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

[MarkvW]

Nobody owes you jack. What an attitude.

It's the same old song and dance. He may very well be clean but the sense of entitlement is huge. Tyler Hamilton's book made it clear: doping alone does not make you good. You have to train ruthlessly and ride well beyond your limits to extract the benefits offered by EPO or transfusion. So save the "lazy bums" talk.

They're not lazy bums, then. They're ruthless cheaters who don't owe anybody jack!

 

[MarkvW]

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nowhere in the interview did they ask Talansky about Lance. IDIOTS!

Go back and read the interview with these thoughts in your mind:

Talansky - LANCE NEVER TESTED POSITIVE, LEAVE HIM ALONE!

Talansky: Lance is different.
Why is Lance different?
Talansky: Are you stupid? Because Lance is in the past, you bone-idle ******.

 

[MarkvW]

Exactly. There are enough posters on here that are irrational at best so why would you not be one of them?

We're discussing the irrational)utterances of Andrew (WTF is he?) Talansky and Brad #$%=&* Wiggins. They're idiots and they're not saying anything new . . . Just go back and read the post-Festina statements made by the peloton. Same old Omertà.

This is the Peloton's standard response. Talansky is going to get great cred in the peloton for standing up against the soup-spitters.

What new and enlightening insights can we derive from what those two morons have told us?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

We're discussing the irrational)utterances of Andrew (WTF is he?) Talansky and Brad #$%=&* Wiggins. They're idiots and they're not saying anything new . . . Just go back and read the post-Festina statements made by the peloton. Same old Omertà.

This is the Peloton's standard response. Talansky is going to get great cred in the peloton for standing up against the soup-spitters.

What new and enlightening insights can we derive from what those two morons have told us?

I know what is being argued since I started the thread. My issue is that you wrote something that had very little indication that it actually arguing to the contrary hence my comment against it.

 

[BigBoat]

Ah, uh. Err.

While I like Talansky a lot, I get the feeling that every time he opens his mouth I'll like him less and less.

Virtually everything he said on doping (it's all about training harder than all those other lazy bums, look at my controls and biological passport, those watt figures are theoretically within human limits therefore they were achieved cleanly, Millar is the most outspoken anti-doping crusader out there, there's been a cultural shift and now no one's afraid to speak out against doping [Note: hi Lance], Wiggins was exactly right to say sceptics were w****s) was embarrassing to read.

He sounds just like a pitbull!

 

[131313]

I can't even believe I'm going to bat for this guy, but oh well. The comment about AJ-M not every winning the Tour no matter what he did? Well, take a look at the results of his identical twin. Having raced with both quite a bit, I'd say they actually are pretty much identical in terms of natural ability, the difference being that Ben sold old totally on the road cycling thing while his brother did it part-time.

In 2007, when BJ-M was completely crushing the US calendar, the only people beating him were dopers Zajicek and Nathan O'Neil. That includes Hesjedal, btw, who race a full domestic season with the ironically-named Health Net team. So, if Ben is soundly beating Talansky's tour-winning teammate, is it really that much a stretch to see him competing at the highest level of the sport. I don't even really like those guys very much, but the truth of it is that they both DO have exceptional physiology. Ben is clearly a guy who's lost a ton of opportunity to dopers, so I certainly understand any bitterness coming from both of them.

So, Little Lance should think a bit more when he opens that big mouth of his and starts going on about how much more talented he is and how much harder he trains, because when he does I just think back to him getting shelled at Cascade, Utah and ToC and thinking "hmmmm......"

 

[The Hitch]

Exactly. There are enough posters on here that are irrational at best so why would you not be one of them?

Come on, you had to know it was a work when he said we should "get off Pat Mcquaids back" as he is an "honorable man"

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

I don't agree with quite a lot of the things that Talansky said. But I don't think those views are at all incompatible with the views we might expect a very young clean rider to hold.

If you were some kid who didn't know a huge amount about the history of doping in cycling, and you were making a breakthrough clean, you would probably be outraged at people claiming or assuming that you were dirty. And if you had a bunch of young friends in the peloton who you believed to be similarly clean, you'd probably get outraged on their behalf. I know I would be, and I don't think I'm notably stupid.

I think it should be remembered that while ex-dopers may take a penitent attitude and while other experienced riders may be used to it, your average arrogant, talented kid, probably isn't going to see any reason why he should bear a burden of suspicion for somebody else's screw up. Even though, in reality, suspicion grounded in the history of the sport isn't actually a personal slight.

So, while I think that some of the things Talansky arguments are marks against his wisdom, they aren't anything that would make me assume hypocrisy.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Come on, you had to know it was a work when he said we should "get off Pat Mcquaids back" as he is an "honorable man"

Possibly but, and be honest, you have read stranger posts on here, right? Maybe I should have picked up on it as sarcasm but I didn't so am going to leave it at that.

And isn't there a Wiggin's post somewhere that needs an Armstrong comparison that you should be attending to?

 

[The Hitch]

Possibly but, and be honest, you have read stranger posts on here, right? Maybe I should have picked up on it as sarcasm but I didn't so am going to leave it at that.

And isn't there a Wiggin's post somewhere that needs an Armstrong comparison that you should be attending to?

Ya but generally trolls, or idiots wont throw in so many pressure points at once. At 1 point he throws in Amrstrongs "im on my bike" comments, then that he feels sorry for those who dont believe in miracles and in the next sentence he says usada was a witch hunt, led by bone idle ****ers.
He is clearly messing around

Also saying 2 people are friends is not a comparison, and i only made that post once or twice, but since you are such a fan, if you can find me 1 of those "Wiggins is the frontline against doping" posts ill be glad to set them straight, just for you

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

but since you are such a fan

Now if you can find me one post where I say I am a fan...

 

[The Hitch]

Now if you can find me one post where I say I am a fan...

Its a joke on the fact that you've brought it up here. You bring up a post i made on another thread here, i say - well, since you are such a fan (of that post), ill remake it just for you.

Its a joke, get it?

You complained earlier that you didn't know a post wasnt serious because it didn't have a smiley. Now.i do introduce a smiley and you still take it serious. You having an off day?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Now.i do introduce a smiley and you still take it serious. You having an off day?

You've got me there. I'll quit while I'm behind. Think I need to spend less time on the computer and more time out doors.

 

[the big ring]

You've got me there. I'll quit while I'm behind. Think I need to spend less time on the computer and more time out doors.

Highly recommend a bike ride. It's what Andrew Talansky would do!

 

[perfessor]

What I continue to not get is why Talansky and the other "clean" up-and-comers don't have the same vitriol toward the old-school guys still out there doping --as they do toward the fans. You'd think he would be asking the same questions the fans are...if he were clean

 

[MarkvW]

What I continue to not get is why Talansky and the other "clean" up-and-comers don't have the same vitriol toward the old-school guys still out there doping --as they do toward the fans. You'd think he would be asking the same questions the fans are...if he were clean

It's a filthy sport.

 

[ElChingon]

it's a filthy sport.

..-|- . 1..

 

[Mr.38%]

So everybody who doesn't stand up is a doper? Even if Talansky still admires Lance, will that automatically make him a doper? So you are either an idiot or a hero or a !&#@ coward.

 

[hrotha]

So everybody who doesn't stand up is a doper? Even if Talansky still admires Lance, will that automatically make him a doper? So you are either an idiot or a hero or a !&#@ coward.

You forgot "hypocrite".

 

[JimmyFingers]

Reading that interview I find the reaction here pretty entertaining, predictably so of course. To be honest I'm not sure what some of you want from the pros, sometimes it feels like you want them in sackcloth and ash, self-flagellating through the streets as an act of contrition, whether they have doped or not. To be honest many of you seem to enjoy slating them so much I wonder whether you actually want the sport to be clean.

Talansky has come out and made some very unambiguous statements, about him riding clean, and about fellow pros riding clean, about the peloton is a cleaner place and that the opinion within the peloton is very much against doping. This echos what JV has come out and said. Yes he says he doesn't feel like he has to prove him, but I can see why: he's young, he wasn't part of the earlier dirty era, he has a strict moral code. He also acknowledges that you can't prove the unprovable: testing isn't enough, the biological passport isn't enough, whatever you do there are people, as this thread and forum amply proves, that will still throw stones whatever happens. Personally I can see that as a clean pro you wouldn't what to get bogged down endlessly having to explain your performance, to prove you're not juiced.

I take a lot of positives from that interview, that the sport is heading in the right way and a lot of that is coming from the attitudes of the riders themselves. I see the indignation here because it is seen that he has taken another swipe at the 'fans' but you have to ask yourself when are you going to start accepting that the sport is cleaner. The peloton has slowed dramatically, plenty of riders have gone from racehorse to donkey, the numbers are within pysiologically acceptable numbers, Armstrong is being exposed as the cheat he was, for me everything is moving in the right direction

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Reading that interview I find the reaction here pretty entertaining, predictably so of course. To be honest I'm not sure what some of you want from the pros, sometimes it feels like you want them in sackcloth and ash, self-flagellating through the streets as an act of contrition, whether they have doped or not. To be honest many of you seem to enjoy slating them so much I wonder whether you actually want the sport to be clean.

Talansky has come out and made some very unambiguous statements, about him riding clean, and about fellow pros riding clean, about the peloton is a cleaner place and that the opinion within the peloton is very much against doping. This echos what JV has come out and said. Yes he says he doesn't feel like he has to prove him, but I can see why: he's young, he wasn't part of the earlier dirty era, he has a strict moral code. He also acknowledges that you can't prove the unprovable: testing isn't enough, the biological passport isn't enough, whatever you do there are people, as this thread and forum amply proves, that will still throw stones whatever happens. Personally I can see that as a clean pro you wouldn't what to get bogged down endlessly having to explain your performance, to prove you're not juiced.

Jimmy, you are a Sky supporter, right?
Then in that context all of the above would make sense, to you.

I take a lot of positives from that interview, that the sport is heading in the right way and a lot of that is coming from the attitudes of the riders themselves. I see the indignation here because it is seen that he has taken another swipe at the 'fans' but you have to ask yourself when are you going to start accepting that the sport is cleaner. The peloton has slowed dramatically, plenty of riders have gone from racehorse to donkey, the numbers are within pysiologically acceptable numbers, Armstrong is being exposed as the cheat he was, for me everything is moving in the right direction

You asked a rhetorical earlier - "I wonder whether you actually want the sport to be clean"?
What's amusing is how you appear to take satisfaction that the sport is "cleaner" - now it wouldn't be hard to be "cleaner" then the filthy years before but as long as the same people who are in charge at the top still attempting to look after the top stars (UCI/Contador 2010) - then no, I would not be celebrating yet.

 

[Von Mises]

I don't agree with quite a lot of the things that Talansky said. But I don't think those views are at all incompatible with the views we might expect a very young clean rider to hold.

If you were some kid who didn't know a huge amount about the history of doping in cycling, and you were making a breakthrough clean, you would probably be outraged at people claiming or assuming that you were dirty. And if you had a bunch of young friends in the peloton who you believed to be similarly clean, you'd probably get outraged on their behalf. I know I would be, and I don't think I'm notably stupid.

I think it should be remembered that while ex-dopers may take a penitent attitude and while other experienced riders may be used to it, your average arrogant, talented kid, probably isn't going to see any reason why he should bear a burden of suspicion for somebody else's screw up. Even though, in reality, suspicion grounded in the history of the sport isn't actually a personal slight.

So, while I think that some of the things Talansky arguments are marks against his wisdom, they aren't anything that would make me assume hypocrisy.

+1 Exactly. I was thinking same way. If Talansky is clean, considering his age and context, his response is pretty normal.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Jimmy, you are a Sky supporter, right?
Then in that context all of the above would make sense, to you.

You asked a rhetorical earlier - "I wonder whether you actually want the sport to be clean"?
What's amusing is how you appear to take satisfaction that the sport is "cleaner" - now it wouldn't be hard to be "cleaner" then the filthy years before but as long as the same people who are in charge at the top still attempting to look after the top stars (UCI/Contador 2010) - then no, I would not be celebrating yet.

You make it sound like a poltical affiliation, and one I know for certain you are on the other side of. I have followed cycling for years, track, MTB and road, all well before Sky existed. I am British so when Sky was created I gravitated towards them. I was actually trying to empathetic towards Talanksy, knowing how toxic the critics can be towards the pros. If you ride clean and you're being told you are doping by a vocal minority I can only imagine the frustration. They tell you to prove you are clean, you ask why, they tell you because other people doped. Well I'm not them you say, I pass my tests, my blood passport is clear, I'm riding within psyiologically permissable limits. That's not proof they say, prove it. How? Just prove it!

I think there is a definite element of wanting your pound of flesh, Talansky is saying he doesn't have it to give, it's not his crime yet he pays for it with accusations of doping, and he doesn't know how to prove that he isn't. Garmin are at least very open about what they do, very happy to talk about subjects other teams avoid and while you don't like everything he is saying there is a positive undertone to the interview.

Or was it just the fact he said Sky ride clean?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You make it sound like a poltical affiliation, and one I know for certain you are on the other side of. I have followed cycling for years, track, MTB and road, all well before Sky existed. I am British so when Sky was created I gravitated towards them. I was actually trying to empathetic towards Talanksy, knowing how toxic the critics can be towards the pros. If you ride clean and you're being told you are doping by a vocal minority I can only imagine the frustration. They tell you to prove you are clean, you ask why, they tell you because other people doped. Well I'm not them you say, I pass my tests, my blood passport is clear, I'm riding within psyiologically permissable limits. That's not proof they say, prove it. How? Just prove it!

You know nothing about me.
You admit your allegiance to Sky is because of nationality - thats fine, but it means that you could be swayed by emotion.

I think there is a definite element of wanting your pound of flesh, Talansky is saying he doesn't have it to give, it's not his crime yet he pays for it with accusations of doping, and he doesn't know how to prove that he isn't. Garmin are at least very open about what they do, very happy to talk about subjects other teams avoid and while you don't like everything he is saying there is a positive undertone to the interview.

Or was it just the fact he said Sky ride clean?

Well, yet again, you think wrong.
I do think things are 'cleaner' - as I said earlier, that would not be hard.
I have no opinion on Talansky except that he appears talented. But, if he is peed off that he may be viewed as a doper (which I don't) then its because the fans have been lied to repeatedly for years and because few fans have any faith in the system that is meant to govern the sport.

 

[JimmyFingers]

You know nothing about me.
You admit your allegiance to Sky is because of nationality - thats fine, but it means that you could be swayed by emotion.

Well, yet again, you think wrong.
I do think things are 'cleaner' - as I said earlier, that would not be hard.
I have no opinion on Talansky except that he appears talented. But, if he is peed off that he may be viewed as a doper (which I don't) then its because the fans have been lied to repeatedly for years and because few fans have any faith in the system that is meant to govern the sport.

Well if you are a supporter of Sky then you do a very good job of hiding it.

I think I have addressed your second point really. Clearly clean riders won't like being viewed as a dopers, and the problem is there's no real way of proving your not. This a good quote for JV:

I try to argue my point, but of course any argument is vulnerable to misinterpretation and can easily be shot down by the hardened critic. And to be honest, who isn’t a hardened critic with cycling these days? It’s not a winnable battle. If you withhold information, you’re hiding something, if you make information public; it’s picked through and placed out of context unfairly by people who aren’t experts on the topic. At times I think it’s not only an unwinnable battle, but an unwinnable war

He also talks about 'connecting-the-dots', that association with anyone with a suspicious past automatically taints you. I know from engaging people here exactly what he means: assertions are made, theories formed, only to be changed and re-formed as different scenarios unfold on the road. At first Sky were doping like US Postal, then they were doping to lose weight, then they were doping just enough to be better than everyone else but not so their numbers would be excessive, then it was a designer drug that no-one knew about but only they could afford, then it was state-sponsored doping like east Germany and the entire British team were guilty of it, then it was doper's fatigue.

The accusations keep twisting and changing. TheHog made an assertion recently that Froome would have his last blood bag on the rest day and rally and still make the podium. He asked people to mark it and remind him of it. It hasn't come to past but no doubt there are further explanations why, more twists, more theories. Suspicion of doping is like a particularly agile, fast chicken: once it is out it's a real ****** to catch and get back inside.

Cycling's past and its fans place the onus of proof on the riders, but here is a rider saying he can't prove it, so why should he try? Whatever information is released there will be a way of twisting it again, perpetuatating the innuedo, the debate, the snide remarks. I hope perhaps you can see that.