Kristoff

[blackcat]

Re:

Person who thinks everyone in the clinic is an idiot continues to post, wondering why said clinicians continue to watch cycling, and cannot understand why they do so.

Irony much.

no, mere idiocy before irony.

irony would be paying them a compliment they dont deserve

 

[Dear Wiggo]

My country's more ironic than yours

 

[sniper]

It must be tough to grasp if you think Sky are clean.
An obvious turbocharger like Kristoff only ranks second in the world behind clean Porte.

Anyway, the Clinic has been pretty conservative/restrained wrt Kristoff.
I remember Twitter and some internet blogs, not the Clinic, shooting guilt-by-association-style accusations at him already last year when he won MSR.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

But whose cadence and style? All we see are knuckles and knees.

It's Serhiy Honchar.

Thank you. I'm not sure that I would have been any better off for knowing that even if the photo had a face. Some people seem to revel in being obscurantist.

who have been the Deutsche chrono riders, or the Telekom chrono riders, of this era. It aint the legs of Rogers, or of Ullrich, different calves on der keiser.

Rich, Uwe PEschel, M Fothen, on Gerolsteiner. Grabsch? His tt imperiosity came later. Martin, much later. Jens, different teams. and then there was that result out of the box in 2006 but Honchar Gonchar.

Not sure why anyone should assume that the rider is German on the evidence of that picture, nor why the poster should assume that those reading are capable of identifying anyone by his calves. Like I say, obscurantist.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Not sure why anyone should assume that the rider is German on the evidence of that picture, nor why the poster should assume that those reading are capable of identifying anyone by his calves. Like I say, obscurantist.

no, its a German team, so you work out who the ttists of calibre who were on T-Mobile or Telekom, the defacto german team. Not Kloeden. Not Ullrich. Not Grabsch. Not Mick Rogers, different position on the bike. Not an Evans of 2003/4.

It was the default german national team, so the rider probably is german. But they had the Ukraine chrono rider in 2006 and 2007, and he won twice in the Tour in 2006. Actually, Schumacher was on Telekom one year, about 2004, before he went back to the espoir league with either Turinger Energie or the other major feeder team, (Sparkasse) not the one the young German Gerdeman was on, Winfix or Akud

so it was a deduction. left basically one option, then google image search his form on the chrono bike, and his legs. the fact he won two tts in 2006 Tour is a major tell. Then obviously Schumacher learnt this MO about focusing on a weakspot in the Tour.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

Not sure why anyone should assume that the rider is German on the evidence of that picture, nor why the poster should assume that those reading are capable of identifying anyone by his calves. Like I say, obscurantist.

no, its a German team, so you work out who the ttists of calibre who were on T-Mobile or Telekom, the defacto german team. Not Kloeden. Not Ullrich. Not Grabsch. Not Mick Rogers, different position on the bike. Not an Evans of 2003/4.

It was the default german national team, so the rider probably is german. But they had the Ukraine chrono rider in 2006 and 2007, and he won twice in the Tour in 2006. Actually, Schumacher was on Telekom one year, about 2004, before he went back to the espoir league with either Turinger Energie or the other major feeder team, (Sparkasse) not the one the young German Gerdeman was on, Winfix or Akud

so it was a deduction. left basically one option, then google image search his form on the chrono bike, and his legs. the fact he won two tts in 2006 Tour is a major tell. Then obviously Schumacher learnt this MO about focusing on a weakspot in the Tour.

Or alternatively, the person who wanted to make the comparison could simply have given a name and enabled clear communication.

Unless obscurantism is for some strange reason to be preferred.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

so you are making the case that Kristoff was not doping in his developmental years, but you are asserting that Froome held on to a motorbike?

jeebus, some mighty hypocrisy there!

I think the hog has managed to entrench the meme about Froome zigzagging and holding on.

dont conflat Cavendish to Froome. Cavendish at Giro's with HighRoad and Columbia was holding on. I dont know of any evidence where Froome did.

Uh...from the 2010 Giro...

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/racing/g ... alia-60517

Team Sky’s Chris Froome ended his Giro d’Italia today after the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) communicated it disqualified him for holding onto motorbike during the 19th stage to Aprica.

“One of our commissaires saw him holding on to a motorbike on the Mortirolo climb,” Jury president, Vincente Tortajada, told Cycling Weekly.

Froome held on to a police motorbike, according to another UCI source. The UCI issued the communiqué after the stage, referring to article 12.1.040.18, which also said that it fined him 200 Swiss Francs (£120, €140).

 

[blackcat]

thnx red_flanders <thumbup>

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re: Re:

So, based on a sprint/northern classics rider winning 7-8 sprints in 2.1 and 2.HC races and doing well in *gasp* the northern classics, you've all decided he is abusing performance enhancing drugs? Per your accusations, a good 15-20 riders today should be considered doped as **** aswell, then, given they were within 2,5 minutes after - a difference made by tactical decisions by themselves and others, form, random occurences and natural skill.

Seriously guys, if you want to accuse someone of doping - be my guest. However, you should be able to back it up with facts, concrete indications and a legit and logical train of thought, based on relevant comparisons.

Dude this is the clinic. This is all about accusations and not logic. Kristoff won, ergo he is a doper, since someone in the peloton dopes, and it's impossible for someone clean to beat a doper.

This is more or less the logic in the clinic. There might be opportunities for logical and sound argumentation sometimes, but it's often more about winning arguments, and not acquiring new knowledge or new perspectives.

Just think off this place as the Wailing Wall of the forum.

Do you still think Hushovd was clean

Yes, though I'm always open to new indications of the opposite.

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/ra ... ceid=20833
Not normal
Plus the fact that he was winning in the early 2000's and one of the best riders in the world around 2006, which is well before everyone stopped doping in 2008

 

[SkyTears]

Shane Stokes ‏@SSbike
Kristoff on his improvement, chasing Hushovd, targeting Roubaix [+video]: "The first years I was struggling"

clearly he had norwegian badzilla

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/ra ... ceid=20833
Not normal
Plus the fact that he was winning in the early 2000's and one of the best riders in the world around 2006, which is well before everyone stopped doping in 2008

Not normal to win from a breakaway on a stage that was so hard Petacchi managed to finish 8th?

Sure...

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/ra ... ceid=20833
Not normal
Plus the fact that he was winning in the early 2000's and one of the best riders in the world around 2006, which is well before everyone stopped doping in 2008

Not normal to win from a breakaway on a stage that was so hard Petacchi managed to finish 8th?

Sure...

Oh my god, you proved that he is completely clean with your argument.

Oh wait.... Location: Norway

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/ra ... ceid=20833
Not normal
Plus the fact that he was winning in the early 2000's and one of the best riders in the world around 2006, which is well before everyone stopped doping in 2008

Not normal to win from a breakaway on a stage that was so hard Petacchi managed to finish 8th?

Sure...

Oh my god, you proved that he is completely clean with your argument.

Oh wait.... Location: Norway

Oh my god, you proved that I'm talking bullsh*t with your fantastic argument.

I haven't proved anything, just like it can't be proven that Hushovd is a doper by posting the results of one Tour stage.

While I have no reservations against the idea that Hushovd doped. He was a great cyclist in one of the dirtiest eras of the sport, after all. I will however say that nothing about Hushovd's career is overly suspicious. He was a maginificent natural talent with an enormous engine from the very beginning of his career, winning the U23 TT Worlds and U23 Paris-Roubaix as a 20 year old amateur. If anything, his palmares is a bit of a disappointment when you look at how promising he was as a youngster.

If I'm going to name the properly successful rider least likely to have doped these past 15 years, it'll probably be Hushovd. Always good, but never dominant. You never saw him wipe the floor with the rest of the competition despite having the perfect build and physiology the cobbled classics. So lets keep things real here. If we're going after the most outrageous dopers of the past 15 years, Hushovd is pretty far down the list, behind his compatriot whose thread this is, for starters.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Oh my god, you proved that I'm talking bullsh*t with your fantastic argument.

I haven't proved anything, just like it can't be proven that Hushovd is a doper by posting the results of one Tour stage.

While I have no reservations against the idea that Hushovd doped. He was a great cyclist in one of the dirtiest eras of the sport, after all. I will however say that nothing about Hushovd's career is overly suspicious. He was a maginificent natural talent with an enormous engine from the very beginning of his career, winning the U23 TT Worlds and U23 Paris-Roubaix as a 20 year old amateur. If anything, his palmares is a bit of a disappointment when you look at how promising he was as a youngster.

If I'm going to name the properly successful rider least likely to have doped these past 15 years, it'll probably be Hushovd. Always good, but never dominant. You never saw him wipe the floor with the rest of the competition despite having the perfect build and physiology the cobbled classics. So lets keep things real here. If we're going after the most outrageous dopers of the past 15 years, Hushovd is pretty far down the list, behind his compatriot whose thread this is, for starters.

Pretty darn good post.

 

[nayr497]

Katusha currently employs three doping doctors:

Andrei Mikhailov (http://www.dopeology.org/people/Andrei_Mikhailov/)

Massimo Besnati (http://www.dopeology.org/people/Massimo_Besnati/)

Thomas Klimaschka (http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/is-th ... the-house/)


Katusha = dirty team.

Kristoff = leader on dirty team = obvious doper.

Ouch, I knew I didn't trust this team, but I didn't realize they had these three as their doctors. That's insane.

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/ra ... ceid=20833
Not normal
Plus the fact that he was winning in the early 2000's and one of the best riders in the world around 2006, which is well before everyone stopped doping in 2008

Not normal to win from a breakaway on a stage that was so hard Petacchi managed to finish 8th?

Sure...

Oh my god, you proved that he is completely clean with your argument.

Oh wait.... Location: Norway

Oh my god, you proved that I'm talking bullsh*t with your fantastic argument.

I haven't proved anything, just like it can't be proven that Hushovd is a doper by posting the results of one Tour stage.

While I have no reservations against the idea that Hushovd doped. He was a great cyclist in one of the dirtiest eras of the sport, after all. I will however say that nothing about Hushovd's career is overly suspicious. He was a maginificent natural talent with an enormous engine from the very beginning of his career, winning the U23 TT Worlds and U23 Paris-Roubaix as a 20 year old amateur. If anything, his palmares is a bit of a disappointment when you look at how promising he was as a youngster.

If I'm going to name the properly successful rider least likely to have doped these past 15 years, it'll probably be Hushovd. Always good, but never dominant. You never saw him wipe the floor with the rest of the competition despite having the perfect build and physiology the cobbled classics. So lets keep things real here. If we're going after the most outrageous dopers of the past 15 years, Hushovd is pretty far down the list, behind his compatriot whose thread this is, for starters.

Fair enough, while I do agree that that stage does not prove anything at all, trying to create an argument about Petacchi is completely nonsense.

Thanks for writing that good response and I am sorry about my kneejerk reaction as I thought you are a blind nationalistic guy. I agree that he never went full *** during his career and he was definitely a talented guy but we all know that many talented riders had to retire early as they didn't choose to dope. I think his career before Puerto is simply too good to be true.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

Fair enough, while I do agree that that stage does not prove anything at all, trying to create an argument about Petacchi is completely nonsense.

Thanks for writing that good response and I am sorry about my kneejerk reaction as I thought you are a blind nationalistic guy. I agree that he never went full *** during his career and he was definitely a talented guy but we all know that many talented riders had to retire early as they didn't choose to dope. I think his career before Puerto is simply too good to be true.

I get that. I've seen the holier-than-thou attitude of other Norwegians when it comes to discussing doping, and I find the notion that Norwegians don't dope to be as ridiculous as the next guy, but that's not because of what Hushovd has done (or EBH, for that matter). It has more to do with what's been going on in XC skiing for the past two decades. That's where we should start looking if we want to find obvious megadopers with Norwegian passports. There are others too, like Koss and Bjørndalen, who have been laughably good in their sports.

As far as Hushovd and Boasson Hagen go, I think it's a positive sign that Hushovd never pulled a 50km solo win at Paris - Roubaix, and it's a positive sign that Eddie, despite being the biggest talent at Sky, didn't turn into a all-conquering Skyborg like certain others from that team. We love to rant about things that are "not normal" here on the Clinic. Hushovd and EBH seem pretty normal in the grand scheme of things, keeping in mind that it is pro cycling we're talking about. Kristoff yesterday, on the other hand, did not.

 

[bjorn]

As we have seen the last years Norway is producing more and more hi qualty bikers .the experts from the olympic acadamy is used to help the riders to get out their best of them.more doping controls ..... better Norwegian bikers.Doping is no isue in Norway.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re: Re:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/ra ... ceid=20833
Not normal
Plus the fact that he was winning in the early 2000's and one of the best riders in the world around 2006, which is well before everyone stopped doping in 2008

Not normal to win from a breakaway on a stage that was so hard Petacchi managed to finish 8th?

Sure...

Petacchi (known as a pretty good climber for a sprinter) was indeed 8th, a mere 5 minutes behind Hushovd
It's more about beating Roy and Moncoutie, riding away from them in a remarkably dominant way, on a stage containing the Aubisque
Anyway I'm quite sure I'm not the only one who looked at that and thought "what is he on?"

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

Hushovd and EBH seem pretty normal in the grand scheme of things, keeping in mind that it is pro cycling we're talking about. Kristoff yesterday, on the other hand, did not.

Was he so amazing yesterday?

 

[sniper]

Re:

more doping controls ..... better Norwegian bikers.Doping is no isue in Norway.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

As we have seen the last years Norway is producing more and more hi qualty bikers .the experts from the olympic acadamy is used to help the riders to get out their best of them.more doping controls ..... better Norwegian bikers.Doping is no isue in Norway.

Alexander.., is that you?

Nice ride yesterday.

 

[Parker]

Ah, the Clinic at it's uninformed best.

So what has Kristoff actually done this year?

He came 2nd in Milan-San Remo which he won last year

He won De Panne which he came second in 2013.

He won Flanders which has been 4th and 5th in, in the last two years.

What it so surprising? People who actually watch cycling for more than who they can accuse next have been tipping him as a classics star for a few years now.

I'm struggling to see your point here.

Ostensibly it's a post saying - Kristoffs improvement doesn't =doping, with a bait or two aimed at clinic members thrown in, though you haven't put much effort into them.

But baring in mind the wider views you claim to hold, it's strange.

First of all you challenge the notion that Kristoff improvement has been extreme and thereby dodgy. Ignoring for a sec the fact that few people have said the improvement is on it's own reason to believe he is doping, it's a stupid argument for you to take up because by doing so you are tacitly legitimizing the idea that dodgy performances can be grounds for suspecting other riders.

Which considering the raison detre of the parker account is to defend sky and insult those who doubt them, it's a strange position to take. And you've repeatedly argued that it's (insert every insult imaginable) of people to doubt riders based on performance.
May have been short sighted of you to abandon your alleged principle of - performance can never be suspicious, defense to defend ak from this angle.


Secondly you totally ignore the main point against Kristoff, one that has been made on every page of this thread, -the team he rides for.

So your entering into a losing battle.

The "he won Msr last year" bit is also so weak it's pathetic. It's litterally the equivalent of saying- Armstrong can't have been doping in 2005 because he also won the tour in 2004, therefore 2005 wasn't an improvement on 2004
As if anyone was saying Kristoff didn't dope last year but started this year.

The real highlight though is the last bit where you both try to pass yourself off as an expert while simultaneously deriding clinic posters for being obsessed only with doping.

Not a great argument if it comes from the guy who posts exclusively in the clinic.
And btw, do you actually have a link to yourself predicting Kristoff would be a classics great, or did you just make that up right now in an attempt to pass yourself off as knowledgeable.

I love it that every time that I post something you turn up with your pomposity.

You really feel threatened by me, don't you? More Peter than Christopher aren't you.

(PS Please keep amusing me with your bilharzia theories, which I know are wrong. Friend of friend evidence prior to 2011 Vuelta)

 

[oevkride]

I think the main factor for tgaks improvement from 2013 to 2014 and 2015 is team support. Being shielded for longer and actually getting a proper lead out makes a huge difference in amount of wins. A smal improvement in physical shape and a major in team support. He actually had some good placements in major races with no support what so ever.

 

[sniper]

Katusha currently employs three doping doctors:

Andrei Mikhailov (http://www.dopeology.org/people/Andrei_Mikhailov/)

Massimo Besnati (http://www.dopeology.org/people/Massimo_Besnati/)

Thomas Klimaschka (http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/is-th ... the-house/)


Katusha = dirty team.

Kristoff = leader on dirty team = obvious doper.

And wasn't Katusha the last team to have Ferrari officially on the payroll? But ex-Ferrari customers Ekimov and Azevedo no doubt cleaned house in 2012. Not to mention the positive impact of the remorseful one-time offender Erik Zabel.