Primož Roglič

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
First of all I didn't want to accuse you or insult you, if my post came across as such I'm sorry. I was trying to find an explanation for your sentences that sometimes don't make that much sense to me simply because you state that people say xy all the time and I'm wondering "they do? where?"
No need to explain yourself, i.e. my reply was just an attempt at humor (which can get lost in translation with this limited medium of communication which is online forum posting).

I'll just touch on the dope issue again: in my personal opinion it's an open secret just about everyone in the pro tour & beneath has a program & engages in an arms race. I think doctors & performance scientists are employed specifically for that task.

I don't care though, i.e. as Jacques Anquetil once told a French politician to his face: "we can't ride the Tour de France with clear water" (I paraphrased slightly). To me there are two groups of people who're equally wrong: the people who claim riders are "clean" & only a few "bad apples" exist (it's totally naïve & wrong), & the others who claim they're all "dopers" & "cheaters". I don't think doping as it exists in most situations in the peloton (& has done since forever) = cheating & I don't think everyone is "clean" either (as per the anti-doping definition of clean).

What I do think is the peloton in general has been way too defensive on the issue of pharmaceutical programs (feigning disbelief at the suggestion there's widespread pill consumption & injections in order to protect a "fantasy" sold to the media & audience) whilst others on the outside constantly use it as a weapon to attack cycling with, whilst at the same time totally ignoring other sports like football.

And I also think too many ex champions have missed a golden opportunity to have an open conversation about doping in order to protect a big illusion which occasionally backfires on the sport when the real truth gets out (as it did with Lance & his rivals in their era). I think if men like Merckx or Hinault for example wanted to do pro cycling a favor, they'd have adopted that same attitude as Anquetil, i.e. "I dope, so what? You can't race the Tour on water".

Laurent Fignon did, but he was ignored. That conversation could have been so beneficial (like a weight off everyone's back), but here we are seeing the same arguments rehashed ad-infinitum which is usually "xyz rider dopes because he's so strong", whereas in reality, even the riders finishing last have been proven to be on something as well.
 
See the comments of Tim wellens in Het Nieuwsblad this morning, about how he is at the same level as before but can't get good results any more.
I don't buy that anymore. Just like Gilbert can't compete anymore and is doing same numbers as in his prime? At 39y that would absolutely make sense. Wellens seems more like burned out or even some medical condition, why else would they seek for reasons why he can't compete with peleton anymore if he was pushing same numbers as in previous years.
 
Last edited:
See the comments of Tim wellens in Het Nieuwsblad this morning, about how he is at the same level as before but can't get good results any more.
the trouble with those kind of comments (similar for thomas de gendt) is twofold : first they both talk like they are some worldbeaters who were annihilating competition and now they cant, at their best they were both classic "get in the break and win once in a blue moon" type of riders (even tho de gendt has giro podium, but he didnt want to be a GT rider) who werent even remotely close to be considered favourites in their prime for their specialty - one day classics

and the second problem is that it assumes that large part of peloton, including smaller teams/riders, all upped their doping regime just those poor guys didnt - that also coincidentaly includes their own teamates like Ewan, van Moer or apparently Vermeersch

so yeah im not having none of this "poor me" attitude
 
Reactions: noob
My Eurosport commentators are the worst "it's all in the past, don't ruin our sport by accusing anyone". They talk about doping a lot and wants the old guys from the dark past out of the sport completely, and speaks about how problematic it is that ex dopers are now DS. (The only name they have mentioned though is Vino.) They thread carefully.

They liked the razzia of Bahrain as it would show if something was going on. They don't shy away from the topic.

And they go on and on about how it's the most tested sport.

They're ex pros so...

Sometimes I wonder if doping = blood doping only. Like the other stuff sounds less dangerous. Kinda like vaccine vs other medicine. Needles and blood always seems to scare people more.
 
My Eurosport commentators are the worst "it's all in the past, don't ruin our sport by accusing anyone". They talk about doping a lot and wants the old guys from the dark past out of the sport completely, and speaks about how problematic it is that ex dopers are now DS. (The only name they have mentioned though is Vino.) They thread carefully.

They liked the razzia of Bahrain as it would show if something was going on. They don't shy away from the topic.

And they go on and on about how it's the most tested sport.

They're ex pros so...

Sometimes I wonder if doping = blood doping only. Like the other stuff sounds less dangerous. Kinda like vaccine vs other medicine. Needles and blood always seems to scare people more.
That is worth quite a thought: Me, I'm also one who considers some going over the limit or deep, deep into the grey zone in cycling a bit as "normal" and when I talk about doping I mean hardcore doping.
But yeah, maybe they also distinguish between "some supplements, what's the difference to other vitamins", and blood doping, which they then consider real doping.
Could be.
 
Reactions: noob
My Eurosport commentators are the worst "it's all in the past, don't ruin our sport by accusing anyone". They talk about doping a lot and wants the old guys from the dark past out of the sport completely, and speaks about how problematic it is that ex dopers are now DS. (The only name they have mentioned though is Vino.) They thread carefully.

They liked the razzia of Bahrain as it would show if something was going on. They don't shy away from the topic.

And they go on and on about how it's the most tested sport.

They're ex pros so...

Sometimes I wonder if doping = blood doping only. Like the other stuff sounds less dangerous. Kinda like vaccine vs other medicine. Needles and blood always seems to scare people more.
Nah they're just bullshitting their way through. It's not about blood doping at all. It's just popular to hate on some ex-dopers while others just get completely ignored.

THey just do everythign to pretend it's cleanz now when they know as well as anyone it's the dirtiest it's been in a long time
 
They just do everythign to pretend it's cleanz now when they know as well as anyone it's the dirtiest it's been in a long time
This is what I don't understand. If it's the dirtiest it's been in a long time when was it not? Feels just like yesterday I watched the Rasmussen drama on my TV.

What I keep wondering is which years was the sport ever cleaner? If Froome and Sky and British cycling was even nearly as bad as it seems then it's like only a couple of years between that and Rasmussen? That's what has me so confused.

Or is it that 2007 it was getting better and hence why the outcry and sitting protest against Vino etc?
 
This is what I don't understand. If it's the dirtiest it's been in a long time when was it not? Feels just like yesterday I watched the Rasmussen drama on my TV.

What I keep wondering is which years was the sport ever cleaner? If Froome and Sky and British cycling was even nearly as bad as it seems then it's like only a couple of years between that and Rasmussen? That's what has me so confused.

Or is it that 2007 it was getting better and hence why the outcry and sitting protest against Vino etc?
Just going by climbing times I'd roughly say 2010-2019 was definitely less nuclear than before or after. Ofcourse there's always some big performances on climbs however. Similarly, there haven't been any particularly huge busts or scandals since Contador, and even Contador was only caught for a really minor compound.
 
Froome's salbutamol was "close" to being a scandal. But only close.

And it's also worth IMO looking at the bigger societal picture here: we see complete criminals like Bernard Tapie (match fixing, corruption & everything in between) get eulogized upon their death & everything negative is almost entirely sanitized (or at least comically handwaved as a minor character flaw). And Bernard Tapie is an interesting case because he of course owned La Vie Claire cycling team in which Hinault & LeMond won the Tour. 2+2=4, i.e. a man who organized widespread cheating with his football team in the early 1990's could be easily considered "suspect" with regards to how his cycling team might have operated in the mid 1980's. But "shush", no questions asked, ever.

So where's the real authority? Where's the moral authority? It's a corrupt society, corrupt world & everything is upside down, i.e. the same newspaper outlets (like L'Equipe) who labelled Lance Armstrong a cheater, bastard & crook have been posting articles over the last week filled with praise for Tapie aka a man who was literally caught bribing the opposition when he was president of Marseille football club in 1993. And an ex Marseille footballer who played under Tapie & captained the team was then implicated in a doping scandal in Italy at Juventus a few years later (Didier Deschamps).

I'm not just deliberately painting a bleak picture here (i.e. I won't even touch on the most obvious none sport issues we all face as well), but, I say in this societal context which dates back many decades & is steadily going from bad to worse, a bunch of super hardcore performance driven bike riders who might have some medical cocktails, blood bags or whatnot to give themselves a boost aren't exactly a serious issue.

The saddest & most dangerous aspect being of course the health related problems (riders who die young or suffer health problems soon after retirement). That needs to be controlled & prevented, absolutely (& I think preventing riders from going solo with their own dangerous "mad science" via employing actual real professionals behind the scenes is probably how most teams now operate).
 
And it's also worth IMO looking at the bigger societal picture here: we see complete criminals like Bernard Tapie (match fixing, corruption & everything in between) get eulogized upon their death & everything negative is almost entirely sanitized (or at least comically handwaved as a minor character flaw). And Bernard Tapie is an interesting case because he of course owned La Vie Claire cycling team in which Hinault & LeMond won the Tour. 2+2=4, i.e. a man who organized widespread cheating with his football team in the early 1990's could be easily considered "suspect" with regards to how his cycling team might have operated in the mid 1980's. But "shush", no questions asked, ever.
I'm calling crap here. Save for a few old enough to remember the 80s hardly any cycling fans gave a f*ck about Tapie's death. As for being eulogized, the Guardian's story headlined him as scandal-ridden. That's not being eulogized.

As for La Vie Claire, I think those who care about these things know it was complicated: on the one hand he had Paul Köchli (the notoriously anti-doping DS), on the other hand he had Kim Andersen (the first rider to get a lifetime ban for doping, and to come back from it). You want to see it as something no one - apart from you - has asked questions about when that's simply not true.

If you really want to imply that LeMond was juiced, just do it, light up the batshitcrazy signal and we'll have Greg's 24/7 official cheerleader in here licketyspit. If you want to imply that Hinault was doping - say it ain't so, Joe! FFS, folk know he was doping before La Vie Claire, the man has even spoken out in favour of blood doping and hormone boosting. News such a claim ain't.

The real societal problem here is the folk who twist reality all out of shape to support their worldview.
 
I'm calling crap here. Save for a few old enough to remember the 80s hardly any cycling fans gave a f*ck about Tapie's death. As for being eulogized, the Guardian's story headlined him as scandal-ridden. That's not being eulogized.

...

The real societal problem here is the folk who twist reality all out of shape to support their worldview.
I think your definition of "societal problem" might just coincide with the aforementioned fact you read the Guardian. Just saying.

For what it's worth I don't read the Guardian & I absolutely do not share your conclusion. The "folk" you refer to aren't in control of anything, certainly not the French media & French state literally eulogizing Tapie as I type (his funeral procession was even broadcast live on TV, with normal programs interrupted). Mainstream newspapers like Le Figaro have have featured an entire week of sanitized praise. It is no joke & it's no small matter.

And regarding La Vie Claire, it's the French media & their entire little clique who don't ask questions. It's so convenient to beat up on current cyclists (like the "Slovenians"), rather than face reality vis-à-vis old champions. I'm sorry, but the history of this sport & broader societal history is littered with so many WTF moments over the past few decades it makes a mockery of their serious attempts at morally policing cycling.
 
Reactions: noob
When I saw Romain Bardet powering up the final climb in Lombardia today & dropping Roglic, I thought I was watching Moto-GP for a minute.
Bardet has always been a bit like that. Making insinuations and then being just as strong in a harder race.

I did rewatch finish of Emilia and its mind blowing how strong was Roglic's attack. Looks like somebody from EPO era the way he sprints and Almeida can't even hold the wheel.
 
I think your definition of "societal problem" might just coincide with the aforementioned fact you read the Guardian. Just saying.

For what it's worth I don't read the Guardian & I absolutely do not share your conclusion. The "folk" you refer to aren't in control of anything, certainly not the French media & French state literally eulogizing Tapie as I type (his funeral procession was even broadcast live on TV, with normal programs interrupted). Mainstream newspapers like Le Figaro have have featured an entire week of sanitized praise. It is no joke & it's no small matter.

And regarding La Vie Claire, it's the French media & their entire little clique who don't ask questions. It's so convenient to beat up on current cyclists (like the "Slovenians"), rather than face reality vis-à-vis old champions. I'm sorry, but the history of this sport & broader societal history is littered with so many WTF moments over the past few decades it makes a mockery of their serious attempts at morally policing cycling.
So France has the same sickness as Italy with Berlusconi? But France seems to have done something to clean-up things.Perhaps this is why the French press is so skeptical of Slovenia. Just saying.
 
So France has the same sickness as Italy with Berlusconi? But France seems to have done something to clean-up things.Perhaps this is why the French press is so skeptical of Slovenia. Just saying.
I think France is very selective with regards to "who" it aims its cleaning-up at.

Case in point: just this morning, L'Equipe tentatively wrote about their misgivings regarding Pogacar's performance yesterday based on the history of the sport (fair enough, it does deserve a ? based on the who, what, why & when of UAE & his performances), but that same newspaper publishes euphoric articles about Alaphilippe (when doctor Yvan van Mol at DQS is hardly mr clean).

It's just the sort of stuff (hypocrisy, basically) which is standard now.
 
I think France is very selective with regards to "who" it aims its cleaning-up at.

Case in point: just this morning, L'Equipe tentatively wrote about their misgivings regarding Pogacar's performance yesterday based on the history of the sport (fair enough, it does deserve a ? based on the who, what, why & when of UAE & his performances), but that same newspaper publishes euphoric articles about Alaphilippe (when doctor Yvan van Mol at DQS is hardly mr clean).

It's just the sort of stuff (hypocrisy, basically) which is standard now.
Excuse me, France has not won its national tour in 35 years. Doesn't it have a reason to be a bit pissed off? :p At any rate, the hypocrisy is the same everywhere, because nationalistic and patriotic inclinations are blinding everywhere. :) And the journalists don't even realize their lack of objectivity. In Italy, for example, I've read the most critical stuff when it comes to another nation's riders, but the most biased stuff when it comes to Italians. It's par for the course. And the Italians love someone who loves them and Italy, but I don't get this sense from France, which is more chavinistic and less servile.
 
Excuse me, France has not won its national tour in 35 years. Doesn't it have a reason to be a bit pissed off? :p At any rate, the hypocrisy is the same everywhere, because nationalistic and patriotic inclinations are blinding everywhere. :) And the journalists don't even realize their lack of objectivity. In Italy, for example, I've read the most critical stuff when it comes to another nation's riders, but the most biased stuff when it comes to Italians. It's par for the course. And the Italians love someone who loves them and Italy, but I don't get this sense from France, which is more chavinistic and less servile.
All valid points, but as a serious newspaper, L'Equipe should publish articles which praise Tapie, praise Alaph but then also question Pog's performances.

It looks ridiculous.
 
All valid points, but as a serious newspaper, L'Equipe should publish articles which praise Tapie, praise Alaph but then also question Pog's performances.

It looks ridiculous.
No, but all of this revolves around sentimentalism. Let's say Tapie was an unscrupulous profiteer who did good for French cycling, that Ala is the Dartagnan of dopers and that Pogacar has the biggest qualities of dopers.
 
No, but all of this revolves around sentimentalism. Let's say Tapie was an unscrupulous profiteer who did good for French cycling, that Ala is the Dartagnan of dopers and that Pogacar has the biggest qualities of dopers.
And there's some convenient little vested interests as well (especially with regards to the unadulterated praise Alaph gets).

Amaury Sport Organization owns the Tour de France... & is an affiliate of Amaury which owns L'Equipe newspaper. And guess who has been employed by the same A.S.O. to be directrice of the women's Tour de France which will premiere in 2022? Marion Rousse, aka Alaphilippe's real life partner & mother of his child.

Life is sometimes very simple.
 
Reactions: Ripper
Is Roglic reading this forum? I think he saw this thread was hot again, so he knew it's time to lay low again? :D
He surely does. In his interviews he even refers to some forum opinions.
-when he attacked on one Vuelta stage (and ended up crashing) he said something like "people say I don't attack from distance so I did it" (it was exactly after intense forum discussions regarding this topic). A few days later he made a long distance attack with Bernal.
-soon afterwards he said "after I crashed people said I shouldn't have attacked while before they had complained that I don't" (exactly forum's reactions)
-one day I was parodying a dialogue between him and Remco with Primoz saying "at your age I couldn't even ride a bike". A few days later he said exactly the same thing regarding Remco!

Definitely more clinic discussions make Primoz put his foot off the gas :p

Now the question is: who is Primoz here?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY