contador did dope yes, and I wasn't denying that... but that was from some dodgy meat during the Tour. But if he hadn't eaten it, and the whole steak thing didn't happen, would you still say that he doped?
And I know there are several ways to mask doping agents etc. I did a 12,000 word dissertation on doping in the tour for my university degree, so I know what is done, and the resorts that riders go to stop being found out.
* He doesn't need to be on form to win at a 2.1 cat race. Or at Quatar. And Vanmarcke has always been underrated I think.
**No, they aren't the level of competiton that Cancellara would be. He was always better than them, at least slightly.
***No, he took Clebueterol. You actually believe him? Even his fanboys don't.
****Exactly.
Edited by baseballlover312 on 10-07-2012 23:47
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
the_hoyle wrote:
Over the last couple of days (since the thread was created) I have reading the comments that people of put, and I thought I would throw in my 2 cent, as the saying goes. (Apologies if any of this is repeating what has been said already. There was a hell of a lot of things said and I can't remember it all )
I have been a big Wiggo fan for years, from his days on the track to his adventures on the road, and have also read his autobiography, so yes my point of view may be a little 'biased', but points of view are like arseholes... everyone has one, whether people like it or not.
He trained in Tenerife because, like Alakagom said, it is isolated, and quiet, and away from the press/media, and the team can train in peace. Also, there is a big arse volcano there, so plenty of training up mountains, and at altitude. If you can find somewhere that is like that, and easily accessible for a big cycling team, then you should forward your suggestions to Sky directly, cos you obviously know something that they don't, and might even get offered a job with them.
And for those that question him losing the weight, but still keeping the power in the TT, yes it is possible. It is all about how you put it on the road, through technique and position. Contador, for example, is a great climber, and an equally good TT rider. If he hadn't buggered up with some dodgy steaks, he would be up there in the Tour now with Wiggo.
So... now on to Froome. Yes, I will admit it is a little suspicious, and a shock to the system. He has gone from average rider/domestique to great climber/domestique in about 12months. And looking from the outside, the doping finger can be pointed at him. But can I bring other riders into this argument who have pulled great results out of nowhere in the cycling world:
Ok, I know that there are only 7 examples above, but people need to remember that surprise results have happened before from riders who we do not expect to do it, but can we not just congratulate these riders for what they have been able to achieve through dedication, training and generally putting in the hard work? Also, can we also remember the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty'... If they are caught, and are shown to have doped, then ok, I will one hold my hand up, and admit I got it wrong!
But will all those pointing the doping fingers at Sky and Froome admit they were wrong if they are proved to be clean, or will you just say that they are taking something that cannot be detected, or think up more excuses to why they haven't been 'caught' yet?
So that is my point I wanted to say, so feel free to agree, question or pull it apart as much as you want!
* Contador doped. Thanks for helping prove the point.
** Froome didn't go from A to B in 12 months. He did it in the amount of time it took him form hsi last race before the Vuelta to the Vuelta!
1. Velits, not sure, but I'm pretty sure Canc was using it as a form Builder, not on form. Plus, he's a dgood climber and used his break to gain time.
2. He is suspicous for sure. But he also used strategy like Sastre in 2008. It is suspicous though.
3. Vannmarcke out sprinted an off-form Boonen. He was prepping for Ronde, Roubaix. Why would he peak in February?
4. Boonen has always been great at cobbles, and ddn't have much competition since Cancellara wasn't there. But taking a look at the team doctor's history he very well could have dopedr
5. Tiernen Locke is young and imprving, unlike fRoome who randmly becomes great at 27.
6. Look at Paris - Nice. Where do you see a big summit finish. Westra is a time trialist, and that's what mattered.
7. De Gendt wasn't near the big guns in the previous summit finishes. He gained five minutes with an attack, and we knew he could time trial. Look at the Tour de Suisse stage last year, same thing. No, he never had the leader's jersey at the Giro.
*** So there are really no examples for you.
**** Armstorng never failed a test. Do you think he doped?
*****There are several ways to mask dope. Some never get caught due to this, and since no one is gonna rat out anyone else on the team, no veidence might ever come. that doesn't mean they aren't doing it.
Boonen had just won stage at Tour de San Luis and Tour of Qatar, so he wasn't as off-form as you suggest. Ok, I will admit it isn't important race for him, and was building towards RVV and P-R, but surely he would have wanted to carry on from San Luis and Qatar. And he didn't have much competiton? So the likes of Hayman, Flecha, VanSummeren, Boom, Terpstra, Ballan etc aren't competition to him?
Contador did dope yes, and I wasn't denying that... but that was from some dodgy meat during the Tour. But if he hadn't eaten it, and the whole steak thing didn't happen, would you still say that he doped?
And I know there are several ways to mask doping agents etc. I did a 12,000 word dissertation on doping in the tour for my university degree, so I know what is done, and the resorts that riders go to stop being found out.
*No, they aren't the level of competiton that Cancellara would be. He was always better than them, at least slightly.
**No, he took Clebueterol. You actually believe him? Even his fanboys don't.
***Exactly.
To be honest, I believe what CAS found out, and that it came from contaminated meat... and anyway, I am someone who is a cyclist and I use clebueterol... It helps with my asthma!
By the way, is there a reason why you are so for Team Sky doping and seem to have a reply to what everyone suggests or says? Is it because you are a big Armstrong fan who has finally been proven to have done wrong, so you now think that everyone else must have doped as well?
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
