Are you talking about current riders, or do retired riders who took more than 3 years to win something, also count?
All-time if they never won, trying to find the rare rider that got multiple contracts despite never winning because they were valuable in other ways to their team. Chose 3 years for current riders as I felt it often takes a couple of years for many riders to get given opportunities to ride for themselves in races.
Serry and de Kort are great shouts as it is really surprising that they haven't won at least a couple of lower level stages or one day races. Surely Craddock has won at the Tour of Utah or similar event with a mix of American teams and a few world tour squads.
Wow, definitely then a rider for whom his entire career can be termed as hype over substance.
Well, most of the “hype” for Craddock came from one Tour de France where he spent he whole race hanging off the back of the peloton with a broken collarbone. Other than that he’s been exactly what this thread is about.
I think the point is that the first win disqualifies the rider. The 3 years is to establish that it's not just someone who's biding his time for his first win, like a Tiesj Benoot. (Who actually also was a pro for 3 years before he won Strade Bianche).
Not really. At the time, Craddock really was a proper GC hope. He finished 7th in USA Pro Challenge and 8th in California at age of 21, added 5th in u-23 WC ITT that year. Next year he improved with 3rd overall in California. He was genuinely seen as someone who could maybe not win GTs, but be around top10 level and win smaller stage races. Unfortunately, like many American riders, his progress has stalled around that age.
EDIT: I've just looked at his thread on this forum and he had been called the next Greg LeMond in 2010 already.
Given the variance in depth of field across the world for National Championships I would overlook that one.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram