Kristoff

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

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

It's Serhiy Honchar.

 

[Christopher S]

Fair point.

Wikipedia may be laughable, but a convicted case is a convicted case. It was simply the most comprehensive list I could find in less than 2 minutes.

Anywho, I'll leave you sceptics be, and be on my slightly more positive way.

 

[King Boonen]

See you in the positive thread. I like Kristoff.

 

[the sceptic]

Re:

If you exclude 2010 and the age difference, and every other factor that doesn't fit, they're identical!

if you exclude everything that makes Froome look like a doper he looks clean.

 

[King Boonen]

Kristoff thread guys, just ignore the trolling.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Wow another guy joins today and wants to tell the clinic how to behave. Not saying he's a doper because he won, saying he's a doper because he beat other dopers to do it.
With regard to the Honchar comparison, not sure what point they were making? But there is this: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ests-89924 . Everyone feel free to fill in the blanks in their own way.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

I pity the lot of you, honestly. By your standards, anyone within the top 30-40 of every race is doping. Why do you even bother watching?
Realistically, doping occurs in a much bigger degree in GT's, given the total strain of three weeks on the bike, along with climbs and steep hills day after day. I'd credit doping for smaller races and classics to about 5%? Maybe less. There weren't any heroic performances today. Keeping a ~20 second lead over two chaser (2v2), with a disorganized peloton behind is hardly astonishing. Also, someone has got to be better. The only merit I see anyone accusing anyone on, is winning.

Has it really come to that? You win = you're doping, defacto?

I'm not as certain Kristoff is doping as some other riders, but I would say that - You win + you ride for Katusha= you're doping, is probably a pretty sound equation

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

I pity the lot of you, honestly. By your standards, anyone within the top 30-40 of every race is doping. Why do you even bother watching?
Realistically, doping occurs in a much bigger degree in GT's, given the total strain of three weeks on the bike, along with climbs and steep hills day after day. I'd credit doping for smaller races and classics to about 5%? Maybe less. There weren't any heroic performances today. Keeping a ~20 second lead over two chaser (2v2), with a disorganized peloton behind is hardly astonishing. Also, someone has got to be better. The only merit I see anyone accusing anyone on, is winning.

Has it really come to that? You win = you're doping, defacto?

You seem to think those poor grand tour riders are almost forced to resort to peds to cope with tue demands of thr gruellin schedule. Not so. As in every other sport, they dope for performane gains. Dope works really well im one day races. If detection can be avoided there is no reason self interested classic riders would not dope.

Winners, btw are always the most likely to dope everything else equal

Nope. I don't think they are forced to do anything. However, I think a rider is more likely to resort to doping to "keep the form" in a more demanding race situation - or to close the gap to a competing rider. The small difference in quality/ability in a rider is more evident over three weeks than over on day (i.e. performance gains).

You might not think there are no reasons, however, I don't think you understand the culture surrounding sports and ethics in Norway.

Dude. You went there

I'm don't know much about XC skiing and those sports (besides the fact that that Horner guy who won the gold medal in the biathlon last year is as ridiculous as anything cycling has produced).

But I have seen some of the reports and cover ups from Norwegian winter sports that have been posted on here, there is a guy who joined the forum purely to talk about this issue. "But Norwegian ethics" argument as far as I am concerns, goes straight to the clinic shredder, where it will find the remains of the "But American ethics" and "But Colombian ethics" and "But British ethics" arguments that came before.

 

[The Hitch]

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

 

[Nighttrain99]

Re: Re:

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

It's Serhiy Honchar.

Glad I saw this post as I was about to incorrectly identify the rider as Jan Ullrich (one of my favorite riders). As for Kristoff he is looking a little like Gilbert circa '11.

 

[ToreBear]

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.

 

[Hugh Januss]

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

Sure he was, as clean as his buddy Armstrong.

 

[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.

 

[CyclingEnthusiast]

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.

How about the three stages in Qatar?

Stage in Paris Nice.

Stage in Oman.

2nd in Kurne Brussels Kurne the day after Omloop.

I'm just noting how he has been remarkably consistent, he has been able to outsprint the pure sprinters in most situations this year, showing a very strong time trial and could easily hold off anyone on the bergs today.

Note: I am not condemning Kristoff

 

[Hugh Januss]

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.

He has done all that, very true. Some would see that as evidence that he has been doping for awhile. You know, given the fact that he is beating known and heavily suspected dopers. Others might believe in unicorns and well Team Sky. Your mileage may vary.

 

[The Hitch]

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.

 

[blackcat]

cancellara
boonen

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Fair enough. The 90s were really bad, and I mostly didn't watch back then. I don't have to convince myself it's "not so bad", simply because there is no concrete evidence saying the majority of the peloton is crunching steroids and epinephrine for breakfast.

If someone indeed could prove most riders doped right now, I would stop watching. I would basically lose interest.

in 90's, until the gendarmes busted Festina, there was no evidence neither.

The doping has moved off the radar, not within teams, to a more diffused model, tho there are clusters, like Girona, when you can buy your dope from your local pharmacy. Then there is the internet. EpoSino Joe Papp provider to the stars. It is like game theory in economics, the parameters and restrictions have altered, but the motives and effect is the same. There will still be the odd Edita Rumsas, and odd Motoman. SSDD

 

[blackcat]

I like Kristoff.

that was a phenomenal ride.

imo, he has passed edvald boasson hagen and thor as the best ever norske rider. ok, thor well beyond boasson hagen.

think he is one month younger than boasson hagen, or a month older too. i like him. dont care about the dopings

 

[sniper]

Katusha? cleans.
Ekimov, Azevedo, never tested positive in spite of rigorous UCI testing.
Mikhailov? good doctor, ask Knaven.
‘I’ve never tested positive, therefore whatever Mikhailov has given is inevitably allowed. I don’t ask questions. For me it’s enough to know that whatever I take, I don’t test positive. I trust Mikhailov.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... z3WVtm4YeD

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Kristoff
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/ri ... derid=4179

Froome
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/ri ... derid=5789

let's compare each one 1st, 2nd, 3rd , etc year as a pro

If you exclude 2010 from Froome their evolution is identical

Another donkey to race horse? He was just clean when he started and found magic juice at Katusha? Or a clean late bloomer ?

This is a ridiculous comparison. Check Kristoffs results in the beginning more closely. He was always good in tougher one-day races, and then became progressively better each year. His improvement was very linear, going from a guy who won the bunch sprints behind the winners to actually being able to make the splits. In RVV he was 15th (2012), 4th (2013), 5th (2014) and then 1st this year, for example.

Froome went from a guy who had to hang on to motorbikes to finish mountain stages to a guy who literally a few weeks later dropped everyone with crazy accelerations while talking on the radio.

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.

 

[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.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Seems (by his performance) he didn't forget the important "salt-tablets" today...

http://www.tv2.no/a/5840297

aka potbelge suppositories aka male G spot prostate

 

[blackcat]

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.

like Kim Kirchen. Like Ricky Riccio. there were all on the dynepo, no, was not dynepo, I forget what it was called. half the damn peloton was on this, but, the other half were the Bordry butter on head peloton. Oh, it was myacera. which has become colloquially known as cera. I think it goes by myocera now, on most of the websearches I did. But I am pretty sure, in 2006 when Ricky Riccio got busted, the brand name was myacera.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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.