Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

[samhocking]

Why use palamares based on doping to decide how worthy or deserved a Tour winner is? That's like looking at who deserves to be rich based on how many bank robberies they made before the big one. It's completely nonsense.

 

[tretiak]

Bad memory is an effect of doping? He hardly remembered who his teammates were. :razz:
But he was tired after the hard stage in Paris. :twisted:

 

[dacooley]

Re:

Why use palamares based on doping to decide how worthy or deserved a Tour winner is? That's like looking at who deserves to be rich based on how many bank robberies they made before the big one. It's completely nonsense.

yes, it's a nonsense. but post-armstrong trauma forced plenty of fans to view riders with a magnifying glass and seek some justice in career trajectories.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

Why use palamares based on doping to decide how worthy or deserved a Tour winner is? That's like looking at who deserves to be rich based on how many bank robberies they made before the big one. It's completely nonsense.

yes, it's a nonsense. but post-armstrong trauma forced plenty of fans to view riders with a magnifying glass and seek some justice in career trajectories.

And by "post-armstrong trauma" you mean "the whole history of the sport".

 

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

Why use palamares based on doping to decide how worthy or deserved a Tour winner is? That's like looking at who deserves to be rich based on how many bank robberies they made before the big one. It's completely nonsense.

yes, it's a nonsense. but post-armstrong trauma forced plenty of fans to view riders with a magnifying glass and seek some justice in career trajectories.

And by "post-armstrong trauma" you mean "the whole history of the sport".

it's quite difficult for us to make a judgement because bike racing was discussed mostly in bars and kitchens before internet came up. nevertheless I dare to assume prior armstrong's debacle cycling wasn't like that and at that date riders were not splitted in those who has it (worthy winners) and outliers.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

Why use palamares based on doping to decide how worthy or deserved a Tour winner is? That's like looking at who deserves to be rich based on how many bank robberies they made before the big one. It's completely nonsense.

yes, it's a nonsense. but post-armstrong trauma forced plenty of fans to view riders with a magnifying glass and seek some justice in career trajectories.

What "post armstrong trauma" are you talking about? lol. Lance supporters are the equivalent to the rose colored glassses, blinders wearing Sky fans. Rational thinkers know much differently.

 

[Cycle Chic]

My faith has been restored today. A friend of mine who knows nothing about pro cycling, doesnt ride a bike even.....texted me and asked

'SO WHAT DO YOU RECKON ? HAS GERRRRAINT GOT BAD ASTHMA ?? '

so the general public do take notice

 

[Roninho]

Re: Re:

Why use palamares based on doping to decide how worthy or deserved a Tour winner is? That's like looking at who deserves to be rich based on how many bank robberies they made before the big one. It's completely nonsense.

yes, it's a nonsense. but post-armstrong trauma forced plenty of fans to view riders with a magnifying glass and seek some justice in career trajectories.

What post-armstrong trauma?

And magnifying glass? Why would you need a magnifying glass when you have a guy who at age 32 transforms in the best climber and wins the TDF when before that he never got a top 15 in the GQ or got even close to getting a top 3 in a mountain stage while his teambuddies won 4 out of the 5 previous tours... As i wrote in my previous post, this is even more obvious then Bjarne Riis win was.

 

[samhocking]

Still doesn't answer the question though. How can you use the doped career trajectory of known winners of Tour de France to explain why another winner without a similar looking career trajectory only won it due to doping? That's actually saying career trajectory and results are meaningless to explain any riders success in cycling is due to doping surely.

 

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

Why use palamares based on doping to decide how worthy or deserved a Tour winner is? That's like looking at who deserves to be rich based on how many bank robberies they made before the big one. It's completely nonsense.

yes, it's a nonsense. but post-armstrong trauma forced plenty of fans to view riders with a magnifying glass and seek some justice in career trajectories.

What "post armstrong trauma" are you talking about? lol. Lance supporters are the equivalent to the rose colored glassses, blinders wearing Sky fans. Rational thinkers know much differently.

foremost post-armstrong trauma spawned an idea that multiple grand tour winner can be relatively easy brought up from pretty much any starting material: from luke rowe and chris froome to bradley wiggins and geraint thomas. it's all up to funds and proper labaratorian conditions.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

Bad memory is an effect of doping? He hardly remembered who his teammates were. :razz:
But he was tired after the hard stage in Paris. :twisted:

No, not of any conventional known doping...but it might be if he's started using some of the magical, mysterious doping methods that no one else knows about apart from his team mate. Who knows what the effects of those might be

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

it's quite difficult for us to make a judgement because bike racing was discussed mostly in bars and kitchens before internet came up. nevertheless I dare to assume prior armstrong's debacle cycling wasn't like that and at that date riders were not splitted in those who has it (worthy winners) and outliers.

I wasn't referring to whether or not people talked about riders in terms of early promise and logical career curves, I'm talking about how what we see throughout cycling history is that talent shows early and that late career transformations aren't credible.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

Re:

Still doesn't answer the question though. How can you use the doped career trajectory of known winners of Tour de France to explain why another winner without a similar looking career trajectory only won it due to doping? That's actually saying career trajectory and results are meaningless to explain any riders success in cycling is due to doping surely.

This is a good question and I don't think it's going to be properly answered. I agree entirely - it's not worth getting into who has "talent" and who doesn't. I think Sky are as dodgy as anyone, as a collective and as individual riders, and it's soul-destroying seeing how much more exciting cycling was in the relatively recent past before they turned up and started to crush the opposition year on year. But I do think a lot of the talk here doesn't so much scrutinise them too much as it lets others off the hook

The impression I've always got here is that the reason people hate Sky in particular isn't just due to perceived cheating. It's the way they are going about it - in terms of the PR/marginal gains nonsense, but also in the way that they have transformed two track riders and a journeyman into three GT winners, and the way they have bought up riders who are perceived to be more talented to act as domestiques for these relative hacks

However, just because Wiggins, Froome and Thomas becoming GT winners is absurd doesn't mean that Dumoulin, Nibali, Contador or whoever is any less suspicious - a seemingly more gradual improvement (if that's even true in the case of Dumoulin) could just as easily mean doping for longer over their career. Is the argument therefore that doping is "acceptable" (or less unacceptable) as long as it doesn't lead to a ridiculous transformation or domination?

I've adopted the cognitive dissonance to watch and enjoy cycling (when it's enjoyable!) and have favourite riders while also accepting they're probably all breaking the rules. It seems to me that a lot of people here in this forum do too, but then make an exception when it comes to Sky and suddenly become sincerely staunchly anti-doping while turning a blind eye to others. It's a shame because this forum used to be a lot more consistent and have unique insight about the whole of cycling, rather than just fetishising Sky's alleged indiscretions and straw-manning everyone who objects. There are a lot more interesting discussions to be had about doping in sport

 

[samhocking]

It's funny, I mean you could compare e.g. Contadors two years leading up to winning his first Tour de France and what races he did well in to Thomas & Wiggins 2 years as well, yet they really are very evenly matched in terms of the success rate in bigger races over those 2 years, so i'm not sure a professionals palamares means much in all cases anyway between a conventional continental pro's path to World tour or a track riders path to World tour and winning its biggest race? Not sure. Yes Contador will arguably have losts of differences before World Tour successses, but then it suggests they don't really carry though to meaning anything at World Tour level perhaps other than winning your first Tour much more quickly? Obviously the main difference is Contador came straight into World Tour and won first Tour in less than 5 years, Wiggins and Thomas in 10 years, but then Contador wasn't a domestique, so v.difficult to compare anyway.

Wiggins 2010 to 2012: Critérium du Dauphiné 1st, Vuelta a España 3rd, Paris–Nice 3rd, Tour de France 1st

Thomas 2016 - 2018: Paris–Nice 1st, Volta ao Algarve 1st, Tour of the Alps 1st, Tirreno–Adriatico 5th, Critérium du Dauphiné 1st, Tirreno–Adriatico 3rd, Tour de France 1st

Contador 2005 - 2007: Tour of the Basque Country 1st, Tour de Romandie 4th, Paris–Nice 1st, Vuelta a Castilla y León 1st, Tour de France 1st

 

[Saint Unix]

Wiggins 2010 to 2012: Critérium du Dauphiné 1st, Vuelta a España 3rd, Paris–Nice 3rd, Tour de France 1st

Thomas 2016 - 2018: Paris–Nice 1st, Volta ao Algarve 1st, Tour of the Alps 1st, Tirreno–Adriatico 5th, Critérium du Dauphiné 1st, Tirreno–Adriatico 3rd, Tour de France 1st

Contador 2005 - 2007: Tour of the Basque Country 1st, Tour de Romandie 4th, Paris–Nice 1st, Vuelta a Castilla y León 1st, Tour de France 1st

Wiggins: 30-32 years old
Thomas: 30-32 years old
Contador: 22-24 years old.

Therein lies the difference. You know this. Stop being obtuse.

As for why palmares is being used as justification for results, a mid-career transformation like those of Wiggins, Froome or Thomas have historically only happened when heavy oxygen vector doping is involved, so when a rider has a sudden and massive improvement in results and performance, it's about as big a red flag as you're ever going to get without an actual positive test. Extremely talented kids that continue to perform well after they turn pro, like Sagan, EBH, Pinot, etc. at least get some benefit of the doubt since their career trajectories follow the somewhat linear improvement that was normal in cycling before oxygen vector doping became the norm.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

Wiggins 2010 to 2012: Critérium du Dauphiné 1st, Vuelta a España 3rd, Paris–Nice 3rd, Tour de France 1st

Thomas 2016 - 2018: Paris–Nice 1st, Volta ao Algarve 1st, Tour of the Alps 1st, Tirreno–Adriatico 5th, Critérium du Dauphiné 1st, Tirreno–Adriatico 3rd, Tour de France 1st

Contador 2005 - 2007: Tour of the Basque Country 1st, Tour de Romandie 4th, Paris–Nice 1st, Vuelta a Castilla y León 1st, Tour de France 1st

Wiggins: 30-32 years old
Thomas: 30-32 years old
Contador: 22-24 years old.

Therein lies the difference. You know this. Stop being obtuse.

As for why palmares is being used as justification for results, a mid-career transformation like those of Wiggins, Froome or Thomas have historically only happened when heavy oxygen vector doping is involved, so when a rider has a sudden and massive improvement in results and performance, it's about as big a red flag as you're ever going to get without an actual positive test. Extremely talented kids that continue to perform well after they turn pro, like Sagan, EBH, Pinot, etc. at least get some benefit of the doubt since their career trajectories follow the somewhat linear improvement that was normal in cycling before oxygen vector doping became the norm.

No one is arguing that Wiggins, Froome and Thomas are clean, though. Of course there are red flags there. But the point is if you're going to scrutinise them, then why essentially use that to essentially allow Contador off the hook?

I remember the day I first became suspicious of Thomas, and it was before this date of 2015 where people are pegging his transformation at - it was the 2014 Commonwealth Games road race. Thomas won by a country mile despite having a late puncture. It may not have been the strongest field but he was clearly on another planet to the rest of them and it was very suspicious. By then he was already starting to establish himself as a strong one-day rider, at 27-28. It didn't totally shock me from there that he became more and more competitive in the GTs, but in hindsight obviously it was quite quick

You can make entirely reasonable arguments for Wiggins and Thomas about them moving from track to focus on road, and that that was the cause of their dramatic improvement. I'm extremely sceptical of that and believe it's untrue. But I don't think it's any more or less spurious than giving guys like Contador a free pass because they started young, especially as Contador is a convicted doper - for the record, I like him and hoped he'd get another Tour in before he retired, but this kind of apologism for his doping based on "talent" compared to the Sky riders is hypocritical. You can't pick and choose which doping you're against and which you're going to turn a blind eye to

 

[Saint Unix]

No one is arguing that Wiggins, Froome and Thomas are clean, though. Of course there are red flags there. But the point is if you're going to scrutinise them, then why essentially use that to essentially allow Contador off the hook?

I remember the day I first became suspicious of Thomas, and it was before this date of 2015 where people are pegging his transformation at - it was the 2014 Commonwealth Games road race. Thomas won by a country mile despite having a late puncture. It may not have been the strongest field but he was clearly on another planet to the rest of them and it was very suspicious. By then he was already starting to establish himself as a strong one-day rider, at 27-28. It didn't totally shock me from there that he became more and more competitive in the GTs, but in hindsight obviously it was quite quick

You can make entirely reasonable arguments for Wiggins and Thomas about them moving from track to focus on road, and that that was the cause of their dramatic improvement. I'm extremely sceptical of that and believe it's untrue. But I don't think it's any more or less spurious than giving guys like Contador a free pass because they started young, especially as Contador is a convicted doper - for the record, I like him and hoped he'd get another Tour in before he retired, but this kind of apologism for his doping based on "talent" compared to the Sky riders is hypocritical. You can't pick and choose which doping you're against and which you're going to turn a blind eye to

Plenty of people are arguing Sky are riding clean in the general public, in cycling media and even on this very subforum. Highly unusual career trajectories are one of the clearest indicators of doping and should never be dismissed as evidence just because talented youngsters might just have started doping earlier.

At no point have I allowed Contador off the hook or given him a free pass. He has his own set of giant, waving red flags, with his ride up to Verbier and subsequent TT win in 2009 being the biggest of the bunch. Even though he only tested positive for a few molecules of clenbuterol, it's obvious he was on much stronger stuff. I was as anti-Contador at the time he was lighting races on fire with his blatant doping as I am anti-Sky now, although in fairness to Contador, in hindsight I realize he was at least an entertaining rider to watch while he was making a mockery of the sport.

My point is simply that there are things that pretty much always indicate doping. Mind-boggling mid-career transformations are their own set of red flags, while performances beyond what should be humanly possible are another. Thomas and Wiggins are guilty of the former for sure, while Contador is guilty of the latter, but you could argue that none of them are guilty of both. Froome, however, is, especially if his reported time up the Madone is to be believed. All four of them are definitely dopers, though.

 

[vedrafjord]

Re: Re:

Why use palamares based on doping to decide how worthy or deserved a Tour winner is? That's like looking at who deserves to be rich based on how many bank robberies they made before the big one. It's completely nonsense.

yes, it's a nonsense. but post-armstrong trauma forced plenty of fans to view riders with a magnifying glass and seek some justice in career trajectories.

And by "post-armstrong trauma" you mean "the whole history of the sport".

it's quite difficult for us to make a judgement because bike racing was discussed mostly in bars and kitchens before internet came up. nevertheless I dare to assume prior armstrong's debacle cycling wasn't like that and at that date riders were not splitted in those who has it (worthy winners) and outliers.

I think this quote about Riis from Fignon's autobiography is as good as any:

Bjarne was happy to get stuck in, he had a solid constitution and liked to work hard. Riding on his wheel was total joy, because he could do anything: go fast when he had to and go through a gap with perfect timing. I never had to tell him anything, never had to say ‘Come on’ or ‘Slow down.’ I glued myself to his wheel and didn’t have to do anything else. It’s not often as harmonious as that. I had got it right with him but I had no idea that he would make his name in any of the ways he eventually did. He had a ‘big engine,’ but this has to be made clear: he was a good rider but not capable of winning a Tour de France in normal circumstances.”

So the riders and former riders themselves definitely formed their own opinions.

The article I took that quote from is http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/review-of-riis-stages-of-light-and-dark-by-bjarne-riis/ and is very good, including:

Riis moved up from the basic cortisone he was using to a stronger form, Kenacort. He lost weight, his legs grew stronger, he suffered no side-effects.

Doping, for Riis, was just one element in the aggregation of marginal gains. The Dane also had an altitude chamber in the cellar of his house in Luxembourg. He dieted. Used acupuncture and herbal supplements. Tinkered with the set-up of his bike. Paid attention to his power output. Used goal-orientated training programmes.

I think the above will be Thomas' epitaph: "a good rider but not capable of winning a Tour de France in normal circumstances".

 

[rick james]

Re:

My faith has been restored today. A friend of mine who knows nothing about pro cycling, doesnt ride a bike even.....texted me and asked

'SO WHAT DO YOU RECKON ? HAS GERRRRAINT GOT BAD ASTHMA ?? '

so the general public do take notice

aye sure that happened

 

[veganrob]

Wiggins 2010 to 2012: Critérium du Dauphiné 1st, Vuelta a España 3rd, Paris–Nice 3rd, Tour de France 1st

Thomas 2016 - 2018: Paris–Nice 1st, Volta ao Algarve 1st, Tour of the Alps 1st, Tirreno–Adriatico 5th, Critérium du Dauphiné 1st, Tirreno–Adriatico 3rd, Tour de France 1st

Contador 2005 - 2007: Tour of the Basque Country 1st, Tour de Romandie 4th, Paris–Nice 1st, Vuelta a Castilla y León 1st, Tour de France 1st

Wiggins: 30-32 years old
Thomas: 30-32 years old
Contador: 22-24 years old.

Therein lies the difference. You know this. Stop being obtuse.

As for why palmares is being used as justification for results, a mid-career transformation like those of Wiggins, Froome or Thomas have historically only happened when heavy oxygen vector doping is involved, so when a rider has a sudden and massive improvement in results and performance, it's about as big a red flag as you're ever going to get without an actual positive test. Extremely talented kids that continue to perform well after they turn pro, like Sagan, EBH, Pinot, etc. at least get some benefit of the doubt since their career trajectories follow the somewhat linear improvement that was normal in cycling before oxygen vector doping became the norm.

No one is arguing that Wiggins, Froome and Thomas are clean, though. Of course there are red flags there. But the point is if you're going to scrutinise them, then why essentially use that to essentially allow Contador off the hook?

I remember the day I first became suspicious of Thomas, and it was before this date of 2015 where people are pegging his transformation at - it was the 2014 Commonwealth Games road race. Thomas won by a country mile despite having a late puncture. It may not have been the strongest field but he was clearly on another planet to the rest of them and it was very suspicious. By then he was already starting to establish himself as a strong one-day rider, at 27-28. It didn't totally shock me from there that he became more and more competitive in the GTs, but in hindsight obviously it was quite quick

You can make entirely reasonable arguments for Wiggins and Thomas about them moving from track to focus on road, and that that was the cause of their dramatic improvement. I'm extremely sceptical of that and believe it's untrue. But I don't think it's any more or less spurious than giving guys like Contador a free pass because they started young, especially as Contador is a convicted doper - for the record, I like him and hoped he'd get another Tour in before he retired, but this kind of apologism for his doping based on "talent" compared to the Sky riders is hypocritical. You can't pick and choose which doping you're against and which you're going to turn a blind eye to

You're not going to find one single person here that will argue Contador is clean. Even his most ardent supporter, La Flo, will admit such.

 

[hrotha]

There's no double standard just because some riders meet the standard and others don't.

 

[Elagabalus]

Re:

Bad memory is an effect of doping? He hardly remembered who his teammates were. :razz:
But he was tired after the hard stage in Paris. :twisted:

The drops mic was funny probably because when he was making his speech I was saying to myself "how come they gave him such a shitty dynamic microphone?" Oh ... I see, he's going to drop it! Should have seen that one coming ...

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

You're not going to find one single person here that will argue Contador is clean. Even his most ardent supporter, La Flo, will admit such.

I'm aware. But you can't possibly argue that The Clinic treats Contador's doping in the same way as Sky's doping. It quite clearly generates a different emotional reaction here. Look at all the threads on the main page about Sky and their current or former riders - I count 11 posted in since 20th July

Like I said, I understand why Sky are particularly hated, but the reason for that isn't exclusively because of doping. And focusing so intently on the actions of one team just creates more and more of a mindset that non-Sky riders are a lesser evil, which does let them off the hook somewhat for potential cheating

 

[Saint Unix]

Look at all the threads on the main page about Sky and their current or former riders - I count 11 posted in since 20th July

But is that because they're especially hated or because of the fact that they just won the biggest race in the sport again, with yet another also-ran-turned-racehorse? Sky get by far the most attention because they're the best team, and because of all the doping smoke billowing out of their whole operation. It's normal. Go back to the days before Sky started crushing the Tour and The Clinic was overflowing with all matters related to Contador and Armstrong. Hell. Armstrong has his fourth thread now and that's still seeing a fair share of activity to this day even though the guy retired eight years ago and was banned almost six years ago. The previous three were all behemoths of several hundred pages.

 

[The Hitch]

Its funny how the people who complain that there is too much posting about Sky, themselves only ever post about Sky. Go to the Quintana or whoever thread and post the same defense there you do here and you will see people respond as well