Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Thomas's entire career until 2013 has been focused on the track while being a domestique to pay the bills. It's completely pointless to look at his road palamares to determine a riders validity or potential in the classics or GTs when they are permanently training to 4 year Olympic programme on the track.

In my view, his Junior Roubaix win in 2004 was probably the only early indicator he had something special for the road, but he chose the track instead. Really his rise on the road only began in 2013 after the London Olympics. It has taken a year to transform him back to his 2004 potential for the classics and then another year to be a good climber. I don't see anything unbelievable in Thomas other than hard work and desire and love of the sport.

Just take comfort knowing that Sky is on the same path as the BC Track Program and nothing untoward has been found in that success story and rider transformation in 20 years now. I would guess nothing untoward will be found with Team Sky after 20 years either considering it's the same chap heading it up!

Winning Junior Roubaix means nothing, after all guys like; Sergey Lagutin, Eric Baumann, Dmitry Kozonchuk and Damien Nazon(lantern rouge "winner" in the '98 TDF) have won Paris–Roubaix Espoirs and achieved nothing of note as a pro. I guess they just had bad luck that they weren't born in Britain.

To be honest, you are not doing yourself any favor with that argumentation. Just that some talented* young cyclist didn't make it big does not validate anything. Just look at the NHL.There are number 1 draft picks that were big busts, yet the majority are dominating the league. So to say, it means nothing to be the number 1 pick is just no true. You are likely among the best young athletes.

And the fact that he focused on track up to 2012-2013 should the give some slack. Not as in, "he is clean" but to say: "OMG he is worse than Bjarne Riis" is maybe a bit much if you ask me.

*In cycling it was/is hard to tell who is talented as they often(?) started doping pretty early.

Some former winners of Paris Roubaix Espoirs:

1990 France Thierry Gouvenou (FRA)
1991 France Eric Larue (FRA)
1992 France Stéphane Chanteur (FRA)
1993 Poland Marek Lesniewski (POL)
1994 Belgium Kurt Dhont (BEL)
1995 France Damien Nazon (FRA)
1996 Belgium Dany Baeyens (BEL)
1997 Belgium Marc Chanoine (BEL)
1998 Norway Thor Hushovd (NOR)
1999 France Sébastien Joly (FRA)
2000 Germany Eric Baumann (GER) Germany (national team)
2001 Ukraine Yaroslav Popovych (UKR) Zoccorinese-Vellutex
2002 Russia Mikhail Timochine (RUS) Zoccorinese-Vellutex
2003 Uzbekistan Sergey Lagutin (UZB) Uzbekistan (national team)
2004 Netherlands Koen de Kort (NED) Rabobank GS3
2005 Russia Dmitry Kozontchuk (RUS) Rabobank Continental Team
2006 Netherlands Tom Veelers (NED) Rabobank Continental Team
2007 France Damien Gaudin (FRA) Vendée U
2008 Netherlands Coen Vermeltfoort (NED) Rabobank Continental Team
2009 United States Taylor Phinney (USA) Trek-Livestrong
2010 United States Taylor Phinney (USA) Trek-Livestrong
2011 Netherlands Ramon Sinkeldam (NED) Rabobank Continental Team
2012 Luxembourg Bob Jungels (LUX) Leopard-Trek Continental
2013 No race
2014 Netherlands Mike Teunissen (NED) Rabobank Development Team
2015 Switzerland Lukas Spengler (SUI)

I see one rider who has finished on the podium of a GT on this list....

Thomas Geraint wont be finishing on the podium as well.

Make it top 20. Popovych is the only one. Jungles may, in time.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Most doping revelations seem to surface one way or another within 5-10 years.

What more evidence do you want than what is already there. Christie, Baxter, Hingis, Warne, Smith, Chambers, Pantani, Jones, Johnson, Armstrong, Yanyan, Bonds, Festina, Fuentes, Rasmussen, Vino, Landis, keep adding every other succesfull cyclist after this who's doping revelations were revealed within their own careers and within 10 years.

Your posts remind me of how, back in the early 80s, it was thought that most people infected with HIV did not get AIDS, while that small % who did so developed the disease within two years. It was not appreciated at the time that the mean lag period is much longer than two years, so most infected people existing at the time had not yet developed the disease and it was incorrectly assumed they wouldn’t. It took a much longer time period to reveal that almost everyone infected eventually does get AIDS.

In the same way, you’re assuming that because (according to you) most doping revelations come within 5-10 years after the act, anyone who isn’t exposed during this period must be clean. In fact, the “lag period” between doping and testing positive or other evidence is probably far longer than that, so long that most dopers won’t be caught before they retire. So when you say “doping revelations were revealed within their own careers and within 10 years”, you’re framing the issue so that it has to come out like that. With rare exceptions like LA, athletes are not pursued after they retire. So of course it’s not common that doping is revealed after much longer periods of time.

Even so, when dopers are pursued after retirement, or other evidence comes out, it becomes clear that the period between doping and exposure can be far longer than ten years. LA himself was not officially sanctioned until 2012, around twenty years, if not more, after he began doping. Riis finally admitted in 2007, at least fifteen, maybe twenty, years after he began doing it. It’s not much of a secret that Indurain was doping more than twenty years ago, and he still has not been officially exposed. There is Zabel, and any number of less well-known riders in the peloton of the 90s who unquestionably were using EPO, and have never been identified let alone sanctioned.

To avoid false positives, drug testing is set up in a way that guarantees that many dopers will pass any single test, and studies have shown that the odds of testing positive are quite low, even over long periods of time and under today’s stricter testing protocols. While statistical data of this kind can’t be used to conclude that any particular athlete is doping, it most definitely can be used to conclude that a lot of athletes could be doping and not getting caught. Not 5-10 years after the fact, not during their careers, most likely not ever.

Amen.

 

[samhocking]

I'm not talking about simply Cycling, I'm talking about the very biggest names in Sport who have extended periods of untouchable success in their respective sports often do get caught within 10 years of that success beginning usually. Armstrong, Jones, Johnson, Gatlin, Hingis, etc.

If you think BC & Sky's success is simply they know how to evade doping violations better than other teams, where does this come from? It wasn't enough for those names above, so what are BC/Sky doing to evade the testers for 20+ years now and how do they seem to hide every scrap of evidence for so long? Human nature is not so tightly sealed as many are claiming. Truth gets exposed regardless of the complexity of the lie. This is the question that you should be answering, not explaining Sky's success away with a statement like above.

 

[buckle]

Re:

I'm not talking about simply Cycling, I'm talking about the very biggest names in Sport who have extended periods of untouchable success in their respective sports often do get caught within 10 years of that success beginning usually. Armstrong, Jones, Johnson, Gatlin, Hingis, etc.

If you think BC & Sky's success is simply they know how to evade doping violations better than other teams, where does this come from? It wasn't enough for those names above, so what are BC/Sky doing to evade the testers for 20+ years now and how do they seem to hide every scrap of evidence for so long? Human nature is not so tightly sealed as many are claiming. Truth gets exposed regardless of the complexity of the lie. This is the question that you should be answering, not explaining Sky's success away with a statement like above.

It's an excellent question. Britain has no desire to expose its own drugs cheats. Every other country has, to a degree, bought into this moral crusade except the UK.

 

[wendybnt]

How quickly some have forgotten not only the judicial whitewash of Puerto, but also the Prime Minister of Spain's attempt to shut down Contador's Clenbutarol violation (after the national body failed to kill the case).

And that is just Spain.

 

[samhocking]

Yes, but Puerto happened, Fuentes happened, Contador happened, Valverde happened, Festina happened, Armstrong happened, Ullrich happened, Pantani happened, Riis happened. For BC & Sky nothing has really happened for 20 years. Having a wonder drug or evading doping violations is actually not much of a story. THe real story is how nothing happens. This is the question that should be asked, not explaining success away making comparisons to cycling's past or timing riders up climbs.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

We've been here before. Many times. In fact, it's been 25 years of crap like this. I think it's fair to say that pro cycling has used up all its chances; it's simply not going to change. You're going to be force fed this bullsh!t with just enough plausible deniability to keep the fans from walking away. Stuff like: He only pulled 6.1 W/kg so he *could* be clean since that's humanly possible (for one or two people per generation and not 15 guys at any given race).

John Swanson

+1.

The 6 watts/kg clean line gets abused quite often. Statistically speaking how many can get to that line is the problem!

 

[Saint Unix]

Yep. I think Merckx Index has got it bang on. Technically, there are humans who have tested over the limit in one of the physiological values needed to put in a performance like Froome on Pierre St. Martin. The problem that being good enough in one area isn't enough. You need to have the trifecta of high efficiency, an astronomical VO2max AND a high lactate threshold to do it clean. It's so improbable that you can't even be sure that person has ever existed, let alone given professional cycling a good go.

The chances are so, so slim that these things are happening naturally, and it becomes borderline impossible to believe that former pack fodder like Chris Froome, Bradley Wiggins and Geraint Thomas have fit the bill all along and have just recently discovered it while riding for the same team and the same country. What happened to those Brits 60-odd years ago that made them produce offspring with almost supernatural talents for endurance sports? The same thing that happened to those Americans 65-70 years ago? Nah... it's just another sham.

 

[Happy dude]

Re:

Yes, but Puerto happened, Fuentes happened, Contador happened, Valverde happened, Festina happened, Armstrong happened, Ullrich happened, Pantani happened, Riis happened. For BC & Sky nothing has really happened for 20 years. Having a wonder drug or evading doping violations is actually not much of a story. THe real story is how nothing happens. This is the question that should be asked, not explaining success away making comparisons to cycling's past or timing riders up climbs.

Sky broadcast and promote cycling in many countries. Sky get busted, sky pull out of cycling, stop broadcasting, bye bye cycling. That is why they don't get busted

 

[difdauf]

Re: Re:

My point is not about the Britishness of each rider, it's what career path they followed and where their careers are now on the road. The rider who didn't come through British Cycling has no career, a doping violation and a ban and the rider who did, doesn't. That was my point.

What i'm saying is either the rider is clean or British Cycling/Sky invest in ways to cheat for 20+ years now without anyone with any evidence of where the money comes from to develop such knowledge or doping products, yet the rider who never went through British Cycling/Sky was caught within 10 years of their pro career beginning. Both are British riders, of similar age and similar potential shown at the beginning of their careers.

Yeah i know and you are right, the fact that Tiernan-Locke get caught isn't linked with sky. He did a stupid move because he was under pressure. But like most of the guys who get caught, they are stupid and desperate guys who try to get a good contract.

Festina case exists only because their guy was caught by a border guard. Virenque has never been positive to anything. Same for Armstrong who was reported by former team-mates but has never been caught. But of course everyone knew.

Sky is no different. No proof of cheating, but everyone knows. Doms are too strongs, riders improve too fast, too much top tier british cyclists considering the few numbers of british in professionnal cycling.

Why sky doesn't dominate all races with all riders can be explained without too much difficulties.

 

[Eagle]

Re:

I'm not talking about simply Cycling, I'm talking about the very biggest names in Sport who have extended periods of untouchable success in their respective sports often do get caught within 10 years of that success beginning usually. Armstrong, Jones, Johnson, Gatlin, Hingis, etc.

If you think BC & Sky's success is simply they know how to evade doping violations better than other teams, where does this come from? It wasn't enough for those names above, so what are BC/Sky doing to evade the testers for 20+ years now and how do they seem to hide every scrap of evidence for so long? Human nature is not so tightly sealed as many are claiming. Truth gets exposed regardless of the complexity of the lie. This is the question that you should be answering, not explaining Sky's success away with a statement like above.

Hingis tested positive for cocaine

 

[TMP402]

Re: Re:

I'm not talking about simply Cycling, I'm talking about the very biggest names in Sport who have extended periods of untouchable success in their respective sports often do get caught within 10 years of that success beginning usually. Armstrong, Jones, Johnson, Gatlin, Hingis, etc.

If you think BC & Sky's success is simply they know how to evade doping violations better than other teams, where does this come from? It wasn't enough for those names above, so what are BC/Sky doing to evade the testers for 20+ years now and how do they seem to hide every scrap of evidence for so long? Human nature is not so tightly sealed as many are claiming. Truth gets exposed regardless of the complexity of the lie. This is the question that you should be answering, not explaining Sky's success away with a statement like above.

Hingis tested positive for cocaine

Which is helpful in tennis.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

Which is helpful in tennis.

It could've been what helped McEnroe act like such an a**hole, I guess, but I doubt it's the drug of choice for any tennis players out there. Extremely easy to detect and definitely very little performance enhancement compared to for example steroids.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Thomas was crap at Barloworld until he went to Sky. Just like Froome.

Same story basically. He'll be the next TDF winner after Froome stops

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

I'm not talking about simply Cycling, I'm talking about the very biggest names in Sport who have extended periods of untouchable success in their respective sports often do get caught within 10 years of that success beginning usually. Armstrong, Jones, Johnson, Gatlin, Hingis, etc.

If you think BC & Sky's success is simply they know how to evade doping violations better than other teams, where does this come from? It wasn't enough for those names above, so what are BC/Sky doing to evade the testers for 20+ years now and how do they seem to hide every scrap of evidence for so long? Human nature is not so tightly sealed as many are claiming. Truth gets exposed regardless of the complexity of the lie. This is the question that you should be answering, not explaining Sky's success away with a statement like above.

Hingis tested positive for cocaine

Which is helpful in tennis.

worked ok for Gasquet. He not only got off with a nubile skirt, he got to the semis last week.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Thomas was crap at Barloworld until he went to Sky. Just like Froome.

Same story basically. He'll be the next TDF winner after Froome stops

Thomas was 21 and 22 in 2007 and 08 and he was riding a damn track program at the same time.

 

[Saint Unix]

The "no talent" argument doesn't apply to Thomas. He had obvious talent in his teens.

The problem with Thomas is winning Algarve, almost podiuming Paris-Nice, winning E3, being by far the strongest rider at Gent-Wevelgem, getting robbed of a top 10 at Ronde because he had to do all the pulling in the group behind Terpstra and Kristoff and then placing second at Suisse and toying with everyone bar his own team mates and arguably Quintana at the Tour. All in the same season!

No-one does that clean. No-one. It doesn't matter how much talent you had as a youngster.

The fact that he only discovered that he could podium almost everything he wanted to at 29 makes it even more ridiculous.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

I'm not talking about simply Cycling, I'm talking about the very biggest names in Sport who have extended periods of untouchable success in their respective sports often do get caught within 10 years of that success beginning usually. Armstrong, Jones, Johnson, Gatlin, Hingis, etc.

If you think BC & Sky's success is simply they know how to evade doping violations better than other teams, where does this come from? It wasn't enough for those names above, so what are BC/Sky doing to evade the testers for 20+ years now and how do they seem to hide every scrap of evidence for so long? Human nature is not so tightly sealed as many are claiming. Truth gets exposed regardless of the complexity of the lie. This is the question that you should be answering, not explaining Sky's success away with a statement like above.

Lol first class trolling this. Even got in the line that other sports catch all their cheats before 10 years are up to. Lol. First class, chapeau

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Yes, but Puerto happened, Fuentes happened, Contador happened, Valverde happened, Festina happened, Armstrong happened, Ullrich happened, Pantani happened, Riis happened. For BC & Sky nothing has really happened for 20 years. Having a wonder drug or evading doping violations is actually not much of a story. THe real story is how nothing happens. This is the question that should be asked, not explaining success away making comparisons to cycling's past or timing riders up climbs.

And if Puerto never happened you would still sit here and say that all dopers ever got caught. You can't be so blind as to not see the flaw in this logic.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

And if Puerto never happened you would still sit here and say that all dopers ever got caught. You can't be so blind as to not see the flaw in this logic.

His logic is akin to saying Tupac is still alive because they never caught the guy who killed him.

They never caught the murderer and all murderers get exposed within 5-10 years so obviously no-one has been doing any murdering.

John Wilkes Booth happened, Mark David Chapman happened, Jack Ruby happened, Jeffrey Dahmer happened, Ed Gein happened, Nathan Gale happened, Anders Behring Breivik happened, Ted Bundy happened!

Tupac is alive! He's speaking out to all of us!

If I could recollect before my hood days
I'd sit and reminisce, thinking of bliss of the good days
I stop and stare at the younger, my heart goes to 'em
They tested, it was stress that they under
And nowadays things changed
Everyone's ashamed to the youth cause the truth looks strange
And for me it's reversed, we left them a world that's cursed, and it hurts

 

[Blakeslee]

While I wanted to post something about Thomas, my diatribe has been swept away by memories of Martina Hingis. What a fox!

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Re:

The "no talent" argument doesn't apply to Thomas. He had obvious talent in his teens.

The problem with Thomas is winning Algarve, almost podiuming Paris-Nice, winning E3, being by far the strongest rider at Gent-Wevelgem, getting robbed of a top 10 at Ronde because he had to do all the pulling in the group behind Terpstra and Kristoff and then placing second at Suisse and toying with everyone bar his own team mates and arguably Quintana at the Tour. All in the same season!

No-one does that clean. No-one. It doesn't matter how much talent you had as a youngster.

The fact that he only discovered that he could podium almost everything he wanted to at 29 makes it even more ridiculous.

You forgot that he was also by far the strongest and most impressive in Milan Sanremo.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

You forgot that he was also by far the strongest and most impressive in Milan Sanremo.

I'd give that honour to Squeaky-Cleany Paolini.

 

[Franklin]

Re:

Yes, but Puerto happened, Fuentes happened, Contador happened, Valverde happened, Festina happened, Armstrong happened, Ullrich happened, Pantani happened, Riis happened. For BC & Sky nothing has really happened for 20 years. Having a wonder drug or evading doping violations is actually not much of a story. THe real story is how nothing happens. This is the question that should be asked, not explaining success away making comparisons to cycling's past or timing riders up climbs.

Dear dear Samy, as I have already explained that most riders never get exposed, not do most athletes in other sports, why do you keep on believing in your selfmade fantasies?

And worse, even those positives, almost none of them exposed other riders or team wide doping. Team wide doping only gets exposed when the police gets involved.

Is it so hard to believe in cold hard facts? Is it so hard to admit that you are flat out wrong here and that the silence from Brittish cyclists is in no way indicative of Sky being clean?

Contrary to your fantasies most cyclists (and lets not talk about other sports) are never exposed at all.

This fact alone should be enough for you to throw out your theroy out of the window.

 

[The Carrot]

Re: Re:

Yes, but Puerto happened, Fuentes happened, Contador happened, Valverde happened, Festina happened, Armstrong happened, Ullrich happened, Pantani happened, Riis happened. For BC & Sky nothing has really happened for 20 years. Having a wonder drug or evading doping violations is actually not much of a story. THe real story is how nothing happens. This is the question that should be asked, not explaining success away making comparisons to cycling's past or timing riders up climbs.

Dear dear Samy, as I have already explained that most riders never get exposed, not do most athletes in other sports, why do you keep on believing in your selfmade fantasies?

And worse, even those positives, almost none of them exposed other riders or team wide doping. Team wide doping only gets exposed when the police gets involved.

Is it so hard to believe in cold hard facts? Is it so hard to admit that you are flat out wrong here and that the silence from Brittish cyclists is in no way indicative of Sky being clean?

Contrary to your fantasies most cyclists (and lets not talk about other sports) are never exposed at all.

This fact alone should be enough for you to throw out your theroy out of the window.

A good point about team wide doping only being exposed when the police are involved. They wouldn't get involved in Britain though seeing as all senior police officers have knighthoods too.