Richie Porte - what do we know about him?

[Froome19]

Maybe he just had a bad year last year? Did very well in the Giro the previous year, maybe he overtrained or something? For someone who did as well as he did in 2010 at age 25 his results this year arent necessarily that odd if he was able to do better training - he performed well on the climbs but was able to take it very easy after pulling off the front.

Does anyone know why his performances last year were that poor?

Spot on..

He was made to race when not in form for the support of Contador and made to race two grand tours in succession when he was not really up to it.

 

[Benotti69]

I take your point about it being hard to compare performances as a domestique to those as a protected rider, but even so, if Porte had been doing the same job this year for another protected rider e.g. for Van Den Brouke, I doubt we'd be discussing him, when a clear improvement from a Giro top ten would surely warrant such discussion.

Though this is the Clinic, and if Nelson Mandela had ever ridden a bike competitively, he'd have been accused of something, so nothing can be ruled out!

You seem to have this view that cycling isn't a dirty sport or did you really get sucked in by Sky's PR?

Do you really believe that the sponsor Sky was going to pump all this money into Brit Cycling and not demand a return?

Sky dont give unless the chance of return is extremely high. In order to guarantee that return Brailsford hired Leinders and Bartalucci. They definetely weren't there to keep the riders free from Virus's.

Wake up and take of the rose tinted glasses. Brailsford and McQuaid this year were so close. McQuaid couldn't stop praising Sky. Brailsford and Wiggins showing their love for Armstrong and USPostal/Once and taking the praise of Bruyneel is really suspicious.

Porte is part of the doping Sky rider crew. No doubt. Top riders used to perform all year long from Paris Nice to Lomabardia before the EPO era, now little Richie Porte climbs off after 20kms and how many races has he ridden in this cleaner era?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I dunno, VDB2's mountain domestique Jelle Vanendert has had his fair share of rumours the last couple of years. Imagine the Tour de France had been dominated by Lotto-Belisol. VDB2 had filled out the Wiggins role, winning the thing with Vanendert playing Froome, as the chief mountain dom, 2nd placed overall and winner of a stage. Bart de Clerq starring as Mick Rogers for the lower slopes or earlier climbs along with Richie Porte as himself. I think people would be just as scathing, and quite honestly VDB2 and Vanendert have a lot more pedigree than Wiggins and Froome.

Indeed, but the suspicion on Porte would again arise solely from his association with a Tour winner. My point was that if his and VDB's performances in this year's Tour had been as they were but with Porte riding for VDB rather than Wiggo then no-one would be commenting on his improvement since 2010. (They would be more likely to be observing that 2010 was flash in the pan, given 2011 and 2012 results, if indeed anyone was making any observations about him at all.)

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

Spot on..

He was made to race when not in form for the support of Contador and made to race two grand tours in succession when he was not really up to it.

He also crashed in the giro which effected him quite a bit.

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

There can be absolutely no doubt that Porte, like the rest of the Sky team Wiggins, Froome, Rogers etc, are heavily doping. To deny it is like denying the sky is blue or the grass in green.
But they are not alone, cyclist = doper = cheats, unfortunately, and probably will do as long as there is road cycling.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Porte is part of the doping Sky rider crew. No doubt. Top riders used to perform all year long from Paris Nice to Lomabardia before the EPO era, now little Richie Porte climbs off after 20kms and how many races has he ridden in this cleaner era?

I'm confused.

Is Porte suspected of doping because he was performing at a consistently high level from February to July in support of Wiggo, supporting Sky's level of dominance unseen since the days of USPS?

Or is he suspected of doping because he is unable to maintain USPS levels of dominance all season long?

Not that I'm bothered, it must be said. My interest on this forum is primarily observing debating techniques and posting styles, along with analysis of the various arguments put forward for or against a particular issue.

I don't care about doping, since professional sport is just entertainment for us spectators. Someone has to win, and if that's Wiggo then I'm marginally more happy for a brief period of time than if not. Similarly, I'd be be briefly disappointed if he got busted, but not very much, we are not acquainted. Even this event would not be without interest, as it would leave the role of "The Clinic's #1 Active Rider To Dislike" up for grabs, and it's not obvious who this would be at the moment.

The only sport spectating that really gets me going is School Sports Day, when I get to see my unfavourable genes combined with The Good Lady's far more favourable ones in action. Luckily, The Good Lady's genes prevail.

 

[Caruut]

Indeed, but the suspicion on Porte would again arise solely from his association with a Tour winner. My point was that if his and VDB's performances in this year's Tour had been as they were but with Porte riding for VDB rather than Wiggo then no-one would be commenting on his improvement since 2010. (They would be more likely to be observing that 2010 was flash in the pan, given 2011 and 2012 results, if indeed anyone was making any observations about him at all.)

Ah, okay, I thought your post was implying that suspicion of Porte was largely an anti-Wiggo/anti-Sky thing, not related to him riding for the Tour winner. Either way I disagree - for a start it is important to note that excellent performances from domestiques and excellent results by team captains are not entirely independent. Good performances by domestiques are quite often noted - take Quintana at the Vuelta for Piti. When they coincide with a set of similarly impressive performances, not just in magnitude but in the way they were so good, eyebrows get raised.

Do you really believe that if Richie Porte had been riding for Lotto and shelled Cadel out the back no-one would have batted an eye-lid? The reason Sky get so much debate isn't because they win - it's because they have so many people to defend them.

 

[Caruut]

I'm confused.

Is Porte suspected of doping because he was performing at a consistently high level from February to July in support of Wiggo, supporting Sky's level of dominance unseen since the days of USPS?

Or is he suspected of doping because he is unable to maintain USPS levels of dominance all season long?

I guess it's a little bit of each, isn't it? I think that what unites those two scenarios is being at a much, much higher level for races your team and captain are targeting than in ones he could (potentially) be able to ride for himself.

 

[ToreBear]

Ah, okay, I thought your post was implying that suspicion of Porte was largely an anti-Wiggo/anti-Sky thing, not related to him riding for the Tour winner. Either way I disagree - for a start it is important to note that excellent performances from domestiques and excellent results by team captains are not entirely independent. Good performances by domestiques are quite often noted - take Quintana at the Vuelta for Piti. When they coincide with a set of similarly impressive performances, not just in magnitude but in the way they were so good, eyebrows get raised.

Do you really believe that if Richie Porte had been riding for Lotto and shelled Cadel out the back no-one would have batted an eye-lid? The reason Sky get so much debate isn't because they win - it's because they have so many people to defend them.

Did Cadel ever get dropped when Porte was riding on the front? I watched intently when the sky domestiques dropped off the front, and can't remember Porte still being there withouth Cadel.

Is there something I can't remember? Was it the day Cadel was sick, or the day he attacked too early and exhausted himself?

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

Cycling is rotten to the core with cyclists like this cheat Porte being allowed to prosper. Get him out of cycling, get all of the cheats out of cycling. Pity there would be no one left.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Do you really believe that if Richie Porte had been riding for Lotto and shelled Cadel out the back no-one would have batted an eye-lid? The reason Sky get so much debate isn't because they win - it's because they have so many people to defend them.

Eye-lids would have been batted for sure, but not at Porte. They would have been batted at whoever was doing his role for whoever won the Tour. Porte's role could have been played by any number of riders. It was selfless, no doubt, but not exactly involving legendary levels of sustained power output.

Re Sky, of course the debate is because they are winning. In 2010, they just got laughed at and there weren't many defenders, because they deserved to be laughed at. The defenders are only out in force because people are accusing them - and principally Wiggo, who has long been very popular in the UK given his Olympic success - of doping, which is only happening because they are winning.

 

[The Hitch]

He finished 7th overall in the Giro 2010. wore pink for 3 days.

He didn't get better all of a sudden, he was always a good rider ...
He probably could've finished top 10 overall in the tour if he rode for himself.

Yeah he finished 7th in the giro but was absolutely smashed in the mountains and this is about his current climbing prowess.

He lost his entire 1.45 pink jersey lead to Arroyo and more on the first mountain, and Arroyo is barely top 10 material and finished 2 and a half minutes behind the leaders there himself.

On Zoncolan he lost almost 6 minutes, and another 6 on Mortirolo, beaten for minutes by guys who unlike him did not have a top 10 to ride for and did not have a whole team to ride for them. His domestique Sorensen was finishing all those stages with him.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Do you really believe that if Richie Porte had been riding for Lotto and shelled Cadel out the back no-one would have batted an eye-lid? The reason Sky get so much debate isn't because they win - it's because they have so many people to defend them.

So this thread was posted by a Sky defender? Because I have to question the point of a thread rehashing old accusations that have been debated healthily in other threads. In fact what I see mostly in regards to Sky is the same group of people voicing the same accusations in multiple threads over and over and over again.

And yet you blame the defenders for the proliferation of threads? To my mind many of the accusers are so certain of their guilt I struggle to see why you bother posting at all: who are you trying to convince? The defenders? If you are so certain of their guilt and their eventual exposure and downfall, why are you posting so many threads talking about it?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Yeah he finished 7th in the giro but was absolutely smashed in the mountains and this is about his current climbing prowess.

But in the Tour this year, he rarely featured at the sharp end, did he? He was deployed tactically to keep the pace high on the penultimate climb of each stage and as much of the final climb as he could, which was usually not much before he blew up, or slowed down so much that he was told to pull of so the next man could take. Thus, he was more prominent than riders who were pacing themselves but who actually laid down more over the full stage than Porte himself.

None of which has anything to do with doping, as it happens. It's just to highlight that Porte's climbing in this year's Tour was far from the stuff of legend.

 

[Benotti69]

I'm confused.

Is Porte suspected of doping because he was performing at a consistently high level from February to July in support of Wiggo, supporting Sky's level of dominance unseen since the days of USPS?

Or is he suspected of doping because he is unable to maintain USPS levels of dominance all season long?

Not that I'm bothered, it must be said. My interest on this forum is primarily observing debating techniques and posting styles, along with analysis of the various arguments put forward for or against a particular issue.

I don't care about doping, since professional sport is just entertainment for us spectators. Someone has to win, and if that's Wiggo then I'm marginally more happy for a brief period of time than if not. Similarly, I'd be be briefly disappointed if he got busted, but not very much, we are not acquainted. Even this event would not be without interest, as it would leave the role of "The Clinic's #1 Active Rider To Dislike" up for grabs, and it's not obvious who this would be at the moment.

The only sport spectating that really gets me going is School Sports Day, when I get to see my unfavourable genes combined with The Good Lady's far more favourable ones in action. Luckily, The Good Lady's genes prevail.

You are doing more than primarily observing and you appear to 'get going' in here with your defence of Sky, which this year have showed zilch transparency when it was most needed to defend their ability to win clean in a sport whose history over the last 20 years is in the gutter.

Nothing has made me believe it is out of the gutter.

 

[Alpehue]

There can be absolutely no doubt that Porte, like the rest of the Sky team Wiggins, Froome, Rogers etc, are heavily doping. To deny it is like denying the sky is blue or the grass in green.
But they are not alone, cyclist = doper = cheats, unfortunately, and probably will do as long as there is road cycling.

I agree with you that sky's performance is suspicious, but thats some very heavy accusations to come with without having proof to back it up.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

You are doing more than primarily observing and you appear to 'get going' in here with your defence of Sky...

It's bit more subtle than that...

It's actually quite boring putting the "Sky are doping" line forward. One can make as many observations about dodgy doctors, the benefits of Tenerife, transparency, support of Lance, etc as one likes, but ultimately, they prove diddly squat. Everything is reverse-engineered from the fact that on the balance of probabilities, a GT winner is doping, because the benefits of doping are so large, the physical requirements of a GT so extreme and the likelihood of being caught are pretty small for a well organised team.

As an example of this reverse-engineering, consider the following: In Lance's era, the "focus on the Tour" approach was taken as a sure sign of doping. Now, with Wiggo focusing on winning races from March to August, it is the "focus on an early spring to mid summer campaign" approach that is taken as sure sign of doping. They can't both be right, if the amount of racing in each campaign is actually significant. They might both be right, as they both involve winning the Tour.

Thus, intellectually, accusing Sky of doping holds no interest to me, even though this is what I believe.

Conversely, discussing whether the current performance levels can be justified from past performances of the riders concerned and previously observed performance patterns from other riders, or discussing how the "Tenerife is good for doping because teams can spot the testers at the airport" concept might work in practice are actually interesting to me. (As an aside, I've asked the question about airport spotters twice, and no-one has bothered to explain how it works in practice, despite many people knowing for certain that it does happen. This in itself is interesting.)

Plus, of course, the anti-Sky lobby seems far more emotional than the pro-Sky lobby. I guess it's inevitable that when you're able to rely on proven facts - ie Wiggo has not failed any tests, no eye-witnesses etc - it's easier to be calm and rational than it is for folk who clearly desperately want something to be true. Either way, such emotional folks are a hoot, as they are so easily wound up and given to making things up when the observed facts don't fit with their latest theory.

I'm pretty sure that despite the fact I've stated that I believe Sky are doping, the anti-Sky lobby will still accuse me of defending their cleanliness or move to "Phase 2" which is to tell me that I don't actually believe that they are doping.

 

[maltiv]

Also note that Porte has, unlike some far more suspicious riders, clearly become worse in ITT's this year as his climbing improved. Which is exactly what one would expect under normal circumstances. Let's not forget that at Saxo, he was one of the best TT'ers in the world. With Sky this year he has been nowhere in most ITTs.

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

I agree with you that sky's performance is suspicious, but thats some very heavy accusations to come with without having proof to back it up.

Yeah, I guess so, but I am quite annoyed with cycling at the moment. Perhaps I am being unfair.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Also note that Porte has, unlike some far more suspicious riders, clearly become worse in ITT's this year as his climbing improved. Which is exactly what one would expect under normal circumstances. Let's not forget that at Saxo, he was one of the best TT'ers in the world. With Sky this year he has been nowhere in most ITTs.

Some of that has been team orders to not exert too much energy.

He did get 5th at the Tour (stage 19) and 6th and the Vuelta.

The 95th at the tour (stage 9) for example was clearly saving energy.

 

[will10]

He finished 7th overall in the Giro 2010. wore pink for 3 days.

He didn't get better all of a sudden, he was always a good rider ...
He probably could've finished top 10 overall in the tour if he rode for himself.

Porte's performances in the mountains at that Giro:

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=17390
http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=17391
http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=17395
http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=17396

 

[Ozzie2]

Eye-lids would have been batted for sure, but not at Porte. They would have been batted at whoever was doing his role for whoever won the Tour. Porte's role could have been played by any number of riders. It was selfless, no doubt, but not exactly involving legendary levels of sustained power output.

Re Sky, of course the debate is because they are winning. In 2010, they just got laughed at and there weren't many defenders, because they deserved to be laughed at. The defenders are only out in force because people are accusing them - and principally Wiggo, who has long been very popular in the UK given his Olympic success - of doping, which is only happening because they are winning.

My observation is that it is because they are winning in a "not normal" fashion, and not simply because they are winning.

there will always be a winner in every race

 

[Ozzie2]

So this thread was posted by a Sky defender? Because I have to question the point of a thread rehashing old accusations that have been debated healthily in other threads. In fact what I see mostly in regards to Sky is the same group of people voicing the same accusations in multiple threads over and over and over again.

And yet you blame the defenders for the proliferation of threads? To my mind many of the accusers are so certain of their guilt I struggle to see why you bother posting at all: who are you trying to convince? The defenders? If you are so certain of their guilt and their eventual exposure and downfall, why are you posting so many threads talking about it?

So if I follow your logic, you are effectively shutting down all web forums?

We should all just read race results and press releases, no?

I mean nothing evolves through a season

Nothing happens to add context, drama, intrigue no?

No one ever writes a book like Tyler Hamilton did right?

Travis tygart doesn't exist

are we not allowed to simply enjoy the discussion?

You know this is therapy for most of us?

That is what web forums are. You do know that, don't you?

Then again maybe you are German, which would make sense.

 

[thehog]

So if I follow your logic, you are effectively shutting down all web forums?

We should all just read race results and press releases, no?

I mean nothing evolves through a season

Nothing happens to add context, drama, intrigue no?

No one ever writes a book like Tyler Hamilton did right?

Travis tygart doesn't exist

are we not allowed to simply enjoy the discussion?

You know this is therapy for most of us?

That is what web forums are. You do know that, don't you?

Then again maybe you are German, which would make sense.

Post of the century!

 

[BigBoat]

There can be absolutely no doubt that Porte, like the rest of the Sky team Wiggins, Froome, Rogers etc, are heavily doping. To deny it is like denying the sky is blue or the grass in green.
But they are not alone, world class pro race winning cyclists = doper = cheats, unfortunately, and probably will do as long as there is road cycling.

I'd just made some minor changes to your post elephant man. Sometimes I feel guilty I dont have anything to add or to say. I do watch many of the races.