Ferminal said:
What are you on about? What people say about someone is pretty irrelevant to any discussion here. You can't say someone is more suspicious because "no one ever rated them" or less suspicious because "they were hyped as a future winner". Performance and results are what actually matter.
That is exactly what I said. You just didn't put it together properly. This is like Marketing and Buyer Behaviour. Selling to dummies. Getting them to not think, but react and buy on impulse. It's all about placement and image. Not about performance and substance.
What people say is not irrelevant. This is a forum, what people say makes up the bulk of what is talked about here most of the time (ergo what insiders and intermediaries say about cycling and doping). It then gets cross referenced with results. People most certainly base their current thoughts on how riders are performing on the past. How the rider performed and also what was said years ago plays a great part in ones image of said rider. What was said in the past was a by product of what the guy performed. It can either be spun PR talk or simple honest truth. I simply said the spoken part can be spun or hyped up and people remember it and thus use it in the future to justify whatever may happen. For the average fan that is how they get hoodwinked into believing someone like Armstrong could win the Tour.
By people, I was referring to the non Clinic members. the general fan who doesn't know a lot. They hear a guy like Liggett or any reporter say the new guy is a known talent, they don't question it. They lack the reference base and understanding to question. When people hear a name (I provided an example) who does well, they talk is how he'll be a big GT guy one day. When they rider is big sometime in the future, instead of questioning the performance component and realising something is suss, they remember someone said something. That someone, usually a biased paid lackey, who is a lying idiot, is deemed by the first person to be more knowledgeable. They base the information the lackey is saying as believable simply on reputation. So given the lackey has more cycling knowledge regarding performance factors the first person defers their critical thinking to the hyped up words of another.
Take for example Wiggins. He didn't even need past hyped up talk to fool people. He just needed current words and PR talk. Throw in some vague memories of him riding a bike at the Olympics and winning some medals and of course it's natural him winning the Tour. The hyped up component with him for example, is that he won the Olympics. The SPOKEN PR + PAST PERFORMANCE = HYPED UP DISTORTED TRUTH. That truth being in the eyes of many, his transformation to GT winner was legit.
My point was simply that one day if Cameron Meyer or Jack Bobridge were GT GC candidates, there are fans who are casual followers at best, who would remember their names and the messages and talk that followed. Future GT winner. Their mind makes the connection and FILLS IN ALL THE BLANKS. Thus they don't question. To question, you need knowledge of the performances. Thus why marketing works. Remove knowledge and what has really happened and fill it in with hype and buzz words and you can deceive many. Get the consumer to buy on impulse, get them to carry your products image and motto.
That's how you sell a dodgy product well. You discard or disguise the truth. And that is exactly what pro cycling has done so well. It is what is going on right now with this post 2012 Tour claim of "Cycling has been clean since 2006 herpa derp derp."
Now the term 'hype' might not be the best choice for certain age demographics here, but it fits. By stating 'Don't believe the hype' I am saying make sure your knowledge base is full. That way when guys like Froome appear, or if lets say another Aussie emerges (I chose the name I heard a lot about the last 2-3 years) other than Porte and he is suddenly a world beater, then more than likely the supporters don't fully fathom the results and performances, they simply believed the media hype and PR talk. And it fits. People are lazy. They don't have time to learn everything. Take this thread for example. Pentacycle admitted he/she had never searched for a Nibali thread. It's common knowledge to us...but he had no darn clue. Hence his/her confusion. They believed the hype and didn't like us in their eyes, picking on Sky. SSDD.
Hope that cleared things up for you. I was actually stating what you said, but with some more cheddar thrown in.