Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

[Benotti69]

but, there isn't a single person connected to team sky, past or present who has come out and said they are doping, unlike postal. for me, that is the only reason why they get any sort of benefit of the doubt, people were falling over themselves to grass on lance.

Actually No. Besides an offhand remark in the presence of Andreu that got the ball rolling it was for over ten years absolutely void of any direct testimony. Without the Andreu's we would have had zip.

To drive that one home: in all those years with changing teammates (who later got caught)there has been one teammate (and his wife as eyewitness) who said something about doping. And even that accusation was a speck on what really was going on. Hamilton, Landis, even when grilled and burning on the stake did not say anything about USPS. The reasoned decisons was many, many years after the fact. And that was with the FBI involved....

Now look at Telekom, did anyone who got caught finger the team? NO. Banesto? Silence. Gewiss? Silence. CSC? Silence. The argument: Nobody is squealing holds little value. This seldom happened before, so why would it now?

The hooplah of the followers and some press guys questioning Lance all those years? Well, that is akin to what is happening to Froome right now.

Walsh would do well to think about that, bolded part above, Armstrong/USPS were an anomaly in many ways in pro cycling.

 

[Franklin]

1. You accept your “fact” is just question mark, excellent.

Not so shallow huh?

2. Nope, saw it, the margins weren't excessive and the competition wasn’t that strong.

Oh so you retract your prior statement that this is the first every Sky train? Thanks, it takes to be a big man to say he was posting nonsense.

3. I have no idea what Armstrong beating Pantini has to do with anything?

YOU wanted a comparison with an era. Don't be mad for me answering you.

4. A lot of missed tests are suspicious, 2 out of hundreds over a number of years are not. That is why anti-doping allows for it…. What is it, 2 or 3 missed per year? He is massively inside of that.

Ahhhh the most tested athlete in the world. Hundreds of OOC tests now.

Thanks, I was doubting if you were serious, but that nugget shows you are actually pissing on Froome.

5. How can 2 TUE’s actually have anything to do with how good Froome is now? How? They are irrelevant.

Yes. How can a Tue be suspicuous. Really. I.have.no.idea.

6. Don’t know about what you are referring to there, could you give me a link to the story?

I know you have no idea about the subject[/quote] Ahhhh and my facts were so shallow, except that you have actually no idea about Sky at all

Look up Yates. Motoman. Lance Armstrong.

I await your amazing reply why that was not suspicuous at all.

7. 1 mountain stage does not make a GT rider.

We will see, but that's beside the point.

The fact is that GT (just like Hincapie) managed to destroy Nibali and Contador on a mountainstage.

Yep the Armstrong story took 10 years to hit mainstream…. But if you knew your cycling history you would know it didn’t take much looking to find the people with first hand knowledge pointing the finger.

Yes I do know cycling history. And this is why I'm just shaking my head as what you are saying is fantasy. There were two eyewitnesses (man and wife) and that was by sheer coincidence due to hearing a doctor speak with Lance. Other eyewitnesses? ZERO

Sorry Tommy, I'm outgunning you by knowledge and facts. I'm done with you until you actually make some effort.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

2.7 average OOC tests per year for a pro cyclist. On average - stressing this.

2010 - 2015 is 18 tests. So that's 2 missed OOC tests out of 18.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re:

2.7 average OOC tests per year for a pro cyclist. On average - stressing this.

2010 - 2015 is 18 tests. So that's 2 missed OOC tests out of 18.

As a team leader, it is highly likely, indeed almost certain, that he is tested somewhat more than average.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

2.7 average OOC tests per year for a pro cyclist. On average - stressing this.

2010 - 2015 is 18 tests. So that's 2 missed OOC tests out of 18.

As a team leader, it is highly likely, indeed almost certain, that he is tested somewhat more than average.

Except for when he isn't, coz the testers can't get access to him.

Given his big PR exercise about no testing on Tenerife, I am surprised he did not mention that it does not matter coz he has been tested X times already regardless.

So whilst what you say makes some sense, I'm not comfortable accepting the assumption that he is tested more than the average.

 

[Catwhoorg]

In one of his pre-tour interviews he did mention a number of tests at Tenereife this year

I want to say 5, but don't even recall which site interview it was, so that could be off.

But you point in essence still stands
2 missed tests in a few years doesn't seem like a big deal, but given the scarcity of OOC testing, it certainly could be significant portion of those OOC tests.

As a practical matter I have little doubt that an ADA would follow-up an OOC missed test with another targeted test or two, but then the athlete will at leats suspect this is coming and dial down anything they may be taking.

 

[Benotti69]

Remember when Geraint Thomas's name appeared as a Number 6 on the doping suspicion list.

Damien Ressiot of L'Equipe wrote

From six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was 'overwhelming'. According to the paper, some of the riders located at the top of the list have already been singled out by the panel of nine experts, even if no procedure was opened. Still, some of the files' commentaries are damning. Recurrent adnormal profiles, enourmous fluctuations, identification of the used doping products and means of administration..."

Thomas, smoking......

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

2.7 average OOC tests per year for a pro cyclist. On average - stressing this.

2010 - 2015 is 18 tests. So that's 2 missed OOC tests out of 18.

As a team leader, it is highly likely, indeed almost certain, that he is tested somewhat more than average.

au contrare my lesser cat

they dont target the butter on head teams, and those with a political sway. its the brechte dictum on heroes.

they only persecute ricky riccio like he was some albino red headed stepchild negro jewish muslim roma

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Thomas, smoking......

Gauloises.

gauloises bleu.

it is my go to pipette for post coitus

 

[hrotha]

Personally I have no problem with Thomas being a versatile rider who can do reasonably well both on the cobbles and on the climbs. The thing is, while he hasn't exceeded anyone's expectations on the cobbles yet and he's therefore not more suspicious on that front than any other pro rider, this season, at 29, he's suddenly climbing much, much better than ever.

Last time he sort of reinvented himself, his performance made perfect sense: he focused on the track for London 2012, he put on some weight and, as a result, his climbing got a lot worse while his time-trialing improved. This time, however, he improved massively on one front while not really worsening in any others. At 29.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

2.7 average OOC tests per year for a pro cyclist. On average - stressing this.

2010 - 2015 is 18 tests. So that's 2 missed OOC tests out of 18.

As a team leader, it is highly likely, indeed almost certain, that he is tested somewhat more than average.

There's a table somewhere in the forum. I think 6+ times (as in, they don't actually give the number if it's more than 6) a year.

you must be new to the sport of professional cycling. GT riders are born, created naturally. You cannot train hard to be a GT rider, you are or you aren't. Pre EPO, no matter how much dope you took, you couldn't transform from a classics to a 3 week stage winner.

Wait, what? Ever heard of Eddie Mercxx? He's a belgian cyclist who was big in the 60's and 70's. He was a big time sprinter and classics man coming up. If I remember correctly, he went on to find some success in stage races. You should read up on him. I've been told that Daniel Friebe has a great book out

It's a flag, sure, but y'all are way overstating this. There have been a lot of decent all-rounders. Even some great ones. Guys like Valverde, Evans, even Andy freaking Schleck won classics and raced GT's not so long ago. I think a guy like Nibali could do well in a cobbled classics, so did Wiggins, after the team decided they could risk him racing there. I think the age of specialization has as much to do with more organized (less amateur ) teams and less ITT in the parcours than changes in the physiognomies of the riders. When G's winning Roubaix and the Tour the same year twice like Hinault did, sure, you can say I told you so.

The way bigger question is the late-blooming trend. Yeah, a few late bloomers is normal. I have no issues with Peraud (but it's amazing how few given the general pitchforks out sentiment). Thomas, Froome, Porte ... Sky seem to be getting more out of the scrap heap than most. Yet perhaps strangely not enough out of the Kennaughs and Henaos.

 

[neineinei]

Re: Re:

2.7 average OOC tests per year for a pro cyclist. On average - stressing this.

2010 - 2015 is 18 tests. So that's 2 missed OOC tests out of 18.

As a team leader, it is highly likely, indeed almost certain, that he is tested somewhat more than average.

There's a table somewhere in the forum. I think 6+ times (as in, they don't actually give the number if it's more than 6) a year.

I don't think UCI give out that kind of statistics (anymore). In tennis they still do it that way: http://www.itftennis.com/media/199333/199333.pdf

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

2.7 average OOC tests per year for a pro cyclist. On average - stressing this.

2010 - 2015 is 18 tests. So that's 2 missed OOC tests out of 18.

As a team leader, it is highly likely, indeed almost certain, that he is tested somewhat more than average.

There's a table somewhere in the forum. I think 6+ times (as in, they don't actually give the number if it's more than 6) a year.

I don't think UCI give out that kind of statistics (anymore). In tennis they still do it that way: http://www.itftennis.com/media/199333/199333.pdf

Thanks! Yeah I might've gotten that mixed up the other day posting in the tennis thread.

Still, it's a good proxy to how they target test all winners / big names.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

2.7 average OOC tests per year for a pro cyclist. On average - stressing this.

2010 - 2015 is 18 tests. So that's 2 missed OOC tests out of 18.

As a team leader, it is highly likely, indeed almost certain, that he is tested somewhat more than average.

There's a table somewhere in the forum. I think 6+ times (as in, they don't actually give the number if it's more than 6) a year.

I don't think UCI give out that kind of statistics (anymore).

The CADF annual report stopped being published when Brian "Transparency" Cookson was elected to office.

 

[Sorped]

Re: Re:

Wait, what? Ever heard of Eddie Mercxx?

Yes. Did you know he was popped several times for doping?

 

[Poursuivant]

Re:

Remember when Geraint Thomas's name appeared as a Number 6 on the doping suspicion list.

Damien Ressiot of L'Equipe wrote

From six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was 'overwhelming'. According to the paper, some of the riders located at the top of the list have already been singled out by the panel of nine experts, even if no procedure was opened. Still, some of the files' commentaries are damning. Recurrent adnormal profiles, enourmous fluctuations, identification of the used doping products and means of administration..."

Thomas, smoking......

Wasn't Lance a 2 or something on that list?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Wait, what? Ever heard of Eddie Mercxx? He's a belgian cyclist who was big in the 60's and 70's.

Doping litmus test: must explain current rider's performance by comparing to Eddy Merckx. Current rider invisible until > 25 years of age.

Eddy won the Giro at 23 and the Tour at 24.

Geraint is not anything like Eddy Merckx.

Nothing.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

Wait, what? Ever heard of Eddie Mercxx?

Yes. Did you know he was popped several times for doping?

Sure but a Mercxx EPO positive hasn't been even rumored even here. There's a first time for everything, though, if you wan't to put your name to that be my guest.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

2.7 average OOC tests per year for a pro cyclist. On average - stressing this.

2010 - 2015 is 18 tests. So that's 2 missed OOC tests out of 18.

As a team leader, it is highly likely, indeed almost certain, that he is tested somewhat more than average.

There's a table somewhere in the forum. I think 6+ times (as in, they don't actually give the number if it's more than 6) a year.

you must be new to the sport of professional cycling. GT riders are born, created naturally. You cannot train hard to be a GT rider, you are or you aren't. Pre EPO, no matter how much dope you took, you couldn't transform from a classics to a 3 week stage winner.

Wait, what? Ever heard of Eddie Mercxx? He's a belgian cyclist who was big in the 60's and 70's. He was a big time sprinter and classics man coming up. If I remember correctly, he went on to find some success in stage races. You should read up on him. I've been told that Daniel Friebe has a great book out

It's a flag, sure, but y'all are way overstating this. There have been a lot of decent all-rounders. Even some great ones. Guys like Valverde, Evans, even Andy freaking Schleck won classics and raced GT's not so long ago. I think a guy like Nibali could do well in a cobbled classics, so did Wiggins, after the team decided they could risk him racing there. I think the age of specialization has as much to do with more organized (less amateur ) teams and less ITT in the parcours than changes in the physiognomies of the riders. When G's winning Roubaix and the Tour the same year twice like Hinault did, sure, you can say I told you so.

The way bigger question is the late-blooming trend. Yeah, a few late bloomers is normal. I have no issues with Peraud (but it's amazing how few given the general pitchforks out sentiment). Thomas, Froome, Porte ... Sky seem to be getting more out of the scrap heap than most. Yet perhaps strangely not enough out of the Kennaughs and Henaos.

ah Eddy 'tested positive 3 times' Merckx to justify Geraint Thomas as clean. FAIL.

 

[Sorped]

Re: Re:

Wait, what? Ever heard of Eddie Mercxx?

Yes. Did you know he was popped several times for doping?

Sure but a Mercxx EPO positive hasn't been even rumored even here. There's a first time for everything, though, if you wan't to put your name to that be my guest.

We both know it would not be possible to get popped for a product that hasn't been invented yet. But don't try to tell me his doping had no effect on his performance.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

Wait, what? Ever heard of Eddie Mercxx? He's a belgian cyclist who was big in the 60's and 70's.

Doping litmus test: must explain current rider's performance by comparing to Eddy Merckx. Current rider invisible until > 25 years of age.

Eddy won the Giro at 23 and the Tour at 24.

Geraint is not anything like Eddy Merckx.

Nothing.

Hey, if Sky's stash is all that you imply it to be then give it some time.

Anyway you're going back on what you said. I agree with you that you'd expect most GT greats to follow that progression: Hinault, Anquetil, Indurain (ok, fine, I'll leave Miguelon out), LeMond, et al. But that's not what Benotti said. I'll whittle down the object of my objection:

Pre EPO, no matter how much dope you took, you couldn't transform from a classics to a 3 week stage winner.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Explain? ^

Horner's super full *** year at 42

Which... has.... what to do with Thomas? Assuming you guys already think he is "full ***"... or not.... I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

i was not involved in that segment. i just saw you asking about chris horner.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Wait, what? Ever heard of Eddie Mercxx? He's a belgian cyclist who was big in the 60's and 70's.

Doping litmus test: must explain current rider's performance by comparing to Eddy Merckx. Current rider invisible until > 25 years of age.

Eddy won the Giro at 23 and the Tour at 24.

Geraint is not anything like Eddy Merckx.

Nothing.

Hey, if Sky's stash is all that you imply it to be then give it some time.

No, it's impossible. G is already 29. Sky tech may be good but they do not have a time machine...

Anyway you're going back on what you said.

Eh?

I agree with you that you'd expect most GT greats to follow that progression: Hinault, Anquetil, Indurain (ok, fine, I'll leave Miguelon out), LeMond, et al. But that's not what Benotti said. I'll whittle down the object of my objection:

Pre EPO, no matter how much dope you took, you couldn't transform from a classics to a 3 week stage winner.

Yep, and he's right. The first GT Merckx rode he came 9th. The second GT he rode he won. That's not a transformation. That's a rider that was always there.

Nothing like Geraint Thomas.

But this conversation point is a joke regardless.

G ain't no Merckx, and the necessity for the comparison is insulting.

 

[infeXio]

Still the third best climber in the race behind Froome and Porte, go figure.

 

[Red Lobster]

Thomas shuts down Quintana. Now that's some next level sh!t.