valverde321 wrote:
One thing is Team Sky suspiciously dominating.
Another thing is the "Sky Fans" over-rating all the riders, saying that these guys have been this good their whole life. In all honesty, most of these guys are coming from years of anonymity.
TBH though they all have shown they could have been capable of this in the past
Rogers with his 3 ITT Worlds
Porte with his white Jersey
Wiggins is the one who mostly came from nowhere in 2009 as he did not have much climbing experience
Froome on the other hand was always known since back in 2006(someone may correct me on the year) when he was leading a UCI Nations Cup stage-race only to fall on the last stage and lose the jersey before the year after for Barloworld attacking over the top of a big mountain on the tour and finishing 14th in the last stage TT he then had a decent year in 2008 before getting Biharzia for two seasons and only coming back in the middle of last year.
They have all shown to be decent/average climbers! When has any of them ever shown that they can drop the best climbers in the world? Its like they have all improved considerably at the exact same time, and that is my point!
Rogers has always been an over-rated climber. He got a decent Tour finish mostly because of his TT, and if I recall many people ahead of him, were taken out of the Tour by suspension. Not to mention 2006 was a really weak year. Remember who the winner is, Pereiro (breakaway but still)....
Porte is basically like Rogers. He does well in TT's but he's not that great of a climber. Decent, but not a world beater. His Giro results have to be taken with a pinch of salt, because he was hardly contested for the white, and got into a huge breakaway.
Wiggins came out of nowhere with Garmin. He was not one of the best climbers, but he could limit his loses to the top guys on all the big stages, and make most of it up in the TT. Now he's basically one of the best climbers in the world.
Froome has always been a decent climber. In the old PCM's CYA DB's he had like Potential 7, but he never lived up to it. For 5 years he basically did nothing, then all of a sudden 2nd in the Vuelta. Now he's winning Tour Mountain stages. I think its possible for him to be a good climber, but honestly not this strong out of nowhere.
So my point is, how did they all get this good at the same time? How can they magically drop the top riders now (all of them) but just a year or two ago, they were the ones all getting dropped on the climbs? Its not like one rider has improved. They all have.
Edited by valverde321 on 07-07-2012 17:21
Does anyone know the distance from the bottom of the descent to the finish tomorrow? I doubt Nibali/Evans will manage anything if there's 10km or so to the end. Besides, Boasson Hagen is a mega descender and should be able to pace sky quite well.
Also, I don't understand the argument about Porte and discounting his white jersey in the Giro. He was young then and won that classement. There's obviously going to be room for him to improve since then. He's coming into his prime years now, isn't he?
valverde321 wrote:
One thing is Team Sky suspiciously dominating.
Another thing is the "Sky Fans" over-rating all the riders, saying that these guys have been this good their whole life. In all honesty, most of these guys are coming from years of anonymity.
TBH though they all have shown they could have been capable of this in the past
Rogers with his 3 ITT Worlds
Porte with his white Jersey
Wiggins is the one who mostly came from nowhere in 2009 as he did not have much climbing experience
Froome on the other hand was always known since back in 2006(someone may correct me on the year) when he was leading a UCI Nations Cup stage-race only to fall on the last stage and lose the jersey before the year after for Barloworld attacking over the top of a big mountain on the tour and finishing 14th in the last stage TT he then had a decent year in 2008 before getting Biharzia for two seasons and only coming back in the middle of last year.
They have all shown to be decent/average climbers! When has any of them ever shown that they can drop the best climbers in the world? Its like they have all improved considerably at the exact same time, and that is my point!
Rogers has always been an over-rated climber. He got a decent Tour finish mostly because of his TT, and if I recall many people ahead of him, were taken out of the Tour by suspension. Not to mention 2006 was a really weak year. Remember who the winner is, Pereiro (breakaway but still)....
Porte is basically like Rogers. He does well in TT's but he's not that great of a climber. Decent, but not a world beater. His Giro results have to be taken with a pinch of salt, because he was hardly contested for the white, and got into a huge breakaway.
Wiggins came out of nowhere with Garmin. He was not one of the best climbers, but he could limit his loses to the top guys on all the big stages, and make most of it up in the TT. Now he's basically one of the best climbers in the world.
Froome has always been a decent climber. In the old PCM's CYA DB's he had like Potential 7, but he never lived up to it. For 5 years he basically did nothing, then all of a sudden 2nd in the Vuelta. Now he's winning Tour Mountain stages. I think its possible for him to be a good climber, but honestly not this strong out of nowhere.
So my point is, how did they all get this good at the same time? How can they magically drop the top riders now (all of them) but just a year or two ago, they were the ones all getting dropped on the climbs? Its not like one rider has improved. They all have.
they ripped the tag off a mattress.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
valverde321 wrote:
One thing is Team Sky suspiciously dominating.
Another thing is the "Sky Fans" over-rating all the riders, saying that these guys have been this good their whole life. In all honesty, most of these guys are coming from years of anonymity.
TBH though they all have shown they could have been capable of this in the past
Rogers with his 3 ITT Worlds
Porte with his white Jersey
Wiggins is the one who mostly came from nowhere in 2009 as he did not have much climbing experience
Froome on the other hand was always known since back in 2006(someone may correct me on the year) when he was leading a UCI Nations Cup stage-race only to fall on the last stage and lose the jersey before the year after for Barloworld attacking over the top of a big mountain on the tour and finishing 14th in the last stage TT he then had a decent year in 2008 before getting Biharzia for two seasons and only coming back in the middle of last year.
They have all shown to be decent/average climbers! When has any of them ever shown that they can drop the best climbers in the world? Its like they have all improved considerably at the exact same time, and that is my point!
Rogers has always been an over-rated climber. He got a decent Tour finish mostly because of his TT, and if I recall many people ahead of him, were taken out of the Tour by suspension. Not to mention 2006 was a really weak year. Remember who the winner is, Pereiro....
Porte is basically like Rogers. He does well in TT's but he's not that great of a climber. Decent, but not a world beater. His Giro results have to be taken with a pinch of salt, because he was hardly contested for the white, and got into a huge breakaway.
Wiggins came out of nowhere with Garmin. He was not one of the best climbers, but he could limit his loses to the top guys on all the big stages, and make most of it up in the TT. Now he's basically one of the best climbers in the world.
Froome has always been a decent climber. In the old PCM's CYA DB's he had like Potential 7, but he never lived up to it. For 5 years he basically did nothing, then all of a sudden 2nd in the Vuelta. Now he's winning Tour Mountain stages. I think its possible for him to be a good climber, but honestly not this strong out of nowhere.
So my point is, how did they all get this good at the same time? How can they magically drop the top riders now (all of them) but just a year or two ago, they were the ones all getting dropped on the climbs? Its not like one rider has improved. They all have.
No i agree i think with everyone but Rogers who i think has just stayed at the same level for years doesn't seem to have moved up or down Porte could in thoery have improved being only his 3rd year as a pro and Wiggins i agree he came out of nowhere basically Froome results though do have to be looked at because of his illness and if you look in CQ he was on an upward curve till 2009 when he got the illness the two years he had it he went down and it looks as though his improvement was still going just the illlness was hiding it seriously look at it add the same gradient increase from 08 to 09 to 09 to 10 and 10 to 11 and that just looks like a straight curve.
valverde321 wrote:
One thing is Team Sky suspiciously dominating.
Another thing is the "Sky Fans" over-rating all the riders, saying that these guys have been this good their whole life. In all honesty, most of these guys are coming from years of anonymity.
TBH though they all have shown they could have been capable of this in the past
Rogers with his 3 ITT Worlds
Porte with his white Jersey
Wiggins is the one who mostly came from nowhere in 2009 as he did not have much climbing experience
Froome on the other hand was always known since back in 2006(someone may correct me on the year) when he was leading a UCI Nations Cup stage-race only to fall on the last stage and lose the jersey before the year after for Barloworld attacking over the top of a big mountain on the tour and finishing 14th in the last stage TT he then had a decent year in 2008 before getting Biharzia for two seasons and only coming back in the middle of last year.
They have all shown to be decent/average climbers! When has any of them ever shown that they can drop the best climbers in the world? Its like they have all improved considerably at the exact same time, and that is my point!
Rogers has always been an over-rated climber. He got a decent Tour finish mostly because of his TT, and if I recall many people ahead of him, were taken out of the Tour by suspension. Not to mention 2006 was a really weak year. Remember who the winner is, Pereiro (breakaway but still)....
Porte is basically like Rogers. He does well in TT's but he's not that great of a climber. Decent, but not a world beater. His Giro results have to be taken with a pinch of salt, because he was hardly contested for the white, and got into a huge breakaway.
Wiggins came out of nowhere with Garmin. He was not one of the best climbers, but he could limit his loses to the top guys on all the big stages, and make most of it up in the TT. Now he's basically one of the best climbers in the world.
Froome has always been a decent climber. In the old PCM's CYA DB's he had like Potential 7, but he never lived up to it. For 5 years he basically did nothing, then all of a sudden 2nd in the Vuelta. Now he's winning Tour Mountain stages. I think its possible for him to be a good climber, but honestly not this strong out of nowhere.
So my point is, how did they all get this good at the same time? How can they magically drop the top riders now (all of them) but just a year or two ago, they were the ones all getting dropped on the climbs? Its not like one rider has improved. They all have.
they ripped the tag off a mattress.
You should pay a visit to the teams website and take a look at all the regimes they put themselves through so as to improve not just as an individual but a team
issoisso wrote:
LOL the cyclingnews forum crashed under an avalanche of fanboys registering to post
I do like your posts in the Clinic, just biting my tongue for now.
Whilst the clinic is a good idea for a forum, it is everything that is wrong with the CN news forum.
Doping discussion is good; when claims are founded, when a rider puts in a good performance, more often than not that get a post in the clinic. If we watch cycling with a cynical eye, we will never enjoy it. Enjoy the racing, then if the issues come up later, tackle them then.
So until there is evidence you simply accept everything? I dont really talk about sky today but more general. I just cant tell myself anymore that until there is clear evidence there is no doping because i think that would be a little too easy, BUT i have enjoyed todays stage and many other races anyways. A think a critical view cant hurt although there is no evidence (yet)
If I watch a stage and say "Well, they obviously doped". It ruins it. Do football fans, or athletics fans whatever watch their sport and say "Well, they are obviously doped"?
No.
I believe that until there is a stack load of evidence against someone, then they are clean and I will enjoy their performances.
Quite obvious not what i said... But what you said sounds like except the riders who are found guilty there is no doping, and I think thats a little too positive for me, although i am a big cycling fan and enjoy watching races
You should pay a visit to the teams website and take a look at all the regimes they put themselves through so as to improve not just as an individual but a team
Big +1, it was even referenced in ITV4's commentary (i know most of you don use that commentary just a useful point)
felix_29 wrote:
So boring that nobody can argue it´s supiciously boring.
I can!
Nope, wrong nationality.
Right, so because I am British, I am not allowed an opinion.
That's stupid.
Dont worry hes German, and we know how they feel about letting people have free will ...
... like when they dictate modern EU financial policy
Every heard of innocent until proven guilty?
You know what the smiley stands for? Right, ironie.
Just read the posts here and you have to realize that Rogers, Porte, Wiggo and Froome improved in a way that you´d probably call "suspicious" for almost any other rider.
Edited by felix_29 on 07-07-2012 17:31
issoisso wrote:
LOL the cyclingnews forum crashed under an avalanche of fanboys registering to post
I do like your posts in the Clinic, just biting my tongue for now.
Whilst the clinic is a good idea for a forum, it is everything that is wrong with the CN news forum.
Doping discussion is good; when claims are founded, when a rider puts in a good performance, more often than not that get a post in the clinic. If we watch cycling with a cynical eye, we will never enjoy it. Enjoy the racing, then if the issues come up later, tackle them then.
So until there is evidence you simply accept everything? I dont really talk about sky today but more general. I just cant tell myself anymore that until there is clear evidence there is no doping because i think that would be a little too easy, BUT i have enjoyed todays stage and many other races anyways. A think a critical view cant hurt although there is no evidence (yet)
If I watch a stage and say "Well, they obviously doped". It ruins it. Do football fans, or athletics fans whatever watch their sport and say "Well, they are obviously doped"?
No.
I believe that until there is a stack load of evidence against someone, then they are clean and I will enjoy their performances.
Quite obvious not what i said... But what you said sounds like except the riders who are found guilty there is no doping, and I think thats a little too positive for me, although i am a big cycling fan and enjoy watching races
I wasn't saying you said that, critcial is OK. But when we all go insane and say they doped. I disagree.
I believe Armstrong was doped, he has never been found guilty, but the evidence is stacked against him. In reponse the the Sky riding today, there is no evidence to say they are doped and so, in my view, they are clean.
We all enjoy races in different ways, I enjoy them thinking everyone is clean, others may enjoy being critical. Up to the individuals how they enjoy it.
There's no point slapping a schleck - Sean Kelly on "Who needs a slap"
Teddy The Creator wrote:
That was surprisingly fun. Froome looks good I have to say, and no dope imo. Evans looked good, I hope him and Nibbles can work together on the descents to crack stupid Wiggins. And baseball, stop being so mad just because Leipheimer was dropped. None of us (except Alakafroome) loved it but it isn't ruining the sport.
Wait, Leipheimer what?
What are you even talking about? i didn't mention Levi once! I didn't expect him to do well. What gave you this idea? I was actually not mad by my riders being dropped, and was happy with Roche.
I the fact is that this mountain train stops riders from being aggresive andmaking any moves. It works. Wiggins will win the Tour by sitting on Froome's wheel. it'll work, but it's not good for the overall sport.
Edited by baseballlover312 on 07-07-2012 17:33
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
felix_29 wrote:
So boring that nobody can argue it´s supiciously boring.
I can!
Nope, wrong nationality.
Right, so because I am British, I am not allowed an opinion.
That's stupid.
Dont worry hes German, and we know how they feel about letting people have free will ...
... like when they dictate modern EU financial policy
Every heard of innocent until proven guilty?
You know what the smiley stands for? Right, ironie.
Just read the posts here and you have to realize that Rogers, Porte, Wiggo and Froome improved in a way that you´d probably call "suspicious" for almost any other rider.
first, Irony (so sorry couldnt help it)
second, Sky have made clear there training methods, with the whole team doing similar/same training methods, so they will all improve at the same rate
third, Sky make it cleat they have a zero tolerance policy on doping, and if the Road team is doping i guess the whole British cycling project must be as they use most of the same backroom staff...
fourth, im getting fanatical about this cause its the first time ever Britain has been this good, and as a brit i can get excited and defend my team and riders from unfounded accusations of doping
For anybody who thinks the Sky riders have doped, what scientific proof/ tests/ substantial evidence do you have that you can use to line up a well-rounded argument with some pretty good points to say that they have doped? Brailsford wouldn't allow any doping to go on simply because his life would be ruined, he would lose his job at Sky and as Head of British Cycling.
issoisso wrote:
LOL the cyclingnews forum crashed under an avalanche of fanboys registering to post
I do like your posts in the Clinic, just biting my tongue for now.
Whilst the clinic is a good idea for a forum, it is everything that is wrong with the CN news forum.
Doping discussion is good; when claims are founded, when a rider puts in a good performance, more often than not that get a post in the clinic. If we watch cycling with a cynical eye, we will never enjoy it. Enjoy the racing, then if the issues come up later, tackle them then.
So until there is evidence you simply accept everything? I dont really talk about sky today but more general. I just cant tell myself anymore that until there is clear evidence there is no doping because i think that would be a little too easy, BUT i have enjoyed todays stage and many other races anyways. A think a critical view cant hurt although there is no evidence (yet)
If I watch a stage and say "Well, they obviously doped". It ruins it. Do football fans, or athletics fans whatever watch their sport and say "Well, they are obviously doped"?
No.
I believe that until there is a stack load of evidence against someone, then they are clean and I will enjoy their performances.
Quite obvious not what i said... But what you said sounds like except the riders who are found guilty there is no doping, and I think thats a little too positive for me, although i am a big cycling fan and enjoy watching races
I wasn't saying you said that, critcial is OK. But when we all go insane and say they doped. I disagree.
I believe Armstrong was doped, he has never been found guilty, but the evidence is stacked against him. In reponse the the Sky riding today, there is no evidence to say they are doped and so, in my view, they are clean.
We all enjoy races in different ways, I enjoy them thinking everyone is clean, others may enjoy being critical. Up to the individuals how they enjoy it.
CLURPR wrote:
For anybody who thinks the Sky riders have doped, what scientific proof/ tests/ substantial evidence do you have that you can use to line up a well-rounded argument with some pretty good points to say that they have doped? Brailsford wouldn't allow any doping to go on simply because his life would be ruined, he would lose his job at Sky and as Head of British Cycling.
felix_29 wrote:
So boring that nobody can argue it´s supiciously boring.
I can!
Nope, wrong nationality.
Right, so because I am British, I am not allowed an opinion.
That's stupid.
Dont worry hes German, and we know how they feel about letting people have free will ...
... like when they dictate modern EU financial policy
Every heard of innocent until proven guilty?
You know what the smiley stands for? Right, ironie.
Just read the posts here and you have to realize that Rogers, Porte, Wiggo and Froome improved in a way that you´d probably call "suspicious" for almost any other rider.
first, Irony (so sorry couldnt help it)
second, Sky have made clear there training methods, with the whole team doing similar/same training methods, so they will all improve at the same rate
third, Sky make it cleat they have a zero tolerance policy on doping, and if the Road team is doping i guess the whole British cycling project must be as they use most of the same backroom staff...
fourth, im getting fanatical about this cause its the first time ever Britain has been this good, and as a brit i can get excited and defend my team and riders from unfounded accusations of doping
When US Postal dope, and use training as an excuse that's horrible. Sky could be using it and everyone is naive into thinking this way.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
CLURPR wrote:
For anybody who thinks the Sky riders have doped, what scientific proof/ tests/ substantial evidence do you have that you can use to line up a well-rounded argument with some pretty good points to say that they have doped? Brailsford wouldn't allow any doping to go on simply because his life would be ruined, he would lose his job at Sky and as Head of British Cycling.
Just becuase he doesn't know about it doesn't mean it's not happening
For instance if you hear what Riis says about him mentoring and basically living with basso in the run up to the tour to found out days before that he was seeing a doctor outside of the team's authority, at the end of the day a rider can perosnally himself do what he wants.
CLURPR wrote:
For anybody who thinks the Sky riders have doped, what scientific proof/ tests/ substantial evidence do you have that you can use to line up a well-rounded argument with some pretty good points to say that they have doped? Brailsford wouldn't allow any doping to go on simply because his life would be ruined, he would lose his job at Sky and as Head of British Cycling.
CLURPR wrote:
For anybody who thinks the Sky riders have doped, what scientific proof/ tests/ substantial evidence do you have that you can use to line up a well-rounded argument with some pretty good points to say that they have doped? Brailsford wouldn't allow any doping to go on simply because his life would be ruined, he would lose his job at Sky and as Head of British Cycling.
Just becuase he doesn't know about it doesn't mean it's not happening
For instance if you hear what Riis says about him mentoring and basically living with basso in the run up to the tour to found out days before that he was seeing a doctor outside of the team's authority, at the end of the day a rider can perosnally himself do what he wants.
The whole team? Really? without any staff knowing? or fans?
That i find hard to believe
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
