• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Jens Voigt.....is ridiculous

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
P

pmcg76

Mar 6, 2009
4,515
375
16,180
Visit site
JMBeaushrimp said:
I've been thinking about the whole "leveling the playing field" argument for years now, and have come up with my conclusion.

Doping doesn't level the playing field.

It FLATTENS it.

Pure sport (an ideal, but one I adhere to) should reveal the unique potential of gifted humans. That's the beautiful part of it. The human awesomeness of it!

Once the blood vector drugs got into it, everything changed. There weren't the few athletes who had a crit of 48, or the fewer that made the most of it, or the even fewer that didn't have that genetic gift but were smarter and tougher than the others and made their own winning opportunities.

Suddenly it was entire trains of previous flat-land domestiques driving it up climbs faster than previous winners went up them. And increased race speeds, not just for Classics but for the entire length of GTs. And TT performances that were ridiculous...

GTs got predictable and boring, and I haven't seen much change in this new "clean era" (which either starts in 2007, 2009, or 2012 depending on who you talk to). Even the Monuments lost some of their dicey pizzazz due to retardation of performances.

No more fliers, no more chance-taking (apart from guys risking more and more on descents), and a definitive reduction in the dice-roll that racing bikes should be.

Drugs don't level the playing field, they flatten it.

And that breaks my heart...
Click to expand...

To the highlighted part.

One question here, when were you able to start watching GTs and classics live. If I am not mistaken you live in North America which received less TV cycling coverage than here in Europe in the 80s, how many live Tour's or classics were you able to watch live back then?

I know before Europsport which only started around 89 or so there was precious little coverage in the UK/Ireland. All we usually got was highlight's packages on Channel 4 with the odd Tour stage covered live. No classics.

I think there is a little bit too much over romanticism of what cycling was like in the 80s because very few of us ever say much live coverage and most memories are based on those edited highlights packages which were nothing like the live version.

Dreaming up some pre oxygen doping version of what cycling was like is just revisionist melodrama. If you watch youtube videos of racing in the 80s(which I have), some races are as boring and predictable as anything we see today or in the last 20 years.
 
red_flanders

red_flanders

Apr 3, 2009
11,074
4,930
28,180
Visit site
del1962 said:
I dont buy that BS from Ras though, Froome is the best current stage racer thats all, I think Ras might actaully be a bit thick.

Most of the BS comes from a lack of understanding of how climbs are raced differently in different races, particularly climbs that aren't used a lot, anybody who knows a little bit about endurance sports can tell that, but not many in the clinic
Click to expand...

Right. How would Rasmussen know what's possible with and without doping. You know, aside from him realizing like the rest of the critical-thinking world that matching times from the worst EPO and blood doping climbs of the last 20 years would be impossible for anyone, including the once in a generation genetic freaks.

It's definitely that he's a bit thick, not that Froome fans have blinders on to the obvious. Definitely.
 
J

JMBeaushrimp

Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
To the highlighted part.

One question here, when were you able to start watching GTs and classics live. If I am not mistaken you live in North America which received less TV cycling coverage than here in Europe in the 80s, how many live Tour's or classics were you able to watch live back then?

I know before Europsport which only started around 89 or so there was precious little coverage in the UK/Ireland. All we usually got was highlight's packages on Channel 4 with the odd Tour stage covered live. No classics.

I think there is a little bit too much over romanticism of what cycling was like in the 80s because very few of us ever say much live coverage and most memories are based on those edited highlights packages which were nothing like the live version.

Dreaming up some pre oxygen doping version of what cycling was like is just revisionist melodrama. If you watch youtube videos of racing in the 80s(which I have), some races are as boring and predictable as anything we see today or in the last 20 years.
Click to expand...

I do live in NA right now. Doesn't mean I've lived here all my life...

As for live racing:

If you mean live, as in in person, lots of one day races at an early age (as in since I can remember) on up.

For GTs, as in in person, not until I was quite old (early teens).

Regardless, you're missing my melodramatic revisionist point. Sure, the racing could be just as boring (in fact, more boring since guys didn't want to do 50km/h line to line everyday for weeks). I meant more the dynamic between key players. Much more mano-a-mano psychological and physiological battles.

There is no denying that before O2 drugs there were no mountain trains. There were a handful of great climbers, a handful of GC contenders, and the fight began.

Not eight guys at the front of a climb doing 40km/h until only their man is left.

"Revisionist melodrama" does have a nice ring to it, but I'm not sure I'm guilty of the sin...
 
Dear Wiggo

Dear Wiggo

Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Benotti69 said:
The only thing that will make it change is a serious huge amount of money being put into an independent anti doping body. But we all know that aint going to happen.
Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate, it's my belief that money per se is not the answer. Improved tech and physiological knowledge / tracking systems, which yes, may require money to set up / initiate, but long-term, continue making tests reliable and then ridiculously inexpensive is part of the solution.

It's like day light robbery the way testing is still so ridiculously expensive.

I'm envisaging something(s) similar to the pregnancy test women can do by urinating on them thing what they wee on.

Imagine if testing was $1 / test.
 
Clausfarre

Clausfarre

Jan 20, 2013
238
0
0
Visit site
JMBeaushrimp said:
Because Ras knows the peloton isn't that much better than in the Festina days.

I'm not particularly beholden to specific times, or wattages, or w/kg values on specific climbs as my metric of what clean is.

I'm looking at the gestalt.

Testing improved? At the most that's a "maybe".

Dirty guys out of the sport? Nope.

Same "omertic" PR and interviews? Yup.

Speeds still increasing? Yup.

Teams still spontaneously creating stars? Yup.

New drugs still being discovered? Yup.

New performances that match old "doped" performances? Yup.

The last one's a kicker. The sport's PR would have us believe that some sort of massive, world rocking, sea change happened in cycling. That never happened. It didn't happen after Festina, and it didn't happen after USPS.

They love to profess that some sort of huge generational change happened at some point. When? When was this paradigm shift in cycling? What was the impetus behind it, and how was it manifested?

Utter BS. No change has happened, and the *** performances of yesterday are no less *** than the new full *** performances of the current peloton.

Cookson needs to step up now, grab his beads, and do something grand...
Click to expand...

Well said, Sir. It's not just about the numbers but the whole "looks, sounds and quacks like a syringe-poked duck" summary.
 
S

senatorrick

Jun 13, 2012
204
0
0
Visit site
red_flanders said:
Right. How would Rasmussen know what's possible with and without doping. You know, aside from him realizing like the rest of the critical-thinking world that matching times from the worst EPO and blood doping climbs of the last 20 years would be impossible for anyone, including the once in a generation genetic freaks.

It's definitely that he's a bit thick, not that Froome fans have blinders on to the obvious. Definitely.[/QUOTE


Laugh my *** off this generation we've had multiple once in a generation genetic freaks!! Lets see 1. Contador 2. Schleck 3. Froome soon to be Porte and Quintana and then probably Kruzunger , Roach, Horner ohh ya the biggest fraud of all Nibali
Click to expand...
 
Master50

Master50

Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
All done cleans!
Click to expand...

At the finish Voigt is 14 minutes down. The stage was short at 154 km. On the Tourmalet he was still 50+ Km out and yes he stayed until about 10 Km from the finish where he was dropped with Cancellara. So what about the day makes him so suspicious? I assume he was working for Frank Shleck that day. he did domestique duty and did it well. A reason he has a job. He can handle the work but he got to toddle up the last hill and lost nearly 14 minutes in 10 km.
Another moronic doping thread about a rider with no proof.
I am getting the idea the real dopers are members of the forum. People who have personally always taken short cuts so expect that is how everyone else operates. Now it is true I have no more proof he was or is clean than you have he is cheating. I have no certainty he is clean as I have no evidence either way but neither do the doping experts here. I have no illusions that some of these guys are or have cheated but why is it so hard to wait for the proof? this speculation is moronic and I have read enough of the posts by the lords of doping to see they can't even apply their own suspicions consistently. You guys say you can't tell a lot about a rider from a single day and then look for a bunch of unconnected single days to prove your assumptions? Is this supposed to be some kind of smoking gun? I get the smoking part but I think it is a herbal gun :)
 
F

Ferminal

Jul 3, 2009
18,948
5
22,485
Visit site
Yeh, the rouleurs lost a bit of spark in 2009/2010, they actually had to rely on a climber in CAS. Luckily O'Grady dug deep for the lads in 2011 and at least with him we can be 100% sure he was clean.

Anyone got video of Cancellara blowing things up on Croix de Fer?
 
red_flanders

red_flanders

Apr 3, 2009
11,074
4,930
28,180
Visit site
Master50 said:
At the finish Voigt is 14 minutes down. The stage was short at 154 km. On the Tourmalet he was still 50+ Km out and yes he stayed until about 10 Km from the finish where he was dropped with Cancellara. So what about the day makes him so suspicious? I assume he was working for Frank Shleck that day. he did domestique duty and did it well. A reason he has a job. He can handle the work but he got to toddle up the last hill and lost nearly 14 minutes in 10 km.
Click to expand...

Thanks for saying something, I was watching that video and could not figure out for the life of me what the complaint was. I was too sick and too tired to bother asking however.

Another moronic doping thread about a rider with no proof.

I am getting the idea the real dopers are members of the forum. People who have personally always taken short cuts so expect that is how everyone else operates.
Click to expand...

And...ya lost me. Come on. That's more moronic than the post it responds to, frankly.

Now it is true I have no more proof he was or is clean than you have he is cheating. I have no certainty he is clean as I have no evidence either way but neither do the doping experts here. I have no illusions that some of these guys are or have cheated but why is it so hard to wait for the proof? this speculation is moronic and I have read enough of the posts by the lords of doping to see they can't even apply their own suspicions consistently. You guys say you can't tell a lot about a rider from a single day and then look for a bunch of unconnected single days to prove your assumptions? Is this supposed to be some kind of smoking gun? I get the smoking part but I think it is a herbal gun :)
Click to expand...

This particular speculation missed by a mile. Most doesn't.
 
BroDeal

BroDeal

Mar 18, 2009
14,644
72
22,580
Visit site
Master50 said:
At the finish Voigt is 14 minutes down. The stage was short at 154 km. On the Tourmalet he was still 50+ Km out and yes he stayed until about 10 Km from the finish where he was dropped with Cancellara. So what about the day makes him so suspicious? I assume he was working for Frank Shleck that day. he did domestique duty and did it well. A reason he has a job. He can handle the work but he got to toddle up the last hill and lost nearly 14 minutes in 10 km.
Another moronic doping thread about a rider with no proof.
I am getting the idea the real dopers are members of the forum. People who have personally always taken short cuts so expect that is how everyone else operates. Now it is true I have no more proof he was or is clean than you have he is cheating. I have no certainty he is clean as I have no evidence either way but neither do the doping experts here. I have no illusions that some of these guys are or have cheated but why is it so hard to wait for the proof? this speculation is moronic and I have read enough of the posts by the lords of doping to see they can't even apply their own suspicions consistently. You guys say you can't tell a lot about a rider from a single day and then look for a bunch of unconnected single days to prove your assumptions? Is this supposed to be some kind of smoking gun? I get the smoking part but I think it is a herbal gun :)
Click to expand...

And another example of Master50 wigging out over questionable riders being called out. How did that outrage you displayed here about Hesjedal being questioned work out for you?

Before you annoint Voigt and propose sainthood for him, let us not forget that Voigt was the rider who told Jorge Jaskche that his team was thinking about burying its dope supplies along the race route during the '98 Tour.
 
The Hitch

The Hitch

Jun 14, 2010
34,930
60
22,580
Visit site
Master50 said:
At the finish Voigt is 14 minutes down. The stage was short at 154 km. On the Tourmalet he was still 50+ Km out and yes he stayed until about 10 Km from the finish where he was dropped with Cancellara. So what about the day makes him so suspicious? I assume he was working for Frank Shleck that day. he did domestique duty and did it well. A reason he has a job. He can handle the work but he got to toddle up the last hill and lost nearly 14 minutes in 10 km.
Another moronic doping thread about a rider with no proof.
I am getting the idea the real dopers are members of the forum. People who have personally always taken short cuts so expect that is how everyone else operates. Now it is true I have no more proof he was or is clean than you have he is cheating. I have no certainty he is clean as I have no evidence either way but neither do the doping experts here. I have no illusions that some of these guys are or have cheated but why is it so hard to wait for the proof? this speculation is moronic and I have read enough of the posts by the lords of doping to see they can't even apply their own suspicions consistently. You guys say you can't tell a lot about a rider from a single day and then look for a bunch of unconnected single days to prove your assumptions? Is this supposed to be some kind of smoking gun? I get the smoking part but I think it is a herbal gun :)
Click to expand...
Seriously man take a read through this thread and tell me after that there is no reason to doubt the guy. Hell, just read his interview with Benson and his response. There is about as much chance of voigt having ridden clean in a career that was almost coterminous with the widespread doping, as there is for Armstrong.
 
gregod

gregod

Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Sastre was clean though lol.
Click to expand...

are you joking or is this accusation founded on something?

i've always assumed sastre was clean, or cleaner than most, and haven't seen anything to contradict this. however, i haven't looked either.
 
jens_attacks

jens_attacks

Sep 8, 2009
15,306
2
22,485
Visit site
roundabout said:
Still not the most suspect Voigt climbing performance.

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=6088

Although with the benefit of 6 years of hindsight it's slightly less impressive than I initially thought
Click to expand...

also faster on the uber monster rettenbachferner than all of these guys from 2005:

1 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Gerolsteiner 5.11.56
2 Georg Totschnig (Aut) Gerolsteiner 0.15
3 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile 0.50
4 Cadel Evans (Aus) Davitamon - Lotto 1.12
5 Jörg Jaksche (Ger) Liberty Seguros-Würth Team 1.24
6 Tadej Valjavec (Slo) Phonak Hearing Systems 1.41
7 Saul Raisin (USA) Crédit Agricole 2.46
8 Marco Fertonani (Ita) Domina Vacanze 2.48
9 Fabian Jeker (Swi) Saunier Duval - Prodir 3.06
10 Patrik Sinkewitz (Ger) Quickstep
11 Danilo Di Luca (Ita) Liquigas - Bianchi 3.48


jensy !!:cool:


i want froomey itt up the rettenbachferner, how can we do this?
 
Master50

Master50

Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Seriously man take a read through this thread and tell me after that there is no reason to doubt the guy. Hell, just read his interview with Benson and his response. There is about as much chance of voigt having ridden clean in a career that was almost coterminous with the widespread doping, as there is for Armstrong.
Click to expand...

Seriously do you really think you can destroy a riders career with what you take for proof? I see that there are more than a few riders that have gotten caught because they had a suspicious performance but they were still all convicted on evidence that meets the criteria. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Maybe it is me? I have met so many of these guys, shook their hands, had brief conversations that I see them as people and in a tangental way as colleagues. Sorry I can't throw a man under a bus because I have a suspicious nature? Or is that consistent with your view? Since you basically believe that all pros are taking shortcuts it is easy to throw them under? Try treating them like people in your family. They may still be cheats but I presume you'd look for the proof before you let the neighbour call your sister a *****? Do you ever think about the proof you offer? This clip is so ordinary in terms of what pros do in big races where everyone comes fit. More than any other race on the calendar more riders get to the tour in the best shape of the season. Tactically on that day Jens had a big job to do as well as Andy and Fabian but maybe Jens had a soft day the day before so he had a reserve for this day. He probably only ripped his guts out for 50 to 60 KM on that day Frank took the reward for it by taking 3rd on that stage. Every GC team has 3 guys whose job it might be to pull like that. Sky has an entire section of the clinic based on the number of riders they hire to do this kind of riding. Oh what am I thinking? you know they are dirty too?
There are enough actual doping subject to discuss without this sort of trial by outstanding performances nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom