Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Bernie's eyesore said:
Are you seriously saying that a rider who had previously won Junior Roubaix, finished 2nd in a cobbled stage in the Tour, 2nd in Dwars door Vlaanderen, 3rd and 4th in E3, 4th in the Omloop and 8th and 10th in Flanders underwent a bigger transformation in Paris Roubaix in 2014 then he did this year in the mountains?
Look! Before 2014, Thomas' performances in major classics were:

Tour of Flanders 2010 33rd
Paris-Roubaix 2010 64th
Milan-Sanremo 2011 60th
Tour of Flanders 2011 10th
Paris-Roubaix 2011 Out of Time Limits !!!
World Championship 2011 81st
Tour of Flanders 2013 41st
Paris-Roubaix 2013 79th

So only once he reached a top10 and that's in a Tour of Flanders, which is not as demanding as Paris-Roubaix. In Paris-Roubaix alone, he's never been better than 64th. And all of a sudden, he discovers amazing stamina power to handle 250k races on a regular basis and recuperating skills to align performances back to back with a near win Paris-Nice (if not for a crash) and top10 Tour of Flanders & Paris-Roubaix and this while playing domestique for Wiggins and while maintaining power on semi-classics like GPE3.

So don't tell me you couldn't know !! I do declare that those posters on this very thread who took offence or looked flabbergasted at Thomas' "sudden" performances and who suddenly denounce a team doping programme at Sky, simply show little concern for the classics because they just waited for performances in mountain stage races and particularly at the Tour of France to show up, while his sudden great performances in the classics last year were at least equally impressive and there's still no solid evidence to denounce a collective doping programme at Sky since suspicion only concerns a couple of riders no more. Other teams that I won't name show weird performances with many more riders ...

I didn't say anything at that time because I'm not the kind of guy to accuse a rider without rock solid evidence. I still don't. After all there might be a hidden explanation that escapes me. But I'm exasperated at some posters' hypocrisy and elitism. There are weird performance ON ANY RACES, even on some cyclosportives you see weird performances, so your Tour of France ...

But I can't even blame those posters. I mean the environment influences them. If your readings are Anglophone sport journos like Walsh or such, you are bound to think that only the Tour of France is prone to weird dope performances, never the classics. It's the way it is.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
the logic fallacy,

is its Thomas.

Its not G.
its not Sky.
Its the entire freekin peloton. no value judgements, not axiomatically of poor character or low repute because they are cyclists and do PEDs. This is what cyclists do.
The fallacy is specifying a few riders, be it G, vroome, or Wigans. The is stupid in extremis.
 
Re: Re:

Franklin said:
samhocking said:
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.
Bull! In the modern era of Tour de France success, Contador, Armstrong, Pantani, Ullrich, Landis, Riis, Fignon, Delgado & Zoetmelk are clearly not part of the most cyclists never exposed? One way or another the truth comes out, either through anti-doping controls, investigation, admission and this does happen in less time than BC & Sky have been successful!
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Franklin said:
samhocking said:
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.
Bull! In the modern era of Tour de France success, Contador, Armstrong, Pantani, Ullrich, Landis, Riis, Fignon, Delgado & Zoetmelk are clearly not part of the most cyclists never exposed? One way or another the truth comes out, either through anti-doping controls, investigation, admission and this does happen in less time than BC & Sky have been successful!
'but if 98% of the peloton are doping, about 80% are never exposed
 
For me this year G is like Leonardo Piepoli.
(nice confession in Italiano)
http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/Primo_Piano/2009/01/07/intervistapiepoli.shtml

Until now - on the road - G has always been a faithful helper to others, humble and honest
- a true Thomas Tank Engine.
But this year he has been ask to help beyond his capabilities and has
been corrupted - to help others here in the TdF

I loved Piepoli's selflessness on the road
and that made it hard to hate him for his doping/
With G.I feel the same.
 
Sep 14, 2011
1,980
0
0
Echoes said:
Bernie's eyesore said:
Are you seriously saying that a rider who had previously won Junior Roubaix, finished 2nd in a cobbled stage in the Tour, 2nd in Dwars door Vlaanderen, 3rd and 4th in E3, 4th in the Omloop and 8th and 10th in Flanders underwent a bigger transformation in Paris Roubaix in 2014 then he did this year in the mountains?
Look! Before 2014, Thomas' performances in major classics were:

Tour of Flanders 2010 33rd
Paris-Roubaix 2010 64th
Milan-Sanremo 2011 60th
Tour of Flanders 2011 10th
Paris-Roubaix 2011 Out of Time Limits !!!
World Championship 2011 81st
Tour of Flanders 2013 41st
Paris-Roubaix 2013 79th

So only once he reached a top10 and that's in a Tour of Flanders, which is not as demanding as Paris-Roubaix. In Paris-Roubaix alone, he's never been better than 64th. And all of a sudden, he discovers amazing stamina power to handle 250k races on a regular basis and recuperating skills to align performances back to back with a near win Paris-Nice (if not for a crash) and top10 Tour of Flanders & Paris-Roubaix and this while playing domestique for Wiggins and while maintaining power on semi-classics like GPE3.

So don't tell me you couldn't know !! I do declare that those posters on this very thread who took offence or looked flabbergasted at Thomas' "sudden" performances and who suddenly denounce a team doping programme at Sky, simply show little concern for the classics because they just waited for performances in mountain stage races and particularly at the Tour of France to show up, while his sudden great performances in the classics last year were at least equally impressive and there's still no solid evidence to denounce a collective doping programme at Sky since suspicion only concerns a couple of riders no more. Other teams that I won't name show weird performances with many more riders ...

I didn't say anything at that time because I'm not the kind of guy to accuse a rider without rock solid evidence. I still don't. After all there might be a hidden explanation that escapes me. But I'm exasperated at some posters' hypocrisy and elitism. There are weird performance ON ANY RACES, even on some cyclosportives you see weird performances, so your Tour of France ...

But I can't even blame those posters. I mean the environment influences them. If your readings are Anglophone sport journos like Walsh or such, you are bound to think that only the Tour of France is prone to weird dope performances, never the classics. It's the way it is.
It's too easy to list some results without looking into the story behind them. Thomas's poor record in Paris Roubaix is down to the fact that he keeps crashing. In 2014 he rode in a group off the front and was therefore able to avoid any accidents. Most on here agree that Thomas is a decent cobbles rider (albeit not to the extent he showed in E3 and GW this year).
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Bull! In the modern era of Tour de France success, Contador, Armstrong, Pantani, Ullrich, Landis, Riis, Fignon, Delgado & Zoetmelk are clearly not part of the most cyclists never exposed? One way or another the truth comes out, either through anti-doping controls, investigation, admission and this does happen in less time than BC & Sky have been successful!
A fantastic row of names. Too bad I can do similar.

Hinault, Roche, Kelly, Mauri,Argentin, Bartoli, Bruyneel, Breukink, Indurain, Olano, Casero, Nardello, Tchmil, Bettini, Savoldelli, Cunego, Cioni, Kirchen, Cipollini, Mencov, Tonov, Rominger, A Schleck, Cobo.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Sorry Sam, you keep on exposibng yourself as unaware of the facts.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Oh and no, GT doing well in cobbled classics is obvuously not a bigger transformation than him being able to outclimb Contador. That's some idiotic hyperbbole.

I certainly don't think he's clean, but his pedigree had enough hints to see a future on the cobbles for him. In the mountains? Hilarious.
 
Re: Re:

'but if 98% of the peloton are doping, about 80% are never exposed
Who cares about the Zabels and non GT winners in the peloton? The facts clearly show, that when you win Tour de France or other GTs, the probability of getting exposed for winning through doping is extremely high and usually within 10 years. If we take say LeMond's win as the beginning of a modern era and end say end 5 years ago, there's hardly a single winner of the GTs that didn't get exposed one way or another or don't have at least some pretty hard evidence of doping, even if never banned. The fact is this hasn't happened in BC/Sky system, but it is older than 10 years.
WHY? Simply saying they dope or have a wonder-drug, doesn't equate to what has happened in the past. Even riders like Armstrong still got exposed. They could be on an undiscovered wonder-drug. It doesn't matter, the fact is, the truth for the most successful riders and teams comes out within 10 years on average of that success!
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
'but if 98% of the peloton are doping, about 80% are never exposed
Who cares about the Zabels and non GT winners in the peloton?
Oh dear, Sam, did you even read the subject of this thread? Or are your eyes so bloodshot that you throw Wiggo, Froome and Thomas at one heap?

The facts clearly show, that when you win Tour de France or other GTs, the probability of getting exposed for winning through doping is extremely high and usually within 10 years. If we take say LeMond's win as the beginning of a modern era and end say end 5 years ago, there's hardly a single winner of the GTs that didn't get exposed one way or another or don't have at least some pretty hard evidence of doping, even if never banned.
Okay... I'll play and just look at the TdF. I'm also being generous and give you Sastre and Evans as clean winners. I'm will also point out again that for another 33% of those wins we needed the feds to get it in the open.

So you admit there's at least a 25% chance you never get exposed(Indurain)? Without the feds we would have over 50% unexposed. Thanks you for playing Sam :D

Then again, your claim about big name cyclists and athletes (that one is even more hilarious) has been destroyed utterly by the facts and even with your frantic goal-post shifting you can't deny the chances of someone slipping through are 1 in 4.

And Thomas hasn't even won a monument or GT, so your whole premise is not just flat out wrong, it's also utterly silly as you think he's one of the all time greats.

So Sam, considering you have been shown to be wrong om undeniable facts, perhaps it's time for a retraction? Or are you going to keep on shrilling?

The fact is this hasn't happened in BC/Sky system, but it is older than 10 years.
I will help you here, BC is older than ten years, but you desperately try to shift the goalposts to TdF winners. Seems you can't have your cake and eat it too. If we look at all cyclists your premise is destroyed bay facts. If we just look at TdF winners your praised age of BC does not matter anymore. :rolleyes:

Soooo... there's a at least 25% chance they won't be found out and we still have many years to go. Sam, what's your point exactly?
 
Bernie's eyesore said:
Echoes said:
Bernie's eyesore said:
Are you seriously saying that a rider who had previously won Junior Roubaix, finished 2nd in a cobbled stage in the Tour, 2nd in Dwars door Vlaanderen, 3rd and 4th in E3, 4th in the Omloop and 8th and 10th in Flanders underwent a bigger transformation in Paris Roubaix in 2014 then he did this year in the mountains?
Look! Before 2014, Thomas' performances in major classics were:

Tour of Flanders 2010 33rd
Paris-Roubaix 2010 64th
Milan-Sanremo 2011 60th
Tour of Flanders 2011 10th
Paris-Roubaix 2011 Out of Time Limits !!!
World Championship 2011 81st
Tour of Flanders 2013 41st
Paris-Roubaix 2013 79th

So only once he reached a top10 and that's in a Tour of Flanders, which is not as demanding as Paris-Roubaix. In Paris-Roubaix alone, he's never been better than 64th. And all of a sudden, he discovers amazing stamina power to handle 250k races on a regular basis and recuperating skills to align performances back to back with a near win Paris-Nice (if not for a crash) and top10 Tour of Flanders & Paris-Roubaix and this while playing domestique for Wiggins and while maintaining power on semi-classics like GPE3.

So don't tell me you couldn't know !! I do declare that those posters on this very thread who took offence or looked flabbergasted at Thomas' "sudden" performances and who suddenly denounce a team doping programme at Sky, simply show little concern for the classics because they just waited for performances in mountain stage races and particularly at the Tour of France to show up, while his sudden great performances in the classics last year were at least equally impressive and there's still no solid evidence to denounce a collective doping programme at Sky since suspicion only concerns a couple of riders no more. Other teams that I won't name show weird performances with many more riders ...

I didn't say anything at that time because I'm not the kind of guy to accuse a rider without rock solid evidence. I still don't. After all there might be a hidden explanation that escapes me. But I'm exasperated at some posters' hypocrisy and elitism. There are weird performance ON ANY RACES, even on some cyclosportives you see weird performances, so your Tour of France ...

But I can't even blame those posters. I mean the environment influences them. If your readings are Anglophone sport journos like Walsh or such, you are bound to think that only the Tour of France is prone to weird dope performances, never the classics. It's the way it is.
It's too easy to list some results without looking into the story behind them. Thomas's poor record in Paris Roubaix is down to the fact that he keeps crashing. In 2014 he rode in a group off the front and was therefore able to avoid any accidents. Most on here agree that Thomas is a decent cobbles rider (albeit not to the extent he showed in E3 and GW this year).
it's also possible the only reason he was able to ride at the front in races like P-R and avoid crashes was because of his new found power. Does kinda work both ways.
And I am stating this not knowing all the citcumstances of all his cracshes. But yeah, he did crash a lot.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
'but if 98% of the peloton are doping, about 80% are never exposed
Who cares about the Zabels and non GT winners in the peloton? The facts clearly show, that when you win Tour de France or other GTs, the probability of getting exposed for winning through doping is extremely high and usually within 10 years. If we take say LeMond's win as the beginning of a modern era and end say end 5 years ago, there's hardly a single winner of the GTs that didn't get exposed one way or another or don't have at least some pretty hard evidence of doping, even if never banned. The fact is this hasn't happened in BC/Sky system, but it is older than 10 years.
The list Franklin gave was:

Hinault, Roche, Kelly, Mauri,Argentin, Bartoli, Bruyneel, Breukink, Indurain, Olano, Casero, Nardello, Tchmil, Bettini, Savoldelli, Cunego, Cioni, Kirchen, Cipollini, Mencov, Tonov, Rominger, A Schleck, Cobo.

Of these:
Hinault, Roche, Kelly, Mauri, Indurain, Olano, Casero, Savoldelli, Cunego, Menchov, Tonkov, Rominger, Andy Schleck and Juanjo Cobo are all GT winners. All but the first 3 are after LeMond's final GT win.

Of these:
Indurain did a pseudo-admission in a radio interview.
Menchov got a biopass ban - after he'd already retired.
Cunego and his team management have given thinly-veiled suggestions that he was doping early in his career but is either doing less or riding clean later.

Franklin also didn't mention Bjarne Riis, who got away with it and gave his own confession later. There's also plenty of GT podium guys - for example, Fernando Escartín was 3rd in the 1999 Tour, and there's nothing against his name, but that solo breakaway in that Tour on that team? Clean? How about Cobo? Not a word against him. No biopass violations, never named in a sting, never returned a positive sample. Just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Zenon Jaskuła, a former Eastern Bloc star who suddenly was climbing Pla d'Adet four minutes faster than anybody had ever done before en route to the Tour podium in his 30s, and then dropped off a cliff afterward? Chris Horner, a GT winner in his 40s who, while strongly suspected to be "Rider 15", is presently riding (on those rare occasions Airgas-Safeway get an invite to something) with nothing against his name? Enrico Zaina, who went mutant in 1996 en route to the Giro podium behind Tonkov? There's also Jalabert, whose positive tests only came out from retests of samples six years later - exactly the kind of retroactive testing AFLD WANTED to do following 2008 and were prevented from doing.

The history of cycling is littered with mutant performances at the top level from riders who, at least officially, can only be treated as clean. Do you honestly believe that Casero, Tonkov, Mauri (who rocked up to the Vuelta in '91 having never finished a GT in the top 70 and with no professional victories to his name, then spanked Big Mig by over a minute in the two time trials and led for two and a half weeks), Olano, Horner, Savoldelli (riding for Team Telekom and Discovery Channel!!!) and co. were clean because they never got caught?
 
Michael Rasmussen ‏@MRasmussen1974 Jul 16

Track rider @GeraintThomas86 bringing back colombian climber @NairoQuinCo !

Michael Rasmussen ‏@MRasmussen1974 6m6 minutes ago

@Petekennaugh at the start to me. "Be careful with your tweets (stating) that @GeraintThomas86 is a Track rider" #TDF2015
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Michael Rasmussen ‏@MRasmussen1974 Jul 16

Track rider @GeraintThomas86 bringing back colombian climber @NairoQuinCo !

Michael Rasmussen ‏@MRasmussen1974 6m6 minutes ago

@Petekennaugh at the start to me. "Be careful with your tweets (stating) that @GeraintThomas86 is a Track rider" #TDF2015
can you imagine being the communications chief at Sky Pro Cycling. He should ask for a raise
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Michael Rasmussen ‏@MRasmussen1974 Jul 16

Track rider @GeraintThomas86 bringing back colombian climber @NairoQuinCo !

Michael Rasmussen ‏@MRasmussen1974 6m6 minutes ago

@Petekennaugh at the start to me. "Be careful with your tweets (stating) that @GeraintThomas86 is a Track rider" #TDF2015
Does Kennaugh hate the truth or what? I find his threat weird at best.
 
Re: Re:

Franklin said:
A fantastic row of names. Too bad I can do similar.

Hinault, Roche, Kelly, Mauri,Argentin, Bartoli, Bruyneel, Breukink, Indurain, Olano, Casero, Nardello, Tchmil, Bettini, Savoldelli, Cunego, Cioni, Kirchen, Cipollini, Mencov, Tonov, Rominger, A Schleck, Cobo.
The names I bolded are riders who had been exposed one way or another, some of whom after their career, confirming the theory of the admitted GT-maniac.


veganrob said:
it's also possible the only reason he was able to ride at the front in races like P-R and avoid crashes was because of his new found power. Does kinda work both ways.
It's a bit what happened. In Haveluy the Sky took control of the peloton, putting Thomas at front in order to minimize the risk before Arenberg. Yet he was stuck by a crash shortly after the Wallers section along with Cancellara and made a great effort to come back because the Quick Step were starting to pull heavily.

The breakaway group that Bernie is referring to occurred in Orchies with 65km to go but by that time the race was on already. You had to have the power to get in there.

I insist on the fact that these performances at both Flanders and Roubaix occurred after he dominated Paris-Nice head & shoulders above the rest, while a crash ruined his chances with 2 days to go. And Paris-Roubaix and even the Tour of Flanders are not like GPE3 or Dwars door Vlaanderen. You need to handle the distance to shine on those races. Thomas did not consistently show prior to 2014 that he was able to handle them.

Compare his results to a similar profile rider, randome choice Sebastian Langeveld:

World Championships 2007 34th
Tour of Flanders 2008 18th
Milan-Sanremo 2009 21st
Clasica San Sebastian 2009 12th
Tour of Flanders 2010 22nd
Paris-Roubaix 2010 38th
Tour of Flanders 2011 5th
Paris-Roubaix 2011 26th

These are the 8 best performances that Langeveld got in Classics before turning 28. After that in 2013 he also top10'd Flanders and Roubaix back to back in 2013 but I'd say it was kind of expected since he was turning around the top20 in classics from his early years on (and he was far behind Vanmarcke & Cancellara in 2013 while Thomas was still in contention for the win in 2014 after the last cobbles).

[quote"Dear Wiggo"]Does Kennaugh hate the truth or what? I find his threat weird at best.[/quote]

Kennaugh is a track rider himself and an unfulfilled talent.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
samhocking said:
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.
But it did happen - this is my point! Armstrong never failed anti-doping, but still got called out. When will BC/Sky get called out. If we look at cycling's past, it will be in 10 years. BC success is older than 10 years. Hoy, Pendleton, Wiggins etc have completed whole careers under this 'system' for more than 10 years and there's nothing on them like there is with other riders who were so dominant!
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Franklin also didn't mention Bjarne Riis, who got away with it and gave his own confession later. =
Heck, if it wasn't without the Spanish police Ulli and Basso would be unexposed. And if Lance had stayed retired I''m sure the whole reasoned decision would not have been written and a slew of riders would have retired happily. Indeed, Riis would never have confessed if Lance wasn't so idiotic to race again and made doping a hot topic again.

If we take out the feds and police out of this equation you would see a dramatic reversal, most TdF wins would cheerfuly hold. There is ONE TdF winner being caught red-handed at the event, and that was Landis failing the IQ test. Then there's one other GT winner getting a bona-fide HCT treshold ban; Pantani. We also have AC being sentenced on grounds which are now laughed away due to all the Clenbuterol scandals.

The reality is that everyone else aced every test thrown at them.

And let's not even get started about teams being exposed. That's extremely rare.

So those who hope Sky will be exposed? Don't count on it.
 
Re: Re:

Franklin said:
samhocking said:
'but if 98% of the peloton are doping, about 80% are never exposed
Who cares about the Zabels and non GT winners in the peloton?
Oh dear, Sam, did you even read the subject of this thread? Or are your eyes so bloodshot that you throw Wiggo, Froome and Thomas at one heap?

The facts clearly show, that when you win Tour de France or other GTs, the probability of getting exposed for winning through doping is extremely high and usually within 10 years. If we take say LeMond's win as the beginning of a modern era and end say end 5 years ago, there's hardly a single winner of the GTs that didn't get exposed one way or another or don't have at least some pretty hard evidence of doping, even if never banned.
Okay... I'll play and just look at the TdF. I'm also being generous and give you Sastre and Evans as clean winners. I'm will also point out again that for another 33% of those wins we needed the feds to get it in the open.

So you admit there's at least a 25% chance you never get exposed(Indurain)? Without the feds we would have over 50% unexposed. Thanks you for playing Sam :D

Then again, your claim about big name cyclists and athletes (that one is even more hilarious) has been destroyed utterly by the facts and even with your frantic goal-post shifting you can't deny the chances of someone slipping through are 1 in 4.

And Thomas hasn't even won a monument or GT, so your whole premise is not just flat out wrong, it's also utterly silly as you think he's one of the all time greats.

So Sam, considering you have been shown to be wrong om undeniable facts, perhaps it's time for a retraction? Or are you going to keep on shrilling?

The fact is this hasn't happened in BC/Sky system, but it is older than 10 years.
I will help you here, BC is older than ten years, but you desperately try to shift the goalposts to TdF winners. Seems you can't have your cake and eat it too. If we look at all cyclists your premise is destroyed bay facts. If we just look at TdF winners your praised age of BC does not matter anymore. :rolleyes:

Soooo... there's a at least 25% chance they won't be found out and we still have many years to go. Sam, what's your point exactly?

My point is it doesn't matter if Wiggins, Froome, Thomas, Sky, BC are doping and it's undetectable, there's a 75% chance they will be found out just like 75% of cyclings's past GT winners has because human nature is not controllable, even by Brailsford, just like it wasn't by Armstrong, just like Bruneel, just like Fuentes, just like Ferrari blah, blah, blah!
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Re: Re:

Echoes said:
The names I bolded are riders who had been exposed one way or another, some of whom after their career, confirming the theory of the admitted GT-maniac.
No. That simply only holds if you allow rumors and circumstantial evidence in the equation. That is not enough for the Sky fanboys, so it's not enough for this comparison.

We are talking about undeniable hard evidence+sentence for being a doper.

@ Sam. The reasoned decision constitutes for 33% of the TdF wins you crow about. How big is the chance that the feds/interpol/Scotland Yard will bother to look into Sky?

Heck, they never look into the Premier league and it's guaranteed a cesspool of corruption in there.

As long as the riders and team pay their taxes and don't involve in crazy criminal behavior it will be fine.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
My point is it doesn't matter if Wiggins, Froome, Thomas, Sky, BC are doping and it's undetectable, there's a 75% chance they will be found out just like 75% of cyclings's past GT winners has because human nature is not controllable, even by Brailsford, just like it wasn't by Armstrong, just like Bruneel, just like Fuentes, just like Ferrari blah, blah, blah!
only reason Armstrong is busted is cos he did not give Flandis a gig. and the hardwork of Betsy and a few others like RaceRadio
 
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
samhocking said:
My point is it doesn't matter if Wiggins, Froome, Thomas, Sky, BC are doping and it's undetectable, there's a 75% chance they will be found out just like 75% of cyclings's past GT winners has because human nature is not controllable, even by Brailsford, just like it wasn't by Armstrong, just like Bruneel, just like Fuentes, just like Ferrari blah, blah, blah!
only reason Armstrong is busted is cos he did not give Flandis a gig. and the hardwork of Betsy and a few others like RaceRadio
Exactly my point. It doesn't matter how corrupt a government, police force or governing body is, how immoral a team manager or rider might be, or how pathetic anti-doping is, human nature and the fans desire for justice will most likely find them out anyway, you just got to wait a few years that's all.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I can think of at least one other very good classics rider that went on to have success at the French Grand Tour. Maybe GT will go Cannibal on us and win Flanders, TdF and worlds in the same year. Sounds legit.
I recall King Kelly.

Good posts Echoes.

G's Transfroomation became apparant after the '12 Olympics. He went full genius but somehow seemed to crash every race he entered.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Exactly my point. It doesn't matter how corrupt a government, police force or governing body is, how immoral a team manager or rider might be, or how pathetic anti-doping is, human nature and the fans desire for justice will most likely find them out anyway, you just got to wait a few years that's all.
you're wrong.

it required him to get greedy, get radioshack, comeback, and not give floyd the chance, and it required flandis to go nuclear
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY