Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

[Tommy79]

[quote="Singer01"

Rider, who beat Sagan and Stybar in cobbled classics, should still be easily dropped by "a weak contador and dogsh!t nibali" on a HC climb. No getting around it really.

Why shouldn't someone with Thomas's build be able to compete at both?

Have a look at the best guys on the cobbles - Boonen, Cancellara, Vanmarcke, Boom, Degenkolb, Sagan. They're all tall and carrying 5-10 kgs more than climbers their height. Why? Cobbles are about raw power, not power to weight and a few extra kilos help you sit on the cobbles better.

This is why you don't see northern classics specialists climb like Thomas has been. If you ask me Thomas is in kind of a no man's land, thinner than classics guys but not a climbers build.

Yeah, got a foot in both camps at the moment... when/if he specialises in one or the other he could be amazing.

 

[Franklin]

Why shouldn't someone with Thomas's build be able to compete at both?

Because he would be the first one since the 80ies. And those who managed to do that were riders of a legendary stature.

And no, Geraint Thomas is not a rider of legendary class.

But a pro-tip: Go look into cycling history a bit. I will warn you, you will understand that Sky is a sham, but it would at least be educative. It's not Clinic propagande, just read about the history of cycling, the people involved, the performances. Then when you digested that go read about the people involved at Sky.

Then get back to us.

Yeah, got a foot in both camps at the moment... when/if he specialises in one or the other he could be amazing.

No, he is already amazing. As in flat out impossible amazing.

 

[Tommy79]

Why shouldn't someone with Thomas's build be able to compete at both?

Because he would be the first one since the 80ies. And those who managed to do that were riders of a legendary stature.

And no, Geraint Thomas is not a rider of legendary class.

But a pro-tip: Go look into cycling history a bit. I will warn you, you will understand that Sky is a sham, but it would at least be educative. It's not Clinic propagande, just read about the history of cycling, the people involved, the performances. Then when you digested that go read about the people involved at Sky.

Then get back to us.

Yeah, got a foot in both camps at the moment... when/if he specialises in one or the other he could be amazing.

No, he is already amazing. As in flat out impossible amazing.

You're talking like he has won multiple grand tours and monuments... he hasn't, he is just decent at both.

I know enough cycling history, that's why I can see that it is different now.

Just as an exercise... imagine what you think a mostly clean peloton would look like. How would it be different to what we have now? 100% perfect development curves on all riders? lol

 

[The Hitch]

I guarantee you anyone imagining a clean peloton in 2009 will not have had Chris Froome Richie Porte and Geraint thomas doing 1,2 and 6 on an MTF shootout. Yourself included. Froome included. Thomas included. Thomas didn't even like climbing. You think that is a guy who in 2015 suddenly discovers he can role with specialists like Valverde?

 

[Franklin]

You're talking like he has won multiple grand tours and monuments... he hasn't, he is just decent at both.

Perhaps you missed my digging into cycling history and coming up with very, very few parallels? And all I did find were in the REALLY REALLY big name category? Cobbled classics and GT's are pretty much the most opposite I find in cycling. Being decent at cobbled classics generally means you suck at Gt's... unless you are indeed legendary.

I know enough cycling history, that's why I can see that it is different now.

Except you obviously don't. Here's a direct comparison with USPS for you.

Doping doctor which should not be there? Check.
Terrible Disease? Check.
Directly outclassing opponents in an eyepopping way? Check.
Team outclassing opponents in an eyepopping way? Check.
Missed test due to a communication error? Check
Troubles with TUE's? Check.
Ties with the UCI president*? Check.
Dodgy DS? Check.
Classic rider destroying GT winners? Check

These are simply facts. Nothing about this is anywhere near fabricated.

As you can not deny this, you can not with a straight face say ït's all different now".

Seriously the only way to say things have changed is denying above facts and prefer fantasy.

Just as an exercise... imagine what you think a mostly clean peloton would look like. How would it be different to what we have now? 100% perfect development curves on all riders? lol

Lower speeds. Bigger time gaps. Less consistent riding. No classic specialists being able to put down the hammer in the spring and in the TdF.

And yes, that's exactly 100% opposite of what Sky is doing....

 

[Franklin]

Re:

You think that is a guy who in 2015 suddenly discovers he can role with specialists like Valverde?

Not even Valverde ever made a decent showing at a cobbled classic

So the best all rounder of this generation (who operated on rocketfuel and "probably" still does), with a palmares that makes him actually candidate for the pantheon (morals be damned)... is not as allround as Geraint Thomas.

Flat.out.impossible.

 

[Supimilian]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-suspicious-list-leaked-from-2010-tour-de-france/

He went clean and got better. It's all starting to make sense

 

[The Hitch]

Ha good point. 5 or higher was deemed very suspicious and he got a 6,

 

[Dear Wiggo]

6 Linus Gerdemann, Christian Knees, Egoi Martínez, Alessandro Petacchi, Francesco Reda, Mauro Santambrogio, Geraint Thomas

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-suspicious-list-leaked-from-2010-tour-de-france/

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Francesco Reda, Mauro Santambrogio

Nice company

 

[Supimilian]

More sus than Lance, Vinokourov, late Wiggins, Leipheimer, Contador, Ballan and both Schlecks ++
Next to Reda and Santambrogio lol

 

[batchuba]

Re: Re:

So the best all rounder of this generation (who operated on rocketfuel and "probably" still does), with a palmares that makes him actually candidate for the pantheon (morals be damned)... is not as allround as Geraint Thomas.

It was the most embarrassing part of an embarrassing day.

 

[Tommy79]

You're talking like he has won multiple grand tours and monuments... he hasn't, he is just decent at both.

Perhaps you missed my digging into cycling history and coming up with very, very few parallels? And all I did find were in the REALLY REALLY big name category? Cobbled classics and GT's are pretty much the most opposite I find in cycling. Being decent at cobbled classics generally means you suck at Gt's... unless you are indeed legendary.

Does “Legendary” mean pre EPO era?

I know enough cycling history, that's why I can see that it is different now.

Except you obviously don't. Here's a direct comparison with USPS for you.

Doping doctor which should not be there? Check.
Terrible Disease? Check.
Directly outclassing opponents in an eyepopping way? Check.
Team outclassing opponents in an eyepopping way? Check.
Missed test due to a communication error? Check
Troubles with TUE's? Check.
Ties with the UCI president*? Check.
Dodgy DS? Check.
Classic rider destroying GT winners? Check

These are simply facts. Nothing about this is anywhere near fabricated.

These are great points, really good points. They all deserve to be drilled into so we can look at the substance…. And oh, there isn’t any substance. Nothing to suggest Leinders was anything but a race doctor, what is actually sinister about having a disease? How often do we really see more than 1 or 2 sky riders at the end of a mountain stage (aside from yesterday)? Froome’s winning margins are “eye-popping” compared to what era? Are 2 missed tests in a career really suspicious? Are 2 TUE’s in 4 years really suspicious? Is there anything to suggest Cookson has ever covered up a doping test? DS’s with doping history… yep… DS’s desperately trying to hide their doping history though, classic rider destroying GT winners? Shall we see if he does actually destroy any in form GT winners over the course of a GT?

You’re right, you did come up with simple facts. Very simple, and very shallow. Look into them and ask the next question and there is nothing there!

 

[Saint Unix]

These are great points, really good points. They all deserve to be drilled into so we can look at the substance…. And oh, there isn’t any substance. Nothing to suggest Ferrari was anything but a race doctor, what is actually sinister about having cancer? How often do we really see more than 1 or 2 USPS riders at the end of a mountain stage (aside from yesterday)? Armstrong’s winning margins are “eye-popping” compared to what era? Are 2 missed tests in a career really suspicious? Are 2 TUE’s in 4 years really suspicious? Is there anything to suggest Verbruggen has ever covered up a doping test? DS’s with doping history… yep… DS’s desperately trying to hide their doping history though, classic rider destroying GT winners? Shall we see if he does actually destroy any in form GT winners over the course of a GT?

You’re right, you did come up with simple facts. Very simple, and very shallow. Look into them and ask the next question and there is nothing there!

So I switched things around a bit and we're back in 2004!

Great scott, Marty!

 

[Tommy79]

These are great points, really good points. They all deserve to be drilled into so we can look at the substance…. And oh, there isn’t any substance. Nothing to suggest Ferrari was anything but a race doctor, what is actually sinister about having cancer? How often do we really see more than 1 or 2 USPS riders at the end of a mountain stage (aside from yesterday)? Armstrong’s winning margins are “eye-popping” compared to what era? Are 2 missed tests in a career really suspicious? Are 2 TUE’s in 4 years really suspicious? Is there anything to suggest Verbruggen has ever covered up a doping test? DS’s with doping history… yep… DS’s desperately trying to hide their doping history though, classic rider destroying GT winners? Shall we see if he does actually destroy any in form GT winners over the course of a GT?

You’re right, you did come up with simple facts. Very simple, and very shallow. Look into them and ask the next question and there is nothing there!

So I switched things around a bit and we're back in 2004!

Great scott, Marty!

So that's a "no" on the substance then?

 

[Singer01]

These are great points, really good points. They all deserve to be drilled into so we can look at the substance…. And oh, there isn’t any substance. Nothing to suggest Ferrari was anything but a race doctor, what is actually sinister about having cancer? How often do we really see more than 1 or 2 USPS riders at the end of a mountain stage (aside from yesterday)? Armstrong’s winning margins are “eye-popping” compared to what era? Are 2 missed tests in a career really suspicious? Are 2 TUE’s in 4 years really suspicious? Is there anything to suggest Verbruggen has ever covered up a doping test? DS’s with doping history… yep… DS’s desperately trying to hide their doping history though, classic rider destroying GT winners? Shall we see if he does actually destroy any in form GT winners over the course of a GT?

You’re right, you did come up with simple facts. Very simple, and very shallow. Look into them and ask the next question and there is nothing there!

So I switched things around a bit and we're back in 2004!

Great scott, Marty!

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.

 

[Benotti69]

[quote="Singer01"

Rider, who beat Sagan and Stybar in cobbled classics, should still be easily dropped by "a weak contador and dogsh!t nibali" on a HC climb. No getting around it really.

Why shouldn't someone with Thomas's build be able to compete at both?

Have a look at the best guys on the cobbles - Boonen, Cancellara, Vanmarcke, Boom, Degenkolb, Sagan. They're all tall and carrying 5-10 kgs more than climbers their height. Why? Cobbles are about raw power, not power to weight and a few extra kilos help you sit on the cobbles better.

This is why you don't see northern classics specialists climb like Thomas has been. If you ask me Thomas is in kind of a no man's land, thinner than classics guys but not a climbers build.

Yeah, got a foot in both camps at the moment... when/if he specialises in one or the other he could be amazing.

When he specialises? Like Horner at 42?

 

[Tommy79]

[quote="Singer01"

Rider, who beat Sagan and Stybar in cobbled classics, should still be easily dropped by "a weak contador and dogsh!t nibali" on a HC climb. No getting around it really.

Why shouldn't someone with Thomas's build be able to compete at both?

Have a look at the best guys on the cobbles - Boonen, Cancellara, Vanmarcke, Boom, Degenkolb, Sagan. They're all tall and carrying 5-10 kgs more than climbers their height. Why? Cobbles are about raw power, not power to weight and a few extra kilos help you sit on the cobbles better.

This is why you don't see northern classics specialists climb like Thomas has been. If you ask me Thomas is in kind of a no man's land, thinner than classics guys but not a climbers build.

Yeah, got a foot in both camps at the moment... when/if he specialises in one or the other he could be amazing.

When he specialises? Like Horner at 42?

Explain?

 

[Franklin]

You’re right, you did come up with simple facts. Very simple, and very shallow. Look into them and ask the next question and there is nothing there!

Awww.. sorry man.. (I actually thought you knew cycling history, but it seems you truely have no idea.

1. Yes, the doctor of Rasmussen and Mencov is hired for saddle sores. And you know that because you researched it. Oh wait, you have no idea really, so the questionmark is not solved at all.
2. Someone missed watching 2012 and 2013
3. Well... if you are saying Amrstrong beating (for example) Pantani was not eyepopping I can safely rest my defense and await the laughter and applause of the jury.
4. Yes, missed tests are suspicuous. See victor Conte's explanation. See the Reasoned decision.
5. Yes, these Tue's were suspicuous. Not only did it go straight against Sky's narrative (we do not think a rider should ride with a Tue), strangely this asthma is not prevalent in the TdF, which is odd considering it supposed to be connected to high efforts.
6. The DS did hide his doping history. Not only that, he visted Lance's dope courier with the Sky car. Not suspicuous at all
7. Nonono.... there is this thing called reality. This actually did happen two days ago. I understand that this is a bit much to grasp, but GT did crush Nibali and Contador and was playing coy with TJvG and Piti. Take a few deep breaths, go to youtube and watch it. You will find out thatthis is not some strange dream, but something that actually happened in the real world.

Sorry Tommy, you dismissal of this as shallow is absurd. Just admit you are a fan and don't care instead of playing the clown. There's seriously nothing wrong with it. But do not try to think fantasies are anything near sufficient to deny the cold hard facts. There's a lot of reason to be suspicuous and the comparison between USPS and Sky are staggering.

 

[Franklin]

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.

 

[blackcat]

Explain? ^

Horner's super full *** year at 42

 

[Tommy79]

You’re right, you did come up with simple facts. Very simple, and very shallow. Look into them and ask the next question and there is nothing there!

Awww.. sorry man.. (I actually thought you knew cycling history, but it seems you truely have no idea.

1. Yes, the doctor of Rasmussen and Mencov is hired for saddle sores. And you know that because you researched it. Oh wait, you have no idea really, so the questionmark is not solved at all.
2. Someone missed watching 2012 and 2013
3. Well... if you are saying Amrstrong beating (for example) Pantani was not eyepopping I can safely rest my defense and await the laughter and applause of the jury.
4. Yes, missed tests are suspicuous. See victor Conte's explanation. See the Reasoned decision.
5. Yes, these Tue's were suspicuous. Not only did it go straight against Sky's narrative (we do not think a rider should ride with a Tue), strangely this asthma is not prevalent in the TdF, which is odd considering it supposed to be connected to high efforts.
6. The DS did hide his doping history. Not only that, he visted Lance's dope courier with the Sky car. Not suspicuous at all
7. Nonono.... there is this thing called reality. This actually did happen two days ago. I understand that this is a bit much to grasp, but GT did crush Nibali and Contador and was playing coy with TJvG and Piti. Take a few deep breaths, go to youtube and watch it. You will find out thatthis is not some strange dream, but something that actually happened in the real world.

Sorry Tommy, you dismissal of this as shallow is absurd. Just admit you are a fan and don't care instead of playing the clown. There's seriously nothing wrong with it. But do not try to think fantasies are anything near sufficient to deny the cold hard facts. There's a lot of reason to be suspicuous and the comparison between USPS and Sky are staggering.

1. You accept your “fact” is just question mark, excellent.
2. Nope, saw it, the margins weren't excessive and the competition wasn’t that strong.
3. I have no idea what Armstrong beating Pantini has to do with anything?
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.
5. How can 2 TUE’s actually have anything to do with how good Froome is now? How? They are irrelevant.
6. Don’t know about what you are referring to there, could you give me a link to the story?
7. 1 mountain stage does not make a GT rider.

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. Where are these people for Sky?

 

[Tommy79]

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.

 

[Benotti69]

Yeah, got a foot in both camps at the moment... when/if he specialises in one or the other he could be amazing.

When he specialises? Like Horner at 42?

Explain?

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. There have been 2 exceptions that I know of, Sean Kelly riding for Spanish team Kas won a Vuelta, his onyl GT win and Moser winning a Giro where Fignon was cheated out of the win.

So Thomas is 30. He is not young in pro terms. He is seasoned. If he was a GT GC rider he would have shown that before now, roundabout 19-23 years of age. He hasn't. Horner won his first GT at 42 with copius amounts of dope. Ie a joke.

For Thomas to become a GT rider, he is obviously not born with it, he needs to dope, like at this TdF. He was a number 6 on UCI's suspicion of doping list a few years ago.

 

[Benotti69]

You’re right, you did come up with simple facts. Very simple, and very shallow. Look into them and ask the next question and there is nothing there!

Awww.. sorry man.. (I actually thought you knew cycling history, but it seems you truely have no idea.

1. Yes, the doctor of Rasmussen and Mencov is hired for saddle sores. And you know that because you researched it. Oh wait, you have no idea really, so the questionmark is not solved at all.
2. Someone missed watching 2012 and 2013
3. Well... if you are saying Amrstrong beating (for example) Pantani was not eyepopping I can safely rest my defense and await the laughter and applause of the jury.
4. Yes, missed tests are suspicuous. See victor Conte's explanation. See the Reasoned decision.
5. Yes, these Tue's were suspicuous. Not only did it go straight against Sky's narrative (we do not think a rider should ride with a Tue), strangely this asthma is not prevalent in the TdF, which is odd considering it supposed to be connected to high efforts.
6. The DS did hide his doping history. Not only that, he visted Lance's dope courier with the Sky car. Not suspicuous at all
7. Nonono.... there is this thing called reality. This actually did happen two days ago. I understand that this is a bit much to grasp, but GT did crush Nibali and Contador and was playing coy with TJvG and Piti. Take a few deep breaths, go to youtube and watch it. You will find out thatthis is not some strange dream, but something that actually happened in the real world.

Sorry Tommy, you dismissal of this as shallow is absurd. Just admit you are a fan and don't care instead of playing the clown. There's seriously nothing wrong with it. But do not try to think fantasies are anything near sufficient to deny the cold hard facts. There's a lot of reason to be suspicuous and the comparison between USPS and Sky are staggering.

1. You accept your “fact” is just question mark, excellent.
2. Nope, saw it, the margins weren't excessive and the competition wasn’t that strong.
3. I have no idea what Armstrong beating Pantini has to do with anything?
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.
5. How can 2 TUE’s actually have anything to do with how good Froome is now? How? They are irrelevant.
6. Don’t know about what you are referring to there, could you give me a link to the story?
7. 1 mountain stage does not make a GT rider.

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. Where are these people for Sky?

Armstrong's story hit the Sunday Times in 1999 his first TdF winning year. How more mainstream can you get?

There have been plenty who doubted Armstrong. But Armstrong sued( or threatened with litigation) all who stood in his way.

Armstrong is not a likeable person and made a lot of enemies. Hence many willing to talk. Sky have not made any enemies yet and they have convinced the guy who wrote about Armstrong to 'come on board'. Walsh is near retirement age in an industry where pension paying staff jobs are non existent. Has he taken the 30 pieces of silver due these factors? KImmage has many more writing awards than Walsh and it took him over a year to find a job.

Sky are setting their lawyers on the people who made the Video of Froome's data. How Armstrongish of them