Inglinskiy is probably the only rider from Astana we could trust cause he was seen as one of the biggest talents when he became a pro (his time with Domina Vacanze). The level of this years Ardennes was really low (proved wednesday by the time of the Mur 40 secs slower as wednesday). I trust that this was a clean win.
And Lagetcher, it was Maxime's brother Valentin who got caught for speeding under coke last year.
Two other remarks:
1. Nibali needs to become smarter to time his attacks. He did it during last years Giro attacking on a descent way too early (the stage Nieve won). And he was about to win Lombardy (a gap of around 2' when he totally lost all his speed. Just like today!
2. I think Gilbert for some reason stopped to care at the foot of St. Nicolas once it became clear he couldn't win. He could follow Vanendert and Nibali on the Roche au Faucon so looked strong and then came over the line with a smile.
Spilak23 wrote:
Inglinskiy is probably the only rider from Astana we could trust cause he was seen as one of the biggest talents when he became a pro (his time with Domina Vacanze). The level of this years Ardennes was really low (proved wednesday by the time of the Mur 40 secs slower as wednesday). I trust that this was a clean win.
And Lagetcher, it was Maxime's brother Valentin who got caught for speeding under coke last year.
Two other remarks:
1. Nibali needs to become smarter to time his attacks. He did it during last years Giro attacking on a descent way too early (the stage Nieve won). And he was about to win Lombardy (a gap of around 2' when he totally lost all his speed. Just like today!
2. I think Gilbert for some reason stopped to care at the foot of St. Nicolas once it became clear he couldn't win. He could follow Vanendert and Nibali on the Roche au Faucon so looked strong and then came over the line with a smile.
Ahh, thanks for correcting me. Not sure why I was so sure it was Maxime.
001RusKZ wrote:
In all the countries of the former Soviet Union are now rejoicing!!! Amstel Gold Race - Astana (Kazakhstan), Flèche Wallonne - Katusha (Russia) and Liège - Bastogne - Liège - Astana (Kazakhstan)
count me out. Soviet Union is gone 20 years already ..do you know that?
Do you know word "former, ex, old" etc.?
This is as stupid as say ..All ex. Roman empire will celebrate Gasparotto win.
Actually it does make some sense. The countries which were part of the extinct Soviet Union are celebrating because riders from their teams have won the races. The only flaw is that from the three winners, one is Spanish and the other Italian
dienblad wrote:
But like others have said: a negative doping test will mean that Astana had a perfect training plan and strategy for their riders.
All this doping talk has hidden what should be the hot topic of the day. Iglinskiy has won LBL, and has already, in the past, podiumed a hard cobbled race like the E3 and top 10'd MSR.
Iglinskiy for the 5 monuments. You heard it here first.
kumazan wrote:
All this doping talk has hidden what should be the hot topic of the day. Iglinskiy has won LBL, and has already, in the past, podiumed a hard cobbled race like the E3 and top 10'd MSR.
Iglinskiy for the 5 monuments. You heard it here first.
It's nice to see that withouth those Italians (Rebellin, Di Luca,...) classical riders who do good at cobbles can also compete in the Ardennes!
Had won 1 race in the last 3 years.
Last year his best result was an 11th place in a TdF stage (though maybe there was a good reason for lack of performance last year - and drink driving doesn't count)
Best result in the Ardennes before this year was 17th in Fleche Wallonne.
So he's a decent hilly classics rider (I wouldn't say under-rated though), but suddenly the strongest man in LBL?
Now, we could ignore these facts if we wanted to, but looking at Astana's incredibly successful Ardennes performance suggests these facts should probably not be ignored.
Where you were when Froome and Wiggins started to win form nothing? And in there cases it was complete nothing, compared to these two, Iglinskiy was the top rider before his huge success.
This L-B-L is one of the less suspicious wins in the last 2-3 seasons, Iglinsky always was very good rider who can handle long attack even in the Tour mountain stages.
And you who suspect every rider who showed some sign of progress, you should rather be watching curling or something. Lot of people were cheering for fact that we are supposed to have "cleaner" cycling now and racess will be more unpredictable. When the races are unpredictable and surprising, half of same people are shouting doper, ridicolous.
And here is little elaborate of 2011 results, especially for the wise men here who know better than the others.
1.Gilbert - not in form in 2012
2.Frank Schleck - moron nr. 1
3. Andy Schleck - moron nr.2
4.Kreuziger - not starting in 2012
5. Uran - healt problems, crashed?
6. C.A. Sorensen - not in form in 2012
7. Van Avermaet - working his ass for Gilbert all the classics
8. Nibali - only favourite in shape, but has gone too early, was dead later
9. Leukemans - not in the race 2012
10 S.Sanchez - out of his best form clearly
11. Kolobnev - we all know about him
12. Gerrans - not racing in 2012
13. Martens - not in form, working for his leaders
14. Anton - crashed in neutral zone
15. Freire - not racing in 2012
16. Cunego - probably tired after hard Trentino, did nothing in the race
17. Vanendert - only one strongest than last year, but maybe bad tactics or tired from the previous ones?
18.Van Garderen - working his ass of for Gilbert
And now 2010 results
1.Vinokourov - not racing in 2012
2.Kolobnev - dopehead
3. Valverde - not in form for 2012 classics, mechanical
4. Gilbert - out of form in 2012
5. Evans - not racing in 2012
6. Andy Schl. - moron nr. 1
7. Anton - crashed in the neutral zone in 2012
8. Horner - aftter injury or not in form iirc
9. Frank Schl. - moron nr.2
10. Contador - ban
Problem haters? There is always a possibility someone has doped, especially when he wins his first monument and is from Astana, but what is so surprising about it this time? Astana was very strong team in the whole ardennes, they were always on the front.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Problem haters? There is always a possibility someone has doped, especially when he wins his first monument and is from Astana, but what is so surprising about it this time? Astana was very strong team in the whole ardennes, they were always on the front.
I think you deliberately don't want to understand.
Their riders are not nobodies ? Fine. But hey haven't performed anywhere close to that level either before (although you could argue there might not be more than 2 % between a top 30 contender and a top 3 contender).
A whole team is (suddenly) strong (with its lesser riders) ? Festina was strong too, weren't they ? Especially given the history of the team and the lack of record of their riders at that level, there's reasons to have doubts. Hopefully time will tell...
We don't have proofs, we have serious doubts. Makes sense to you ?
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Problem haters? There is always a possibility someone has doped, especially when he wins his first monument and is from Astana, but what is so surprising about it this time? Astana was very strong team in the whole ardennes, they were always on the front.
I think you deliberately don't want to understand.
Their riders are not nobodies ? Fine. But hey haven't performed anywhere close to that level either before (although you could argue there might not be more than 2 % between a top 30 contender and a top 3 contender).
A whole team is (suddenly) strong (with its lesser riders) ? Festina was strong too, weren't they ? Especially given the history of the team and the lack of record of their riders at that level, there's reasons to have doubts. Hopefully time will tell...
We don't have proofs, we have serious doubts. Makes sense to you ?
Especially you are making sense, you ever do as i am aware during my short time spend here on the site and i respect you for that. But some others are not presenting doubts, but facts that cant be proven. I have some small doubts about Astana too, but for me there were way more suspicious and surprising results in the past three yers than these (Gilbert, Wiggins, Froome,Cobo, Boonen, Rolland, Vanendert...).
And as you see from the past results, almost noone from the favourites was in form or racing at L-b-L, which made potential top 20-30 guy like Iglinskiy a favourite when having a good day and Gaparotto was 3rd at Amstel in 2010.
So i am still asking, what is so surprising???? Rather than thinking whole team doing good because of dope, think about good preparation and tactics.
Had won 1 race in the last 3 years.
Last year his best result was an 11th place in a TdF stage (though maybe there was a good reason for lack of performance last year - and drink driving doesn't count)
Best result in the Ardennes before this year was 17th in Fleche Wallonne.
So he's a decent hilly classics rider (I wouldn't say under-rated though), but suddenly the strongest man in LBL?
Now, we could ignore these facts if we wanted to, but looking at Astana's incredibly successful Ardennes performance suggests these facts should probably not be ignored.
Where you were when Froome and Wiggins started to win form nothing? And in there cases it was complete nothing, compared to these two, Iglinskiy was the top rider before his huge success.
This L-B-L is one of the less suspicious wins in the last 2-3 seasons, Iglinsky always was very good rider who can handle long attack even in the Tour mountain stages.
And you who suspect every rider who showed some sign of progress, you should rather be watching curling or something. Lot of people were cheering for fact that we are supposed to have "cleaner" cycling now and racess will be more unpredictable. When the races are unpredictable and surprising, half of same people are shouting doper, ridicolous.
Excuse me? Why getting so personal? Do you know me well? It seems you do.
I said you can ignore these facts if you want to and come to your own conclusion. And Froome and Wiggins? I'm not some kind of British fanboy - of course their performances are suspicious. I'm pretty sure I said at the time that Froome's performance at the Vuelta was suspicious, as practically everyone did. Cycling history tells us not to be naive. Also, I think I have a right to be suspicious about Astana given that team's very shady history - for me a great improvement from them doesn't look like a cleaning up in cycling.
Curling? I like the way this sport is always brought up when trying to make someone feel bad about watching the sport they do. So I shouldn't watch cycling? Right, I'll make a note of that. Thanks very much for your input.
And I suspect every rider who shows some sign of progress? Wow, you really do know me better than myself. One of my big fascinations about cycling is how riders progress as they mature as racers, so that's an interesting conclusion to come to.
Usually I don't have suspicions and when I do I usually keep quiet about them. Wonder why? Because people blast you for being an insult to the cycling community.
Please don't get so aggressive when I was just stating my opinion fairly.
Had won 1 race in the last 3 years.
Last year his best result was an 11th place in a TdF stage (though maybe there was a good reason for lack of performance last year - and drink driving doesn't count)
Best result in the Ardennes before this year was 17th in Fleche Wallonne.
So he's a decent hilly classics rider (I wouldn't say under-rated though), but suddenly the strongest man in LBL?
Now, we could ignore these facts if we wanted to, but looking at Astana's incredibly successful Ardennes performance suggests these facts should probably not be ignored.
Where you were when Froome and Wiggins started to win form nothing? And in there cases it was complete nothing, compared to these two, Iglinskiy was the top rider before his huge success.
This L-B-L is one of the less suspicious wins in the last 2-3 seasons, Iglinsky always was very good rider who can handle long attack even in the Tour mountain stages.
And you who suspect every rider who showed some sign of progress, you should rather be watching curling or something. Lot of people were cheering for fact that we are supposed to have "cleaner" cycling now and racess will be more unpredictable. When the races are unpredictable and surprising, half of same people are shouting doper, ridicolous.
Excuse me? Why getting so personal? Do you know me well? It seems you do.
I said you can ignore these facts if you want to and come to your own conclusion. And Froome and Wiggins? I'm not some kind of British fanboy - of course their performances are suspicious. I'm pretty sure I said at the time that Froome's performance at the Vuelta was suspicious, as practically everyone did. Cycling history tells us not to be naive. Also, I think I have a right to be suspicious about Astana given that team's very shady history - for me a great improvement from them doesn't look like a cleaning up in cycling.
Curling? I like the way this sport is always brought up when trying to make someone feel bad about watching the sport they do. So I shouldn't watch cycling? Right, I'll make a note of that. Thanks very much for your input.
And I suspect every rider who shows some sign of progress? Wow, you really do know me better than myself. One of my big fascinations about cycling is how riders progress as they mature as racers, so that's an interesting conclusion to come to.
Usually I don't have suspicions and when I do I usually keep quiet about them. Wonder why? Because people blast you for being an insult to the cycling community.
Please don't get so aggressive when I was just stating my opinion fairly.
And you who suspect every rider who showed some sign of progress, you should rather be watching curling or something. Lot of people were cheering for fact that we are supposed to have "cleaner" cycling now and racess will be more unpredictable. When the races are unpredictable and surprising, half of same people are shouting doper, ridicolous. Rolling Eyes
This part was not adress to you, i ment it in general. Only first question about "Where you were....." was adressed to you and you answered me, so no problem for me.
And i think i am not aggresive at all, certainly not so aggresive like people who accuse someone of doping right after the win and without evidence....
And do you have any comment to the long list of favourites from the previous years who failed this year, allowing lesser riders to succeed?
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 23-04-2012 09:07
It is pretty simple. Every time a rider makes a surprise win or result (Froome, Westra in Paris-Nice, Gasparotto, Iglinsky) or when that rider doesn't perform the next year(s) (Gilbert), people who follow cycling become suspicious. Others love these surprise results (or non-results as with Gilbert) and belive it's part of cycling.
What surprise me, is the amount of people who keep saying that all these hilly riders were out of form, just as were the cobblers in PR and maybe RVV. Riders have season goals with 2 or peaks a season. teams spend a lot of money to pay trainers to get their riders in shape at the right moment. And all these riders or trainers fail in doing so???
Makes no sens to me. I think that this is a sign that the sport has become cleaner, that the riders are more levelled (and I'm not accusing any riders with great results in the past of using doping, unless they had a positive test!!!), so nobody can make a real difference (unless a great daily form as Boonen in PR) and surprises occur (even tough they're a bit suspicious...
lagetcher wrote:
Excuse me? Why getting so personal? Do you know me well? It seems you do.
And also, do you know Iglinskiy well to accuse him for doping? It seems you do
Did I accuse someone of doping? All I suggested was that I was suspicious.
And it might not have been aggressive to you, but it was to me. Maybe it's my autism coming through, I don't know.
Ayway, I'm completely fed up of this site and the way people jump on you for no reason. I doubt I'll be coming back here again. Not that anyone will care or even notice, but I've wasted enough time on here during my life. Have fun and try not to fight too much.
dienblad wrote:
Makes no sens to me. I think that this is a sign that the sport has become cleaner, that the riders are more levelled (and I'm not accusing any riders with great results in the past of using doping, unless they had a positive test!!!), so nobody can make a real difference (unless a great daily form as Boonen in PR) and surprises occur (even tough they're a bit suspicious...
A positive test is like a speed ticket. Being never caught doesn't mean you respect all the limitations, just that you never go above them in front of a radar.
History has taught us not to be naive, so even though there's always a huge part of guessing, and unknown factors, I don't think it's a good think to hide our heads in the sand saying "no positive test, no problem, sport is getting cleaner".
That leads to riders or people being admired and all of a sudden thrown into the gutter with a lot of hatred by the very same people who admired them (Pantani, VDB, etc.). They don't deserve any of those reactions by us (fans in general).
So, just remain critical, or "reasonably pessimistic", as my favourite author once put it.
I think that everyone who is suspicious of a surprising single result like this years LBL should take a good look at themselves.
50 seconds in a 250km+ Race isn't that big of a deal. With good form and a lot of luck anything can happen. There's no reason to believe that there is much more than 2% between a top 30-rider and a top 3-rider.
Some people seem to think that they know the peleton so well, that they can eliminate 97% of all contenders for a LBL win. If their narrow perspective fails them, they blame it on doping, so they don't have to adjust their beliefs.
I would be more worried about someone like Boonen or Gilbert last year, who defied the odds and won everything there was to win.
dienblad wrote:
Makes no sens to me. I think that this is a sign that the sport has become cleaner, that the riders are more levelled (and I'm not accusing any riders with great results in the past of using doping, unless they had a positive test!!!), so nobody can make a real difference (unless a great daily form as Boonen in PR) and surprises occur (even tough they're a bit suspicious...
A positive test is like a speed ticket. Being never caught doesn't mean you respect all the limitations, just that you never go above them in front of a radar.
History has taught us not to be naive, so even though there's always a huge part of guessing, and unknown factors, I don't think it's a good think to hide our heads in the sand saying "no positive test, no problem, sport is getting cleaner".
That leads to riders or people being admired and all of a sudden thrown into the gutter with a lot of hatred by the very same people who admired them (Pantani, VDB, etc.). They don't deserve any of those reactions by us (fans in general).
So, just remain critical, or "reasonably pessimistic", as my favourite author once put it.
I agree completely with this, although i personally can't really say whether a rider is doped, or just riding on talent. The problem i had with this thread though, is that people just blamed Iglinski because he happened to ride at Astana. I agree, it raises some more doubt, but in my opinion, Astana has just been in the press more related to doping than some other teams (like Omega Pharma).
I think it is sad to see, because of all the doping when someone shows class and performs to an extent it is immediately seen as doping. It's really sad, it is almost no one can put in a brilliant performance without being branded a dope. I can see why poeple will jump, but give the rider's more respect for the win and if they come out as doping then it is shame but I don't agree with branding people a dope after a good performance.
Edit: I am singling out anyone on here with my comment, just my opinion, but as I said I can see why people come suspicious because of history, it is just sad to see, but hey it's life and this is the internet! Edited by Ste117 on 23-04-2012 13:20
1.Vinokourov - not racing in 2012 2.Kolobnev - dopehead
Problem haters? There is always a possibility someone has doped, especially when he wins his first monument and is from Astana, but what is so surprising about it this time? Astana was very strong team in the whole ardennes, they were always on the front.
Why do you call someone dopehead, when he is in fact racing, and was cleared by all charges?
Stop claiming we're all screaming doper at Iglinsky, when you do the same.
