Total Disillusionment

[JimmyFingers]

Have I ridiculed any arguments against Sky? (even though some of them are patently deserving of ridicule) By all means correct me if I'm wrong. I'm all for open discussion and scrutiny, but I am also for an even-handed approach rather than trying to back up a prejudice with whatever comes to hand. By all means use these arguments, but apply them across the board, especially to riders you favour.



Cancellara and the entire Sky Team? Now? Who knows...I genuinely don't.

I would be surprised if Cancellara has ridden his entire career clean, and I would extend that to any Sky rider of a similar generation (and I guess that would have to include Wiggins). Of course, past doping does not mean current doping, something which seems to get very over-looked by some.

The young riders? Don't know.

For 2012 onwards, I have yet to hear anything compelling to make me think that Sky are doing anything above everyone else on the pharmaceutical front. I think they have been exposed on their PR efforts, but of course that does not mean they are doping....it may just be that they are trying to make a marginal PR gain by making a song and dance about being whiter than white. Why should we be surprised by lots of PR coming from a team sponsored by a media organisation?

I think there are compelling reasons to account for their success in GTs and the shorter tours (let's not overstate their success, they don't win everything) and that is largely down to a fat chequebook and a ruthlessness that has been brought over from the track side of things. Sky had a crap year in 2010, so what did they do? They spent 25% more on salaries.

Marginal gains? Very much over-stated on this forum as an excuse for sarcastic put-downs. Also very much over-stated by Sky, but I don't see it as them using it as a justification for their success just to silence 20 people on a cycling forum sub-board in a distant corner of the internet. It's about brand image. It's about getting potential customers to associate the success of the cycling team with Satellite TV company which pays its lavish bills.

Imagine you are going to subscribe to satellite tv. You have a choice between Sky or Virgin. Which one do you go for? The one which a little (irrational) voice in your head tells you that attends to the tiny little details that Virgin don't. That's advertising. That's cycling sponsorship from a media company. That's marginal gains

Good post ANCrider

 

[El Pistolero]

It was me who ressurected the Cancellara thread yesterday.

But yeah we all just think Sky dope and let Cancellara off the hook yeah.

Of course there are other factors involved with Sky like the applauds they receive for supposedly being clean and whats worse undeserved credit for alleged commitments to anti doping which totally do not match their actual behaviour. The fact that many riders did not show any talent before joining Sky, and the fact that there is more than 1 rider on the team posting superhuman performances. As well as an army of fans ready to defend them no matter what, which prolongues the discussions indefinitely. But you knew that.

Cancellara has an army of fans ready to defend him(especially in Belgium, you should google translate some reactions on articles of online newspapers in Belgium), always says he's clean and insults other riders who get caught, didn't show a thing in the Belgian classics before 2010 and is now dominating them, etc.

Canc worse than Sky in every aspect.

 

[The Hitch]

. By all means use these arguments, but apply them across the board, especially to riders you favour.

Who are you talking to?

 

[sublimit]

Normal, less normal, Sky(Porte- Froome), Cancellara, Cobo, Gilbert is more realistic IMO

 

[ANCrider]

Who are you talking to?

In general. Not just you. Keep your hair on.

 

[The Hitch]

, didn't show a thing in the Belgian classics before 2010 and is now dominating them, etc.

Canc worse than Sky in every aspect.

Froomes gt attempts before his improvement 84th, 36th and dnf. He then finished 2nd.

Wiggins had not finished in the top 100 in multiple gt attempts. He then finished 4th/ 3rd.

Cancellara finished top 10 in Flanders before. He won Paris Roubaix before. He was on the podium of E3 before.

You really think him then winning Flanders is the worst of the lot?

I think all you are revealing here is just how much pain you feel that Cancellara won yesterday.

 

[The Hitch]

In general. Not just you. Keep your hair on.

Not just to me is still to me. In which case could you please show me some examples where i have been inconsistent and claimed riders I liked were clean, or that their performances were believable?

 

[Lanark]

There's a difference between winning a race in a small group in a sprint and doing long solos. The latter is twenty times more suspicious.

What a joke of an argument. Since 2008 we had the Ronde finish in a solo (longer than 10km) times (out of 6) and Roubaix 4 times as well (out of 5). In the same time frame the Gold Race ended 0 times in a long solo, the Fleche 0 times as well, and Liege once.

Yet a look at the history of the last 20 years it's obvious that, outside of the GT's, there isn't a single race that has a more blemished reputation than the Ardennes classics. The cobbled classics in comparison aren't a bastion of cleanliness, but certainly don't have a history as taintedas races like Liège.

The argument that long solo's are more suspicious than a small group sprint falls apart at the first serious look. In the cobbled races solo's are quite common, so a 45k solo in Roubaix isn't that suspicious prima facie. It has been done quite often in recent history. A 45km solo in Milano - Sanremo or the Gold Race would be the most outrageous thing in the world.

If you'd really want to make a difference in how suspicious it is to win certain classics (don't know why you would), it's far more reasonable to say that winning Liége is much more suspicious than Roubaix, under any circumstances. Winning Amstel - Fleche and Liège in one week though...

 

[El Pistolero]

Froomes gt attempts before his improvement 84th, 36th and dnf. He then finished 2nd.

Wiggins had not finished in the top 100 in multiple gt attempts. He then finished 4th.

Cancellara finished top 10 in Flanders before. He won Paris Roubaix before. He was on the podium of E3 before.

You really think him then winning Flanders is the worst of the lot?

I think all you are revealing here is just how much pain you feel that Cancellara won yesterday.

The Tour de France did not have Contador and Andy Schleck in it. Barely any HC mountains and a lot of time trials. I'm sorry to inform you, but Wiggins was top favorite the moment Contador got banned.

I dislike Froome more than Cancellara, so no I'm not revealing anything. People constantly moan about Sky in the road racing forum while you barely hear any moaning about Cancellara. We all know this.

I already knew Cancellara would win and had a big bet on it.

The only reason I dislike Cancellara is because he makes races boring, no point in watching anymore because it's so predictable.

Farrar also had a top ten in Flanders, is he going to dominate it now? Fact is, Cancellara sucked in Flemish classics up until 2010. Roubaix is a totally different race because it has no bergs. Cancellara magically transformed in 2010(or late 2009). He wasn't half as good in 2004-2009. Winning Roubaix when you're not marked and a real train disrupts the chase is different than what he did in 2010. Watch races before that year please.

When I say Belgian classics I mean Omloop het Volk, E3 Harelbeke, Dwars door Vlaanderen, Gent-Wevelgem and the Ronde van Vlaanderen.

 

[Lanark]

Froomes gt attempts before his improvement 84th, 36th and dnf. He then finished 2nd.

Wiggins had not finished in the top 100 in multiple gt attempts. He then finished 4th/ 3rd.

Cancellara finished top 10 in Flanders before. He won Paris Roubaix before. He was on the podium of E3 before.

You really think him then winning Flanders is the worst of the lot?

I think all you are revealing here is just how much pain you feel that Cancellara won yesterday.

Yes, a comparable situation in the classics to what Sky are doing in GT's would be Joaquin Rodriguez dropping Cancellara and Boonen on the Carrevour in Paris-Roubaix next year.

 

[The Hitch]

Wiggins had not finished in the top 100 in multiple gt attempts. He then finished 4th/3rd

The Tour de France did not have Contador and Andy Schleck in it. Barely any HC mountains and a lot of time trials.
.

Yes it did. Contador was 1st. Schleck was 2nd.

 

[ANCrider]

In which case could you please show me some examples where i have been inconsistent and claimed riders I liked were clean, or that their performances were believable?

Of course I will, but you'll have to allow me to accuse you of that first.

 

[El Pistolero]

Yes it did. Contador was 1st. Schleck was 2nd.

Tell me, who of the podium in 2009 do you think was clean and had an inferior program to Wiggins?

Please, name me one single name.

 

[Parrulo]

Yes it did. Contador was 1st. Schleck was 2nd.

i pretty sure he was talking about this years tour. . . .

anyway pisti is right on this one, somewhere btw april 2009 and september 2009 cancellara had a massive improvement on the climbs and the typical flemish bergs

 

[Netserk]

How early do you think riders like Boonen, Gilbert and Canc started to dope? Amateur or first year as a pro?

 

[The Hitch]

i pretty sure he was talking about this years tour. . . .

Yeah, he was doing the traditional Pistolero thing of totally changing the discussion the second his original points get rebutted.

In this case he made the discussion about who's improvement was the most suspicious, arguing that Cancellara 6th -1st in Flanders 2010, was more suspicious than either Froome or Wiggins.

Then when I (and Lanark) respond to this asking about Wiggins in 2009, he changes the discussion entirely and jumps it to 2012 and makes a totally unrelated comment irrelevant to the post he just quoted, about how Contador and Schleck werent there in 2012.

Hence my comment was not indicative of me not understanding that he was talking about 2012, but actually, an attempt to bring him back to the original discussion he had himself just started.

If posters simply change the subject of the discussion every time they get a response to their own comments then the forum ceases to be a forum and begins to resemble somebody flicking through different channels on a television.

Anyway pisti is right on this one, somewhere btw april 2009 and september 2009 cancellara had a massive improvement on the climbs and the typical flemish bergs

Sorry, did anyone say otherwise?

Pistis sillyness was not that he said Cancellara had a massive improvement in 2009, 2010 which no one disputes. His foolishness was that he then started saying that Cancellara, had never shown anything in the Belgian classics, that his improvement in Flanders is more suspicious than the entire Sky team and also his comments that there was nothing special about Gilberts 2011 campaign. The Gilbert who's points total for that year was double that of Cancellara's highest ever total (- olympics which didnt take place that year)

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Yes, a comparable situation in the classics to what Sky are doing in GT's would be Joaquin Rodriguez dropping Cancellara and Boonen on the Carrevour in Paris-Roubaix next year.

Cancellara beating Rodriguez in Huy.

Fact is, Cancellara sucked in Flemish classics up until 2010. Roubaix is a totally different race because it has no bergs. Cancellara magically transformed in 2010(or late 2009). He wasn't half as good in 2004-2009. Winning Roubaix when you're not marked and a real train disrupts the chase is different than what he did in 2010. Watch races before that year please.

2006?
2007 he made the course hard
2008 ends up in the front bunch
2009 mechanical on the Koppenberg and he was not good in the classic season, maybe different focus that year?

I understand it was not nice for you to see him whip Boonen in 2010 on the Muur but to say Cancellara came out of nothing is a bit strange.

 

[El Pistolero]

Cancellara beating Rodriguez in Huy.2006?
2007 he made the course hard
2008 ends up in the front bunch
2009 mechanical on the Koppenberg and he was not good in the classic season, maybe different focus that year?

I understand it was not nice for you to see him whip Boonen in 2010 on the Muur but to say Cancellara came out of nothing is a bit strange.

So many people finish in the front bunch, the race always falls still after the favorites are away in the Ronde. He got owned hard in 2007.

2010 was his first year he did anything noteworthy in a Flemish classic.

I never said he came from nowhere, I said he never did anything before 2010 in a Flemish classic. So many people were better than him before that.

Cancellara in Mendrisio was just as silly as anything Sky has done. With the odd exception of Froome perhaps. We constantly hear people moan about Sky in the road racing forum yet almost never about Cancellara. Double standards.

 

[El Pistolero]

What a joke of an argument. Since 2008 we had the Ronde finish in a solo (longer than 10km) times (out of 6) and Roubaix 4 times as well (out of 5). In the same time frame the Gold Race ended 0 times in a long solo, the Fleche 0 times as well, and Liege once.

Yet a look at the history of the last 20 years it's obvious that, outside of the GT's, there isn't a single race that has a more blemished reputation than the Ardennes classics. The cobbled classics in comparison aren't a bastion of cleanliness, but certainly don't have a history as taintedas races like Liège.

The argument that long solo's are more suspicious than a small group sprint falls apart at the first serious look. In the cobbled races solo's are quite common, so a 45k solo in Roubaix isn't that suspicious prima facie. It has been done quite often in recent history. A 45km solo in Milano - Sanremo or the Gold Race would be the most outrageous thing in the world.

If you'd really want to make a difference in how suspicious it is to win certain classics (don't know why you would), it's far more reasonable to say that winning Liége is much more suspicious than Roubaix, under any circumstances. Winning Amstel - Fleche and Liège in one week though...

Just because you haven't been caught doesn't mean you're clean. There's also a difference with winning the Ronde solo like Devolder did and winning the Ronde like Cancellara did. Or Roubaix like Vansummeren... Also, Liege has been won solo 3 times. Or two if you don't count Vino.

Cobbled classics are just as dirty as the hilly ones. It's harder to get caugt doping in a one-day race though. The hilly classic riders usually also perform in Grand Tours for the win. And that's where they end up getting caught most of the time.

Obviously long solos are more suspicious than winning from a sprint. If you can't see that then why bother having a discussion with you. The stronger someone is, the more suspicious that person is. If you can drop anyone at will and solo for 50km... That's more suspicious than someone who wins in a sprint from a small group.

Leif Hose got caught with the bio passport, second 3 times in the Ronde van Vlaanderen. Ballan implicated in a lot of doping schandals, won the Ronde in 2007 and third in 2012. Pippo Pozzato was a client of Ferrari, was second in the Ronde in 2012 and second in Roubaix in 2009.

Do you really think one day races, hilly or cobbled, are cleaner than other type of races?

Oh, and how many people have won Milan-San Remo solo? Not suspicious I guess? Yeah right.

 

[Lanark]

Just because you haven't been caught doesn't mean you're clean. There's also a difference with winning the Ronde solo like Devolder did and winning the Ronde like Cancellara did. Or Roubaix like Vansummeren... Also, Liege has been won solo 3 times. Or two if you don't count Vino.

Cobbled classics are just as dirty as the hilly ones. It's harder to get caugt doping in a one-day race though. The hilly classic riders usually also perform in Grand Tours for the win. And that's where they end up getting caught most of the time.

Obviously long solos are more suspicious than winning from a sprint. If you can't see that then why bother having a discussion with you. The stronger someone is, the more suspicious that person is. If you can drop anyone at will and solo for 50km... That's more suspicious than someone who wins in a sprint from a small group.

Leif Hose got caught with the bio passport, second 3 times in the Ronde van Vlaanderen. Ballan implicated in a lot of doping schandals, won the Ronde in 2007 and third in 2012. Pippo Pozzato was a client of Ferrari, was second in the Ronde in 2012 and second in Roubaix in 2009.

Do you really think one day races, hilly or cobbled, are cleaner than other type of races?

Oh, and how many people have won Milan-San Remo solo? Not suspicious I guess? Yeah right.

Either you are disingenous or you didn't read my post. I don't believe that cobbled classics are significantly cleaner than the hilly classics (even though there are some, fairly unconvincing, arguments to back that up), it is apparent though that the hilly classics are at least as dirty as the cobbled classics. Nevertheless, you rarely if ever see long solo's in those races, not because there aren't dopers of the level of Boonen, Cancellara and Devolder (to name some guys with long solo's the last couple of years), but because those races are complete incompatible with long solo's. So no, having the fastest ascend on the Mur de Huy, or demolishing Rodriguez on the Cauberg after chasing Andy Schleck on the lead up aren't less suspicious than a long solo in Roubaix, they are common strategies in their respective races, and all not done by clean riders in the recent past.

 

[El Pistolero]

Either you are disingenous or you didn't read my post. I don't believe that cobbled classics are significantly cleaner than the hilly classics (even though there are some, fairly unconvincing, arguments to back that up), it is apparent though that the hilly classics are at least as dirty as the cobbled classics. Nevertheless, you rarely if ever see long solo's in those races, not because there aren't dopers of the level of Boonen, Cancellara and Devolder (to name some guys with long solo's the last couple of years), but because those races are complete incompatible with long solo's. So no, having the fastest ascend on the Mur de Huy, or demolishing Rodriguez on the Cauberg after chasing Andy Schleck on the lead up aren't less suspicious than a long solo in Roubaix, they are common strategies in their respective races, and all not done by clean riders in the recent past.

AGR and FW are uphill sprints, at least until last year. Obviously they're not going to go solo.

In LBL there's always a good chance someone wins solo.

There's just a more even play field in LBL. But Cancellara destroys people in every kind of race the moment he gets a little gap, that's more suspicious to me than a fast uphill sprint. Remember Milan-San Remo or Strade Bianche? He rode away from lightweights on a freaking steep hill and they never saw him back. That's more suspicious than Phil's 2011 SB win.

And did I say anything about Phil's 2011 being less suspicious? Cancellara is THAT suspicious for most of his career, Phil only one year. Your arguments aren't worth a dime considering you're just assuming I think Phil is clean because I'm a fan even though I'm not sure why Phil is being brought up in a Cancellara discussion.

Who's talking about Roubaix anyway? It's common to solo there, I'm talking about solos in the Ronde van Vlaanderen(riding away from the strongest men, not just because of team tactics), Milan-San Remo, E3 Harelbeke(after flat tires, crashes, etc), Strade Bianche, etc with ease and huge time gaps.

 

[The Hitch]

AGR and FW are uphill sprints, at least until last year. Obviously they're not going to go solo.

Then why did you say this?

There's a difference between winning a race in a small group in a sprint and doing long solos. The latter is twenty times more suspicious.

 

[El Pistolero]

Then why did you say this?

Are you saying that a solo in Fléche Wallonne is less suspicious than winning it in a uphill sprint?

I'm not comparing apples to oranges, but apples to apples.

 

[Lanark]

AGR and FW are uphill sprints, at least until last year. Obviously they're not going to go solo.

In LBL there's always a good chance someone wins solo.

Not really, the only time anyone had a solo longer than 10k in the last 10 years was Andy Schleck, shorter solo's happened in the Gold Race as well (Schleck, Schumacher, Vino). Long solo's are quite common in Roubaix though.

There's just a more even play field in LBL. But Cancellara destroys people in every kind of race the moment he gets a little gap, that's more suspicious to me than a fast uphill sprint. Remember Milan-San Remo or Strade Bianche? He rode away from lightweights on a freaking steep hill and they never saw him back. That's more suspicious than Phil's 2011 SB win.

And did I say anything about Phil's 2011 being less suspicious? Cancellara is THAT suspicious for most of his career, Phil only one year.

So there is a more level playing field in LBL, I'd certainly agree with that. But that only makes it more normal that long solo's succeed in Roubaix...

Funny how only Gilbert's 2011 season was as suspicious, despite the fact that those damning solo's were only pulled off by Cancellara in 2010, 2011 (and only in E3, he tanked in Vlaanderen and couldn't drop Hushovd on the cobbles in Roubaix) and this year. Yet somehow Gilbert in 2010 attacking on the descend of the Sormano (or was it Ghisallo?), and later on dropping Scarponi like a rock, the only rider in the peloton who has been implicated more than Di Luca, is perfectly fine. Yeah, that's certainly much less suspicious than keeping Roelandts and Tankink behind you in the E3-prijs. Hey, remember 2008, the Omloop? I'm trying to remember how Gilbert won that race?

Btw, where is your post condemning Boonen last year after Roubaix. Sure, he won Vlaanderen and Roubaix 3 times before that, but now he did it with a long solo, the ultimate proof of doping. Clearly you must have been disgusted with Boonen 12 months ago when he finally showed himself to be a doper.

 

[The Hitch]

Are you saying that a solo in Fléche Wallonne is less suspicious than winning it in a uphill sprint?

I'm not comparing apples to oranges, but apples to apples.

You said winning long solos is 20 times more suspicious than winning a uphill sprint.

But now you aknowledge that the races where Gilbert won those sprints are not conducive to long solos. Isnt there a contradiction there?

BTW, Cancellaras solo in Flanders this year was 12k. His solo in Flanders in 2010 was what 14k? Whats so suspicious about that?

His greatest solo was the Roubaix one of 2010. Boonen did a similar solo last year. In the race threads last year you were adament that Boonen's solo was more impressive than Cancellara's. So arent they both as suspicious as eachother on cobbles?