Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard: The Chicken who eats Riis for breakfast

Page 34 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I was born in the 80es. I don't remember the 80es, and even if I did, I would have stopped giving a *** about them now.
The 1880s then.

But as we all know, you only acre about races right whne they are happening, so it's not really s surprise that you don't give any of the uncensored fucks about races you either didn't watch or can't remember :p

I don't really care about Vingegaard not going to the WC, even though I do respect the history of the race. That's his own (or JVs) choice to make. He's not really the type of guy I want to see as world champion anyway, so at least that's off the table.
 
He's not really the type of guy I want to see as world champion anyway, so at least that's off the table.
Maybe he doesn't want to see himself as World Champion either. Again; he doesn't like attention, and riding around with a big, honking, rainbow is gonna attract attention. The seven days in yellow during the Tour might have been about what he can handle, and that's fine!

And it's not true that I only care about races right when they're happening. What I don't care about are the extensive mental gymnastics required to pretend I'm watching a race live, when I'm clearly not.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
Right after the 80s it all went downhill.
If you followed cycling by the time, you probably know things changed with Lemond's shooting accident and subsequent necessary "picking races" on the race calender, of which trend rapidly was followed by the peleton, realizing the good idea, rather than trying to keep the chain tight in every race from February to October.

Yes, it took me about a decade to get over it, especially for the worlds, of which have been my 2nd christmas eve since childhood, but years have passed now.
However, I'm having same wonders as MvdP about a Mads Pedersen being in very strong shape quitting a nice aussie jet lag, and still hard to accept the explanation about family first. Can fully understand riders of which their current form is in doubt.

I'll never ever be the type writing "heck that decade" and I cannot believe the disrespect of cycling history, and then at this specific site (hopefully I'm missing a point here..?).
Being born in early 1970ies just sometimes a bit envious having missed out on the worlds, classics and stage races in previous decades (edit to make it clear: i.e. before I was born or rather before my very first memories of worlds at Nürburging '78). Yes, YT have popped up meanwhile, but mostly as summaries, while speaking the worlds I inhale all of elite men's race (and recent years the elite woman race, too).
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Extinction
Maybe he doesn't want to see himself as World Champion either. Again; he doesn't like attention, and riding around with a big, honking, rainbow is gonna attract attention. The seven days in yellow during the Tour might have been about what he can handle, and that's fine!

And it's not true that I only care about races right when they're happening. What I don't care about are the extensive mental gymnastics required to pretend I'm watching a race live, when I'm clearly not.
It's really not extensive mental gymnastics...

Just turn off your other devices, it really shouldn't be that difficult. But I heard Rolf and Staghøj discussing it during the Vuelta, and Staghøj said that he couldn't do it either and assumed that that was something that was quite impossible for his generation with all their FOMO.
 
I'll never ever be the type writing "heck that decade" and I cannot believe the disrespect of cycling history, and then at this specific site (hopefully I'm missing a point here..?).
This is the Cyclingnews forum. Not the cycling-ancient-history forum.
History is good, but not when it boils down to whining about how everything used to be "Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better."

It's really not extensive mental gymnastics...
I'd have to first avoid any risk of getting the result. Which, back in the 80es might have been easy enough, but now we've this thing called The Internet. Then, if I managed to avoid seeing the result, I'd have to convince myself that "Yeah, I know this race as long finished, but I'll just pretend it's live."
 
This is the Cyclingnews forum. Not the cycling-ancient-history forum.
History is good, but not when it boils down to whining about how everything used to be "Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better."



I'd have to first avoid any risk of getting the result. Which, back in the 80es might have been easy enough, but now we've this thing called The Internet. Then, if I managed to avoid seeing the result, I'd have to convince myself that "Yeah, I know this race as long finished, but I'll just pretend it's live."
What about "turning your other devices off" was so hard to understand?

If you do that, it really isn't that difficult.

Also, I'm not pretending it's live, I'm experiencing as if it was live. Which is a whole lot more interesting than seeing a result on PCS.
 
Reactions: shalgo
What "other devices"?

And I don't get that "experiencing it like it's like" thing... I know it's not live, so that's how I'll experience it; not live.
If I want to see some of it, that's what you got highlights for.
Yeah, I really don't trust the highlight makers to make a highlight package with everything relevant.

Also, I really am not endeared by your stubbornness in this matter, acting as if I'm the idiot, and I hope I will not be drawn into discussing this with you ever again.
 
Here's how I feel every time I read/hear about that "history of the sport" ***:



Who gives a *** about the 80es?
Who gives a *** about the 90es?
Heck, I'm even running out of fucks to give about what happened in the 00es.
Guess what? It's not just about what you know, experienced, in your own circumscribed world. I actually feel sorry that you missed such a glorious period. It was marvelous. Go on and build your better universe though, but don't be surprised if a total disregard for the past, and the arrogance that comes with it, ends badly.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Also, I really am not endeared by your stubbornness in this matter, acting as if I'm the idiot, and I hope I will not be drawn into discussing this with you ever again.
I guess I'm mostly stubborn about it because of people constantly whining about "spoilers". Not so much on here, I can understand if you might not want to see the result of the Worlds in the LKR thread, but when a news media - that exists to, you know, bring news about a race - posts about a race on FB, and some people go "WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAA! Not you spoiled it!"

And you were the one who started this discussion, by claiming it's not an extensive mental gymnastics. Well, it might not be for you!

Guess what? It's not just about what you know, experienced, in your own circumscribed world. I actually feel sorry that you missed such a glorious period. It was marvelous. Go on and build your better universe though, but don't be surprised if a total disregard for the past, and the arrogance that comes with it, ends badly.
And in 40 years time, some people will be sitting on the internet, whining about how the 2020es were "Sooooooooooooooooooo much better!" all the while disregarding the races happening in the present.
The past is all well and good, the present is always better.
 
I wish Vingo was racing Worlds, but mainly because I want to see the Tour winner race again:(. Whatever times he needs off, respect that, and don’t say he needs to ride the WC to respect the history of the sport. It won’t change by the Tour winner missing one WC RR.
My point is mainly this, but I just can't stand it when a Tour winner snubs Worlds. You ride in a sport built on such races, pillars that the stars with their salaries should honor.
 
I'd have to first avoid any risk of getting the result. Which, back in the 80es might have been easy enough, but now we've this thing called The Internet. Then, if I managed to avoid seeing the result, I'd have to convince myself that "Yeah, I know this race as long finished, but I'll just pretend it's live."
Must me due to my mental malfunction, but in general it doesn't really take that much passion from me. Catched myself watching entire races at the tip of the chair during dark winter evenings, just maybe half a year or less after watching same events when they took place.
In addition I find myself looking further into other details, not identified when I watched the races live. But ofcourse it helps to not know anything about historic results. I think best personal experience was some 15 years ago watching 1986 worlds in Colorado Springs but had result from previous year on my mind :D

And still race result lists are too gratefull IMO. It's the history written in-race that keeps my passion. Nomatter what decade.

Edit: Back on topic, I expect Vingegaard to be lethal at this season's last monument.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
This is the Cyclingnews forum. Not the cycling-ancient-history forum.
History is good, but not when it boils down to whining about how everything used to be "Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better."



I'd have to first avoid any risk of getting the result. Which, back in the 80es might have been easy enough, but now we've this thing called The Internet. Then, if I managed to avoid seeing the result, I'd have to convince myself that "Yeah, I know this race as long finished, but I'll just pretend it's live."
It’s not that difficult. I successfully manage to do that for 95% of the races I watch all season. A lot of the time I will follow on the forum/PCS in early stages while at work but stop finding out before the decisive moments.
 
It’s not that difficult. I successfully manage to do that for 95% of the races I watch all season. A lot of the time I will follow on the forum/PCS in early stages while at work but stop finding out before the decisive moments.
That would work, if all races had their decisive moments at the same time...
And of course if all races had their decisive moments at the same time, than would open op for a whole different level of confusion; the constant swapping back and forth between races required when that happens.

But the fact of the matter, regarding Vingegaard, is that I will always defend every rider's decision when it comes to his/her own schedule.
For all I care, Vingegaard can sit out races until next year's Tour!
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
I guess I'm mostly stubborn about it because of people constantly whining about "spoilers". Not so much on here, I can understand if you might not want to see the result of the Worlds in the LKR thread, but when a news media - that exists to, you know, bring news about a race - posts about a race on FB, and some people go "WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAA! Not you spoiled it!"

And you were the one who started this discussion, by claiming it's not an extensive mental gymnastics. Well, it might not be for you!



And in 40 years time, some people will be sitting on the internet, whining about how the 2020es were "Sooooooooooooooooooo much better!" all the while disregarding the races happening in the present.
The past is all well and good, the present is always better.
No, it isn't. That too is a myth . There simply are periods in which a certain magic was present and the period of Hinault, Fignon, Lemond, Roche, Delgado, Kelly, etc, the first "modern" decade of the sport, but still old school, was one. But this really isn't even the point, rather it's that it used to be that certain appointments were simply sacrosanct. And they were considered sacred by tradition; for which being present was simply deemed obligatory, as a tribute to the sport one was so fortunate enough to make a career in and to it's supporting public that wants to see all the marquis riders battling it out at the Worlds. Can you imagine the 89 Worlds without Lemond or Fignon, because one or the other said he was "just not motivated?" Back then the press would have had a field day with such an excuse! And rightly so, but then again such an outrage would have been unimmaginable at the time, simply because there was an honor code to respect. And it was a good thing, because good for the sport in general. Now this Worlds road race will doubtless still be entertaining with Pog, Remco, WvA, MvdP, Alaphilippe and the other usual suspects present, who rarely all go head to head at once in a single cycling event - this is why Worlds is special, because it brings the Bigs of different specialities from classics to GT riders together in direct competition and on national teams (another uniqueness) - however, in the glaring absence of the Tour winner, whose non-presence is frankly unconscionable. While Vingo"s crack at Lombardia is all well and good, he should be lining up at Worlds, end of story. As it would have respected the spirit of competition at "mandatory" events the sport needs and the reason fans turn up roadside to watch (and on TV) throughout the season, without which there is no pro cycling. So, contrary to your way of thinking, I can't approve of this nonsense about whatever any rider decides to race or not race is fine and to be respected. No there are certain appointments that, bar injury or some other misfortune, should be a rider's obligation to honor and with great motivation! Just having the Tour first and second place at Worlds in intense confrontation with the other challengers would be special to fans. It's the stuff the sport thrives, and has always thrived, on. It's thus a great pity that the new generation doesn't always see it that way. I also disapproved of Thomas snubbing Worlds following his Tour win, by the way. By contrast, Valverde giving his absolute soul to finally earn the Rainbow Jersey shows how, after the Golden Fleece, it is cycling's biggest prize and as a one-day win probably only second to Roubaix (although this is debatable). For this reason, not nostalgia and not because of the racing per say, since great racing isn't confined to a particular decade (even if the era of mountain trains and measured watts leaves something to be desired), cycling truly was "better" once upon a time. Since it would have been (rightly) unheard of that a Pog would be present at Worlds but not a Vingegaard under similar circumstances, because back then, even if motivation was wanting (which practically would have been impossible), because the cycling culture at the time made turning up onligatory, something that you simply owed to the sport and its fans. Probably, however, and this is another unfortunate sign of how a certain cycling no longer exists, Vingo's trade team and its sponsors have little interest in the Rainbow Jersey. JV likely even pressured him not to take part. But this is just unfortunate, such that if the trend continues why bother with Worlds at all if the best in the world don't participate, because it no longer matters to the sponsors? O tempore, o mores actually fits the case.
 
Last edited:
Can you Imagine the 89 Worlds without Lemond or Fignon, because one or the other said he was "just not motivated?"
If that was what had happened, then that would have been what had happened. Do you really think we'd have been discussing "If only so and so had been there!" over 30 years later? Do you really think people will be discussing "If only Vingegaard had been there!" over 30 years from now?

And saying that Vingegaard - or any other rider - should do a ride a race just because it's tradition is a *** reason!
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
If that was what had happened, then that would have been what had happened. Do you really think we'd have been discussing "If only so and so had been there!" over 30 years later? Do you really think people will be discussing "If only Vingegaard had been there!" over 30 years from now?

And saying that Vingegaard - or any other rider - should do a ride a race just because it's tradition is a *** reason!
Have you ever disagreed with a decision any rider has ever made?
 
Reactions: Sandisfan

ASK THE COMMUNITY