Walkman said:
Is it really that unbelievable?
Lemond did what, 54 km/h (?) some 20+ years ago and the consensus seems to be that he was clean. Would a 56 km/h performance on a shorter course really be a case of Edgar?
Can it no be about aerodynamics?
Any way you slice it, Dennis was aero as **** today!
And this is my problem to all of those that shout "cheater" to some particular riders/teams.
As long as some "hardcore" fans, that genuinely love the sport, keep calling out guys like Lance while praising cyclists like Eddy (some even dare to call him the best ever), Lemond (same speed at the end of the tour, 25 years ago) and company, all the "dope-free"/controlled (an environment where if you dope, you are actually cheating instead of playing catch up) dreams will be ignored, and rightfully so.
You/us (not you particularly, but the "fan") should:
a) Either inform yourself and act accordingly;
b) stfu and enjoy.
All of these guys train as much as their body allows them too. What makes someone a champion (nowadays) is pure genetic luck + superior doping + specialization + team strength + tactical acumen + season planning. What made a champion in the 60's (for example) was nothing more than superior doping. It was a stamina context, all day, all year.
If a guy like Lance was a cyclists in the 60's and 70's, with the same conditions as Merckx (compared to guys like Agostinho, that were far from true pros and could still podium the tour) + the psychopath attitude, he would wipe the floor with them on every single terrain, no matter what.
But instead, here we are: Saying that Cavendish is a joke, Merckx/Roger/Hinault/Coppi/Lemond are champions and Lance is a cheat. Meanwhile, the average cyclist today would win every single race against those "legends".
No wonder guys like Ricco must be destroyed from the inside-out. A few decades earlier, a different nationality, more convincing lies and we would be talking about him for decades as a great champion. Instead, it is what it is. Same for Pantani, VDB and others.
It's curious that the same twisted, sick and uninformed mentality can be applied to almost all sports: F1 drivers were all "better" decades ago (real men, after all. Who was the sick bastard that said: In my time there were 15 Michael Shumachers? Compare that crap with Roger De V. "demanding" the 1000X superior Boonen and Cancellara to go for the tour's GC); Eusebio, Di Stefano and so on are the best; etc. You get the point.
Always-on information to everybody made us analyze current events differently. What is "easy" to see, is easily discussed. There's more data/info/we saw the 00's. slightly less so for the 90's. Even less for the 80's and so on.
What we can't factually determine, we dream about.
It's a stupidity and/or ignorant-based problem, and can be applied to every area:
- Samsung sells an 8-core phone at 2GHz, Apple a 2 core phone at 1.4GHz. 8=4*2 and 2>1.4, so Apple rips off costumers and their phones are crap. Let's just ignore how all of these ARM-based processors have roots on the Apple-funded ARM, and how the 2 SoC are totally different, and evenly matched. Different cores.
- !6 MP cameras are better than 8 MP cameras. Yes, let's just ignore the fact that we can buy a 5000$ 12MP camera and there are 200$ phones with a 13 MP camera. Why? Because MP are only a small (irrelevant after a certain size) of what makes a good camera. Color? Software for processing? Zoom? Sensor-size? Pixel size? Speed? etc.
- A 700hp American muscle car is "better" than a 400Hp Porsche...
- Eddy has 525 victories..
- And so on.
How can we change this regarding cycling? It isn't easy. For starters, we should share knowledge. All rider data must be shared. Blood and urine stored so it can be analyzed 10 years from now on. Clean the record books, because they mean nothing as it stands and taint races instead of adding prestige. Open the game: Share to people why cycling is actually cleaner than most sports, and apply the same rules accordingly.
Meanwhile, every single good performance will be tainted. Might as well enjoy it. Nibali Vs Contador Vs Quintana Vs Tejay Vs Froome Vs Company: Why does it matter who wins as long as it is a good spectacle?
Is somebody seriously suggesting that Froome might be a less-worthy winner than, say, Nibali or Alberto? Are you guys for real? What if Sagan did a Candido Barbosa-impression and dropped them all on the Alps? Less worthy than Eddy, because only he is allowed to do it?
Thank god Manolo Saiz is coming up with a generation of clean champions, to compete against the Andy " do it" Rihs and Oleg "I don't care" Tinkoff.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram