The "talented" myth

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
I hear a lot : "performance from nowhere" versus "talent from young age".

Imo the youngsters that beat everything from start have higher chances to be just young dopers, most likely from well established doping cultures, where coaches introduce them to doping from young age.

Especially since you can dope all you want when young because there is almost no doping control at lower level races or junior races.

That's to be clear why it makes me puke when i hear "but X showed talent from young age".

Conclusion : higher chances to be clean if no results at young age. Higher chances to be doping youngster if you are "talented".
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Go through the history of GT winners prior to EPO and you will see that GT talent shows itself early.

This post is trying to ignore all the evidence that has pointed to GT talent being a given from birth and not from a blood bag or pill bottle.

Froome showed no potential, neither did Wigans.

The last 3 GT winners have been hailed as clean, but if we scratch the surface of those claiming this, we find Evans, Wigans and Froome's wins extremely suspicious. And that they won those GTs when McQauid was running the UCI gives me not a jot of confidence in the testing.
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
it seems you have an obsession with Froome and Wiggins. This is not about them but about how easy is to dope and show talent at young age. Maybe the hate for some riders prevent you to read and understand the topic? Try again.

How do you prove me that "talent" is not just young dopers winning stuff risk free?

Let's start by remembering Richie Porte's statement about those races in Italy, where he doesn't have a chance to win, for example.
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Go through the history of GT winners prior to EPO and you will see that GT talent shows itself early.
Because we all know that doping started and ended with EPO right?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
EnacheV said:
it seems you have an obsession with Froome and Wiggins. This is not about them but about how easy is to dope and show talent at young age. Maybe the hate for some riders prevent you to read and understand the topic? Try again.
I mentioned Evans.

If a youth doped from a young age, Armstrong, they then would find it extremely difficult in the pro peloton, which Armstrong found and he was crap in GTs. Then he fixed the game in his favour and won 7 in a row.

EnacheV said:
How do you prove me that "talent" is not just young dopers winning stuff risk free?
Dont need to. Youths who are doping to win in a world with no testing will not make it in the pro peloton. How is that possible you ask? Becuase teams test riders to find their numbers. Teams dont trust performances or wins.

JV posted about it in his thread.
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
Netserk said:
IMO it's quite simple. If you have results from an early age, you might be dirty, you might be clean. If you have no results from a young age, and then dominate, you are (most likely) dirty.
Let me fix that for you.

If you have results from an early age, you might be dirty, you might be clean, more chances to be dirty than clean. If you have no results from a young age, and then dominate, you might be dirty, you might be clean, more chances to be dirty than clean.

As theres (almost) no controls doped succesfull youngsters is more likely.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
EnacheV said:
Let me fix that for you.

If you have results from an early age, you might be dirty, you might be clean, more chances to be dirty than clean. If you have no results from a young age, and then dominate, you might be dirty, you might be clean, more chances to be dirty than clean.

As theres (almost) no controls doped succesfull youngsters is more likely.

..more chances to be dirty than clean....

and then add to that, Leinders, Bilhzaria, skinnyness TTing and climbing faster than the known dopers, we can only come to one conclusion, DOPING!
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
IndianCyclist said:
Why Evans, as his progression has been a gradual one over the years, one that would be expected as the body gets to its peak performing age unlike the bumps of Froome & Wiggins.
Evans was beating EPO users! and I dont think he did that on bread and water.

When I look back at Evans results and the teams he rode for, I can only see doping in his results.
 
EnacheV said:
I hear a lot : "performance from nowhere" versus "talent from young age".

Imo the youngsters that beat everything from start have higher chances to be just young dopers, most likely from well established doping cultures, where coaches introduce them to doping from young age.

Especially since you can dope all you want when young because there is almost no doping control at lower level races or junior races.

That's to be clear why it makes me puke when i hear "but X showed talent from young age".

Conclusion : higher chances to be clean if no results at young age. Higher chances to be doping youngster if you are "talented".
Bauke Mollema didn't start riding until he was about 18-19. Did he decide to dope for his first ever race when he started riding? Cos he took to cycling like a duck to water.

Alejandro Valverde is a doper. But he got his nickname "El Imbatido" because of stomping all the competition in races when he was about 11 years old. Was he definitely doping as an 11 year old or was he a talented child who then started doping, likely late in his teens, as he continued to search for the next level on his road to the top?
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
EnacheV said:
it seems you have an obsession with Froome and Wiggins. This is not about them but about how easy is to dope and show talent at young age. Maybe the hate for some riders prevent you to read and understand the topic? Try again.

How do you prove me that "talent" is not just young dopers winning stuff risk free?

Let's start by remembering Richie Porte's statement about those races in Italy, where he doesn't have a chance to win, for example.
Complaining someone bringing up some suspicious Sky riders and subsequently come up with a quote by another Sky rider - Porte - ?

Says enough for your motives.

Let me tell you this, if Porte had no chance in the doped Italian under 23 scene, how come he got to for instance these results:
2009 Italy 3º in Trofeo Alta Valle Del Tevere, Italy
2009 Italy 1º in Stage 2 Giro del Friuli Venezia Giulia, Piano d'Arta (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Italy
2009 Italy 2º in Trofeo Matteotti, Elite/U23, Italy
2009 Italy 3º in Coppa della Pace, Italy
2009 Italy 1º in Stage 4 Baby Giro, Pozzoleone (Veneto), Italy
2009 Italy 4º in Stage 5 Baby Giro, Feltre (Veneto), Italy
2009 Italy 5º in Stage 7 Baby Giro, Carpegna (Marche), Italy
2009 Italy 4º in Giro Valli Aretine, Italy
2009 Italy 1º in Stage 1 Giro delle Valli Cuneesi nelle Alpi del Mare Lequio Berria, Italy
2009 Italy 4º in General Classification Giro delle Valli Cuneesi nelle Alpi del Mare, Italy
2009 Italy 1º in GP Città di Felino, Italy

When you have time on your hands, please go over those results and do notice there are a lot of pro - riders of the peloton of now in those races.
How did Ritchie Porte get to al these results against those evil Italian dopers:
http://www.monsummanese-ciclismo.it/2009/GLI ULTIMI RISULTATI.htm

There he is, no chance of winning at all there in Italy:


Please, try to explain this to me.

Perhaps we should take Ritchies' words on the Italian scene with a buckload of salt.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
EnacheV said:
I hear a lot : "performance from nowhere" versus "talent from young age".

Imo the youngsters that beat everything from start have higher chances to be just young dopers, most likely from well established doping cultures, where coaches introduce them to doping from young age.

Especially since you can dope all you want when young because there is almost no doping control at lower level races or junior races.

That's to be clear why it makes me puke when i hear "but X showed talent from young age".

Conclusion : higher chances to be clean if no results at young age. Higher chances to be doping youngster if you are "talented".
This post really is just a terrible trolling attempt and not really worth my time but I will reply anyway since im bored.

Do you have any links or evidence to prove that some cultures are more prone to dope young atheltes than others? Do you have any source as to when different cultures introduce their kids to doping? links?

Any link or source to how many young athletes dope?

If you think young athletes are doping so much, preventing clean young athletes from showing their talent, what is it that makes it possible for clean pro riders to beat dopers?

If so many young athletes are doping, surely at the pro level there would be even more doping?
 
the sceptic said:
This post really is just a terrible trolling attempt and not really worth my time but I will reply anyway since im bored.

Do you have any links or evidence to prove that some cultures are more prone to dope young atheltes than others? Do you have any source as to when different cultures introduce their kids to doping? links?

Any link or source to how many young athletes dope?

If you think young athletes are doping so much, preventing clean young athletes from showing their talent, what is it that makes it possible for clean pro riders to beat dopers?

If so many young athletes are doping, surely at the pro level there would be even more doping?
To believe that there are the same opportunities to dope in all countries cycling cultures from an early age seems somewhat naive
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
So where does a Canadian kid from a hockey culture get his parents on board to fund the doping? I don't know if you noticed but EPO is pretty expensive and so is the sport. A 16 year old kid of modest means says mom I need some EPO so I can be a bike rider? No son go play hockey the doping there is much cheaper. But mom I already am beating the pros on the tuesday night Time trial and My coach says the EPO is only about 20 grand for this season. I might get a pro contract of $1000.00 a month plus all the pasta I can eat?

Sorry but the entire basis for this discussion is absurd. I am sure that some teenagers are playing with performance enhancing but that it is a pre-requisite to adult success? Talent is real and not all people are born with the same set. Drugs don't make racehorses out of mules. Yes 16 year old riders are tested when the talented ones are found.

16 year olds don't keep secrets very well either.
 
hrotha said:
What a bunch of revisionist crap that attempts to dismiss 90% of cycling history just so that those pesky facts don't get in the way of rooting for two particular riders.
This^^

Libertine mentioned Valverde and i think he actually is a very interesting case. We know he is one of the heaviest dopers around, but we also know that he dominated every race he entered as a young child to the point it got so easy for him to win that he developed no tactical abilities at all.

Now do we really think 11-14 year old Valverde was already doping?

That is why i can digest Valverde being at the top, because at least there is something that gives hope that he might actually be an amazingly talented rider, that dopes.

I mentioned Valverde because of his legendary 3 year run of wins but i could have mentioned many other riders that dope and also dominated as pre teens and are currently sitting at the top of cycling.

I certainly seems much more logic to see those guys at the top than nobodies who used to get trashed as u23 and only got a pro contract because they were from the right country.
 
Master50 said:
Drugs don't make racehorses out of mules.
Guys like Armstrong/Froome weren't mules/donkeys when compared to the genetic pool of the general population, there they would also be race horses.

They were mules/donkeys when compared the the elite few who won the genetic lottery and were supposed to dominate the sport.

So yes, drugs can turn mules into race horses.
 
Woah. To suggest that 10 year old riders doing their first races ever are doped is just so ridiculous that I really hope the OP is trolling.

Look at guys like e.g Hushovd or Sagan. Those guys (and many others) dominated the first races they ever started, at about 10 years of age, and continued dominating until they were pro (and beyond). To say that they only dominated as youngsters because they doped is equivalent with saying that they doped at 10 years of age, before even having raced before...
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
Parrulo said:
GThey were mules/donkeys when compared the the elite few who won the genetic lottery and were supposed to dominate the sport.
They were normal people in a sea of doping worshipers. I'm talking about these days guys, not EPO era ones.

And i bet you can 100% pinpoint, like Mafalda, "the elite few who won the genetic lottery".

Are you sure you are not Riis or Brailsford ? With this knowledge you can rule the cycling.

Also putting Armstrong and Froome in the same sentence is trolling. When you make ridiculous claims would be nice to back them up. But you don;t have to, i guess.
 
Jun 12, 2010
519
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Alejandro Valverde is a doper. But he got his nickname "El Imbatido" because of stomping all the competition in races when he was about 11 years old. Was he definitely doping as an 11 year old or was he a talented child who then started doping, likely late in his teens, as he continued to search for the next level on his road to the top?
I suppose he won a lot of races back then because of his superior sprint ability. So he did later and the doping just had 2 purposes: First be up there with the front group to contest for the win in the sprint Second the recovery aspect or to be up there the next day again. I guess guys like him even profit a bit more from doping than a pure "Diesel"
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts