Most Suspicious Performance Of The Last 5 Years

[Saint Unix]

Horner and Froome are the uncontested winners of this thread until the five year limit passes for them. I mean, come on. It doesn't get any more blatant than those two.

 

[ciranda]

I don't find those two similar at all. Horner was pure class from when he signed with Saunier Duval. He was always competitve in the hardest races, won Pais Vasco, second in Tirreno-Adriatico and Tour de Suisse, the absolutely hardest one week races. That is to say, there was no transformation. Froome otoh had five years of hopeless mediocrity before becoming the strongest stage race cyclist ever just like that.

 

[Saint Unix]

Horner was almost 42 frickin' years old. Come on, man. He's not winning this thread because he sucked for most of his career, but because he took enough dope to start aging backwards.

His Pais Vasco win came in 2010 at the ripe old age of 38. To win a Grand Tour three years later against one of the best stage racers of his generation (Nibali's generation, that is. Horner's about fifteen generations earlier) with a busted leg is an insult to the sport. The way he just dropped off a cliff right after makes it pretty evident that he decided to go as nuclear as humanly possible for one last hurrah.

I guess it's not so much suspicious as it is hilariously obvious, though. The fact that he was one of Armstrong's buddies makes it even more blatant.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Nibali

 

[Escarabajo]

Why Nibali?

 

[Cookster15]

Re:

Horner was almost 42 frickin' years old. Come on, man. He's not winning this thread because he sucked for most of his career, but because he took enough dope to start aging backwards.

His Pais Vasco win came in 2010 at the ripe old age of 38. To win a Grand Tour three years later against one of the best stage racers of his generation (Nibali's generation, that is. Horner's about fifteen generations earlier) with a busted leg is an insult to the sport. The way he just dropped off a cliff right after makes it pretty evident that he decided to go as nuclear as humanly possible for one last hurrah.

I guess it's not so much suspicious as it is hilariously obvious, though. The fact that he was one of Armstrong's buddies makes it even more blatant.

I agree with this. I think Horner got a bit of a free pass as the consensus from fans was he was a "nice guy". Also don't forget his "second best climber in the world" boast. He reached a new level when he left Lotto when he was already 35 to join Lance at Astana in 2008. He went from not being able to hold Evans wheel to the closest challenger to Contador. Obviously a very good responder.

 

[slowspoke]

Re: Re:

Horner was almost 42 frickin' years old. Come on, man. He's not winning this thread because he sucked for most of his career, but because he took enough dope to start aging backwards.

His Pais Vasco win came in 2010 at the ripe old age of 38. To win a Grand Tour three years later against one of the best stage racers of his generation (Nibali's generation, that is. Horner's about fifteen generations earlier) with a busted leg is an insult to the sport. The way he just dropped off a cliff right after makes it pretty evident that he decided to go as nuclear as humanly possible for one last hurrah.

I guess it's not so much suspicious as it is hilariously obvious, though. The fact that he was one of Armstrong's buddies makes it even more blatant.

I agree with this. I think Horner got a bit of a free pass as the consensus from fans was he was a "nice guy". Also don't forget his "second best climber in the world" boast. He reached a new level when he left Lotto when he was already 35 to join Lance at Astana in 2008. He went from not being able to hold Evans wheel to the closest challenger to Contador. Obviously a very good responder.

As a 38 year myself, I like to thank Horner for showing my I have 5 more years before I hit my athletic peak.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re:

Why Nibali?

Why not Nibali?
You see the transformation in the 3rd week like he's been given 5L of new blood. Ofc its extremely suspicious.

 

[SeriousSam]

It's still Froome

 

[Dan2016]

Re:

It's still Froome

Yup. Gotta be Froome.

Everyone else has at least some kind of real pedigree to speak of...not the Dawgy's pedigree of doing well in the Flying Pig Jockstrap race...or whatever it was...

 

[DFA123]

Re:

It's still Froome

Yep, by a distance. He's easily dominating the biggest and hardest race in cycling every year, despite having no record as an amateur or young pro. It's different level of suspiciousness than everyone else. The question, I guess, really should be which performance of his is the most suspicious?

2011 Vuelta falls out of the time range now. 2012 Tour he couldn't show his true potential because he had to babysit a TUE'd up Wiggins. 2013 Tour looks a standout candidate - although low quality rivals is a factor. So summer of 2016 is perhaps in contention: beats all the big names with ease at the Tour, not even having to bother stretching himself in the mountains. Then the tribute act, with his best ever Vuelta performance and an olympic medal.

 

[DanielSong39]

2013 Ventoux, 2013 Tour 30-second "penalty", 2015 PSM, 2016 Tour time trials, 2016 Tour Ventoux stage neutralization, 2016 Vuelta time trial...

The list goes on and on.

Gotta give the guy credit, he at least shows some variety in his suspicious activities.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re:

2013 Ventoux, 2013 Tour 30-second "penalty", 2015 PSM, 2016 Tour time trials, 2016 Tour Ventoux stage neutralization, 2016 Vuelta time trial...

The list goes on and on.

Gotta give the guy credit, he at least shows some variety in his suspicious activities.

This is more hate for a rider than them being suspicious.
2016 Tour Stage Neutralization. I laughed at that. :lol: :lol:

 

[DFA123]

Re:

2013 Ventoux, 2013 Tour 30-second "penalty", 2015 PSM, 2016 Tour time trials, 2016 Tour Ventoux stage neutralization, 2016 Vuelta time trial...

The list goes on and on.

Gotta give the guy credit, he at least shows some variety in his suspicious activities.

I think 2013 Ax-3 Domaines deserves a strong shout as well. Gaining nearly a minute on a 8km climb on a stage with only one other mountain. Putting 1'50 into Contador and over 2' into Quintana. Only his team mate able to stay within 1'25. Just to re-iterate: 2 minutes on his biggest rivals on an 8km climb. :Neutral:

This, of course, was also just 3 stages before the super-light climbing version of Froome destroyed all the other contenders on a pan-flat TT. 1'30 ahead of Tom Dumoulin, 1'52 ahead of Castroviejo, over 2' ahead of Valverde and Contador.

2016, unfortunately, we never got to see him go crazy in the mountains. Of course, that was partly because had already won the race in the TTs, a flat stage and a descent. Apparently, because he was saving energy to go for a third week peak which he could carry into the Olympics and the Vuelta. That's right; he had the 2016 Tour already sewn up in the first two weeks, before hitting his peak. :Neutral:

All this from a guy who did nothing - literally nothing - at a decent level of the sport until his mid-20s. The likes of Horner, Valverde or Nibali just don't come close.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re: Re:

2013 Ventoux, 2013 Tour 30-second "penalty", 2015 PSM, 2016 Tour time trials, 2016 Tour Ventoux stage neutralization, 2016 Vuelta time trial...

The list goes on and on.

Gotta give the guy credit, he at least shows some variety in his suspicious activities.

I think 2013 Ax-3 Domaines deserves a strong shout as well. Gaining nearly a minute on a 8km climb on a stage with only one other mountain. Putting 1'50 into Contador and over 2' into Quintana. Only his team mate able to stay within 1'25. Just to re-iterate: 2 minutes on his biggest rivals on an 8km climb. :Neutral:

This, of course, was also just 3 stages before the super-light climbing version of Froome destroyed all the other contenders on a pan-flat TT. 1'30 ahead of Tom Dumoulin, 1'52 ahead of Castroviejo, over 2' ahead of Valverde and Contador.

2016, unfortunately, we never got to see him go crazy in the mountains. Of course, that was partly because had already won the race in the TTs, a flat stage and a descent. Apparently, because he was saving energy to go for a third week peak which he could carry into the Olympics and the Vuelta. That's right; he had the 2016 Tour already sewn up in the first two weeks, before hitting his peak. :Neutral:

All this from a guy who did nothing - literally nothing - at a decent level of the sport until his mid-20s. The likes of Horner, Valverde or Nibali just don't come close.

Didnt Quintana attack on the penultimate climb?
Alberto Contador at Tour 2013 was really really horrible. Just cracking everywhere. In terms of climbing performance even Roman Kreuziger was better and thats saying something. :lol: :lol:

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

2013 Ventoux, 2013 Tour 30-second "penalty", 2015 PSM, 2016 Tour time trials, 2016 Tour Ventoux stage neutralization, 2016 Vuelta time trial...

The list goes on and on.

Gotta give the guy credit, he at least shows some variety in his suspicious activities.

I think 2013 Ax-3 Domaines deserves a strong shout as well. Gaining nearly a minute on a 8km climb on a stage with only one other mountain. Putting 1'50 into Contador and over 2' into Quintana. Only his team mate able to stay within 1'25. Just to re-iterate: 2 minutes on his biggest rivals on an 8km climb. :Neutral:

This, of course, was also just 3 stages before the super-light climbing version of Froome destroyed all the other contenders on a pan-flat TT. 1'30 ahead of Tom Dumoulin, 1'52 ahead of Castroviejo, over 2' ahead of Valverde and Contador.

2016, unfortunately, we never got to see him go crazy in the mountains. Of course, that was partly because had already won the race in the TTs, a flat stage and a descent. Apparently, because he was saving energy to go for a third week peak which he could carry into the Olympics and the Vuelta. That's right; he had the 2016 Tour already sewn up in the first two weeks, before hitting his peak. :Neutral:

All this from a guy who did nothing - literally nothing - at a decent level of the sport until his mid-20s. The likes of Horner, Valverde or Nibali just don't come close.

Didnt Quintana attack on the penultimate climb?
Alberto Contador at Tour 2013 was really really horrible. Just cracking everywhere. In terms of climbing performance even Roman Kreuziger was better and thats saying something. :lol: :lol:

Yeah, so I guess it's normal for a rider with no record until his mid-20s to put a minute and a half into the field on an 8km climb, in the most elite bike race that exists. And follow it up a few days later by doing the same on a pan-flat TT. And then again on one of the hardest moutains inthe sport a few days later. Nothing to see here; just the normal progression you'd expect from an Anatomic Jock champion.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re: Re:

2013 Ventoux, 2013 Tour 30-second "penalty", 2015 PSM, 2016 Tour time trials, 2016 Tour Ventoux stage neutralization, 2016 Vuelta time trial...

The list goes on and on.

Gotta give the guy credit, he at least shows some variety in his suspicious activities.

I think 2013 Ax-3 Domaines deserves a strong shout as well. Gaining nearly a minute on a 8km climb on a stage with only one other mountain. Putting 1'50 into Contador and over 2' into Quintana. Only his team mate able to stay within 1'25. Just to re-iterate: 2 minutes on his biggest rivals on an 8km climb. :Neutral:

This, of course, was also just 3 stages before the super-light climbing version of Froome destroyed all the other contenders on a pan-flat TT. 1'30 ahead of Tom Dumoulin, 1'52 ahead of Castroviejo, over 2' ahead of Valverde and Contador.

2016, unfortunately, we never got to see him go crazy in the mountains. Of course, that was partly because had already won the race in the TTs, a flat stage and a descent. Apparently, because he was saving energy to go for a third week peak which he could carry into the Olympics and the Vuelta. That's right; he had the 2016 Tour already sewn up in the first two weeks, before hitting his peak. :Neutral:

All this from a guy who did nothing - literally nothing - at a decent level of the sport until his mid-20s. The likes of Horner, Valverde or Nibali just don't come close.

Didnt Quintana attack on the penultimate climb?
Alberto Contador at Tour 2013 was really really horrible. Just cracking everywhere. In terms of climbing performance even Roman Kreuziger was better and thats saying something. :lol: :lol:

Yeah, so I guess it's normal for a rider with no record until his mid-20s to put a minute and a half into the field on an 8km climb, in the most elite bike race that exists. And follow it up a few days later by doing the same on a pan-flat TT. And then again on one of the hardest moutains inthe sport a few days later. Nothing to see here; just the normal progression you'd expect from an Anatomic Jock champion.

Depends on when you start doping.
European boys start doping at 15 to become pro. Some riders fight and fight and fight and then give in when they see someone less talented win. The timeline tells us nothing of significance except that either he was very sick or he started doping+training well.
When did Contador start performing really amazing? Nobody knows. Possibly because he learnt about doping and training much before Froome did.
Doesn't matter though. It's Froome who's the strongest now and it's him who's raised the bar for other GT contenders. Somewhat like Federer in 2004-5. Dude was invincible. It's because of him we saw another level of tennis.
Cycling fans should be grateful that Froomes here. Obviously this statement won't go down well in this forum and will have extreme backlash but hey, that's how it actually is.

 

[DFA123]

Well this thread is about most suspicious performances; it's not about 'who is the strongest now'.

Riders who start doping at 15 and burst onto the pro scene clearly aren't going to look as suspicious as a guy who does nothing and then, pretty much overnight, transforms himself into the best GC rider in the world. Becoming both the best climber and one of the best time triallists - while showing no signs of being much good at either previously. All this, coincidentally, just as his contract and chance in the big time is about to expire.

 

[Mr.White]

Motor performances is the most suspicious ones, so I'll go with Froome on Ventoux 2013, Froome on PSM and Cancellara at 2010 Ronde van Vlaanderen

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Totally agree that Froome raised the bar and took suspicious performances to another level. I think many in this board share that view.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re:

Well this thread is about most suspicious performances; it's not about 'who is the strongest now'.

Riders who start doping at 15 and burst onto the pro scene clearly aren't going to look as suspicious as a guy who does nothing and then, pretty much overnight, transforms himself into the best GC rider in the world. Becoming both the best climber and one of the best time triallists - while showing no signs of being much good at either previously. All this, coincidentally, just as his contract and chance in the big time is about to expire.

This makes sense because in his mind he probably felt that he could probably be the best if he does start doping and is on a program just like everyone is.
Looks like here's a guy who loves riding a bike up a mountain and will possibly lose his job because he chose not to dope. He'll lose his dream, money, job everything. I think if anybody is to blame its the cycing community and the team owners and DS's who've been part of this for over 3 decades pushing/encouraging young kids to dope. Extremely sad that way.

Regarding Ax3 in 2013, Froome was the best climber in the world and everyone knew it. He'd been the best for over 2 years already. From Oman to Dauphine he'd beaten everybody black and blue on every mountaintop finish.(Except Terrino?) So, he would've done the same in the Tour too which we saw at Ax3. It was a mistake on the part of Movistar because Quintana was somewhat of an unknown then and the only guy strong enough to follow Froome(Porte too but hey, he was pulling back Quintana ).

So No, Ax3 isnt really that suspicious. If you want to really look at suspicious perfromances from Froome, only thing that seems extraordinary is his 2011 Vuelta performance where he burst out in the GT scene.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Froome ventoux 2013

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

Well this thread is about most suspicious performances; it's not about 'who is the strongest now'.

Riders who start doping at 15 and burst onto the pro scene clearly aren't going to look as suspicious as a guy who does nothing and then, pretty much overnight, transforms himself into the best GC rider in the world. Becoming both the best climber and one of the best time triallists - while showing no signs of being much good at either previously. All this, coincidentally, just as his contract and chance in the big time is about to expire.

This makes sense because in his mind he probably felt that he could probably be the best if he does start doping and is on a program just like everyone is.
Looks like here's a guy who loves riding a bike up a mountain and will possibly lose his job because he chose not to dope. He'll lose his dream, money, job everything. I think if anybody is to blame its the cycing community and the team owners and DS's who've been part of this for over 3 decades pushing/encouraging young kids to dope. Extremely sad that way.

Regarding Ax3 in 2013, Froome was the best climber in the world and everyone knew it. He'd been the best for over 2 years already. From Oman to Dauphine he'd beaten everybody black and blue on every mountaintop finish.(Except Terrino?) So, he would've done the same in the Tour too which we saw at Ax3. It was a mistake on the part of Movistar because Quintana was somewhat of an unknown then and the only guy strong enough to follow Froome(Porte too but hey, he was pulling back Quintana ).

So No, Ax3 isnt really that suspicious. If you want to really look at suspicious perfromances from Froome, only thing that seems extraordinary is his 2011 Vuelta performance where he burst out in the GT scene.

Yes my friend, 2011 is the predicate and everything else after that follows from it. It's quite bizarre to agree with the predicate (i.e. extraordinary transformation on display at the Vuelta) but deny the things which have followed from it.

Either it was donkey to racehorse or not.

If it was donkey to racehorse, than every expression of racehorse *is* expressive of donkey to racehorse logic. Therefore, suspicious in every case.

The racehorse doesn't just suddenly at some point, attain independent racehorse status: it's always a donkey which can't erase its history.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re: Re:

Well this thread is about most suspicious performances; it's not about 'who is the strongest now'.

Riders who start doping at 15 and burst onto the pro scene clearly aren't going to look as suspicious as a guy who does nothing and then, pretty much overnight, transforms himself into the best GC rider in the world. Becoming both the best climber and one of the best time triallists - while showing no signs of being much good at either previously. All this, coincidentally, just as his contract and chance in the big time is about to expire.

This makes sense because in his mind he probably felt that he could probably be the best if he does start doping and is on a program just like everyone is.
Looks like here's a guy who loves riding a bike up a mountain and will possibly lose his job because he chose not to dope. He'll lose his dream, money, job everything. I think if anybody is to blame its the cycing community and the team owners and DS's who've been part of this for over 3 decades pushing/encouraging young kids to dope. Extremely sad that way.

Regarding Ax3 in 2013, Froome was the best climber in the world and everyone knew it. He'd been the best for over 2 years already. From Oman to Dauphine he'd beaten everybody black and blue on every mountaintop finish.(Except Terrino?) So, he would've done the same in the Tour too which we saw at Ax3. It was a mistake on the part of Movistar because Quintana was somewhat of an unknown then and the only guy strong enough to follow Froome(Porte too but hey, he was pulling back Quintana ).

So No, Ax3 isnt really that suspicious. If you want to really look at suspicious perfromances from Froome, only thing that seems extraordinary is his 2011 Vuelta performance where he burst out in the GT scene.

Yes my friend, 2011 is the predicate and everything else after that follows from it. It's quite bizarre to agree with the predicate (i.e. extraordinary transformation on display at the Vuelta) but deny the things which have followed from it.

Either it was donkey to racehorse or not.

If it was donkey to racehorse, than every expression of racehorse *is* expressive of donkey to racehorse logic. Therefore, suspicious in every case.

The racehorse doesn't just suddenly at some point, attain independent racehorse status: it's always a donkey which can't erase its history.

By your logic, everyone in the peloton is a donkey.
Also, your post is more about hate towards a particular rider than anything else. Possibly just to draw out harsh responses than anything else.
Instead of applauding him for having the tenacity to not take drugs for a long time even after being a pro, you're bringing him down just like everyone just because it suits your whims and fancies. Is it more like sky hate or Froome hate?. Anyway, I do feel sorry for you.

Also,he was a part of the pro peloton. Hence, better than 99.99% cyclists in the world. He was never a donkey.

 

[The Hegelian]

In what sense have I asserted that everyone in the peloton is a donkey? There is nothing in my argument which grants you that inference.

We were talking about one very particular, very overt, incredibly suspicious transformation: Froome's Vuelta 2011. You yourself admit that this is suspicious!

I merely pointed out what follows from that predicate.

It has nothing to do with hate. I'm actually quite fond of old Froomey.