Libertine Seguros said:
Or, or or or, Hoste's career had tailed off to the point of his being more or less irrelevant at the time that took place.
but Armstrong is no longer even active and still talked about, every single day.
Okay, then, take the Mantova Case. Why is it hardly ever discussed on here? The main victim of it still is Ballan ...
Libertine Seguros said:
Cancellara doesn't get ignored by the Clinic, nor did Gilbert's miracle year or OPQS' resurgence the following year when Ibarguren jumped ship.
Again, when we are in April, people suddenly remember there are classics out there and so they discuss whether it's credible or not but once we are in May, forget about them. GT riders and Armstrong are just talked about 365 days a year, here. That's not serious for a forum that is meant to be specialised in cycling. If it were but Eurosport.com, I would understand (and even so) but this is meant to be
cyclingnews.com
Libertine Seguros said:
Do you honestly, genuinely think people have ignored Mapei's Roubaix or Gewiss-Ballan at Flèche Wallonne as iconic doping performances?
I'm not sure people remember Mapei's Roubaix outside of "Enlightened Libertine" (sic).
Look, do you know what shocked me? By 2008 or so (don't exactly remember), the Gazzetta revealed that Michele Bartoli was actually Sansone on the Fuentes list. NOT A WORD in the international press. Nobody discussed that on the forums. And I'm still sure that many people don't even know that Bartoli has been confounded for doping. I learnt that myself much later. Bartoli is certainly a big name in the classics in the 90's. He stole a huge palmares. When Van Hooydonck made his public accusations against the Italians - at the 1994 Flèche brabançonne, it was -, who won the race?
Who remembered that Giorgio Furlan was a donkey becoming a race horse winning the Arrow, Milan-Sanremo and being 2nd to a teammate in Lombardy?
Libertine Seguros said:
Also, because the Classics are one-day races, there's an element of luck on the day - you're feeling good, others aren't, weather, crashes, and so on - that often evens itself out over the course of a GT, which doesn't in the Classics. I would therefore argue that it is more reasonable to make the assumption that a Classic can be won clean than that a GT can be won clean.
The idea that a classic can be won clean or not is an issue that can raise an interesting debate on a cycling forum. But I guess that has never been an issue here.
Libertine Seguros said:
The Armstrong threads went postal because of the enormity of his profile in the sport, which dwarfs that of Museeuw, regardless of your attitudes to the races he won (I despised his "all for the TdF and nothing else" calendar just as much as you, btw) or didn't win now... and because this is an Anglophone forum.
Yet the palmares that he stole is no bigger than those Museeuw and Jalabert stole. Besides, they doped a lot more. It was the 90's, remember ...
Libertine Seguros said:
Even in some traditional countries, the same happens. Would you argue, for example, that Spain is not a traditional cycling country? Yet they have very little history of Classics racing, and their calendar has historically revolved almost entirely around stage racing and single-day races finishing on mountaintops (Subida al Naranco, Subida a Urkiola, Subida a Arrate and so on).
I was in Spain in 1996 for the "iconic" Mapei Roubaix sweep and watched the race live on Spanish TV.
I've never showed any disrespect to the Spanish stage races, I've talked a lot about the late Catalan Week on these boards. I have most respect to Portuguese discussing the Tour of Portugal, to South American posters discussing South American races, etc. I'm just fed up with fanboys/girls (or haters too) discussing the same riders from the same 3 races for 12 months a year.
Libertine Seguros said:
However, at the same time, I resent the implication that all of us on the forum, with the exception of the enlightened Echoes, are mouth-breathing ignoramuses for not focusing all of our attention on the Classics to the exclusion of all else, because we don't remember that back in the 70s the Scheldeprijs wasn't the worst race in the entire cycling calendar and can't quote Jempy Monseré's palmarès outside of the Worlds by heart, and because we have the temerity to enjoy a multi-stage racing event which has climbs over 4km in length.
I wish you wouldn't caricature me the way you are doing here. This paragraph is full a clichés... There's no reason to refer to past/history when I'm talking about is present times. As if to ridicule me into an old-fashioned relic.
I don't consider myself a knowledgeable person with regards to cycling but I'm just very curious and interested. I love reading posts that really can teach me something interesting. Only that is not the case for 80% of them (your being in the remaining 20%
).
Libertine Seguros said:
You're a good and informative poster most of the time, doing good work to bring some attention to the historical prestige of many races and introduce fans to some strong riders whose achievements shouldn't have been buried, and your work on globalization in cycling through the ages in particular has been of great value and interest to me as somebody greatly interested in the Course de la Paix and Ostbloc cycling as a whole. Please don't turn this into a crusade.
Thank you. I think the same about you.
Cheers, Libertine.