Dumoulin.

Page 25 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 11, 2012
416
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
"Jeff"":33rhkud7][quote="Benotti69 said:
33. IPOZZOVIVO Domenico
34. SCHLECK Frank
35. DUMOULIN Tom
36. MEINTJES Louis
37. JEANDESBOZ Fabrice
38. VALVERDE BELMONTE Alejandro
39. CARDOSO MARTINS André Fernando S.
40. MORENO FERNANDEZ Daniel
41. POLJANSKI Pawel
42. CONTI Valerio

ooh what a fine bunch of squeaky clean guys all finishing together after 3 hard weeks of racing............not.
[quote=""Jeff"":33rhkud7]
So essentially the whole peloton is doped, with exception of those who dont stand out.
[/quote]


Welcome to professional cycling and yes the whole peloton dopes. Why would teams hire guys who wont dope when there are loads who will? There are no exceptions, IMO.

[quote=""Jeff"":33rhkud7]
Why does this sub forum even exist. [/quote]

Not compulsory to read teh clinic never mind post in it. Most of those who do, understand that sport is riddled with doping. Those who dont post or read, dont give a fig. Then there are those who for some reason want to believe that there are 'good' guys out there training harder than the dopers (impossible) and beating them because good always triumphs over bad. Aint that right Bjarne, Eddie, Bernard, Fausto, Miguel............


[quote=""Jeff"":33rhkud7]

I cant imagine it was ever created to be like this.[/quote]

So only some viewpoints can be held, those that you agree with? Or can posters voice their opinions?

I am all for free speech, even those who blindly wear the fandom of nationalism firmly on their sleeves and condemn those who wont agree.....

But hey it is only sport, albeit a dirty one.[/quote]If you think the whole peloton is doped, than I am okay with that opinion if you say that a couple of times. Point taken. Thats something different than me saying that people should only post stuff I agree with. Its unfortunate that I have to explain this difference.

However, if you constantly come up with these conspiracies, together with witty comments, useless information and even list a bunch of nobodies that finished between place 34th and 42nd in yesterday's stage as dopers....than yes, than I think you are a waste of space here.

Than there's absolutely nothing to discuss, nothing.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

[quote=""Jeff"":3ikqdpay]

If you think the whole peloton is doped, than I am okay with that opinion if you say that a couple of times. Point taken. Thats something different than me saying that people should only post stuff I agree with. Its unfortunate that I have to explain this difference.

However, if you constantly come up with these conspiracies, together with witty comments, useless information and even list a bunch of nobodies that finished between place 34th and 42nd in yesterday's stage as dopers....than yes, than I think you are a waste of space here.

Than there's absolutely nothing to discuss, nothing.[/quote]

Conspiracies?

Where is the anti-doping? Oh yeah it is run by UCI? So how do you expect a sport to police itself?

It has not done it till now, so why anyone with half a brain would expect to compete against clean athletes when the DS got rich by doping, the owner wants wins, the team has 4 doctors, the masseuse is telling you only the stupid guys get caught and the mechanics and bus drivers wants their bonus at the end of the so you better get with the program....

You go look at UCI's doping PDF document and you will find it full of nobodies caught doping. Now you tell me how they were not winning and Dumoulin is winning 2 stages at a tough Vuelta and only lost 4 mins for a TTer on a tough mountain stage.

The number of tests has reduced, the budget for testing has been reduced, Cookson has failed to take a hardline on doping, so with all this information we are supposed to think hey there are clean guys doing it and only 4mins from a GT win against the likes of Astana? Santa will be coming soon so be good boys and girls!

Of course he did clean, sure is he not a nice little Dutch boy?
 
LaFlorecita said:
Yes, Schleck, Valverde and Moreno are nobodies.

Yet an entire list of names was given, implying that all of them were doping. So to be fair, there are as much nobodies there as there are somebodies. Which is where Jeff was going when it was said that half of those guys were known dopers and the other half at least suspected of carrying the same habits, which is not true.
 
Re:

BigMac said:
LaFlorecita said:
Yes, Schleck, Valverde and Moreno are nobodies.

Yet an entire list of names was given, implying that all of them were doping. So to be fair, there are as much nobodies there as there are somebodies. Which is where Jeff was going when it was said that half of those guys were known dopers and the other half at least suspected of carrying the same habits, which is not true.
No:

pmcg76 said:
Finishing alongside Fabrice Jeandebosz, Louis Meintjes, Valerio Conti or Yukiya Arashiro hardly screams amazing performance either.
Then:

Benotti69 said:
33. IPOZZOVIVO Domenico
34. SCHLECK Frank
35. DUMOULIN Tom
36. MEINTJES Louis
37. JEANDESBOZ Fabrice
38. VALVERDE BELMONTE Alejandro
39. CARDOSO MARTINS André Fernando S.
40. MORENO FERNANDEZ Daniel
41. POLJANSKI Pawel
42. CONTI Valerio

ooh what a fine bunch of squeaky clean guys all finishing together after 3 hard weeks of racing............not.
If someone is going to cherry-pick a couple guys Dumoulin finished with to prove he is clean, then don't be surprised when someone else shows the full results which show there are several dodgy guys in there too.
 
Re:

BigMac said:
I stand corrected. Doesn't change much however. It says more about the 'dodgy' guys having a bad day than anything else.
Well done, someone showing a bit of clear thinking. Schleck is nowhere the rider he was a few years ago and had his stage win so what did he have to ride for? Valverde faded badly and is clearly a very tired rider regardless of whether doped or not. As you said, the fact these 'dodgy' guys were finishing with the other names listed says more about how poorly they did than anything else.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

pmcg76 said:
BigMac said:
I stand corrected. Doesn't change much however. It says more about the 'dodgy' guys having a bad day than anything else.
Well done, someone showing a bit of clear thinking. Schleck is nowhere the rider he was a few years ago and had his stage win so what did he have to ride for? Valverde faded badly and is clearly a very tired rider regardless of whether doped or not. As you said, the fact these 'dodgy' guys were finishing with the other names listed says more about how poorly they did than anything else.
Schleck not the doper he was under Riis, but still no doubt doping. Piti having a better career post ban, but with riders on the juice how does a clean rider get near them after 3 weeks. Impossible. Schleck, Piti and all have trained better with dope, raced better with dope and recovered better with dope so how does a clean rider even get a sniff near these guys? He cant.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
pmcg76 said:
BigMac said:
I stand corrected. Doesn't change much however. It says more about the 'dodgy' guys having a bad day than anything else.
Well done, someone showing a bit of clear thinking. Schleck is nowhere the rider he was a few years ago and had his stage win so what did he have to ride for? Valverde faded badly and is clearly a very tired rider regardless of whether doped or not. As you said, the fact these 'dodgy' guys were finishing with the other names listed says more about how poorly they did than anything else.
Schleck not the doper he was under Riis, but still no doubt doping. Piti having a better career post ban, but with riders on the juice how does a clean rider get near them after 3 weeks. Impossible. Schleck, Piti and all have trained better with dope, raced better with dope and recovered better with dope so how does a clean rider even get a sniff near these guys? He cant.
Because as has been pointed out, those guys are nowhere near what is considered their best. As plenty of people have pointed out, doping doesn't prevent people from having bad days or bad form. It still happens.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

pmcg76 said:
Benotti69 said:
pmcg76 said:
BigMac said:
I stand corrected. Doesn't change much however. It says more about the 'dodgy' guys having a bad day than anything else.
Well done, someone showing a bit of clear thinking. Schleck is nowhere the rider he was a few years ago and had his stage win so what did he have to ride for? Valverde faded badly and is clearly a very tired rider regardless of whether doped or not. As you said, the fact these 'dodgy' guys were finishing with the other names listed says more about how poorly they did than anything else.
Schleck not the doper he was under Riis, but still no doubt doping. Piti having a better career post ban, but with riders on the juice how does a clean rider get near them after 3 weeks. Impossible. Schleck, Piti and all have trained better with dope, raced better with dope and recovered better with dope so how does a clean rider even get a sniff near these guys? He cant.
Because as has been pointed out, those guys are nowhere near what is considered their best. As plenty of people have pointed out, doping doesn't prevent people from having bad days or bad form. It still happens.
Check out Valverde results prior to doping ban and post doping ban. No drop off and better in a lot of cases.

Yes, dopers have bad days. Check out Sean Kelly losing 10+ mins in the yellow jersey.
 
Re: Re:

"Jeff"":3dvi618h][quote="EarnstMorrissey said:
"Jeff"":3dvi618h][quote="Benotti69 said:
33. IPOZZOVIVO Domenico
34. SCHLECK Frank
35. DUMOULIN Tom
36. MEINTJES Louis
37. JEANDESBOZ Fabrice
38. VALVERDE BELMONTE Alejandro
39. CARDOSO MARTINS André Fernando S.
40. MORENO FERNANDEZ Daniel
41. POLJANSKI Pawel
42. CONTI Valerio

ooh what a fine bunch of squeaky clean guys all finishing together after 3 hard weeks of racing............not.
So essentially the whole peloton is doped, with exception of those who dont stand out.

Why does this sub forum even exist.

I cant imagine it was ever created to be like this.
Half of those guys are known dopers the other half suspected dopers. Just because you didn't dope on a given day doesn't mean you don't dope. The whole peleton is doped. The majority of them cheated to get where they are and they shouldn't be excused because they took it easy at the end of a 3 week tour. Dumoulin probably didn't think he was going to be in contention past the last time trial, so didn't prepare for beyond then.[/quote]Your opinion is not a fact that half of those guys are known dopers.

If you think the whole peloton is doped, that's fine with me, but than this is an useless section for you.[/quote]
Maybe, but it is a fact that Schleck and Valverde have served doping suspensions.

Meanwhile Moreno and Pozzovivo have been implicated before and have a long history of dodgy teams...
 
Sep 9, 2015
22
0
0
If you dope, you will have better recovery. So, the odds of a bad day are lower than when you're not doping.

It doesn't mean that if you dope, you won't have bad days. If only things were so simple.

Dumoulin has been achieving above his base level. So in that respect it isn't that strange that his energy levels were depleted. However, it would have made sense if it had happened before and it didn't. Also, if could have happened a day later and nobody would have noticed.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
I have no issue with Dumoulin, particularly until something more than just 'he rode well' emerges as an indicator of doping.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

JimmyFingers said:
I have no issue with Dumoulin, particularly until something more than just 'he rode well' emerges as an indicator of doping.
i think Dumoulin rode a little better than 'well', especially for him.......but continue the obfuscation Jim. ;)
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Because I don't agree with you doesn't correspond to obfuscation. I have always stated performance does not equal proof. Dumoulin's performance was surprising but he's a young rider, and on the basis of the Vuelta one with GT potential. I also don't hold with the luddite theorising that a rider can only be good at one speciality, and that can't ever change.
 
The jury is still out for me on Tom Dumoulin. He turned pro very young and he still is very young. He was always a talent and it is not abnormal to show GT-abilities at the age of 23-24 for the first time. At least it sits better with me than being an absolute nobody until the age of 28-29 and then not showing some talent for GT's but basically going from zero to hero out of nowhere (you know whom I am talking about).
 
Aug 11, 2012
416
0
0
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
"Jeff"":2m51zgbe][quote="EarnstMorrissey said:
"Jeff"":2m51zgbe][quote="Benotti69 said:
33. IPOZZOVIVO Domenico
34. SCHLECK Frank
35. DUMOULIN Tom
36. MEINTJES Louis
37. JEANDESBOZ Fabrice
38. VALVERDE BELMONTE Alejandro
39. CARDOSO MARTINS André Fernando S.
40. MORENO FERNANDEZ Daniel
41. POLJANSKI Pawel
42. CONTI Valerio

ooh what a fine bunch of squeaky clean guys all finishing together after 3 hard weeks of racing............not.
So essentially the whole peloton is doped, with exception of those who dont stand out.

Why does this sub forum even exist.

I cant imagine it was ever created to be like this.
Half of those guys are known dopers the other half suspected dopers. Just because you didn't dope on a given day doesn't mean you don't dope. The whole peleton is doped. The majority of them cheated to get where they are and they shouldn't be excused because they took it easy at the end of a 3 week tour. Dumoulin probably didn't think he was going to be in contention past the last time trial, so didn't prepare for beyond then.
Your opinion is not a fact that half of those guys are known dopers.

If you think the whole peloton is doped, that's fine with me, but than this is an useless section for you.[/quote]
Maybe, but it is a fact that Schleck and Valverde have served doping suspensions.

Meanwhile Moreno and Pozzovivo have been implicated before and have a long history of dodgy teams...[/quote]He was saying, half known dopers and the other half suspected dopers. Lets not get crazy. That's an opinion. No need to point out the obvious cases.
 
Mar 27, 2012
23
0
0
Re:

JimmyFingers said:
I have no issue with Dumoulin, particularly until something more than just 'he rode well' emerges as an indicator of doping.
am i right in thinking that up until this year's vuelta dumoulin had similar-ish climbing abilities to cancellara..."if true" then imagine if cancellara had entered this race and pretty much won it...it would be the most ridiculous thing ever seen in cycling.
 
Jun 15, 2015
273
0
0
Re: Re:

distanced said:
JimmyFingers said:
I have no issue with Dumoulin, particularly until something more than just 'he rode well' emerges as an indicator of doping.
am i right in thinking that up until this year's vuelta dumoulin had similar-ish climbing abilities to cancellara...
No. You are very wrong.
Just skimming over his results for this season should be enough to realize it. This is also a fairly young rider we are talking about obviously.
 
Mar 27, 2012
23
0
0
Re: Re:

Supimilian said:
distanced said:
JimmyFingers said:
I have no issue with Dumoulin, particularly until something more than just 'he rode well' emerges as an indicator of doping.
am i right in thinking that up until this year's vuelta dumoulin had similar-ish climbing abilities to cancellara...
No. You are very wrong.
Just skimming over his results for this season should be enough to realize it. This is also a fairly young rider we are talking about obviously.
can accept i m wrong if that's the case...have only noticed dumoulin's time trialling the last 2years and spartacus having won tour de suisse just naturally assumed that if dumoulin had tour de suisse winning abilities then assumed i would have noticed that.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Dumoulin was not even considered by his own team to be a top 10 placer, never mind anyone who follows the sport closely and people think he only 'rode well'!!

The guy nearly won it!
 
Aug 11, 2012
416
0
0
Re: Re:

Supimilian said:
distanced said:
JimmyFingers said:
I have no issue with Dumoulin, particularly until something more than just 'he rode well' emerges as an indicator of doping.
am i right in thinking that up until this year's vuelta dumoulin had similar-ish climbing abilities to cancellara...
No. You are very wrong.
Just skimming over his results for this season should be enough to realize it. This is also a fairly young rider we are talking about obviously.
Correct. This is something people tend to forget constantly, his age. Its not that he has been in the peloton for years already. Not every rider immediately hits top 10 in his first GT. Whether Tommeke is doped or not, that's just a lame argument.
 
Jun 15, 2015
273
0
0
Re: Re:

distanced said:
.have only noticed dumoulin's time trialling the last 2years and spartacus having won tour de suisse just naturally assumed that if dumoulin had tour de suisse winning abilities then assumed i would have noticed that.
It was an easy tailor made route when he won suisse. He was lighter that year I think because of targeting the worlds at home. This year was a harder than average TdS course and Tom nearly won.

Benotti69 said:
Dumoulin was not even considered by his own team to be a top 10 placer, never mind anyone who follows the sport closely and people think he only 'rode well'!!

The guy nearly won it!
It was a breakout performance, sure.
Was it beyond what is considered a 'human' performance? No. By no means was his vuelta particularly suspect seen in isolation. No flashes of superhuman ability at all.
Was it a huge improvement (think Froome) from usual level? At times, but as a whole within what one could realistically see from a rising star.
And yes, he has been mentioned as a rider that could be one of the future faces of the sport, even before this.
He has been remarkably consistent and strong with his placings in general these last few years as a young rider at this level.

If you want to crucify him on the basis that all top riders are dopers that's not an uninformed view considering the history. But to suggest this is anything outrageous or particularly worthy of scrutiny compared to many, many other performances this year is somewhat funny.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS