Talansky on Vuelta, Wiggins and calling out Andy Jacques-Maynes

[hiero2]

Nice Troll.

Dave.

That's funny. However, I think Benotti actually believes what he says. Is he still a troll?

 

[roundabout]

Ok, I acknowledge that it's not 6.7 w/kg now so it's cleaner.

What next? Does he expect us to believe that people who used to dope riders to 60%+ won't look for every available "medical advantage" within a stricter set of tests?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Two posts that hold different views, yet cover my thoughts.

Sure he is just 23, but he appears well clued in on the sport and its history. Certainly having Millar & JV about.

Agreed. I think that for him it's possible that all the corruption is only historical. He hasn't been in a situation where the UCI wants their vig FROM HIM or had to actually make the "he's buying the race from me with 2K to go" decision.

Also remember he's more or less come out of Weisel's system where being an @ss is an important prerequisite as is selling Armstrong-style clean-is-never-testing-positive racing.

I find it interesting he's got to pick on a relatively anonymous rider like Andy Jacques-Maynes who he might see when he's slumming in a couple of U.S. events. That should speak volumes to how prevalent doping still is. He's done his PR job well for JV and the UCI.

Does anyone know why Weisel isn't selling this kid as the next Armstrong? That's what they are looking for over at USAC and we know they are still looking. Maybe this was part of the test?

 

[D-Queued]

That's funny. However, I think Benotti actually believes what he says. Is he still a troll?

No, not a troll.

I have been accused, correctly, of trolling in the past.

Sometimes we all go a little overboard.

He was probably seeking another analogy. Like maybe A. Merckx* or C. Evans* clean. Or, is that a troll?

Dave.

*aka a not-busted client of Ferrari

 

[hrotha]

I thought he just meant bringing themselves to the level of probably the greatest athlete who was tested with modern means, i.e. as close to the top of human capabilities as possible without crossing into the realm of the physiologically impossible. No insinuation that LeMond wasn't clean.

 

[AntiGravityCycling]

Hiero,

D-Q Dave was the troll. By calling the other guy out as a troll, he...get it?
((caution: there is some subtle stuff in the previous sentence. Some of it intentional.))


Talansky was doing some strange things in the interview. Contradicting his previous statements, ****ing in his own bottle, etc. Arrogant child. There I was rooting for AT to get that seventh place back last week. The future of the clean universe and all that. And now this...

Maybe he is a good kid, and clean, and a real good bike racer...and kinda spoiled and not so bright. I could be OK with that.

 

[dolophonic]

@131313 "little Lance" .... nice one.

 

[AntiGravityCycling]

So...

I missed my time window with D-Q Dave. Just having a little fun there, Dave. Of course, D-Q was not doing any prima facie trolling...but calling him one WAS me trolling. Thanks for spoiling my fun, D-Q.


The "Nobody is pumping out 7 W/kg now ((uhhh...for 40 minutes at a time at least)), so everything is cool" approach is not convincing. At all.

I think I will be dropping the term "LeMond Limit" soon and often.
Definition: The (presumably) clean maximum (measured) output of the best rider (since modern measurements have been possible). Abbreviation: LML. Meaning: The putative genetic maximum of a human being on a UCI bicycle. Thanks, Clinic!!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I agree that the following comments in the article - about US owing THEM - show immaturity, and are not a good and realistic reflection of the relationship between the fans, the media, and the peloton. However, since I see him saying some very mature things in other statements, I have to think the boy was raised right, as my grandmother would have said. But, he is still young, and in some ways has led a sheltered life.

However, Talansky's viewpoint has merit. If you think about it, he and the rest of the peloton are doing a LOT to be clean, and to show that they are clean. When he says WE owe him, if we are polite and realistic, we DO owe the riders in the peloton this: we owe it to them to listen to them. We do owe them the freedom to speak their mind. And, if they are speaking not with their voices, but with the tools of the trade, we owe it to them to listen to that as a communication. I think we sometimes lose sight of this too quickly.

Talansky says it: They are speaking to us through doping controls, the bio passport, and getting results.

Where he makes his mistake, as noticed several times by other respondents here is in this: "I am not going to try to convince them." As others have noted, he is not so far removed from the dark era that he can afford to believe this. I hope JV gets this thread to him. Maybe it will help him wake up.

Apologies - but I will snip to some good points, for the sake of brevity.

Ok, I don't put a huge amount of 'stock' in what he says. He sounds a smart young guy - but perhaps a little bit insulated from the whole sordid side of the sport. The quotes about basically trusting us is very difficult to do in light of everything that has happened. But I do acknowledge that it is also difficult for any clean person to prove that.

Also remember he's more or less come out of Weisel's system where being an @ss is an important prerequisite as is selling Armstrong-style clean-is-never-testing-positive racing.

Serious question - what has Wiesel got to do with Talansky?

 

[AntiGravityCycling]

So....Talansky calls out AJM. Who has an even better TWIN.

Tyler had...an even better twin too, right?


Is Talansky just seeding the clouds against a possible storm here?

 

[hiero2]

Hiero,

D-Q Dave was the troll. By calling the other guy out as a troll, he...get it?
((caution: there is some subtle stuff in the previous sentence. Some of it intentional.))
. . .
Maybe he is a good kid, and clean, and a real good bike racer...and kinda spoiled and not so bright. I could be OK with that.

Got it!

And yeah, kinda spoiled and not as quick as others. I'm getting a little of that, but it could just be smoke . . .

So...
I think I will be dropping the term "LeMond Limit" soon and often.

Wow, that's saying a hell of a lot about LeMond (at least on a bike)!

So....Talansky calls out AJM. Who has an even better TWIN.

Tyler had...an even better twin too, right?


Is Talansky just seeding the clouds against a possible storm here?

Ya know, I didn't know AJM even existed before this. This gets more and more iiiiinnnteresting! But at some point I need to get working.

See ya!

 

[tellywatcher]

Kind of hard to take his comments seriously when one is that the attitude of the peleton to ex-dopers ihas changed, this is so obviously not true, as evidenced by his glowing praise about contador. I will give him this, as a casual fan he owes me nothing, I'd say he does owe something to any competing rider, whatever level. I hope and think he is clean so he gets a pass on everything else.

 

[jpljpl]

I guess what annoys me the most about this interview is that Talansky rides for Garmin. I feel like I would want to support Garmin for their supposed anti-doping stance, yet their riders really don't reflect that in their interviews (nor does JV by glowingly twittering about this interview).

It seems that he is not the smartest of guys so I could forgive him for contradicting himself a bunch of times, but what really gets me is those two statements:

VN: What are you impressions after racing alongside Contador?
AT: I have never done a race with him before. It was pretty cool to see. He commands a lot of respect in the bunch.... He’s a real bike racer. It’s been pretty cool to see him, Valverde, (Joaquim) Rodríguez. Purito (Rodríguez) had one bad day at a bad time, but he rode an incredible Vuelta.

VN: That’s what everyone always said in the past, that they never failed a doping test. That is not proof that they were not doped to the gills…
AT: ... The riders in the peloton are changing. There is no tolerance for doping now. People who do are outcasts. They are looked at differently. When guys come back, it’s not the same.


So basically, the dude adores contador (and valverde) for being a real bike rider. I guess that's what he means about looking differently at people who come back after doping.
This whole thing is really disheartening. Can't think of Garmin in any way as of the biggest phoneys out there anymore.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Other than Vaughters, who seems quite sharp, pro cyclists seem to be by and large dumbasses and sh!tty liars.

 

[noddy69]

What an absolute cretin, since when do fans owe the team and riders anything. Fans give their support to the riders. The riders if they want fans need to earn their support. Fans buy the gear, they travel to see the races sometimes at great expense, they line the roads and mountains and wait for hours for a fleeting glance of people they look up to in some cases, and now this upstart thinks we owe it to the riders to believe in them

After being conned for years the riders need to get it into their thick skulls that people will not believe in them because the riders have being cheating the public and some peers for years. It actually would not be that hard to come out and say that they are fully behind whatever tests have to be done and dont mind, that they understand the scrutiny and will do whatever it takes to earn back the trust that has been broken.......but oh no, they work hard dont you know..who bloody well doesnt, at least they are living what alot would deem a dream and get rewarded for it.

But we owe them.......thats bloody rich, without the fans their is no cycling.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Some really nice guys are dopers. Some utter *** are clean.

Talansky's comments strike me as a guy who's upset that his generation is having to pay for the mistakes of the ones that came before it, but at the same time plenty of that generation is still around as a permanent reminder of why we're cynical fans. He sounds like he's clued up enough to know better than to demand belief from us.

Andrew, on the off chance you ever read this: we don't owe you anything, and being told to "just believe" just won't wash. Chris Froome said it during the Tour too - he said that fans have to get it into their head that dominating the Tour like Sky did is manageable clean now. That's fine, but riders also need to get it into their heads that if you draw obvious parallels in your actions and behaviour to previous stars who were part of the generations that weren't clean, the result is that the fans will draw those parallels too. Clean cyclists have to get it into their heads that 25 years of cheating companions have robbed them of their chance to have blind faith fans.

I don't believe that you, or anybody else, owes it to me to prove you're clean through posting blood profiles online or whatever. But in return, we don't owe it to you to believe in you without that. It's a simple trade. Let's face it, a lot of the guys who DO post those profiles find them getting analyzed and half-understood by a lot of people, so I am very much with you if you don't want to do that. I wouldn't in your position. And let me go one step further. I may be a jaded cycling fan, but I do have belief in some individuals, and if you can put your hand on your heart and say to me that you're doing it all clean, I'd be quite happy to believe you. I'd certainly believe it coming from you a lot more than a lot of other riders. But if I am to believe you, it will be my choice. By saying that the fans OWE you belief, you're by proxy stating that we the fans are indebted to you the riders. I don't march up the side of mountains in 40º heat because I feel a sense of duty to you guys. I do it because I love the sport. We aren't paid to do this. You are. Most of us on this board would kill to have your talent and your job. I know it feels crappy to have people discussing you and slating your hard-earnt achievements on a board like the Clinic. But maybe in a calmer moment you can think, you know what, riding clean and being good enough that people genuinely can't believe it's possible without drugs, is one of the biggest compliments you can get.

 

[cineteq]

Interesting...

Jacques-Maynes spoke with VeloNews Monday morning, saying, "I’d say he’s completely out of context if he thinks that what I was talking about associates with him at all. My reaction was more about the guys who chose to dope, and I don’t believe he is, so how he’s associating himself with that comment is hard to fathom."

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...-talansky-took-comments-out-of-context_238150

 

[Benotti69]

Other than Vaughters, who seems quite sharp, pro cyclists seem to be by and large dumbasses and sh!tty liars.

Vaughters giving his approval of Talansky and his views doesn't see sharp to me, but i aint JV's number one fan either.

 

[roundabout]

#41 is an excellent post. Had to say. Well done to Libertine Seguros.

 

[Mr.38%]

Talansky is supposed to wear a chastity belt with nappies for at least 2 weeks. Benotti will do a smell test and then pass it to the sniffers at the Cologne lab. JV, can you arrange this for us?

 

[Froome19]

A serious question I have borne out of curiousity is whether anyone here believes that the article indicates in any way that Talansky dopes?

 

[tellywatcher]

A serious question I have borne out of curiousity is whether anyone here believes that the article indicates in any way that Talansky dopes?

I don't see how it possibly could, would need some leaps of imagination

 

[hrotha]

A serious question I have borne out of curiousity is whether anyone here believes that the article indicates in any way that Talansky dopes?

Well it mostly establishes that he's an ignorant, self-entitled **** with a ridiculous Anglo-Saxon bias. That, or he's a huge hypocrite, which could open up the gates to his being a doper.

Considering his tweets about Armstrong after JV had supposedly told him the story, I can't rule out the latter, but as of now the signs points towards the former.

 

[levione]

How on earth can anyone come to any conclusions as to whether he's doping or not by analysing his interview? The problem is that he answered questions as they were posed. He's not a rocket scientist, he's a sportsman, if a reasonably articulate one. People here disect what he said, line by line, in order to draw from that what they see fit.

He's now apparently, in the eyes of some:

A doper
An apologist
Ignorant to history
Arrogant
Biased in favour of Anglo-Saxons
A hypocrite.

If you spend long enough staring at an interview you can read what you wish into it.

 

[Froome19]

Considering Talansky's article I would say that he seems to be, as Libertine correctly stated, aggravated with the situation that he is in.

Something which many posters on here do not do is look at the situation from the perspective of the rider. Currently Talansky is under doubt, due to the fact he is part of the wider cycling peloton and has top 10 in a GT, when there is suitable evidence to claim that he is innocent. According to him and logically if you do not happen to be a cynic eaten away by anger and frustration then it does seem as if cycling has cleaned itself up. Is there a wide spread doping attitude in the peloton? Are there riders who he knows personally who are achieving great things without doping? Are there significant stats to suggest that doping is at a much lower level? In all it would not be all that hard to imagine it is such and for Talansky to state this is probably because he believes truly that what we have here is a peloton which is not doping and he is angry about the vicious cycle which he is entrenched in.

I am not excusing Talansky in any way, rather just explaining why his comments are pretty logical from where he is in the sport

And finally I would like someone to explain to me why they consider this line to be at all unreasonable.

If you’re a true cycling fan, you might believe the riders are on drugs, you have to be open to also believing that we are clean.

To definitively label someone a doper is something which is wrong to do when you simply do not know. To say it with any amount of assurity is wrong. Maybe the peloton do not deserve the trust of fans, but at the same time the current crop of riders who Talansky is reffering to; likes of TJVG, Dombro and Stetina. Why do these riders deserve all the accusation which are levelled at them? They may not deserve the trust which is so rare to come across on this forum. But to totally condemn riders like these, maybe this is what Talansky was expressing when he suggested they deserved trust. He is only young and may have said something whilst meaning something else. It would seem that Talansky keeps coming back to the point that the new riders on the block he trains with dont need to be culpable for the transgressions of their predecessors. In reality I do not think that Talansky is asking for the fans true belief, rather he is asking for them to give this new generation a chance to make amends.

If they are truly clean then maybe the single minded approach which so many posters use is possibly a bit too extreme? They may not deserve to be considered clean because the sport as a whole has no rights to such belief.

But comments such as the ones from Jacques-Maynes even if Talansky read in error, is what I truly believe that Talansky was reffering to. He was basically asking for them all not to be written off and I dont think anyone here however cynical and disenchanted they currently are can blame him for that..

As for the Inconsistencies , get over it he made some dumb mistakes but his viewpoint still remains clear.

I really wish JV has not been scared off by CN and would come and share his views on the matter. Or for that matter Talansky himself who seems to be pretty well informed of views from this forum...