official Ilnur Zakarin thread

[Beech Mtn]

Re: Re:

By the way, do we have any reliable first hand account of a team actually holding back a doped rider from riding as well as he can just because he would be too good and would look too fishy? I can't recall one from any of the doping memoirs, yet it's a staple explanation for variations in form here.

I believe US Postal at one of the later TdFs didn't use their last blood bags for this very reason. And they were already far enough ahead, safe jersey, etc.

Interesting. Whose account was that from?

If that's accurate though, it's still not a team deciding not to win. Do we have a team actually deciding not to win for fear of setting off alarm bells?

IIRC, it's from Floyd's interview with Kimmage. The supposed story of Johan flushing Floyd's blood bag, was actually that they didn't use the final bag for any of the climbing domestiques because the team looked too dominant and was raising eyebrows.

As far as not winning so as not to look suspicious, the rumors of people pulling out of races with "illness" when finding out mid-stage that there would be doping controls at the finish. Not sure of any specifics, though. It's just one of those things that seems to be part of the fabric of cycling legend in general.

 

[glassmoon]

Re: Re:

there is a rumor that some rider at the giro is highly suspected to be doper. i mean officially suspicious not "default clinic susp."
could it be Zakarin?

highly suspected by who? the uci?

Looks like by MPCC (so no drama i guess) and the rider supposed to be from Bardiani...

 

[ciranda]

Re: Re:

I hate more and more how these media always operate with a home field perspective. Orica, Sky, Garmin, Qhubeka are the standard and it’s somehow okay to ignore, accuse, insinuate and laugh at other teams and riders for many reasons. Relations exist between riders and journalists from these countries and teams, fine, but it’s not your sport by right and you don’t get to point fingers at Zakarin and Astana and never mention Impey or Hesjedal or Thomas and the whole Sky team or Bennett and still get to be taken seriously.

But this view of the world is now so powerful that Henderson thought it was okay to accuse a colleague because really, he probably subconsciously knew, it’s not someone from my world, it’s someone from Kazakhstan, Italy or whatever. Those foreigners just can't be trusted and will do anything to give their cyclists advantage even if it’s just your mate helping out and that also goes for the damn French people who kicked out Ted King.

By the way, do we have any reliable first hand account of a team actually holding back a doped rider from riding as well as he can just because he would be too good and would look too fishy? I can't recall one from any of the doping memoirs, yet it's a staple explanation for variations in form here.

Rasmussen was told by directors not to use second rest day blood bags in the 2005 TDF. Not for performance reasons though but because they feared police searches. Rasmussen of course has said that was the biggest regret of his career because with the blood he could have challenged Armstrong all the way to Paris. Which is likely because he was pretty good anyway, like seconds after Ullrich on the hardest day in the Pyrenees.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Dropping out to avoid a doping control certainly happens, but it's not really the same thing. And the Rasmussen story is also interesting, but again not something that fits the category of "don't win this race, it will look too fishy".

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Its subconcious racism.

But that's not the only issue involved. There are also other factors. When it comes to proven dopers for intance, there's also the narrative offered by the rider. Take a rider who says some subset of "I confessed. I cooperated with the authorities. I was young and stupid. I was forced to do it by Lance. I was desperate and depressed." And then goes on to say something like "I've learned my lesson. I've taken my (reduced!) punishment. I deserved it. But now I want to be a voice of hope, a story of redemption, etc etc." That rider is generally treated very differently by commentators, journalists and many fans than a rider who is popped but never confesses, maintains he did nothing wrong and treats questions about the issue as impertinence.

Which rider said this?

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

Which rider said this?

Which rider said what? No rider said all of that. But the narratives various Garminy types for instance have offered up each amount to some subset of those excuses once you condense the waffling. Millar practically made a career out of telling a variant of that story. Tell that story reasonably well and you can get along just fine with the media and most fans. Maintain that you've done nothing wrong years after you were sanctioned and you may as well have cloven hooves.

 

[staubsauger]

Re:

Dropping out to avoid a doping control certainly happens, but it's not really the same thing. And the Rasmussen story is also interesting, but again not something that fits the category of "don't win this race, it will look too fishy".

He came in with Armstrong just the day after his monster escape through the Vosges! He may have outclimbed and exposed Armstrong with a second blood bag, instead of running out of fuel and riding a horrible time trial.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

In my opinion, it's what Garmin did with Ramūnas Navardauskas - he came in with amateur doping questions hanging over him. JV spun some utter BS testing protocol as "proof" he was clean, and now he wins a stage here and there at the WT level.

Even the way Ryder won the Giro was about as under the radar as you could do it.

And now Ryder is some hack domestique by comparison to that 2012 performance.

 

[TourOfTexas]

Re:

there is a rumor that some rider at the giro is highly suspected to be doper. i mean officially suspicious not "default clinic susp."
could it be Zakarin?

Either him or Landa, Cataldo, Amador, or maybe Cunego decided one last fling was worth the risk.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Its subconcious racism.

But that's not the only issue involved. There are also other factors. When it comes to proven dopers for intance, there's also the narrative offered by the rider. Take a rider who says some subset of "I confessed. I cooperated with the authorities. I was young and stupid. I was forced to do it by Lance. I was desperate and depressed." And then goes on to say something like "I've learned my lesson. I've taken my (reduced!) punishment. I deserved it. But now I want to be a voice of hope, a story of redemption, etc etc." That rider is generally treated very differently by commentators, journalists and many fans than a rider who is popped but never confesses, maintains he did nothing wrong and treats questions about the issue as impertinence.

Zabriskie

and it was BS

Which rider said this?

 

[blackcat]

Re:

In my opinion, it's what Garmin did with Ramūnas Navardauskas - he came in with amateur doping questions hanging over him. JV spun some utter BS testing protocol as "proof" he was clean, and now he wins a stage here and there at the WT level.

Even the way Ryder won the Giro was about as under the radar as you could do it.

And now Ryder is some hack domestique by comparison to that 2012 performance.

nah, remember, the day after he won Liege Bastogne Liege espoirs, JV had him on a plane to Gerona and testing him for his biopassport numbers, and his ergo numbers.

sounds legit

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

In my opinion, it's what Garmin did with Ramūnas Navardauskas - he came in with amateur doping questions hanging over him. JV spun some utter BS testing protocol as "proof" he was clean, and now he wins a stage here and there at the WT level.

Even the way Ryder won the Giro was about as under the radar as you could do it.

And now Ryder is some hack domestique by comparison to that 2012 performance.

nah, remember, the day after he won Liege Bastogne Liege espoirs, JV had him on a plane to Gerona and testing him for his biopassport numbers, and his ergo numbers.

sounds legit

nah? Did you even read my post? I just highlighted what your post just repeated. :-/

 

[blackcat]

<nah> is rhetoric.

effectively affirming, seconding the post.

because the tale that JV told us, or your words, JV's protocol, was soooo E L A B O R A T E.

YES!, yes like you Wiggo, or in my rhetoric <nah>, yes, I am in complete aggreance, that JV weaved this byzantine tale as justification.

I also think his line on a Credit Agricole TdF and telling Roger Legeay he wanted to dope to perform for Roger, and Roger said sacre bleu no JV dont dope. THIS WAS BS TOO.

There is another line he has rolled out, a pro forma justification like his technical calibration error, it might be his hematocrit hall pass for a high hematocrit, he has rolled this out in his work managing Garmin. actually, no, I dont think this was the anecdote.

there was another anecdote which he has used twice, once in his career, and once recently in management. I linked you on that post, p'raps last 18 months.

if you cant remember the anecdote, I will trawl bak thru my posts over the past 24 months.

It might be something as simple, YES, it was merely the 2008 TdF debut with Tiaa Cref Chipotle, or Tiaa Cref Slipstream, this is when JV first invoked his "technical instrument calibration error". In 2008. Since then, he has used it on mutliple occasions.

The thing about target testing Millar and Vandevelde in 2008, the measurements take multiple readings of different blood parameters. not just one. but technical calibration error one and all.

And I also think that JV probably sold snake oil to Doug Ellis who is the bagman for his team. Because we were told Ellis approached JV.

And then there is Vandevelde's lactic acid numbers from pre-season training camps on USPS. But when was this? Cos there was Motorola with LA, then CvdV debuts in about 1998 when Armstrong is still rehabbing, cos we were SOLD on Vandevelde's legitimacy because of those lactic acid tests on USPS...

ok, have I proved my bona fides DW?

And, for others, alot of what I am sceptical about above^^^ may well be the gospel truth from JV, but since DW, plus myself, independently, have caught JV by triandulating his narrative on-the-record, Dear Wiggo and I start to question everything from him. Alot will still be truth and facts, but which are the facts and the truth. We can't trust him.

The thing about telling porky pies (lies) when you are on the record, and the media can record it, It then ties you to this narrative, without you having any access to the memory of the truth. You can only possibly recall the memory of the lie, but that is not how memory works, you have not anchored the memory. So you are likely to contradict the original lie, which will allow others to come back, and triangulate the record of conflict.

I think I have had other occasions when my elephantine memory managed to catch a contradiction. ***

*** everyone in their life will have contradictions. Even when they are telling the truth. One can forget. Also, like JM Keynes or Churchill said "when facts change I change my mind, what do you do sir".

so in JV's defense, there could be honest explanations for all of these anecdotes, or, I may be recalling everything incorrectly (possible), and I might have a grudge against JV (legit) cos I think he was pissing in my (the fans) pockets for the last decade.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

sounds legit

nah? Did you even read my post? I just highlighted what your post just repeated. :-/

"sounds legit" should have been the tell. This is your meme, and I jumped on the bandwagon (or was it MGTHAB?)

so me saying, sounds legit, or good grief, is buying in to your leitmotif which I agree with

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No worries I was just confused and that is probably easier to do than usual. A smilie or something would probably help ease the understanding of sarcasm or whatever it is you are using

 

[blackcat]

Re:

No worries I was just confused and that is probably easier to do than usual. A smilie or something would probably help ease the understanding of sarcasm or whatever it is you are using

concede your position.

but when you roll back some of the layers, it becomes so absurd, so even tho I had my internal smileys going on , I thought my post, was basically your post continued with a comma, and it was more , <comma>, <more Dear Wiggo> and not actually the organic voice of blackcat.

cos these florid little tales and justifications that JV develops, it becomes absurd.

CAVEAT: everyone believes Zarbiskie's fable about tears, and Armstrong making him dope, Armstrong causing him to cry, and promises to his dying father.

well... in JV's devil's advocate, everyone has bought this tale hook line and sinker from Zabriskie, and no one has called him on the BS and the emperor's clothes.

For all of Floyd's faults, he was a hard man. He would not have copped his best buddy in cycling being such a soft c0ck.

Dear Wiggo, take note, I attempted to post this twice with more smileys
Your message contains too many smilies. The maximum number of smilies allowed is 5.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Won't someone think of the smilies? :-(

 

[The Hegelian]

Not sure about this Russophobe/racist narrative.

Zakarin looks particularly dodgy because he's out tt'ing Tony Martin whilst climbing like a goat. Haven't seen anything quite so unbelievable in a GC type rider since old Froomey won his TDF.

Russian, British - the point is surely that when something looks that bloody suss, it's impossible to refrain from the doping imputation. Does the imputation drop like a stone because of race, ethnicity, culture, nation-state? Surely not. Surely it's because it actually just is unbelievable.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Russian, British - the point is surely that when something looks that bloody suss, it's impossible to refrain from the doping imputation. Does the imputation drop like a stone because of race, ethnicity, culture, nation-state? Surely not. Surely it's because it actually just is unbelievable.

no, the Anglophones brought a puritanical edge to their MO and pro cycling. Therefore, the backlash is worse when folks allege emperor's clothes

 

[IndianCyclist]

Predict Zakarin performance on each stage- STONE OR BIRD

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

Russian, British - the point is surely that when something looks that bloody suss, it's impossible to refrain from the doping imputation. Does the imputation drop like a stone because of race, ethnicity, culture, nation-state? Surely not. Surely it's because it actually just is unbelievable.

no, the Anglophones brought a puritanical edge to their MO and pro cycling. Therefore, the backlash is worse when folks allege emperor's clothes

I see what you're saying, but I think the backlash is more aesthetic. i.e. before all the moralising logic and judgement, it just looks awful to have Murdoch-owned black jerseyed-watt fundamentalists dominating a stage race, with the main star possibly the most ungainly and ugly thing ever put on a bicycle.

Interesting that Zakarin looks so bloody awful too - he basically pedals squares.

Yet Contador, perhaps Nibali - they have beautiful form. So juiced or not, they do not offend aesthetically.

I reckon the backlash is principally this, and only then do we turn to our reasons to justify it.

 

[proffate]

Re: Re:

Interesting that Zakarin looks so bloody awful too - he basically pedals squares.

I dunno, I have noticed what you're saying but to me it just looks like a dude with comically long legs and a bit of a bow-legged stance. Is his doping a worse offense because he also happens to be tall and ungainly in comparison to other dopers? If anything, when I see a rider like that, I feel pity, because bikes are generally not designed for someone of his proportions.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

Interesting that Zakarin looks so bloody awful too - he basically pedals squares.

I dunno, I have noticed what you're saying but to me it just looks like a dude with comically long legs and a bit of a bow-legged stance. Is his doping a worse offense because he also happens to be tall and ungainly in comparison to other dopers? If anything, when I see a rider like that, I feel pity, because bikes are generally not designed for someone of his proportions.

Well by any rational standard, of course his doping offense is not worse. The point I'm making is that most of us tend to make our judgements before there is any real reason applied - and that it's not (necessarily) race or nationhood doing the work there. I'm no different: there's no way on earth I can deny the grace of Pantani flying up a hill. But there's no way on earth I can accept Froome do it. Irrational. But aesthetically, it makes a great deal of sense.

 

[Lyon]

Re: Re:

[quote="The Hegelian

Yet Contador, perhaps Nibali - they have beautiful form. So juiced or not, they do not offend aesthetically.

This is off topic but I find Contadors form ugly, or, rather, irritating.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

[quote="The Hegelian

Yet Contador, perhaps Nibali - they have beautiful form. So juiced or not, they do not offend aesthetically.

This is off topic but I find Contadors form ugly, or, rather, irritating.

I can see why - Nibali has definitely has souplesse. By contrast, Contador rides like he's on amphetamines; constantly out of the saddle, almost a little edgy. Nonetheless a powerful climber on the attack, dancing out of the saddle is close to the essence of the sport.... definitely more graceful than spinning a crazy cadence whilst staring at the stem, elbows all over the shop, head going sideways....