-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re: Re:
This means that we must consider the very real possibility that British Cycling employs at least one person who is against PEDs, cheating and hype.
JRanton said:
This means that we must consider the very real possibility that British Cycling employs at least one person who is against PEDs, cheating and hype.
Re: Re:
The only way to get "banned" from the TdF(or any other ASO races) is if your team is owned by a gambling company, if your team has had positive tests/links to dodgy Doctors etc etc, pack your bags guys you're going to France in July.
Benotti69 said:
The only way to get "banned" from the TdF(or any other ASO races) is if your team is owned by a gambling company, if your team has had positive tests/links to dodgy Doctors etc etc, pack your bags guys you're going to France in July.
Re: Re:
Great minds think alike! :lol: https://twitter.com/teflondub/status/784726382421090304Libertine Seguros said:
Re: Sky
Sky to end the sponsorship?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/10/08/team-sky-drug-probe-dismissed-as-toothless/
Sky to end the sponsorship?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/10/08/team-sky-drug-probe-dismissed-as-toothless/
Re: Sky
They'll probably look to sell the company that holds the licence if anything, despite the current cloud around the team there would not be a shortage of takers. Could easily see Virgin, HSBC or Prudential taking over. The team produces something like $500 million dollars of advertising and for what Sky spend it's a bargain.
gooner said:
They'll probably look to sell the company that holds the licence if anything, despite the current cloud around the team there would not be a shortage of takers. Could easily see Virgin, HSBC or Prudential taking over. The team produces something like $500 million dollars of advertising and for what Sky spend it's a bargain.
Re:
Like Libertine already wrote, as of right now, there isn't enough information on Sky to just ban them from the Tour, and if they are to be banned from the tour, I am assuming other organizers within the UCI pro tour would follow suit. They would need to lose their pro tour license and considering Cookson is the head honcho of the UCI and he's got plenty of strings to pull should the investigation of Sky gain traction. And the investigation itself is a bit dubious. Some comments on the front page article here at CN mention that nothing will really come of the 'independent' investigation because they are essentially investigating themselves. I agree with that. Here is what Cookson (finally) has to say:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no-rules-broken-and-no-action-to-follow-in-wiggins-tue-case-says-cookson/
So yeah, it would take something much bigger to take Sky down. I think there is much more to come and like USPS/Discovery/Armstrong, The Sky will eventually fall. It will take something other than a Mickey Mouse investigation by UKAD to bring the house down. And if and when Sky do get fully exposed, I hope British cycling gets their comeuppance. Then I hope people like Lord Coe get their comeuppance as well. If there is one thing I hate more than blatant dopers is other corrupt, blatant dopers/enablers pointing fingers at others and acting 'holier-than-thou,' and teaching everyone about how 'bad doping is,' and all the nauseating rhetoric that we've come to love over the years.
Pantani_lives said:
Like Libertine already wrote, as of right now, there isn't enough information on Sky to just ban them from the Tour, and if they are to be banned from the tour, I am assuming other organizers within the UCI pro tour would follow suit. They would need to lose their pro tour license and considering Cookson is the head honcho of the UCI and he's got plenty of strings to pull should the investigation of Sky gain traction. And the investigation itself is a bit dubious. Some comments on the front page article here at CN mention that nothing will really come of the 'independent' investigation because they are essentially investigating themselves. I agree with that. Here is what Cookson (finally) has to say:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no-rules-broken-and-no-action-to-follow-in-wiggins-tue-case-says-cookson/
So yeah, it would take something much bigger to take Sky down. I think there is much more to come and like USPS/Discovery/Armstrong, The Sky will eventually fall. It will take something other than a Mickey Mouse investigation by UKAD to bring the house down. And if and when Sky do get fully exposed, I hope British cycling gets their comeuppance. Then I hope people like Lord Coe get their comeuppance as well. If there is one thing I hate more than blatant dopers is other corrupt, blatant dopers/enablers pointing fingers at others and acting 'holier-than-thou,' and teaching everyone about how 'bad doping is,' and all the nauseating rhetoric that we've come to love over the years.
I really worry about cycling and democracy when reading replies in this thread, it seems that being innocent isn't an option, very ugly.
Trial by social media...May the cloak of internet annominity be with you...
Trial by social media...May the cloak of internet annominity be with you...
On the cycling press and the press in general: they're going hard because they can. I believe that most cycling journalists are very sceptical of the so called 'new clean era.' Yet, they cannot make any assertions without real evidence, because of the threat of litigation.
Neal Rogers speaking to Floyd Landis gives a very good account of the problem. Worth a listen in any event, for any Sky fanbots who simply don't understand how pro-cycling works:
http://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/cyclingtips-podcast-episode-11-floyd-landis-interview-part-2-with-dave-zabriskie/
Neal Rogers speaking to Floyd Landis gives a very good account of the problem. Worth a listen in any event, for any Sky fanbots who simply don't understand how pro-cycling works:
http://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/cyclingtips-podcast-episode-11-floyd-landis-interview-part-2-with-dave-zabriskie/
Re:
After 25+ years of rampant and institutionalised doping, usually protected and condoned by the governing bodies, the democratic position made available by social media is simply this basic proposition: we do not accept the premise of innocence in pro-cycling, the rational starting point is the precise contrary.
Let me repeat, the rational starting point, is to assume doping.
I and many others believe that assuming innocence either involves unconscious bias or simply a gross lack of knowledge about the history of doping in cycling.
elfed68 said:
After 25+ years of rampant and institutionalised doping, usually protected and condoned by the governing bodies, the democratic position made available by social media is simply this basic proposition: we do not accept the premise of innocence in pro-cycling, the rational starting point is the precise contrary.
Let me repeat, the rational starting point, is to assume doping.
I and many others believe that assuming innocence either involves unconscious bias or simply a gross lack of knowledge about the history of doping in cycling.
Re: Re:
Gee You're very accepting of Sky putting the spot light on Emma Pooley in receiving a suspicious package from Sky and British Cycling from their Manchester Base via flying to Switzerland and driving over to France in a very shady way and all in the name of incompetence.
JRanton said:
Gee You're very accepting of Sky putting the spot light on Emma Pooley in receiving a suspicious package from Sky and British Cycling from their Manchester Base via flying to Switzerland and driving over to France in a very shady way and all in the name of incompetence.
Re:
I am pleasantly surprised by the accuracy of this forum with regards to doping accusations. You go over the history on this forum. They are always correct which proves common sense is a powerful tool and thank goodness it is.
I was at the Rio track cycling and it was sickening watching the Brits kick ass the way they did. Ruined the whole experience for my wife and I. You don't mind winners and you don't mind losing to them when it looks fair but not like that display in Rio. Common sense.
elfed68 said:
I am pleasantly surprised by the accuracy of this forum with regards to doping accusations. You go over the history on this forum. They are always correct which proves common sense is a powerful tool and thank goodness it is.
I was at the Rio track cycling and it was sickening watching the Brits kick ass the way they did. Ruined the whole experience for my wife and I. You don't mind winners and you don't mind losing to them when it looks fair but not like that display in Rio. Common sense.
Re:
If the history of pro cycling, and let's be honest, pro sports, were much different, then I would be compelled to agree with you, but since the history of pro cycling and indeed pro sports shows a ton of corruption, doping, cover ups, bribing, omertà, etc, being cynical, disappointed, offensive, etc is unfortunately not a bad way to be. First, the governing bodies hardly want to do much about doping, second of all the sponsors don't seem to mind as they too, want the best competition and competitors to showcase themselves and bring in the money, the fans seem to get excited at great performances, so really, the people involved in this sport bring this to themselves. Maybe a few years down the road a new, energetic, young team from Belgium, or France, or Netherlands, or Italy...with strong sponsors makes splashes and becomes a dominant force and wins GT's, classics, stage races...everyone gets excited, the owner, the managers the riders themselves hail this as a 'new, clean era in cycling...' What will we think? I want to believe that one can win pro races clean, but the more we learn, the less we want to believe.
elfed68 said:
If the history of pro cycling, and let's be honest, pro sports, were much different, then I would be compelled to agree with you, but since the history of pro cycling and indeed pro sports shows a ton of corruption, doping, cover ups, bribing, omertà, etc, being cynical, disappointed, offensive, etc is unfortunately not a bad way to be. First, the governing bodies hardly want to do much about doping, second of all the sponsors don't seem to mind as they too, want the best competition and competitors to showcase themselves and bring in the money, the fans seem to get excited at great performances, so really, the people involved in this sport bring this to themselves. Maybe a few years down the road a new, energetic, young team from Belgium, or France, or Netherlands, or Italy...with strong sponsors makes splashes and becomes a dominant force and wins GT's, classics, stage races...everyone gets excited, the owner, the managers the riders themselves hail this as a 'new, clean era in cycling...' What will we think? I want to believe that one can win pro races clean, but the more we learn, the less we want to believe.
Re: Re:
Or more likely, at least one person who enjoys taking a few quid from a newspaper in return for stories.
laughingcavalier said:
Or more likely, at least one person who enjoys taking a few quid from a newspaper in return for stories.
rick james
BANNED
We didn't have any proof about Sky, but inference based on historical, cultural and physiological knowledge was sufficient to draw a fairly robust (though not immutable) conclusion.
And now of course, we do have proof, which validates that inferential conclusion.
To what degree does this implicate British track cycling? Well, to some degree surely. But the point is that the process of reasoning is more or less the same. And the refutation is always based on a demand for hard, material evidence.
It's a good card to play. But it is clearly not the only means of gaining true knowledge about these matters.
And now of course, we do have proof, which validates that inferential conclusion.
To what degree does this implicate British track cycling? Well, to some degree surely. But the point is that the process of reasoning is more or less the same. And the refutation is always based on a demand for hard, material evidence.
It's a good card to play. But it is clearly not the only means of gaining true knowledge about these matters.
Re:
Large difference between proof (which this is not) and an allegation (which this is).
The Hegelian said:
Large difference between proof (which this is not) and an allegation (which this is).
Triamcinolone is a PED, which is why you need a TUE to use it. If you're talking about what was in the package, then at this point it's pure speculation, but the way that Brailsford and the others have behaved around it certainly hints that it's not fully sanguine. That most certainly is an allegation, but the TUEs - both Wiggins' and Froome's - are proof that Sky riders have been taking PEDs, just not an EPO-type positive smoking gun because, obviously, with the appropriate exemption those are not breaking the rules. We don't know if they have been breaking the rules, but we do know they've been using PEDs.
What we do know, however, is that all of those things we suspected were lies or at least times where the team used selective interpretation or economies with the truth in order to present themselves how they wished in the press are starting to bite them, as is the complex and sometimes muddled relationship between Team Sky and British Cycling. A lot of their PR has been shown to be nothing more than exactly that; the Zero Tolerance policy as we all know was as impermeable as a sieve (de Jongh, Leinders, Knaven, Rogers, Barry, Tiernan-Locke all getting past that, some even after the white sheet declaration of innocence document). The claims that they would withdraw riders who needed TUEs from races were shown to be clearly false after Froome was spotted supping from an inhaler in a race he subsequently won (thanks to an emergency TUE because he apparently would have been too ill to race otherwise, so clearly a powerful TUE that spells the difference between failure to even compete and dominant victory) and what we now know about Wiggins - again, so sick he needed a TUE for a very powerful substance, with which he was able to complete the most dominant Tour de France victory since 2004. The claims they would hold a fan Q&A session at the velodrome where people could ask the questions they had, and never took place in a format even remotely akin to what was suggested.
We've been asked to believe some quite unbelievable things by the Sky/BC team over the last few years. And in this I'm just talking about their PR and public statements, not their performances on the bikes - while some of those have been difficult to swallow, you can't lie about the actual on the day performance. And a lot of those things should now be brought back into the public eye and placed under scrutiny now that we have had it proven to us, quite unequivocally, that at least somebody in the team here is prepared, under investigation, to make easily disprovable lies under pressure. And the team's figurehead, Dave Brailsford, is either so naïve he doesn't question any story given to him, no matter how preposterous or demonstrably false, and goes public with it, or he's willing to do the heavy work of the lying too. Being asked to believe that Wiggins never made it back to the bus to receive the package from Cope when there's clear video evidence of Wiggins at the bus after the stage in question. Being asked to believe that Cope took a day trip through Switzerland and eastern France to meet Emma Pooley, who it can be easily shown was racing in a high profile event in a completely different country. It brings other statements into focus. Such as the reasons for hiring Geert Leinders or his role of weighing people, for example.
The Sky isn't falling at the time of writing, however. What we have discovered, however, is that Team Sky is just another team. Little of what they do is particularly revolutionary; they just know better than others where and how they can push it. They may be better in the sports science area than a lot of other teams, but with Froome not going in a wind tunnel for years and so on they're hardly the space-age science fiction supertech team they wanted to present. The tech is almost certainly a part of the team's success, but it's only a part. Race tactics have been predicated on a simple bludgeoning tactic, based on having the strongest rider in the race. It's why they've managed to nail stage racing, but the biggest one day races continue to mainly elude them (indeed can be limited to København 2011 and Liège-Bastogne-Liège 2016 in terms of the truly biggest, though Stannard and Thomas have won plenty of races like Omloop and E3).
What has happened, however, is that the tide has turned. The team has been caught on the back foot with these allegations and has, as has been the case in the past, struggled to get a coherent justification for it together that both fits with the facts and their stated aims. The difference here is that the spin was too blatant, too obvious, and too hastily put out there, and it's had the effect of exposing the team as lying, either among themselves, to the public, or both. Trust is eroded, especially from those who had been riding the gravy train and are now having to revise their positions and ask the difficult questions they were keen to avoid while the going was good. It seems quite a few people who had criticized those who doubted the transparent clothes as naysayers who didn't understand the science are beginning to come to the conclusion that the Emperor is, in fact, naked.
What we do know, however, is that all of those things we suspected were lies or at least times where the team used selective interpretation or economies with the truth in order to present themselves how they wished in the press are starting to bite them, as is the complex and sometimes muddled relationship between Team Sky and British Cycling. A lot of their PR has been shown to be nothing more than exactly that; the Zero Tolerance policy as we all know was as impermeable as a sieve (de Jongh, Leinders, Knaven, Rogers, Barry, Tiernan-Locke all getting past that, some even after the white sheet declaration of innocence document). The claims that they would withdraw riders who needed TUEs from races were shown to be clearly false after Froome was spotted supping from an inhaler in a race he subsequently won (thanks to an emergency TUE because he apparently would have been too ill to race otherwise, so clearly a powerful TUE that spells the difference between failure to even compete and dominant victory) and what we now know about Wiggins - again, so sick he needed a TUE for a very powerful substance, with which he was able to complete the most dominant Tour de France victory since 2004. The claims they would hold a fan Q&A session at the velodrome where people could ask the questions they had, and never took place in a format even remotely akin to what was suggested.
We've been asked to believe some quite unbelievable things by the Sky/BC team over the last few years. And in this I'm just talking about their PR and public statements, not their performances on the bikes - while some of those have been difficult to swallow, you can't lie about the actual on the day performance. And a lot of those things should now be brought back into the public eye and placed under scrutiny now that we have had it proven to us, quite unequivocally, that at least somebody in the team here is prepared, under investigation, to make easily disprovable lies under pressure. And the team's figurehead, Dave Brailsford, is either so naïve he doesn't question any story given to him, no matter how preposterous or demonstrably false, and goes public with it, or he's willing to do the heavy work of the lying too. Being asked to believe that Wiggins never made it back to the bus to receive the package from Cope when there's clear video evidence of Wiggins at the bus after the stage in question. Being asked to believe that Cope took a day trip through Switzerland and eastern France to meet Emma Pooley, who it can be easily shown was racing in a high profile event in a completely different country. It brings other statements into focus. Such as the reasons for hiring Geert Leinders or his role of weighing people, for example.
The Sky isn't falling at the time of writing, however. What we have discovered, however, is that Team Sky is just another team. Little of what they do is particularly revolutionary; they just know better than others where and how they can push it. They may be better in the sports science area than a lot of other teams, but with Froome not going in a wind tunnel for years and so on they're hardly the space-age science fiction supertech team they wanted to present. The tech is almost certainly a part of the team's success, but it's only a part. Race tactics have been predicated on a simple bludgeoning tactic, based on having the strongest rider in the race. It's why they've managed to nail stage racing, but the biggest one day races continue to mainly elude them (indeed can be limited to København 2011 and Liège-Bastogne-Liège 2016 in terms of the truly biggest, though Stannard and Thomas have won plenty of races like Omloop and E3).
What has happened, however, is that the tide has turned. The team has been caught on the back foot with these allegations and has, as has been the case in the past, struggled to get a coherent justification for it together that both fits with the facts and their stated aims. The difference here is that the spin was too blatant, too obvious, and too hastily put out there, and it's had the effect of exposing the team as lying, either among themselves, to the public, or both. Trust is eroded, especially from those who had been riding the gravy train and are now having to revise their positions and ask the difficult questions they were keen to avoid while the going was good. It seems quite a few people who had criticized those who doubted the transparent clothes as naysayers who didn't understand the science are beginning to come to the conclusion that the Emperor is, in fact, naked.
Re: Re:
A minor caveat: I think Pooley was very much in with Brailsford and Sutton from 2008-2010-ish.
She also lost plenty of weight in that period, some would say suspiciously (ooc cortisone?).
Of course she was ditched after that. And it seems Brailsford forgot about that when he pulled this fairy tale out of his hat.
I agree it's sad.Libertine Seguros said:
A minor caveat: I think Pooley was very much in with Brailsford and Sutton from 2008-2010-ish.
She also lost plenty of weight in that period, some would say suspiciously (ooc cortisone?).
Of course she was ditched after that. And it seems Brailsford forgot about that when he pulled this fairy tale out of his hat.
Re: Re:
Yes. Wiggins used a corticosteroid three times before key races. That these uses fall within the very broad bounds of what was then legal with a TUE does not alter the fact that this corticosteroid is a Performance enhancing drug.
rick james said:
Yes. Wiggins used a corticosteroid three times before key races. That these uses fall within the very broad bounds of what was then legal with a TUE does not alter the fact that this corticosteroid is a Performance enhancing drug.
Re: Re:
Mat - have you ever sat on a Jury and listened to evidence or been out whilst 12 jurors debate the evidence ? Clinging to the fig leaf of an absolute piece of evidence is not serving you well. This stance is making you look like one of those idiot yellow wrist band wearers in 2012. "It is the word of a load of proven liars. Didn't Floyd tell us once that he was innocent and asked us to pay to his fund to fight for justice !" For many of them, it was only when Lance went on Oprah that the scales dropped, and their "steadfast" allegiance was seen as just foolish, immature, behaviour every bit as ridiculous as following the religious cult of Sun Myung Moon. It is exactly this type of response in a minority of people that these criminals rely on to promote themselves. It always turns out badly for the followers.
A marketing agency may well value time on display at $500 million but for many businesses, "total exposure" is not "good exposure". Volume of airtime and promoting corporate brand image are two entirely different things. A bank or financial group with a huge footprint in the UK needs to do everything it can to dispel the image of being a shyster organisation. Right now that HSBC link with BC is created because some knob-head executives who have ditched golf for the Sunday ride where they compare deep section carbon rims, were wetting their Y-Fronts at the thought of riding or hanging out at some dinner with some gallant knights like Sir Chris, Sir Brad and Cav and G.
As soon as the realists in the marketing department realise what a toxic brand BC is becoming, by starting to read the comments at both the Guardian website and Mail website and see how much synergy there is, which means it is "accepted wisdom" not clan readership mutual respect building, and recognise that true weather vanes like Walsh and Millar are now pointing in the opposite direction, then they will get a grip of the Board members and talk sanity to the Board. "We are about de-toxifying banking not linking to shyster organisations who have heard of the phrase "due diligence" but have less idea than a cocker-spaniel what it means and are even grossly incompetent in how they deceive".
Of course there has been many a business that has been sent down the plug hole by the arrogance and ignorance of its Board or MD. It still brings a smile to my face to think how the Ratners Jewellery chain was a multi-million asset dissolved to nothing, by one honest outburst, after a skin-full at a boozy dinner, by its Chief Exec and founder. Of course the shops were selling cheap tat as fake. But people needed to believe they were buying expensive stuff, buying a dream, at a cut down price. Ratner was their guy, getting expensive stuff to them without the mark-ups of the closed cartel. Instead he was taking them for a ride and screwing them over even bigger style, getting them to pay good money for sh1te. He sold them a lie and when they found out that he was taking the p1ss, taking advantage of their lack of worldliness they didn't like it.
A lot more people are starting to realise that BC/SKY story - they just kick *** out of all the dopers like Astana, Contador, Horner and the rest because they have rounder wheels and fluffed pillows - and a bike the same colour as mine - is just the same kind of con.
Ratner became a multi-millionaire selling his lie - until it was exposed. Sir Dave, Sir Brad, Cav and others have become multi-millionaires. Some of use can see that same lie. Others were still going to Ratners at the closing down sale. "Can I show you what I bought today - it is just sooooo sparkly and shiny."
MatParker117 said:
Mat - have you ever sat on a Jury and listened to evidence or been out whilst 12 jurors debate the evidence ? Clinging to the fig leaf of an absolute piece of evidence is not serving you well. This stance is making you look like one of those idiot yellow wrist band wearers in 2012. "It is the word of a load of proven liars. Didn't Floyd tell us once that he was innocent and asked us to pay to his fund to fight for justice !" For many of them, it was only when Lance went on Oprah that the scales dropped, and their "steadfast" allegiance was seen as just foolish, immature, behaviour every bit as ridiculous as following the religious cult of Sun Myung Moon. It is exactly this type of response in a minority of people that these criminals rely on to promote themselves. It always turns out badly for the followers.
MatParker117 said:
A marketing agency may well value time on display at $500 million but for many businesses, "total exposure" is not "good exposure". Volume of airtime and promoting corporate brand image are two entirely different things. A bank or financial group with a huge footprint in the UK needs to do everything it can to dispel the image of being a shyster organisation. Right now that HSBC link with BC is created because some knob-head executives who have ditched golf for the Sunday ride where they compare deep section carbon rims, were wetting their Y-Fronts at the thought of riding or hanging out at some dinner with some gallant knights like Sir Chris, Sir Brad and Cav and G.
As soon as the realists in the marketing department realise what a toxic brand BC is becoming, by starting to read the comments at both the Guardian website and Mail website and see how much synergy there is, which means it is "accepted wisdom" not clan readership mutual respect building, and recognise that true weather vanes like Walsh and Millar are now pointing in the opposite direction, then they will get a grip of the Board members and talk sanity to the Board. "We are about de-toxifying banking not linking to shyster organisations who have heard of the phrase "due diligence" but have less idea than a cocker-spaniel what it means and are even grossly incompetent in how they deceive".
Of course there has been many a business that has been sent down the plug hole by the arrogance and ignorance of its Board or MD. It still brings a smile to my face to think how the Ratners Jewellery chain was a multi-million asset dissolved to nothing, by one honest outburst, after a skin-full at a boozy dinner, by its Chief Exec and founder. Of course the shops were selling cheap tat as fake. But people needed to believe they were buying expensive stuff, buying a dream, at a cut down price. Ratner was their guy, getting expensive stuff to them without the mark-ups of the closed cartel. Instead he was taking them for a ride and screwing them over even bigger style, getting them to pay good money for sh1te. He sold them a lie and when they found out that he was taking the p1ss, taking advantage of their lack of worldliness they didn't like it.
A lot more people are starting to realise that BC/SKY story - they just kick *** out of all the dopers like Astana, Contador, Horner and the rest because they have rounder wheels and fluffed pillows - and a bike the same colour as mine - is just the same kind of con.
Ratner became a multi-millionaire selling his lie - until it was exposed. Sir Dave, Sir Brad, Cav and others have become multi-millionaires. Some of use can see that same lie. Others were still going to Ratners at the closing down sale. "Can I show you what I bought today - it is just sooooo sparkly and shiny."
I simply wait for the process to finish before making my own decision, until then Sky are entitled to a presumption of innocence from my viewpoint. This is still an allegation not proof of wrongdoing, it's proof of shitty crises management not of an anti doping violation.
The burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies
The burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 986
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Started by Logic-is-your-friend
- Replies: 803
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
-
61st Eschborn-Frankfurt, WT classic, May 1st- Started by Rob5091
- Replies: 155
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2024: Stage-by-stage analysis- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 115
Latest posts
-
Vuelta a España La Vuelta Femenina 2024 (April 28th-May 5th)- Latest: Samu Cuenca
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram