thehog
BANNED
-
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:
"Are you saying" is a question.
"You are saying" is an accusation.
thehog said:macbindle said:
Good. It came across as an accusation, which I’m sure you weren’t doing
"Are you saying" is a question.
"You are saying" is an accusation.
Thank goodness for the ability to block certain posters. The amount of condescension in here is pretty vile. Probably best to ignore the apologists/revisionists and not feed the trolls.
Re:
Don't put words in my mouth.
They waited until a big name tested positive, and then they claimed the rule was bogus all along after the fact. That fact in itself, is terrible, no matter what the reason is. I'm not suggesting the prof was lying, but I'm not gonna claim it's impossible either.macbindle said:
Don't put words in my mouth.
I didn't put words in your mouth. I asked you a question.
Don't get aggressive just because you have mod status.
Don't get aggressive just because you have mod status.
Re:
Don't you find it in the slight bit suspicious that shortly after ASO says that they aren't going to allow Froome to ride the Tour that a decision is made in his case that clears him and allows him to ride?
macbindle said:
Don't you find it in the slight bit suspicious that shortly after ASO says that they aren't going to allow Froome to ride the Tour that a decision is made in his case that clears him and allows him to ride?
Re: Sky
man...tbh when you see big people like GT, TD and to some extent CF, dropping the mountain goats it just makes you wonder what are Sky and Sunweb on. This is just not normal...I think years from now we will have another scandal of LA proportions...
man...tbh when you see big people like GT, TD and to some extent CF, dropping the mountain goats it just makes you wonder what are Sky and Sunweb on. This is just not normal...I think years from now we will have another scandal of LA proportions...
Re:
I have a question for you: Apparently is not doping the difference because everyone does it and let's say it, with similar rocket fuel. So what is the difference in this kind of performance of Team Sky versus the rest in your opinion?
Because I am very interested in knowing your opinion!
What kind of logic is that? Different fuel doesn't mean everyone is clean.macbindle said:
I have a question for you: Apparently is not doping the difference because everyone does it and let's say it, with similar rocket fuel. So what is the difference in this kind of performance of Team Sky versus the rest in your opinion?
Because I am very interested in knowing your opinion!
Macbindle, I don't think you are defending Sky, that I gladly give you. Clearly you have half a brain instead of just following tribal/nationalist/etc instincts, at least at the level of what you express. This I take as a signal of seeing the forest for the trees, ie. cycling has systemic doping and governance problems, not just sky.
However, you decide to use the half a brain to rather condescendingly ram down ideas such as:
"everyone does it, level playing field, bla bla"
"accept it as what it is"
"dominance via corporate/financial superiority is completely kosher, it is up to others to muster the financial means to play the game"
Extensive quoting would provide sources for statements like these, and others, but I cannot be bothered. Posters will know what I am referring to.
In my book, this sort of "more cynical than thou" type of reasoning is much, much lower than the interns' babble a la hamsockings, because it is based on reasoning in the first place. For a tactic like this is effectively defending the status quo. In social sciences, for instance, there is a very fine line between trying to give the most brutally realist and cynical depiction of what is and ending up with providing justfications and legitimation for that very same thing.
Of course, it might be that for you there are no problems in cycling. Then such a position would be genuine. Let's just say that I have my doubts about that.
Now, criticism of "what is" is rather explicit in a lot of posts here. For a considerable proportion of posters, I would wager, criticism of Sky is actually a proxy for criticising the status quo by criticising its most blatant external expressions. There is pure ol' hate too, but at least a considerable part is due to displeasure with the status quo.
And the tension rises from there. Not from whether you defend sky or not, which really is secondary.
And me? Well, I am done watching and mostly done posting. If it was not for sky, another corporate entity would suck life outta cycling given the way it is governed at the moment. And I would be the first to start throwing stones, because I dislike dominance in society. Because if cycling amounts to a yet another totally administered corporate sphere of the culture industry, where might (money, dope, nationalism) is right, it offers me nothing.
Now, feel free to mock me. My intention, btw, was not to attack you but to put the debate on a ground more general than she said he said, and this was the best my half-a-brain could come up with.
However, you decide to use the half a brain to rather condescendingly ram down ideas such as:
"everyone does it, level playing field, bla bla"
"accept it as what it is"
"dominance via corporate/financial superiority is completely kosher, it is up to others to muster the financial means to play the game"
Extensive quoting would provide sources for statements like these, and others, but I cannot be bothered. Posters will know what I am referring to.
In my book, this sort of "more cynical than thou" type of reasoning is much, much lower than the interns' babble a la hamsockings, because it is based on reasoning in the first place. For a tactic like this is effectively defending the status quo. In social sciences, for instance, there is a very fine line between trying to give the most brutally realist and cynical depiction of what is and ending up with providing justfications and legitimation for that very same thing.
Of course, it might be that for you there are no problems in cycling. Then such a position would be genuine. Let's just say that I have my doubts about that.
Now, criticism of "what is" is rather explicit in a lot of posts here. For a considerable proportion of posters, I would wager, criticism of Sky is actually a proxy for criticising the status quo by criticising its most blatant external expressions. There is pure ol' hate too, but at least a considerable part is due to displeasure with the status quo.
And the tension rises from there. Not from whether you defend sky or not, which really is secondary.
And me? Well, I am done watching and mostly done posting. If it was not for sky, another corporate entity would suck life outta cycling given the way it is governed at the moment. And I would be the first to start throwing stones, because I dislike dominance in society. Because if cycling amounts to a yet another totally administered corporate sphere of the culture industry, where might (money, dope, nationalism) is right, it offers me nothing.
Now, feel free to mock me. My intention, btw, was not to attack you but to put the debate on a ground more general than she said he said, and this was the best my half-a-brain could come up with.
Sky have turned an above-average individual Time Trialist (Castroviejo) into a mountain goat.
Re:
Castroviejo did his job until 10k to go (as an example same as in 2016 when he lead the Movistar train up Covadonga until 9k to go) when the big guns start going his job is finished. he's not up there with the mountain goat at the finish line
he was 12th in Terminillo as a Quintana helper
Castro attacked with Thomas Yates Uran Dumo in Tirreno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4ccs2fT9uQ
he made the team when Quintana won Giro and Vuelta, made the team when Quintana podiumed the Tour in 2013 and 2015. Sky hired him because he knows his job and is a strong rider.
he's not a mountain goat. he's a strong helper. as at Movistar. Sky hired him for that
QuickZulu said:
Castroviejo did his job until 10k to go (as an example same as in 2016 when he lead the Movistar train up Covadonga until 9k to go) when the big guns start going his job is finished. he's not up there with the mountain goat at the finish line
he was 12th in Terminillo as a Quintana helper
Castro attacked with Thomas Yates Uran Dumo in Tirreno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4ccs2fT9uQ
he made the team when Quintana won Giro and Vuelta, made the team when Quintana podiumed the Tour in 2013 and 2015. Sky hired him because he knows his job and is a strong rider.
he's not a mountain goat. he's a strong helper. as at Movistar. Sky hired him for that
People are far too hung up on believable palamares, meaningless folklore, panache, old wives tales and traditionalism somehow being important to believable human performance on a bike. End of the day 2-3 years takes any human physiology from 0 to 100% potential. This is how you can have professionals in peloton who didn't even ride a bike until their late 20's get from amateur to world tour in 3 years. What you did even 3 years ago as a cyclist simply doesn't mean anything today as it can be proven in a lab now, you don't need 20 years of previous results to discover who can win a GT or not, you can get a very good idea without even touching a bike ro entering a race. End of the day your quadriceps and hamstrings contract in sequence, your lungs take oxygen, pass it to your blood vessels and you pedal a bike along a bit faster than someone else. It's simply who's physiology does that best over 3 weeks at that moment in time, not who did it best 15 years ago as a junior or neo pro with the required palamares. A 4km pursuit is pure endurance, there isn't many better methods to find who has the best numbers for endurance cycling many would argue. The pointy end of a race is often simply all out effort for a few km only, suprise suprise pursuit riders tend to be better at that than climbers.
Alpe d'Huez today so guess they dial it down there as usual. Not a good look to be seen to be going too far below 40 mins - better to do the ridiculous stuff where it flies a little more under the radar
Re: Sky
I saw so many comments yesterday about TD attacking and then gaining a gap. People have short memories. What about the Dawg doing similar in the Giro but didn't have a team mate. He didn't just gain a gap, he gained a f@cking WEEK!
Oh, wait on, wait on, thats because they fuelled correctly, how silly of me.
These mofo's are fulled to the gills. Thomas and Dawg 1-2 in Paris :lol:
I saw so many comments yesterday about TD attacking and then gaining a gap. People have short memories. What about the Dawg doing similar in the Giro but didn't have a team mate. He didn't just gain a gap, he gained a f@cking WEEK!
Oh, wait on, wait on, thats because they fuelled correctly, how silly of me.
These mofo's are fulled to the gills. Thomas and Dawg 1-2 in Paris :lol:
Re:
I think Panta's record will go today, but there's a tailwind of course.
Eyeballs Out said:
I think Panta's record will go today, but there's a tailwind of course.
I'd expect the record to go. Pantani is hardly the pinnacle of human performance is he. Pinnacle of doping without limits, but I doubt he even trained on anything but feel and cycling folklore anyway.
Re:
Even if we accept this, will you not recognize, that a career with steady impressive results is actually a pretty good indicator of ability and potential? That it is more the rule, and 3 year rises or transformations to fulfill potential are rarely seen and are more the exception?
Moreover, don't you find it odd, that Sky have had at least three such rises/transformations (Wiggins, Froome, Thomas) which resulted in the riders realising a potential far greater than most other GT contenders?
Finally, have you considered how almost all of such rises/transformations in the past have been shown afterwards to be heavily fueled by doping?
samhocking said:
Even if we accept this, will you not recognize, that a career with steady impressive results is actually a pretty good indicator of ability and potential? That it is more the rule, and 3 year rises or transformations to fulfill potential are rarely seen and are more the exception?
Moreover, don't you find it odd, that Sky have had at least three such rises/transformations (Wiggins, Froome, Thomas) which resulted in the riders realising a potential far greater than most other GT contenders?
Finally, have you considered how almost all of such rises/transformations in the past have been shown afterwards to be heavily fueled by doping?
Re: Re:
Exactly, learn from history and what we are seeing. These guys just on some other stuff, it is what is
ahsoe said:
Exactly, learn from history and what we are seeing. These guys just on some other stuff, it is what is
Re:
What condescending twaddle. Perpetuating the old and thoroughly discredited myth that Sky and BC came along and single-handedly invented modern scientific training in cycling. Pantani trained smart and trained hard, as did many more of those 'provincial' Europeans in the 90s. I'd wager that the nutrition has improved, and the rigid commitment and conformity, but not the general effectiveness of the training. If Sky riders or anyone else are matching or breaking climbing riders from the 90s/00s now, it means that they're doping, pure and simple, and not just preparing better.
On another note, the real crime of Sky, beyond the doping, and even their insufferable attitude, is that they're boring. Their dominance is absolute. Baring a crash, you know from day 1 that Froome is going to win and that on most climbs it's going to be a Sky train bossing the bunch. It's a terrible spectacle. If it was purely based on being smarter, or just being naturally more talented, you could stomach it. But because its a mixture of money, resources, corporate greed, an obviously very well sorted doping program, arrogance and an ability to bend the sport's governance to their will, it's just utterly distasteful.
There aren't pages and pages of posts on Sky and Froome just because they dope - that stopped being up for any serious discussion a long time ago. It's because they do it whilst dulling the competition, acting like superior beings, and providing an almost cliched picture of the acidic impact of corporate dominance, corruption and soullessness that infects so much of modern society.
samhocking said:
What condescending twaddle. Perpetuating the old and thoroughly discredited myth that Sky and BC came along and single-handedly invented modern scientific training in cycling. Pantani trained smart and trained hard, as did many more of those 'provincial' Europeans in the 90s. I'd wager that the nutrition has improved, and the rigid commitment and conformity, but not the general effectiveness of the training. If Sky riders or anyone else are matching or breaking climbing riders from the 90s/00s now, it means that they're doping, pure and simple, and not just preparing better.
On another note, the real crime of Sky, beyond the doping, and even their insufferable attitude, is that they're boring. Their dominance is absolute. Baring a crash, you know from day 1 that Froome is going to win and that on most climbs it's going to be a Sky train bossing the bunch. It's a terrible spectacle. If it was purely based on being smarter, or just being naturally more talented, you could stomach it. But because its a mixture of money, resources, corporate greed, an obviously very well sorted doping program, arrogance and an ability to bend the sport's governance to their will, it's just utterly distasteful.
There aren't pages and pages of posts on Sky and Froome just because they dope - that stopped being up for any serious discussion a long time ago. It's because they do it whilst dulling the competition, acting like superior beings, and providing an almost cliched picture of the acidic impact of corporate dominance, corruption and soullessness that infects so much of modern society.
Re: Re:
Let me be clearer. Different race. I'm talking at the Tour. Even Sky don't have the strength to bring quite as strong and dominant a team to the other GTs, be it the Giro or the Vuelta, though they're still impressive. And Froome had to come in to the Giro deliberately underdone, compounded by his crash, so he had to race it a bit differently. As such it was more interesting.
I'm not saying that Sky can just do whatever they want, year-round. But for the Tour, the script has become depressingly predictable.
pastronef said:
Let me be clearer. Different race. I'm talking at the Tour. Even Sky don't have the strength to bring quite as strong and dominant a team to the other GTs, be it the Giro or the Vuelta, though they're still impressive. And Froome had to come in to the Giro deliberately underdone, compounded by his crash, so he had to race it a bit differently. As such it was more interesting.
I'm not saying that Sky can just do whatever they want, year-round. But for the Tour, the script has become depressingly predictable.
Singer01
BANNED
Sky absolutely smashed it yesterday, there were GC contenders all down the mountain, the gaps were pretty big, the action started fairly far out, Valverde gave it a (misguided) go, Tom D had a proper crack at something. Something isn't boring just because the team you want to lose wins. Bunch of babies.
You could retitle this thread "USPS" and set the wayback machine for 2003.
The Sky dominance will not last forever. Even USPS eventually imploded. What's interesting is seeing what will bring down the team, whether it will be something on the road, sponsorship, or scandal.
The Sky dominance will not last forever. Even USPS eventually imploded. What's interesting is seeing what will bring down the team, whether it will be something on the road, sponsorship, or scandal.
thehog
BANNED
Re:
This Sky team is stronger than USPS ever was. Much stronger and this year with a dual attack force, something USPS never would have gone with at the Tour.
Bolder said:
This Sky team is stronger than USPS ever was. Much stronger and this year with a dual attack force, something USPS never would have gone with at the Tour.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 983
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram