alexkr00 wrote:
Yes, it was only Tour riders. Plus, that was back in 2010 when Froome was just the Kenyan rider we saw on Watts, crashing during the Worlds time - trial.
I saw that live years ago and laughed my ass off. I remember posting in forums and being sad that nobody else had seen it. I was sad that this unknown guy would fade instead of forever being remembered for that bonehead moment.
Chicken also had punctures beside his crashes. That's where he got the reputation as an awful TTer - people looking only at the result and thinking wow he lost so much time.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
That was 2006.
Because of that, in 2007 (?), we were all ready to laugh our asses off when he started the first TDF ITT. We laughed in another way when he started overtaking riders (Valverde and more, IIRC). What TT skills wouldn't EPO grow you ?
EDIT: Also, you're going to be gravely disappointed when you find out this is Evans in top form
So you want me to judge people and convict them long before they actually test positive? Do you suspect every rider that surprise you? Do you think Kwiatkowski, Kristoff or Porte dope? It's people like you that destroy the reputation of our beloved sport. You must have some faith in the riders..
tastasol wrote:
So you want me to judge people and convict them long before they actually test positive?
Think critically. Think logically. Don't be bound by the emotional tie of feeling sorry for someone who's currently being investigated in a large scale drugs bust.
tastasol wrote:
Do you suspect every rider that surprise you? Do you think Kwiatkowski, Kristoff or Porte dope? It's people like you that destroy the reputation of our beloved sport. You must have some faith in the riders..
Well that escalated quickly. It takes most people a few more posts of being wrong before they resort do desperate ad hominem.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
I am skeptical, but I'm not jumping to conclusions on every rider that does something that I didn't expect from him. I can't focus on a race if the only thing I think about is that xxx is doped, since he normally would be way outside top 10. Santambrogio seems like a rider who has grown better for each year and is now racing up to his full potential. A superhuman wouldn't have cracked in the way he did today(unless it's a part of the conspiracy.....).
I would not be blown off the chair if Santambrogio has been using doping in his career, but I don't judge him because of the Mantova-case. That is the past. It's not like I think David Millar is using doping because he has been involved with it..
"Well that escalated quickly. It takes most people a few more posts of being wrong before they resort do desperate ad hominem."
I'm not good in latin, so sorry if I misinterupt you...
I find it funny that you so blatanlty think I'm this stupid guy that doesn't know a thing. Your the one who is judging a man that has taken most of us by surprise this year and automatically think he is doped.
Let me take an example for you: Alexander Kristoff is way better this year than last year. And last year he was way better than the year before that. The reason is that his and his trainers goal was to build up his capacity over several years, something that made him test equally as good this march as in his finest form last year. Training actually helps.
I have no knowledge about Santambrogio and his progress. Still, I believe that the way from being a decent domestique to a rider who can climb is not that long. Santambrogio has previously shown that he isn't green in the mountains(look at Austria in 2010). He has a climbers body. As previously said, I don't have enough knowledge about the man, but say that he lost 2 kg, trained more specifically for the mountains and started really work with himself and dig deep in the mountains? I don't think you need so much more to take a huge step like Santambrogio has done in the mountains. And again, the competition isn't terrifying.. There are lots of surprises up there, but Santambrogio is the only one that really has delivered results before.
@Pellizotti2: I mentioned Porte because he, in my opinon, has taken huge steps since last year. I could have said Froome aswell, but I don't want to have 500 people after me..
Edited by tastasol on 21-05-2013 23:17
tastasol wrote:
I can't focus on a race if the only thing I think about is that xxx is doped, since he normally would be way outside top 10.
If certain discussions make you only think about that, maybe you shouldn't involve yourself in them
tastasol wrote:
Santambrogio seems like a rider who has grown better for each year and is now racing up to his full potential.
When that happens the progression is sorta linear. This has nothing linear about it, it's a massive jump.
We're in May, not even halfway into the season, and once the Giro finishes and he gets the points from a GC finish, his CQRanking level will be double that of any other year.
That's not growing better each year. In fact he's declined since 2009
tastasol wrote:
A superhuman wouldn't have cracked in the way he did today(unless it's a part of the conspiracy.....).
Another major fallacy. Look, I'm not trying to criticize you. I get it: you don't know anything about doping. It's a normal belief for people who don't know anything about doping to think that on drugs you're some superhuman beast that never has a bad day....but it's completely wrong.
You still have bad days and good days and excellent days and awful days when you're on drugs. You're just faster. Your bad days won't be as bad, your good days will be better. That's it. Everything else that happens when you're clean also happens when you're on drugs.
tastasol wrote:
I would not be blown off the chair if Santambrogio has been using doping in his career, but I don't judge him because of the Mantova-case. That is the past. It's not like I think David Millar is using doping because he has been involved with it..
How is that the past? He's never paid for it, why would he have stopped? How on earth could a guy possibly dope and be average, then go clean and be a world beater?
tastasol wrote:
I'm not good in latin, so sorry if I misinterupt you...
I find it funny that you so blatanlty think I'm this stupid guy that doesn't know a thing.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth as usual. Where did I say any of that?
tastasol wrote:
Let me take an example for you: Alexander Kristoff is way better this year than last year. And last year he was way better than the year before that. The reason is that his and his trainers goal was to build up his capacity over several years, something that made him test equally as good this march as in his finest form last year. Training actually helps.
That's a linear progression. Everything that Santambrogio is not.
tastasol wrote:
I have no knowledge about Santambrogio and his progress.
Then why did you claim that he's gotten better year after year and is now racing at full potential?
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
There is one thing people always understand false. Doped riders could even been beaten by natural under certain circumstances. It is a matter of where you start from and how you respond to the drugs mainly, but that does not mean the rider is not doping and having an huge, unfair advantage. What do we learn from this? We have to be critically and question riders performances, which seem abnormal.
The point where this is getting dangerous is, when a hypothetical superior rider would enter the scene. Lets say he would ride clean. People would mark him as doper, even if he is not taking anything. Just because he is able to produce more than 6W/kg over a long climb, or something like that. That is a sad point about the doping issue. But i think we have to live with that and it is better to be overcritical than not critical at all.
"Racing is life. Everything before or after is just waiting." I agree this alangs. today i ride my bike in shanghai i thought last night i play race game love it very much.
ppanther wrote:
The point where this is getting dangerous is, when a hypothetical superior rider would enter the scene. Lets say he would ride clean. People would mark him as doper, even if he is not taking anything. Just because he is able to produce more than 6W/kg over a long climb, or something like that. That is a sad point about the doping issue. But i think we have to live with that and it is better to be overcritical than not critical at all.
Problem is that all pros are superior riders. Superior to any good amateur, who themselves are very superior to Sunday morning tourists, who're probably superior to the common population.
Even then, a top pro is superior to his peers, yet unable to do 6 W/kg on 1h long climbs, even when peaking.
And a guy could pop up out of nowhere and do it, and we shouldn't assume he's doping ?
That's not sad, that's realistic. If a guy who'd manage that would have a linear progression making it plausible, why not, after all records are meant to be broken, but a guy just "entering the scene" ?
That can't happen.
I have a questions for ppanther, tastasol and others who try to defend a rider:
Why do you care if some guy in a forum (who you don't know) suggest that a rider (who you don't know) is a doper? If you want to ignore the facts, then just do it. There is no need to make up arguments to justify your attitude.
And if you want to ask me why it matters to me: This is the News thread, so keep your discussions out of it.
Edited by Lachi on 22-05-2013 09:04
Lachi wrote:
I have a questions for ppanther, tastasol and others who try to defend a rider:
Why do you care if some guy in a forum (who you don't know) suggest that a rider (who you don't know) is a doper? If you want to ignore the facts, then just do it. There is no need to make up arguments to justify your attitude.
Facts are supposed to be tangible and supportable with evidence. Without positive tests or confessions there are no facts that someone is doping. Everything is just circumstantial otherwise, and if you like a rider you will want to defend them against these sorts of accusations. If some people still have faith in cycling, let them have it.
Lachi wrote:
And if you want to ask me why it matters to me: This is the News thread, so keep your discussions out of it.
To be fair the same thing can be said about pointless rider bashing in News/Race threads. This includes random doping insinuations and other cynical remarks because of a rider's bad luck.
Yes, I am also referring to the Gesink bashing, but also to this about Santambrogio. It's one thing to post 'hey, based on Santambrogio's past performances and links to doping, I find his current performance suspicious', but it's something completely different to write 'Santambrogio's obviously doping, and when you don't agree with me then you're incredibly naive and don't know about cycling/doping.'
Same thing for Gesink. I haven't seen anyone on this forums praising him like a cycling-god whatsoever, not even Dutch people. The same thing can't be said about Wiggins, Froome or Cavendish for that matter. Theres nothing wrong with saying 'I think Gesink may be overrated by a part of the users on this forum in terms of his riding abilities, and his streak of crashes and mechanicals certainly doesn't help his reputation', but there's definitely something wrong with 'Ha! Gesink down again lololol he sucks! In your face fanboys!'.
These discussions are not caused by over-sensitivity of half of the forum users, but by bad discussion etiquette that has its roots in feelings of spite or slight elitism. We should try to avoid these things as much as possible or the forums will turn sour and discussions will become immature. Anyone who has ever been part of a forum where this has happened (such as GameFAQs for example) knows what I mean.
Edited by ShortsNL on 22-05-2013 09:53
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
