Primož Roglič

Page 21 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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?
Is it too far-fetched to believe he might have been googling around for information here in the past when he just started out? Is there/was there another cycling forum somewhere?
 
Is it too far-fetched to believe he might have been googling around for information here in the past when he just started out? Is there/was there another cycling forum somewhere?
You know, I wasn't 100% serious...only 70% :p

Easy, Sandisfan. The nicest guy on the forum of course.
Maybe. I was ready to troll that I'm Primoz but unfortunately in one post I mentioned my VAM: laughable even for one-legged Primoz riding pan y agua.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: noob
Maybe. I was ready to troll that I'm Primoz but unfortunately in one post I mentioned my VAM of 800 m/h: laughable even for one-legged Primoz riding pan y agua.
I would have literally gone through your post history, found posts which coincided with time of an actual race when it was on, then gone & looked at the footage of the race in search of images of Primoz using his smartphone to post in here whilst riding... on a descent.

I had a simple theory that's what caused some of the crashes.
 
You know, I wasn't 100% serious...only 70% :p



Maybe. I was ready to troll that I'm Primoz but unfortunately in one post I mentioned my VAM: laughable even for one-legged Primoz riding pan y agua.
:tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:I didn't take it as serious either. Just thought that if any time riders could have been here should have been before they hit it, and after they retired. ':tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:
 
Jul 5, 2021
14
21
80
Hi excuse me, i'm looking for a journalist, an actual journalist, not a click-bait article writing son of a ... but a journalist, you know, a person who investigates a story/ topic and writes an article about it stated with facts. Is there still one out there? We have this douchebag in control of the UCI. How is it possible the UCI let teams ride their races when these teams have teamdoctors, teamleaders etc. who are known to be shady as f*** (to say the least, I'm looking at you team UAE) ? How is that even possible? Wrong position on the bike? Get out of our race. Your socks have the wrong height? Get fined etc. You're a known (ex)PED taker/dealer? COME IN! Please ride our races with your amazing team! How is it no journalist just walks up to the dude and starts asking tough guestions? Please don't refer to these internet "journalists" with made up stories. We need legit journalists digging deep, like they did with the Russia doping programme for the Sochi wintergames. Come on man, this is getting ridiculous. And they all will act surprised in 10 years when *** hits the fan.
 
Hi excuse me, i'm looking for a journalist, an actual journalist, not a click-bait article writing son of a ... but a journalist, you know, a person who investigates a story/ topic and writes an article about it stated with facts. Is there still one out there? We have this douchebag in control of the UCI. How is it possible the UCI let teams ride their races when these teams have teamdoctors, teamleaders etc. who are known to be shady as f* (to say the least, I'm looking at you team UAE) ? How is that even possible? Wrong position on the bike? Get out of our race. Your socks have the wrong height? Get fined etc. You're a known (ex)PED taker/dealer? COME IN! Please ride our races with your amazing team! How is it no journalist just walks up to the dude and starts asking tough guestions? Please don't refer to these internet "journalists" with made up stories. We need legit journalists digging deep, like they did with the Russia doping programme for the Sochi wintergames. Come on man, this is getting ridiculous. And they all will act surprised in 10 years when * hits the fan.
The "mainstream media" is by & large owned by groups who also have fingers in other pies as well, i.e. creating conflicts of interests which means journalism has certain red lines they won't cross because of reasons they'd rather people didn't notice. It doesn't take a genius to put the dots together. Just look at David Walsh: One of the biggest Lance detractors who went full in the "I believe" sell-out category with Sky.

He works for the Sunday Times, which is owned by News Corp. Just look at Rupert Murdoch's investment & influence in both News Corp & Sky itself at the time & voilà, super massive conflict of interest (i.e. a "journalist" who works for the same people who owned stakes in the TV company which sponsored the cycling team should have had a huge ? over him).

The same applies on other countries to various degrees (like L'Equipe the major sports paper in France is owned by the same group Amaury which owns the Tour de France itself). This pattern probably repeats itself everywhere. Bottom line it's so much easier to beat up on the Russians than it is to ask difficult questions about our own teams & sponsors over here.

Other fans of riders who get Clinic thread: "how dare you"

Roglic fans in Clinic thread: "he only crashes cause he reads this"
I want a crash free season for Roglic next year so I'll make it a personal mission to not bump this thread. Just in case.
 
The "mainstream media" is by & large owned by groups who also have fingers in other pies as well, i.e. creating conflicts of interests which means journalism has certain red lines they won't cross because of reasons they'd rather people didn't notice. It doesn't take a genius to put the dots together. Just look at David Walsh: One of the biggest Lance detractors who went full in the "I believe" sell-out category with Sky.

He works for the Sunday Times, which is owned by News Corp. Just look at Rupert Murdoch's investment & influence in both News Corp & Sky itself at the time & voilà, super massive conflict of interest (i.e. a "journalist" who works for the same people who owned stakes in the TV company which sponsored the cycling team should have had a huge ? over him).

The same applies on other countries to various degrees (like L'Equipe the major sports paper in France is owned by the same group Amaury which owns the Tour de France itself). This pattern probably repeats itself everywhere. Bottom line it's so much easier to beat up on the Russians than it is to ask difficult questions about our own teams & sponsors over here.



I want a crash free season for Roglic next year so I'll make it a personal mission to not bump this thread. Just in case.
Even independent journalists will probably just get frozen out of the sport if they ask the wrong questions to the wrong people tbh.
 
The "mainstream media" is by & large owned by groups who also have fingers in other pies as well, i.e. creating conflicts of interests which means journalism has certain red lines they won't cross because of reasons they'd rather people didn't notice. It doesn't take a genius to put the dots together. Just look at David Walsh: One of the biggest Lance detractors who went full in the "I believe" sell-out category with Sky.

He works for the Sunday Times, which is owned by News Corp. Just look at Rupert Murdoch's investment & influence in both News Corp & Sky itself at the time & voilà, super massive conflict of interest (i.e. a "journalist" who works for the same people who owned stakes in the TV company which sponsored the cycling team should have had a huge ? over him).

The same applies on other countries to various degrees (like L'Equipe the major sports paper in France is owned by the same group Amaury which owns the Tour de France itself). This pattern probably repeats itself everywhere. Bottom line it's so much easier to beat up on the Russians than it is to ask difficult questions about our own teams & sponsors over here.



I want a crash free season for Roglic next year so I'll make it a personal mission to not bump this thread. Just in case.
I don't know, I think you are seeing things too political and in regards to financial networks too often. I don't doubt that these are super important for the way our world works in general, but sometimes I don't see the explanation in that area.
With regards to doping, I don't think it's because nobody is interested because of financial background connections.

I think people in the sport just accept that doping is a huge part of it. Of course they want others to get busted, but they don't want to be open themselves. Almost everyone working in cycling nowadays has some kind of doping past / connection. That's not too say they are all the same. There are definitely differences in how far they are willing to go, how much they were / are involved. But I think hardly anyone in the sport is interested in a all-clean-up. Some kind of shady/ illegal performance enhancement will be part of their every day life.

The journalists who are already in cycling are, with all respect, usually not the best of the best. They aren't investigative anyway. That's not their job profile. They drink coffee and beer with cyclists, managers, DSs. They are friends. They know how cycling has worked for decades - with doping. They are not interested in smashing things up, they want to keep their nice jobs, enjoy some mildly cool life within their circle, they want to be friends. It's more socio-psychological than anything else in my opinion.
So the only ones who remain are journalists who (have a big ego and) are looking for a big story.

At the same time whoever knows about Pogacar's program for instance must be super careful. For me it's quite clear he's on a program that other's aren't, and I would think that probably his teammates don't know what he's on and how it's working, probably not many other people in the team either. You reduce the number of confidants.

But there's the thing that we already had the big scandals in cycling. Like, the really big ones. Everyone who's not a real cycling fan thinks cycling is the dirtiest sport anyway - so if you are a journalist and want to have the big story - if you detect that some cyclists hardly anybody in the world even knows exists, dope - so what. Everyone will be like "of course". That's not a big story. Not the kind of story you work to have for years. Pogacar would be a bigger story, but, like I said, I think that is something that just isn't easy to do, because you would probably really have to sneak into the closest circle.

What I want to say: Which journalist has an interest in cleaning things up in cycling, who is willing to spend years, at least many months of his life for a story that will never be really ground-breaking, while having the resources to do this? Some provincial journalists will simply not be able to do this, they won't get in, and for the big ones it's not enough of a story.

(I hope I'm completely wrong of cours and someone does something about it.)
 
Good points.

And beyond all the conflicts of interest & laissez-faire attitudes, there's also the legal aspect: defamation laws.

Every so often someone gets accused of doping & that person presses charges against the accuser (& wins). It happened with Roselyn Bachelot, i.e. a French politician, who publicly claimed Rafael Nadal (the tennis player of course) had a positive dope test which had been swept under the carpet. She was found guilty & had to pay a 10 000 euros fine.

Lance used to run around pressing charges against accusers as well, but he didn't have the "power" he imagined he had (or at least, it had limits which he discovered in the end).
 
Reactions: noob and BlueRoads
Good points.

And beyond all the conflicts of interest & laissez-faire attitudes, there's also the legal aspect: defamation laws.

Every so often someone gets accused of doping & that person presses charges against the accuser (& wins). It happened with Roselyn Bachelot, i.e. a French politician, who publicly claimed Rafael Nadal (the tennis player of course) had a positive dope test which had been swept under the carpet. She was found guilty & had to pay a 10 000 euros fine.

Lance used to run around pressing charges against accusers as well, but he didn't have the "power" he imagined he had (or at least, it had limits which he discovered in the end).
Yes, that's indeed a very important aspect. I guess it already leads to many people thinking they better not touch the subject, and if they do, they are threatened by lawyers.
Some time ago I looked into the matter a bit, and at least in Germany I think it is very important how you phrase things in an article. Of course you cannot run around like I do here and say "he's doping" if you are a journalist, but I think too often the mistake is made to draw conclusions or make insinuations in order to make things clear and have a headline.
I was thinking about the case of Konstanze Klosterhalfen, who in my eyes is an ultra-suspicious athlete - and there are good reasons to be ultra suspicious. But the moderately questioning articles that appeared after her training at the Oregon project facilities, her super-fast super-improving times, were immediately targeted by lawyers (don't think there was a law-suit).
But I think the phrasing is super-important if you write such an article.
In Germany it is "üble Nachrede", § 186 StGB. I think the most important part is that you aren't allowed to assert a fact that is not true or not proven to be a fact. So, as long as you stay to facts, don't speculate diffusely and make very clear in your article what is fact and what is your personal conclusion and how you come to that conclusion - and absolutely don't neglect what speaks against this conclusion or what remains doubtful, you can write about these things, even in regards to a specific athlete. But that will take the emotional power from your article.
The biggest problem will be if you have sources but cannot name them, but of course source protection exists, but you need to be willing to go through some tough times...
 
Reactions: noob
I don't pay a lot of attention to the Clinic nowadays, mainly because I think it has run it's course.
Back in the day it served a crucial purpose for exposing cycling culture for what it really is. You had a combination of people who were obvious insiders and those smart enough to surmise what was going on. And the fact it took so long for those people to be driven away or banned altogether always astounded me.
Now it just seems redundant to repeat what most people already know regarding the history of sports and primary motivations of athletes who understandably want to make as much money as possible. I really don't think the fundamental motivation has changed since 2006, but I could be wrong.
Which leads me to the condescending notion that people who post here are posting facts.
I don't see anyone here posting quote facts, but like I said, I don't read this forum as closely as I did in the past.
That said, unless the Clinic is shut down entirely and we should all pretend sports in general have cleaned up, there is always room for honest speculation.
 
Reactions: noob
I don't know, I think you are seeing things too political and in regards to financial networks too often. I don't doubt that these are super important for the way our world works in general, but sometimes I don't see the explanation in that area.
With regards to doping, I don't think it's because nobody is interested because of financial background connections.

I think people in the sport just accept that doping is a huge part of it. Of course they want others to get busted, but they don't want to be open themselves. Almost everyone working in cycling nowadays has some kind of doping past / connection. That's not too say they are all the same. There are definitely differences in how far they are willing to go, how much they were / are involved. But I think hardly anyone in the sport is interested in a all-clean-up. Some kind of shady/ illegal performance enhancement will be part of their every day life.

The journalists who are already in cycling are, with all respect, usually not the best of the best. They aren't investigative anyway. That's not their job profile. They drink coffee and beer with cyclists, managers, DSs. They are friends. They know how cycling has worked for decades - with doping. They are not interested in smashing things up, they want to keep their nice jobs, enjoy some mildly cool life within their circle, they want to be friends. It's more socio-psychological than anything else in my opinion.
So the only ones who remain are journalists who (have a big ego and) are looking for a big story.

At the same time whoever knows about Pogacar's program for instance must be super careful. For me it's quite clear he's on a program that other's aren't, and I would think that probably his teammates don't know what he's on and how it's working, probably not many other people in the team either. You reduce the number of confidants.

But there's the thing that we already had the big scandals in cycling. Like, the really big ones. Everyone who's not a real cycling fan thinks cycling is the dirtiest sport anyway - so if you are a journalist and want to have the big story - if you detect that some cyclists hardly anybody in the world even knows exists, dope - so what. Everyone will be like "of course". That's not a big story. Not the kind of story you work to have for years. Pogacar would be a bigger story, but, like I said, I think that is something that just isn't easy to do, because you would probably really have to sneak into the closest circle.

What I want to say: Which journalist has an interest in cleaning things up in cycling, who is willing to spend years, at least many months of his life for a story that will never be really ground-breaking, while having the resources to do this? Some provincial journalists will simply not be able to do this, they won't get in, and for the big ones it's not enough of a story.

(I hope I'm completely wrong of cours and someone does something about it.)
Journalism as the profession it used to be really is on its deathbed. Less and less sales, and everyone in every field needs to be friends with the other side, because work opportunities are so scarce. The journalist in question has to play nice as they might need to switch to the other side and work with PR instead.

I definitely agree with what you say about it being relations.

I was once at a larger media house and my first day I ended upon a suspected corruption I wanted to investigate, but I was told off by the old journalist in charge that I was just new and naive and activists were trying to use me. Some years later someone eventually had done the work I was denied doing and of course I had been right.

I believe there are ways to the work like this as well. But yeah it's extremely hard and I wouldn't rule out it maybe even being dangerous.

I believe there are other ways as well. <3
 
Jul 5, 2021
14
21
80
For some reason I dont find Roglic suspicious. He's not doing anything that's over the top. He always had that punch uphill, it's nothing strange he improved that punch over the years. Yes, he is strong, all year long. But he also shows signs of fading to the end of grand tours or the one day races the longer the distance gets, he looks human so to say. And hey, I just like the guy, he's humble and funny and takes good care for his teammates I was told.

I think I like Pogacar too, but he's overdoing it, I can't just look away when someone from THAT team demolishes the rest of the peleton uphill, downhill, TT, straight flats etc. It's a bit too much now isnt it?
 
I don't know, I think you are seeing things too political and in regards to financial networks too often. I don't doubt that these are super important for the way our world works in general, but sometimes I don't see the explanation in that area.
With regards to doping, I don't think it's because nobody is interested because of financial background connections.

I think people in the sport just accept that doping is a huge part of it. Of course they want others to get busted, but they don't want to be open themselves. Almost everyone working in cycling nowadays has some kind of doping past / connection. That's not too say they are all the same. There are definitely differences in how far they are willing to go, how much they were / are involved. But I think hardly anyone in the sport is interested in a all-clean-up. Some kind of shady/ illegal performance enhancement will be part of their every day life.

The journalists who are already in cycling are, with all respect, usually not the best of the best. They aren't investigative anyway. That's not their job profile. They drink coffee and beer with cyclists, managers, DSs. They are friends. They know how cycling has worked for decades - with doping. They are not interested in smashing things up, they want to keep their nice jobs, enjoy some mildly cool life within their circle, they want to be friends. It's more socio-psychological than anything else in my opinion.
So the only ones who remain are journalists who (have a big ego and) are looking for a big story.

At the same time whoever knows about Pogacar's program for instance must be super careful. For me it's quite clear he's on a program that other's aren't, and I would think that probably his teammates don't know what he's on and how it's working, probably not many other people in the team either. You reduce the number of confidants.

But there's the thing that we already had the big scandals in cycling. Like, the really big ones. Everyone who's not a real cycling fan thinks cycling is the dirtiest sport anyway - so if you are a journalist and want to have the big story - if you detect that some cyclists hardly anybody in the world even knows exists, dope - so what. Everyone will be like "of course". That's not a big story. Not the kind of story you work to have for years. Pogacar would be a bigger story, but, like I said, I think that is something that just isn't easy to do, because you would probably really have to sneak into the closest circle.

What I want to say: Which journalist has an interest in cleaning things up in cycling, who is willing to spend years, at least many months of his life for a story that will never be really ground-breaking, while having the resources to do this? Some provincial journalists will simply not be able to do this, they won't get in, and for the big ones it's not enough of a story.

(I hope I'm completely wrong of cours and someone does something about it.)

Couldn't wrote it better! Practically they are all employers of shimano and maxxis (if I had time and stamina I'd love to do a search on the effect of that maxxis yellow lettering on peoples unconsciousness ) except the engineers, though, 'cause, imo, cycling is the cemetery of the mediocre ones.(those evil disc brakes!).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY