CNF Clinic Award: Most Suspicious Performance of 2013

[FoxxyBrown1111]

In that case, I see gradual progress with Horner.

2006 TDF - 33rd
2007 TDF - 14th
2010 TDF- 9th
2013 Vuelta - 1st.

Let me enlighten you: Performance declines with age. Porte OTOH isn´t 40.
You have to learn a lot (I sincerely hope "Big Doopie" is wrong, so that you are able to)

 

[The Hitch]

Liar... You read posts they way that they fit your assumptions
Liar... You accuse riders of doping, yet you don´t back it up as you just said you do
Liar... I didn´t say this (the bolded)
Liar... I didn´t say stupid liar. Simply told the truth (you being a liar)
Liar... I did not attack anyone calling people as demented (it was "Big Doopie" who called you, only you)
Liar... I didn´t wrote something totally different than what i meant (check Wallace´posts for clarification, may you understand his english better than mine)

I think all these are easily refutable with quotations from the forum.

Certainly with regard to the accusation that I don't back up why I think riders are doping, I can show you several long posts from my posting history that explain at lentgh exactly why I believe certain riders are doping, and I comment and commend on other posts from other posters such as Libertine Seguros that offer similar explanations.

And I think some of your denials are certainly questionable and if we went into detail with them, you'd be fighting a losing battle, (eg the idea that it was just Big Doopie who said I was demented, when you quoted his post and added the phrase "at least it would explain a lot")

However I think the original discussion of whether Horner did break those records (posters can judge for themselves if they think he did or didn't) must have been annoying enough for everyone else, so I'll let it slide.

 

[ferryman]

Welcome to the season of Goodwill and all that eh. I've come late to this as I've been at work today but seriously guys

A major clean up may be required unless the personals stop here and now (scary Mod threat). Nobody has to have the parting shot here....

 

[gooner]

Give me a break with this arms race starting with Sky, or was Contador smashing it on Verbier on paniagua?

And what rider was exactly Horner getting juiced up to take on at Sky at the Vuelta?

Yeah, Horner's a victim.

 

[the sceptic]

Give me a break with this arms race starting with Sky, or was Contador smashing it on Verbier on paniagua?

And what rider was exactly Horner getting juiced up to take on at Sky at the Vuelta?

Yeah, Horner's a victim.

I thought climbing fast didnt count as evidence for doping.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Yes, but sky dominated the sport for about 2 years winning everything that mattered easily, thus starting a new arms race. Horner is just a victim of skys doping.

Ok thanks. I can learn something here. If someone dominates a sport it can only come from starting a new and better cheating model, but not from having the highest payroll, the best (mostly) young(er) riders, etc...

Poor Horner, 1st he was victim of Epo/blood dopers. So much so that he couldn´t even hold on a contract with a 2nd tier team, yet being in his best years, then HTC Columbia (must have been the dirtiest ever if going by your theory) got in his way, dominating (almost) everything and all, then Sky came along. I guess he should ride until his mid 50s to get a fair chance for the 5 or 6 GT wins he should have as best rider ever. The one who can win easily at 41 would have won en masse aged 28-33 (only if the field was clean).

Problem with that theory is: He had his best power outputs at ages 37+. Shouldn´t he have produced the same (or even better) when aged 27, and thus at least have a contract like Moncoutie and Casar?

Maybe if everyone was still clean like in 2010, he could have won the vuelta clean as well.

So you mean Horner started doping in 2011 when Sky started winning and doping came along? Is that correct? Poor Chris was forced to dope b/c of Sky. I guess he started at the ToC then, b/c he knew in advance Sky will dominate from later on in the season...

 

[ferryman]

Give me a break with this arms race starting with Sky, or was Contador smashing it on Verbier on paniagua?

And what rider was exactly Horner getting juiced up to take on at Sky at the Vuelta?

Yeah, Horner's a victim.

Gooner, go and look at the Verbier result again. No smashing done that day

My (cheap) tuppence said, back to Horner Without the personals please..

 

[LaFlorecita]

I thought climbing fast didnt count as evidence for doping.

You are right, Contador is cleans. Good point.

 

[red_flanders]

Froome is explainable given his age and career path.

Repeating this over and over doesn't make it believable to anyone...well maybe to you, I can't say. But it's complete nonsense.

 

[BroDeal]

I thought climbing fast didnt count as evidence for doping.

That only applies to Brits (and those who claim they always felt British.) When anyone else climbs as fast as climbing records set by dopers it is clear evidence of doping.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I think all these are easily refutable with quotations from the forum.

Certainly with regard to the accusation that I don't back up why I think riders are doping, I can show you several long posts from my posting history that explain at lentgh exactly why I believe certain riders are doping, and I comment and commend on other posts from other posters such as Libertine Seguros that offer similar explanations.

Same I do. I explain why I think riders are doping. The difference is, I only do it when I am certain, I don´t accuse them (almost) all and randomly.
But what I don´t: I never start attacks, I never force words into the mouth of others that they didn´t say, I don´t start lying to proof a point.

And I think some of your denials are certainly questionable and if we went into detail with them, you'd be fighting a losing battle, (eg the idea that it was just Big Doopie who said I was demented, when you quoted his post and added the phrase "at least it would explain a lot")

I don´t need to battle. But when it´s time, I am ready: You started the fire by picking each sentence apart to your liking (not the first time BTW) from my original post to the OP question. You played your game with splitting hairs. I am not into that, b/c discussions get lost over such irrelevant details.

When you lie and/or twist words into something totally different than originally said, people get mad (not only me, but "Big Doopie" too for example).

I don´t know if there were others than "Big Doopie" to call you demented or whatever (I don´t have the time to read every members post). But what you expect? If you can´t discuss in a friendly matter, you should be able to take some flak from other members.

However I think the original discussion of whether Horner did break those records (posters can judge for themselves if they think he did or didn't) must have been annoying enough for everyone else, so I'll let it slide.

That one i agree 100%. Actually I said it yesterday already (not that you start to splitting hairs again; I didn´t use the excact same words as you now).

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Repeating this over and over doesn't make it believable to anyone...well maybe to you, I can't say. But it's complete nonsense.

Guess you didnt get Foxxy's memo? Doping stopped when Armstrong fell.

Pathetic.

Horner = bad

Froome = good

Foxxy = fill in the blanks, I would say hypocritical, but hey, thats just me

Or:

Fozzy was bored and thought lets play on the webz

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Repeating this over and over doesn't make it believable to anyone...well maybe to you, I can't say. But it's complete nonsense.

You asked me a question you did before (in the Horner thread IIRC). What did you expect? A different answer? I know you don´t change your POV, I don´t change mine (unless news hit the light that counter my assumptions).
I told you before, I respect your view but don´t agree.

If my POV is believable for others or not, I don´t know. But I see many people think in the same direction (including merited journalists, experts, and "clinic members")...

 

[The Hitch]

Repeating this over and over doesn't make it believable to anyone...well maybe to you, I can't say. But it's complete nonsense.

What I don't understand is how someone can say Froome is explainable, when at the same time they say Santambrogio (who won 1 giro stage which was gifted to him) is one of the most obvious dopers

I only get upset when i see wayyy over top cheating like i saw/see of Horner or Santambrogio this year...

But I make a difference between those who spit right into my face like Horner, Santa or Mosquera, and those who i can accept as possible.

Also I like how Mosquera is there as well.

Why?

Lets play spot the similarity.

Image 1 is the only major victory Eze ever had.

Image 2 is the only major victory Santa ever had.

Who's that right behind them, genetlemenly gifting them the stage win both times cos he knows he has the overall (see jersey) wrapped up.

Oh thats right, clean Vincenzo Nibali (who got the floor wiped with him by Froome when he went against him the last 2 times in gts)

But Santa and Eze are the obvious dopers?

Where on earth is the logic in that?

 

[python]

Repeating this over and over doesn't make it believable to anyone...well maybe to you, I can't say. But it's complete nonsense.

do you mind, if i apply your own phrases to you, red flanders, a poster whose opinions i usually respect...repeating the disagreement with foxybrown over and over does not make it believable to anyone. wait ! anyone ? how would a good fella red flanders know the opinion of anyone, much less everyone ? granted, i personally agree with your opinion against the foxybrown's opinion - froome is a red-hot suspect for doping, but who gave you the right to speak for everyone else ?? you seem to overreach just as blatantly as your accusation against the foxy you seem to have a personal issue with. i can disagree with him without your rhetoric and yet to respect your posting when i find it appropriate. can you ?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

What I don't understand is how someone can say Froome is explainable, when at the same time they say Santambrogio (who won 1 giro stage which was gifted to him) is one of the most obvious dopers

Also I like how Mosquera is there as well.

Why?

Lets play spot the similarity.

Image 1 is the only major victory Eze ever had.

Image 2 is the only major victory Santa ever had.

Who's that right behind them, genetlemenly gifting them the stage win both times cos he knows he has the overall (see jersey) wrapped up.

Oh thats right, clean Vincenzo Nibali (who got the floor wiped with him by Froome when he went against him the last 2 times in gts)

But Santa and Eze are the obvious dopers?

Where on earth is the logic in that?

What you don´t get after almost 3 years repeating to you the same again and again?
I suspect riders who come out of nowhere (especially at an age where most riders have retired or declined very much), and all of a sudden cope with the best in the world and then disappear again.
Santa never was a GT contender and boom he comes around at age 29 doing a Armstrong. Where was he the previous 8 GTs?
Mosquera "my (former) favourite". Never rode a GT before, finishes T-5 at age 32, disappears, next year the same (just one year older), and again and again... The most obvious heavy doper until old Chris came along

OTOH Nibali & Froome, of whom I never said they are clean* (and you know it), bring constant performances year round. Nibali this year was only one of two riders who finished in seven T-10s in one season stage races the past decade. Now some people think he risks a doping-bust in each one of them. I find that illogical, risking a career for max 5.000 € prize money, be it january or octobre. Even more heavy cynics (those who accuse all and everybody randomly) go as far to say he does blood manipulation year round 24/7 for 5 consecutive years just to keep the passport normal.

Yet another OTOH, old(er) "all-in-guys" like Horner risk it all once per year and breath a deep sigh of relief when they come away with it once more. Those are the obvious dopers. The can´t miss guys. Horner is the king of them all.


* The world isn´t black/white to me. When a blatant obvious doper like Horner comes around it doesn´t mean others are 100% squeaky clean. Much shades of grey in between. I told you 100 times that i don´t know if Froome and/or Nibali dope.

 

[Netserk]

Mosquera "my (former) favourite". Never rode a GT before, finishes podium at age 32, disappears, next year the same (just one year older), and again and again...

Huh? Did you see some different GTs the last years than I did?

OTOH Nibali & Froome, of whom I never said they are clean* (and you know it), bring constant performances year round. Nibali this year was only one of two riders who finished in seven T-10s in one season stage races the past decade. Now some people think he risks a doping-bust in each one of them. I find that illogical, risking a career for max 5.000 € prize money, be it january or octobre. Even more heavy cynics (those who accuse all and everybody randomly) go as far to say he does blood manipulation year round 24/7 for 5 consecutive years just to keep the passport normal.

The other one being Mr. Clean Valverde.....

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Where have you been? I expected you earlier to join the party...

Guess you didnt get Foxxy's memo? Doping stopped when Armstrong fell.

Never said this. But you have a link, right? Good luck...

Pathetic.

Horner = very bad

Froome = ok

Corrected for you.

Foxxy = fill in the blanks, I would say hypocritical, but hey, thats just me

Or:

Fozzy was bored and thought lets play on the webz

Hypocritical... sure, says the one who runs mad when someone just asks questions about a certain guy, the untouchable hero, everybody else is evil.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Huh? Did you see some different GTs the last years than I did?

Sorry meant T-5. Now you got me. Congrats after the epic fail last time around (when we played school class 1)

The other one being Mr. Clean Valverde.....

Funny, isn´t it? Another heavy 24/7 year round blood manipulator since being busted for until-2006 doping offences.



sarcasm

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The other one being Mr. Clean Valverde.....

Funny, isn´t it? Another heavy 24/7 year round blood manipulator since being busted for until-2006 doping offences.



sarcasm

 

[Netserk]

Why did you delete your sarcastic post regarding Valverde?

 

[The Hitch]

]
Santa never was a GT contender and boom he comes around at age 29 doing a Armstrong. Where was he the previous 8 GTs?

Santambrogio didn't contend for a gt this year either. He had a couple of good stages that put him temporarily in the top 5 but cracked as the gt went on. Lets not exagerate by comparing him to Armstrong. If Nibali wasn't a nice guy Santambrogio wouldn't even have a gt stage to his name.

And to correct you, actually Santa was 28 and a 6 months, not yet 29, as opposed to Froome who was 26 and 3 months.

Since age matters so much to you are you really arguing that someone who is 28 and a half winning a Giro stage is so much more suspicious than a rider at 26 and a quarter actually podiuming a gt (as well as winning a stage) (and then winning the Tour with 3 stages 2 years later)?

BTW, Santa showed far far more talent in his early career than Froome did, so again I totally don't get your logic. He was actually up there in a number of well contested 1 day races from the moment he turned pro.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I put it in one post, so that we don´t use too much space. All good, no conspiracy or something.

 

[The Hitch]

What you don´t get after almost 3 years repeating to you the same again and again?
I suspect riders who come out of nowhere (especially at an age where most riders have retired or declined very much), and all of a sudden cope with the best in the world and then disappear again.
Santa never was a GT contender and boom he comes around at age 29 doing a Armstrong. Where was he the previous 8 GTs?
Mosquera "my (former) favourite". Never rode a GT before, finishes T-5 at age 32, disappears, next year the same (just one year older), and again and again... The most obvious heavy doper until old Chris came along

OTOH Nibali & Froome, of whom I never said they are clean* (and you know it), bring constant performances year round. Nibali this year was only one of two riders who finished in seven T-10s in one season stage races the past decade. Now some people think he risks a doping-bust in each one of them. I find that illogical, risking a career for max 5.000 € prize money, be it january or octobre. Even more heavy cynics (those who accuse all and everybody randomly) go as far to say he does blood manipulation year round 24/7 for 5 consecutive years just to keep the passport normal.

Yet another OTOH, old(er) "all-in-guys" like Horner risk it all once per year and breath a deep sigh of relief when they come away with it once more. Those are the obvious dopers. The can´t miss guys. Horner is the king of them all.


* The world isn´t black/white to me. When a blatant obvious doper like Horner comes around it doesn´t mean others are 100% squeaky clean. Much shades of grey in between. I told you 100 times that i don´t know if Froome and/or Nibali dope.

Also I dont get why, since for you age is what matters most, you identify Santambrogio as the guy who is spitting in your face and as together with Mosquera and Horner the most obvious doper.

Hesjedal broke out in gts aged 30. when he came 7th in the TDF He then aged 32 won the Giro.

Wiggins broke out aged 29, he came 4th in the Tour de France - an edition totally tainted by doping. He then came 3rd in the Vuelta aged 31 and won the TDF with 2 stages aged 32.

Samtabrogio broke out aged 28. He won 1 stage, then faded from the race and finished 9th.

If age is so important to you, how is Santambrogio's performance the most suspicious from these guys?
He was younger than both those riders when he broke out, and acheived far less.

I don't get it.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Santambrogio didn't contend for a gt this year either. He had a couple of good stages that put him temporarily in the top 5 but cracked as the gt went on. Lets not exagerate by comparing him to Armstrong. If Nibali wasn't a nice guy Santambrogio wouldn't even have a gt stage to his name.

He finished 9th, ten mins down. I call that a contender, same as i count Pozzo as one. Anyway, I give you that one since some people only count T-3 riders as contenders. I go with T-10, sometimes even further down the lists (depending on the gaps).

And to correct you, actually Santa was 28 and a 6 months, not yet 29, as opposed to Froome who was 26 and 3 months.

Since age matters so much to you are you really arguing that someone who is 28 and a half winning a Giro stage is so much more suspicious than a rider at 26 and a quarter actually podiuming a gt (as well as winning a stage) (and then winning the Tour with 3 stages 2 years later)?

Assuming the ages are correct (which I think, since you are very good with details ), and assuming Santa wasn´t busted, and Santa would process gradual... well, it all makes no sense since peak is around 28-30 and then decling. So he might have had another two T-10 and then disappear. Or worse, doing a Lagutin. We won´t find out.
OTOH, Froome came along at 26 with some more years to improve. I expect him to dominate two more years and then decline, while Quintana takes over. But here starts the problem: Since Horner showed the world you can manipulate as long you stay within the lines (of the passport), I expect some crazy unusal results the coming years. That´s why I started the "future GT winners thread". Who knows, maybe as soon as July a guy like Chad Haga takes over. The best years are behind us (circa 2008 until 2013*). From last september on everything is possible (again).

BTW, Santa showed far far more talent in his early career than Froome did, so again I totally don't get your logic. He was actually up there in a number of well contested 1 day races from the moment he turned pro.

Yeah a good 1-day racer. Like LA. And yeah, he showed more than Froome (you know why) and of course Horner (see my sig).

* outside a guy like AC. One of two who annoyed me soo much I dedicated a thread to.