Fabio Aru 6.5w/kg

[The Hitch]

Re:

Greg Henderson has nuts of steel. This isn't the first time he's been lively on Twitter, as far as I recall?

Meh.

I still have memories of guys like Brian Smith calling out riders for doping to appear anti doping, then defending former teammate Lance Armstrong as if he were his own son.

There are some guys who call it as it is (I am not saying calling out everyone, but acknowledging the sport still has a problem).

Some guy who got a paycheck from some teams in the peloton, calling out 1 smaller fry rider once in a while, that don't impress me much.

 

[Miburo]

LMAO this is hilarious xD

 

[Miburo]

This guy greg probably thought he could be special by calling him out first then he realised it's just rumors based on not much.

LOL what a tool.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

Henderson still owes Sky and Froome for that epic push he got back in Froome's sucking days.

This made me laugh

Hog's favorite picture

gracias Flo. I was rightly wondering why that pic still had not been posted since Greg was involved in this thread


cycling fans are very hard to please though.
one calls out a rider from a team who just risked to be thrown out of the WT, and we don't like it

ok ok, he's a former sky, so he's not to be trusted


anyway, I understand what members say: don't call out a rider while keeping your mouth shut about other colleagues and former colleagues

 

[timmers]

Well maybe to your and others surprise he doesn't think Froome and Porte et Al cheated! But who knows why don't you twitter him and ask. I have heard he is a reasonable guy. All I know is that on this forum for a long time people have said that Aru is dirty so why are they not backing Henderson up?

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Why are people even surprised? Aru has the word cheat written all over him, easily the most suspicious rider in the peloton in the last 3 years.

I was surprised to see him so good at the 2013 Giro, with Nibali and Kangert, while riding for Vino and going around sighting Clentador as his idol, and what we know now about Astana having organized doping of their gt teams (except their leader Nibali of course who is 100% clean and always has been ) certainly feels like those doubts have been justified.

But at least 2 other riders from that year have been easily more suspicious than him.
Edit: 3, forgot about Porte

 

[pastronef]

Re:

Well maybe to your and others surprise he doesn't think Froome and Porte et Al cheated! But who knows why don't you twitter him and ask. I have heard he is a reasonable guy. All I know is that on this forum for a long time people have said that Aru is dirty so why are they not backing Henderson up?

as I said, fans are hard to please.
I am a Porte and Froome fan, and know they are not clean.
but until Greg does not call Sky out, his claims will not be backed at all on this forum. even if he calls out a rider from Astana who just came down from Teide (yes, Teide, where my dear Sky riders train and hide from the controls)

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

Ofc Aru should sue him. That's a no brainer. His image will be tainted for a long time now.

easy tiger...

let's be kantians and extend

Sky should make all clinic living in tents than ?


i think the fact you are italian is affecting your judgement. for a second i though you think Aru is clean and he should defend his ehonor. rofl

You don't understand the difference between arguing someone is doping in the clinic and what Henderson did?

I suggest you start with basic logic before you start reading about the categorical imperative.

 

[Gaul 58]

What is Aru's agent Alex Carera playing at by saying that he does not know if Aru has a biological passport issue to answer... he should either (I) definitely know there is or (ii) definitely know there is not.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Why are people even surprised? Aru has the word cheat written all over him, easily the most suspicious rider in the peloton in the last 3 years.

Even more than Horner?
EDIT: More than Santambrogio???

You're right. I guess I'm kinda agitated, because from riders like Horner I expect nothing else than to be dirty. Somehow - and that might be naive - you hope the younger generation to give a good example and from that generation the one rider I never trusted is Aru. Not trusting someone is hardly evidence but if those suspicions get a little more weight to them it's really disappointing. I'm hoping he's clean obviously, for the sake of cycling, but if he gets caught I fear a new shitstorm coming.

The idea that young riders would somehow dope less is the biggest myth in doping. I keep hearing all the time that you can trust new generations because they are young.

I have never once seen a study that shows people under 25 are somehow more moral than people in their 30's. If anything if there were any sort of age-morality correlation I would guess it would work in the opposite direction, with people reflecting on their mistakes as they get older and becoming better.

Weve been hearing this - young generation is clean, thing for years. Even the old doping generation was once the young clean generation. Just yesterday someone posted in the wiggins thread comments from him from 2007 claiming everyone under 30 was clean and it was just those bad over 30 year olds that did it.

 

[hrotha]

While thats what the post you quoted is arguing, I don't think that's what is meant by people who look at early performances to pass judgment, usually. The theory is that serious teams would have their youngsters ride clean(ish) as a way to assess their true potential before putting them on a program. There is some contradictory evidence that this might be how ONCE/Liberty operated, for example.

What I'm saying is only tangentially related to your post, I know. I started replying before I read it carefully.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Henderson still owes Sky and Froome for that epic push he got back in Froome's sucking days.

This made me laugh

Hog's favorite picture

gracias Flo. I was rightly wondering why that pic still had not been posted since Greg was involved in this thread


cycling fans are very hard to please though.
one calls out a rider from a team who just risked to be thrown out of the WT, and we don't like it

ok ok, he's a former sky, so he's not to be trusted


anyway, I understand what members say: don't call out a rider while keeping your mouth shut about other colleagues and former colleagues

I don't understand what you find so difficult to understand about this.

You yourself believe Sky dope. So it should be pretty obvious to you why people aren't getting behind a rider for selectively calling out some dopers and not others.

BTW you may actually remember that Froome had a feud with Henderson after his book last year. So going by your narrative perhaps you should have expected more posters on here to back up Henderson. I'm pretty sure hog would have.

I don't give a *** though if henderson pissed off froome or not. Being anti omerta is not about being half arsed. Its done right or not at all, and calling out one rider while claiming the entire sport is more or less clean, is pathetic.

Its a very simple principle really, and one that you will actually find people hold in all walks of life.

Jack *** to do with Sky. Its the same reason people hated Ligget

Or were we all supposed to be grateful that Ligget was calling out the likes of Ricco and later Hamilton, Landis. We were supposed to applaud him for being real anti omerta?

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Ofc Aru should sue him. That's a no brainer. His image will be tainted for a long time now.

easy tiger...

let's be kantians and extend

Sky should make all clinic living in tents than ?


i think the fact you are italian is affecting your judgement. for a second i though you think Aru is clean and he should defend his ehonor. rofl

You don't understand the difference between arguing someone is doping in the clinic and what Henderson did?

I suggest you start with basic logic before you start reading about the categorical imperative.

As far as suing the clinic goes, according to Cound Sky are scared of suing people because of Armstrongs legacy.

Besides that, suing people for that wouldn't be good for sky. Their whole press campaign the whole time has been based around ignoring doping and hoping people forget that cycling one had a reputation as a doped sport. Everytime a journo asks a doping question they get furious, they want everyone to forget about doping in cycling. The last thing they want to do is to remind people that doping actually did exist once in cycling and that doubts still exist. Afterall, according to them everyone simply knows Wiggins and froome were clean. It is known. by the whole world and every man and beast in it.

 

[the sceptic]

Astana is an easy target. Not impressed with Henderson here. Where was he when Dawg came down "sick" after Teide, or when Henao needed a special study?

He will always be a clinic legend for his role in Mein Climb, but this screams of the good old "good doper/bad doper" mentality.

 

[hrotha]

If he did hear/read rumours about Aru being popped, then sorry but it's not comparable to Froome.

 

[Der Effe]

Re: Re:

Why are people even surprised? Aru has the word cheat written all over him, easily the most suspicious rider in the peloton in the last 3 years.

Even more than Horner?
EDIT: More than Santambrogio???

You're right. I guess I'm kinda agitated, because from riders like Horner I expect nothing else than to be dirty. Somehow - and that might be naive - you hope the younger generation to give a good example and from that generation the one rider I never trusted is Aru. Not trusting someone is hardly evidence but if those suspicions get a little more weight to them it's really disappointing. I'm hoping he's clean obviously, for the sake of cycling, but if he gets caught I fear a new shitstorm coming.

The idea that young riders would somehow dope less is the biggest myth in doping. I keep hearing all the time that you can trust new generations because they are young.

I have never once seen a study that shows people under 25 are somehow more moral than people in their 30's. If anything if there were any sort of age-morality correlation I would guess it would work in the opposite direction, with people reflecting on their mistakes as they get older and becoming better.

Weve been hearing this - young generation is clean, thing for years. Even the old doping generation was once the young clean generation. Just yesterday someone posted in the wiggins thread comments from him from 2007 claiming everyone under 30 was clean and it was just those bad over 30 year olds that did it.

You seem to connect morality with age, something I didn't intend to do. I was referring to a cultural thing, Horner is from a generation where doping was the most normal thing in the world and we've all heard stories about it being swept under the table for years - for some riders at least. The younger riders are being held under a magnifying glass so morals aside it seems way more logical to be 'cleaner', as it probably won't do yourself any good in the long run. I'm not implying they're morally superior, but I don't expect them to be self-destructive either. Also, it is a pretty common thing for one generation to denounce the generation before them. Whether it's in politics, ethics or whatever.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

If he did hear/read rumours about Aru being popped, then sorry but it's not comparable to Froome.

Considering Henderson saw how bad Froome was as a rider 1st hand, not calling Froome's stratospheric transformation as doping but calling Aru due to obvious 'preparations' is hypocritical.

But we have seen plenty of hypocrisy, Kittel calling out Sayer, but ignoring WT riders. Wiggins calling it in 2007 then complete u-turn on dopers.

Nothing new for cycling.

 

[hrotha]

The Kittel thing has been discussed at length. Suffice to say not everybody agrees he ignored WT riders.

Henderson didn't call Aru out for his performances, remember? He called him out for what he thought was tripping the passport.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

The Kittel thing has been discussed at length. Suffice to say not everybody agrees he ignored WT riders.

Henderson didn't call Aru out for his performances, remember? He called him out for what he thought was tripping the passport.

And Ligget didn't call Landis and Hamilton out for their performances. He called them out for confessing. Armstrong hadn't confessed. So it was ok for Ligget to attack Landis and Hamilton but not Armstrong?

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

Greg Henderson has nuts of steel. This isn't the first time he's been lively on Twitter, as far as I recall?

Meh.

I still have memories of scum like Brian Smith calling out riders for doping to appear anti doping, then defending former teammate Lance Armstrong as if he were his own son.

There are some guys who call it as it is (I am not saying calling out everyone, but aknowledging the sport still has a problem).

Some guy who got a paycheck from some teams in the peloton, calling out 1 smaller fry rider once in a while, that don't impress me much.

I recall just within the past year or so the NBC/Universal Sport duo of Schlanger and Gogolski implying that Quintana was on the juice due to his performance in a hilly itt. I'd never heard broadcasters just out of the blue after an event ramble on about how questionable a rider's performance once hinting at the rider's likely use of PED's.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

If finishing your 2nd GT 3rd and your 3rd GT 5th (plus 3 stage wins) all in the same year, while riding for Astana, doesn't ring any alarm bells, what does?

I don't know. What about getting a 2nd place at the Tour at your second GT and a 1st at the Giro at your 3rd?

With the huge difference these results are from seperate years. Quintana is an insane talent. Not saying Aru isn't highly talented but even GC riders at their prime would seriously have a hard time finishing 2 GT's in top 5 in the same year. Imagine doing that when you're 23/24. I understand where you're coming from, as it doesn't prove anything, but I am not surprised at all if true.

How old was Hinault when he did the Vuelta-Tour double?

I'd say it's less suspicious for young riders to do very well in GTs than riders suddenly taking it to the next level while being 26 or 28 like Froome and Porte.

 

[the sceptic]

how does the Aru thing look more suspicious than when Henao needed a special Cookson approved independent study, or when Dawg got "sick" after coming down from Teide last year?

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

The Kittel thing has been discussed at length. Suffice to say not everybody agrees he ignored WT riders.

Henderson didn't call Aru out for his performances, remember? He called him out for what he thought was tripping the passport.

And Ligget didn't call Landis and Hamilton out for their performances. He called them out for confessing. Armstrong hadn't confessed. So it was ok for Ligget to attack Landis and Hamilton but not Armstrong?

No but that's not the same thing, as Liggett was only being consistent in his position.

Henderson is being called out as a hypocrite for applying double standards that aren't being evidenced in this particular instance. The important thing to consider is he didn't call out Aru at random, but only when he thought he was going down. Sadly, Froome isn't going down. You could argue he should have called out Aru before, together with and after calling out Nibali, Froome, Wiggins and their little dog. That's fine. But the simple fact is that, after Aru's rumours that Henderson believed were absolutely true and that would explode in a matter of days, there's a very significant difference with Froome.

Come on, Hitch. You're objective enough to see it.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

The idea that young riders would somehow dope less is the biggest myth in doping. I keep hearing all the time that you can trust new generations because they are young.

I have never once seen a study that shows people under 25 are somehow more moral than people in their 30's. If anything if there were any sort of age-morality correlation I would guess it would work in the opposite direction, with people reflecting on their mistakes as they get older and becoming better.

Weve been hearing this - young generation is clean, thing for years. Even the old doping generation was once the young clean generation. Just yesterday someone posted in the wiggins thread comments from him from 2007 claiming everyone under 30 was clean and it was just those bad over 30 year olds that did it.

I think it's quite logical that the % of dopers are lower among young riders than old riders.

What is more likely, a rider who started out clean as neo-pro and later started doping to keep his dream alive of being a pro rider or a rider who started doping from the U-23 or amateur days and then after getting pro at some point in their career (even though they have never been caught) stopped doping all of a sudden?

What is more likely, a rider who has been clean his entire career and who will never dope or a rider who has always doped and always will, for them to be able to stay in the peloton from they are 21 to 42? Or basically, do you think dopers and clean riders are equally likely to still have a contract when they hit 35?

Based on those two questions alone, I think it's fair to deduct that the % of dopers are lower among young riders than old ones.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

The Kittel thing has been discussed at length. Suffice to say not everybody agrees he ignored WT riders.

Henderson didn't call Aru out for his performances, remember? He called him out for what he thought was tripping the passport.

And Ligget didn't call Landis and Hamilton out for their performances. He called them out for confessing. Armstrong hadn't confessed. So it was ok for Ligget to attack Landis and Hamilton but not Armstrong?

No but that's not the same thing, as Liggett was only being consistent in his * position.

Henderson is being called out as a hypocrite for applying double standards that aren't being evidenced in this particular instance. The important thing to consider is he didn't call out Aru at random, but only when he thought he was going down. Sadly, Froome isn't going down. You could argue he should have called out Aru before, together with and after calling out Nibali, Froome, Wiggins and their little dog. That's fine. But the simple fact is that, after Aru's rumours that Henderson believed were absolutely true and that would explode in a matter of days, there's a very significant difference with Froome.

Come on, Hitch. You're objective enough to see it.

I'm not saying its double standards, but that it's wrong to only call out one rider when you think they are down while claiming the sport is clean as Henderson has.

Thats exactly what all the Armstrong crowd was doing in the 2000's. Calling out the occasional positive from an easy target to appear anti doping and make the sport appear anti doping while in the long run defending a culture that allowed their favourite dopers to prosper.

On the face of it it could just be one innocent rider attacking someone he knows dopes.
But after a decade of this kind of comment almost always being self serving, imo it is no longer enough to just say "go to hell Simeoni/Ricco/Di Luca/Santambrogio/Sayer/ Aru/ other south european rider, we don't want your type in our totally clean sport, yay Im anti doping!!!"

The guys who are anti doping talk about the wider problem and acknowledge the difficulties of fighting doping. Those trying to score political points and take advantage of the situation for their own gain, pick on one weak target while pretending the sport is clean.

Forget Froome, if Henderson is really anti doping he could call out someone like Valverde who is winning right now, or Contador who is winning now. I certainly wouldn't call him a hypocrite for doing that because attacking someone who is winning NOW is to aknowledge the sport is dirty.

They never do that though. They only pick on the people who are down and on their way out or in this case, on someone he thought was down and on the way out. Weak targets. While claiming the sport is clean. And supporting the narrative that all dopers get caught.