Richie Porte - what do we know about him?

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Ferminal said:
People were saying Richie Porte was a future top GT rider too... well at least in this part of the world :eek:

If Basso/Menchov (or even Nibali) can go from borderline top10 climbers to podiums in 2 years (at the age of 25-26), holding all else the same (no improvements in medical program); why can't Porte (who only rode his first GT at 25 anyway)?
They said the same thing about Jack Bobridge. It's called hype. People buy into it. Believe the malarkey and whodoo that goes with it. Everything gets distorted. Nobody asks can the guy actually climb though. Nobody breaks it down physiologically and thinks that the reason he is minutes behind on key mountain stages (Porte 2010 Giro) is because during the third week he has neither the recovery properties needed nor the sheer VO2max FTP required to nail it day in and day out. The guy is on his limit and has nothing left to give, hence why he is minutes back.

But don't tell the people who deal in hype and trade it freely any of that. If Jack Bobridge one day transforms into a GT rider, people will look back, remember some pleb said he had it in him and it all just clicks in their mind. Because the words were spoken, so let it be. ;) World doesn't work like that though. The physical bridge must be traversed and that is done through dope.

BTW with Bobridge, proof he doesn't have it was his GT's with Garmin. 2nd last on GC. Absolutely crap off the track and away from his time trial bike. Just like most of the Sky boys.

There is one rider who had results early who has actually gotten worse. I thought he was the big rider on Liquigas in terms of potential versus age. Roman Kreuziger. Nibali passed him and Kreuziger is now super domestique quality at best. Clearly does not respond to whatever doping the others are doing. Or he simply doesn't do it. He should be getting better results because he had them young.

Believe the hype people. Believe the hype. Tell that to yourself. Everyone here has believed the hype at least once and fallen for a cleverly crafted ploy. It happens all the time in pro cycling.
 
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.
 
I held 5.7 w/kg on this climb. I was 64kg that day.

Damien Howson smashed my time with 6.7 w/kg.

http://app.strava.com/segments/628886

Both of us did it on fresh legs with good form. 5.7 w/kg from Porte either is the wrong figure or a totally believable number.

To make real claims one needs to know the riders morning weight and have access to their power file for that day. Its hard to compare previous years times as their is different tactics, weather, crashes etc. Its not like a Oregon 10 000m track meet that is held on the same sunny weekend each year.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Galic Ho said:
There is one rider who had results early who has actually gotten worse. I thought he was the big rider on Liquigas in terms of potential versus age. Roman Kreuziger. Nibali passed him and Kreuziger is now super domestique quality at best. Clearly does not respond to whatever doping the others are doing. Or he simply doesn't do it. He should be getting better results because he had them young.

.
One guy that always stood out to me in this sense is Popovych. I don't know why he fell off to domestique after his early career results and where everybody was saying he was the real deal. He then goes to Bruhneel who I am sure put him on a "better" program, and he stops performing. Weird ****.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
durianrider said:
I held 5.7 w/kg on this climb. I was 64kg that day.

Damien Howson smashed my time with 6.7 w/kg.

http://app.strava.com/segments/628886

Both of us did it on fresh legs with good form. 5.7 w/kg from Porte either is the wrong figure or a totally believable number.
Given there's no 10 minute climb and no 10% climb in any of this discussion, you are comparing apples to oranges.

The Col d'Eze TT was 19+ minutes and Porte averaged ~6.3W/kg for the duration, including cruising the finish.
 
ChrisE said:
One guy that always stood out to me in this sense is Popovych. I don't know why he fell off to domestique after his early career results and where everybody was saying he was the real deal. He then goes to Bruhneel who I am sure put him on a "better" program, and he stops performing. Weird ****.
Cos when you are on all the products from the get go you don't improve much more. Especially when you have made so much $ and originally came from a poor background.
 
ChrisE said:
One guy that always stood out to me in this sense is Popovych. I don't know why he fell off to domestique after his early career results and where everybody was saying he was the real deal. He then goes to Bruhneel who I am sure put him on a "better" program, and he stops performing. Weird ****.
There is more money in dealing than performing.

He was (is) the pelotons number one supplier. The go to man for all things drugs.

The UCI can't take him down as 60% of the cycling's drug supply would disappear overnight.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
ChrisE said:
One guy that always stood out to me in this sense is Popovych. I don't know why he fell off to domestique after his early career results and where everybody was saying he was the real deal. He then goes to Bruhneel who I am sure put him on a "better" program, and he stops performing. Weird ****.
Even on the domestique front, Popo went from machine for LA to wilted flower with Cadel.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
durianrider said:
Cos when you are on all the products from the get go you don't improve much more. Especially when you have made so much $ and originally came from a poor background.
Spin that with the USPS/Disco program that was supposedly the best in the business. He goes there and never regains the form he had previously.

There is more money in dealing than performing.

He was (is) the pelotons number one supplier. The go to man for all things drugs.

The UCI can't take him down as 60% of the cycling's drug supply would disappear overnight
That has nothing to do with my post about his diminishing performance over time.
 
thehog said:
There is more money in dealing than performing.

He was (is) the pelotons number one supplier. The go to man for all things drugs.

The UCI can't take him down as 60% of the cycling's drug supply would disappear overnight.
First he was advertising but then when business ramped up he became the sober guy handing out the powder?
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
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.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
ChrisE said:
One guy that always stood out to me in this sense is Popovych. I don't know why he fell off to domestique after his early career results and where everybody was saying he was the real deal. He then goes to Bruhneel who I am sure put him on a "better" program, and he stops performing. Weird ****.
Popo is the poster child for this. Great junior record. Armstrong's supposed heir apparent. 2006 arrives and Disco had nothing. He didn't lift. Joins Lotto and was crap for Evans as a super domestique. Had been awesome though in 2007 for Contador and Bottle.

The 2008 performance was explained by Issoisso and Libertine Seguros on the forum way back in 2009. Poppo's best mate, some Russian guy got popped big time. Scared him off the juice for a year. Hence he was beyond hopeless for Cadel. Goes back to Bruyneel and all of a sudden is all comfortable again. Logistics regarding his doping also probably played a part. He knew the doctors Bruyneel and co used better, was more comfortable with them, thus doped better with them around. That part is psychological attachment.

I also think that whilst a lot of guys take a while to get into doping, Popo didn't. I think he was on it young. Really young. that is why when he is older, hops off it for a year here and there he suddenly turned garbage. Also as he was doping young, he didn't have any room for improvement. Was already maxed out. This bit is just by take on it. He's the inverse polar opposite of Froome in this sense.

Does this explain Kreuziger? I don't think so. I've got nothing to base this example on having any basis for Roman. But it could be true. I don't want to play the Eastern European stereotype, but he could have been on a lot of gear younger and now has no room to grow performance wise. But with him I don't place much faith in that probability being even remotely likely.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
thehog said:
There is more money in dealing than performing.

He was (is) the pelotons number one supplier. The go to man for all things drugs.

The UCI can't take him down as 60% of the cycling's drug supply would disappear overnight.
When did this happen? I don't recall hearing this rumour. It's a nice and juicy one though.:D

So is that why the Feds raided his apartment and confiscated his gear? That why he's been quiet the last two years? He's worried the Feds will crack his encrypted files and supply lists on that laptop they took?

Where does he get all this stuff anyway? The Ukraine? Russia? Some other eastern European nation?
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Galic Ho said:
Does this explain Kreuziger? I don't think so. I've got nothing to base this example on having any basis for Roman. But it could be true. I don't want to play the Eastern European stereotype, but he could have been on a lot of gear younger and now has no room to grow performance wise. But with him I don't place much faith in that probability being even remotely likely.
I'm not sure I buy into it at all, but why not the same theory for RK as Popo?
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Isn't Kreuziger from a rich family? I could be getting him mixed up with someone else though. So maybe for him doping isn't something he needs to do to earn a contract/make money, riding a bike is just 'fun' for him as opposed to a job and a way to earn a living like it is for the majority of the peloton.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
ChrisE said:
I'm not sure I buy into it at all, but why not the same theory for RK as Popo?
If Porte had junior results up to the age of 25 like Popo has nobody would say a darn thing about him. Well almost nobody. It would have been a foregone conclusion that he was inevitably going to turn into the rider he has shown himself to be since joining Sky.

If he was Popo at 26/27 when he left Riis I dare say they'd have never let him go. Never let him go. It would be stupid to let a guy of that calibre walk out the door when he could help Contador. Thing is Popo could help Contador when he rode on the same team and did. Porte couldn't. Got dropped too early. Like Popo did when he was helping Cadel in 2008. Similar type of rider actually those years, but Porte had a better chrono and Popo could climb a bit better.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
I don't know his 40km TT time for OD triathlon, but running sub-30 for 10km at the end is a strong indication of ability.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Porte to win the tour is really good odds. If he is gonna be super domestique for the Dawg he should be on the podium at least, and you never know, the Dawg might get lost on a descent or something
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
“I really enjoyed the two climbs on the time-trial at the beginning and the end of the course. I notice that I’ve really improved since this winter, working hard on my time-trialling position. Full credit goes to my team that helped me do that work.
Porte to beat Cancellara in a long ITT this year.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY