Universal's Gogulski Questioning Quintana's Basque Country Performance

[Escarabajo]

Why not? The sport has only itself to blame and if does not want to hear this type of comment aired more often it better clean itself up quickly.

The more commentators that take this approach the better till the teams decide enough is enough.

No one has answered the question, 'What exactly has changed in the sport?', that we are being told it has changed since 2006. I see all the same people involved with a few exceptions.

That's OK, but why start with Quintana?

So they did not see anything suspicious with Porte, Wiggins, Froome and Rogers?

That is not being objective!

 

[The Hitch]

Slight irony that they're just voicing the suspicions that are voiced on a daily basis in this forum. May be unbalanced but if you're going to voice suspicions of riders based on performances on a public forum and yet take umbrage at commentators doing the same well, lets just say people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

And to qualify that I don't think Quintana is a doper, I like the rider and was pleased by his win in Pais Vasco.

unlike the clinic their argument is based on a lie

when I say that Wiggins had hid head up lances **** that is a fact. When libertine seguros points out that froome was **** before he joined sky that is a fact. When Jr Anton points out that leinders worked for sky that is a fact.

when the commentators said Quintana came out of nowhere that was untrue since he was already one of the best climbers in the world last year.

had they said that they suspect him because he rides for movistar and is close friends with piti, it would have been like the clinic because it would have been backed up by substance.

what they did is the equivalent of if someone argued sky were doping because one of their riders failed a test for epo at the tour. Suspicion based on something that is not true.

 

[Nick C.]

Have Gogulski/Schlager done Paris-Nice and Criterioum International broadcasts? Both of those were on the NBC Sports network (nee Versus-OLN). Oman reruns as well. It's possible albeit not probable that they would have raised a verbal eyebrow, though I don't recall any such inferences in the 2011 Vuelta. I am assuming once Lance fessed up it freed up talk and suspicions so that we really can't compare to even last years broadcasts. Now as for Quinatna, surely they did the Vuelta last year, even if only 17 people had access to their station, and saw Quintana at the sharp end in the mountains or in the final selection.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Really the only thing u can hold against him is the fact that he is on a team of dopers.

The problem is the one thing the universal commentators are correct in is that every single cyclist has lost the benefit of the doubt. Thank Armstrong, clentadope, valverde, schlecklet and a myriad of others for that...

But is he on a team of dopers? You do know that Rui Costa was cleared, which means the last time Abarcá Sports had a positive was 2007, right? Of Movistar's squad, 3 have had doping bans. They are:
- Alejandro Valverde, who was sanctioned based on Puerto. The blood bags that tied him to it allegedly dated back to 2004, when he was still with Kelme.
- Paco Ventoso, who was sanctioned when riding for Andalucía-CajaSur
- Rui Costa, who was cleared after providing a sample of the supplements accused of being tainted causing the positive, and finding that they actually were tainted.

Sure, Movistar don't come with the best reputation, but that's more to do with the hiring policy (guys like Plaza have never been banned but their reputation is a bit tainted) than any amount of positives coming out of the team. As a caveat, I don't think Movistar are one of the cleanest teams out there, and I'm well aware that a few of the guys who've never popped positive on the team are no angels. But they're not "a team of dopers" any more than most others. In fact, there are 6 people who've served doping suspensions on Garmin, one of the new-styled clean teams (and who are generally very popular on the Café). Even Lampre can only muster 3. Radioshack have 2, though they also have Popovych and also Klöden who's never been banned but has paid to make an investigation go away. There are 3 on Movistar, and one of them was proven innocent. And besides, if Movistar are a known doping team, what does that then make of a guy like David López who leaves the team to go to Sky and improves?

The writer seems to me to know very little about Quintana himself.

He just plucked out a bunch of mostly meaningless cq results like anyone can with no context. He doesnt even seem to know that the tt in Lavenir was a mountain tt.

The big thing about Quintana was not that he won a few small time races, its how he did it. The Route du Soude actually was not a high quality field. it was a **** field. Dupont was 2nd. The thing about the win was that Quintana won by breaking away for 60km over the Tourmalet (with Dupont) and then dropping Dupont later himself and putting 2 minutes in to Hubert and 4 minutes everyone else.

More importantly there is this

Nairo was one of only 3 (arguably 2 since valverde was constantly paced back up by quintana) riders able to climb with Contador in the business hc climbs of a grand Tour, dropping Froome Gesink Porte Moreno etc etc etc.

Anyone who knew anything about Quintana and got to write an article about how good Quintana is, would probably throw that one in somewhere.

You know, rather than just - apparently he won the tour of murcia and placed 4th in catalunya.

I agree that it is a bit strange to forget the third week of the Vuelta last year, but in some of the earliest comments, Fontecchio does clarify some of his position on that. He points out that actually, he didn't know that much about Quintana compared to how much he knew about Phinney (who he used as a comparison at the start to show that over the last two and a half years Quintana has more CQ points, but the American audience wouldn't consider Phinney coming out of nowhere because his progress has been followed by them) or Talansky (who, he points out, was top 10 in that Vuelta and not considered by the US commentators to have come out of nowhere, but was beaten by nearly 2 minutes in the Tour de l'Avenir GC by... Nairo Quintana. Who of course, in their opinion, HAS come out of nowhere)), but when he was offended by Schlanger and Gogulski acting in a way that, in his opinion, crossed the line on what's acceptable for a media presenter to do, he used CQ as a research tool. Because he felt he didn't know enough about Quintana, so he looked up his achievements. You know, the kind of thing Schlanger and Gogulski should perhaps have done before weighing in with accusations, which was kind of his point.

Of course, I think it's crazy to have forgotten that Vuelta, and I also think he oversells some of the achievements of Quintana for reasons you outline above (I agree with you on almost every point here). And of course, for both the reasons you note above (after all, Quintana was not riding that Vuelta for GC so had dropped beaucoup time before that, so somebody just checking CQ would miss it) and that I referenced when talking about Kiryienka yesterday, just using the results without context is a limited way of understanding a rider's capabilities, just as somebody who just looked at his palmarès would think that, for example, Sylwester Szmyd has always been a mediocre rider because he's only ever accumulated placements and has one win in his career, from a breakaway.

I also enjoyed the point about racism. Because Schlanger and Gogulski aren't being racist, and to accuse them of it would be lazy... but no more lazy than they themselves are in their dismissal of Nairo Quintana as somebody who came out of nowhere in April 2013. So why not hold them to the same low standard?

 

[pmcg76]

But is he on a team of dopers? You do know that Rui Costa was cleared, which means the last time Abarcá Sports had a positive was 2007, right? Of Movistar's squad, 3 have had doping bans. They are:
- Alejandro Valverde, who was sanctioned based on Puerto. The blood bags that tied him to it allegedly dated back to 2004, when he was still with Kelme.
- Paco Ventoso, who was sanctioned when riding for Andalucía-CajaSur
- Rui Costa, who was cleared after providing a sample of the supplements accused of being tainted causing the positive, and finding that they actually were tainted.

Sure, Movistar don't come with the best reputation, but that's more to do with the hiring policy (guys like Plaza have never been banned but their reputation is a bit tainted) than any amount of positives coming out of the team. As a caveat, I don't think Movistar are one of the cleanest teams out there, and I'm well aware that a few of the guys who've never popped positive on the team are no angels. But they're not "a team of dopers" any more than most others. In fact, there are 6 people who've served doping suspensions on Garmin, one of the new-styled clean teams (and who are generally very popular on the Café). Even Lampre can only muster 3. Radioshack have 2, though they also have Popovych and also Klöden who's never been banned but has paid to make an investigation go away. There are 3 on Movistar, and one of them was proven innocent. And besides, if Movistar are a known doping team, what does that then make of a guy like David López who leaves the team to go to Sky and improves?

snipped for brevity

for example, Sylwester Szmyd has always been a mediocre rider because he's only ever accumulated placements and has one win in his career, from a breakaway.

I also enjoyed the point about racism. Because Schlanger and Gogulski aren't being racist, and to accuse them of it would be lazy... but no more lazy than they themselves are in their dismissal of Nairo Quintana as somebody who came out of nowhere in April 2013. So why not hold them to the same low standard?

David Lopez!!! what about Kiriyenka, Zandio, Uran who were all signed directly from Movistar as indeed was Nicolas Portal plus Flecha is of course alumni from a previous incarnation.

If Movistar are a noted doping team, SKY sure like hiring their riders.

 

[The Hitch]

But is he on a team of dopers? You do know that Rui Costa was cleared, which means the last time Abarcá Sports had a positive was 2007, right? Of Movistar's squad, 3 have had doping bans. They are:
- Alejandro Valverde, who was sanctioned based on Puerto. The blood bags that tied him to it allegedly dated back to 2004, when he was still with Kelme.
- Paco Ventoso, who was sanctioned when riding for Andalucía-CajaSur
- Rui Costa, who was cleared after providing a sample of the supplements accused of being tainted causing the positive, and finding that they actually were tainted.

Sure, Movistar don't come with the best reputation, but that's more to do with the hiring policy (guys like Plaza have never been banned but their reputation is a bit tainted) than any amount of positives coming out of the team. As a caveat, I don't think Movistar are one of the cleanest teams out there, and I'm well aware that a few of the guys who've never popped positive on the team are no angels. But they're not "a team of dopers" any more than most others. In fact, there are 6 people who've served doping suspensions on Garmin, one of the new-styled clean teams (and who are generally very popular on the Café). Even Lampre can only muster 3. Radioshack have 2, though they also have Popovych and also Klöden who's never been banned but has paid to make an investigation go away. There are 3 on Movistar, and one of them was proven innocent. And besides, if Movistar are a known doping team, what does that then make of a guy like David López who leaves the team to go to Sky and improves?

I agree that it is a bit strange to forget the third week of the Vuelta last year, but in some of the earliest comments, Fontecchio does clarify some of his position on that. He points out that actually, he didn't know that much about Quintana compared to how much he knew about Phinney (who he used as a comparison at the start to show that over the last two and a half years Quintana has more CQ points, but the American audience wouldn't consider Phinney coming out of nowhere because his progress has been followed by them) or Talansky (who, he points out, was top 10 in that Vuelta and not considered by the US commentators to have come out of nowhere, but was beaten by nearly 2 minutes in the Tour de l'Avenir GC by... Nairo Quintana. Who of course, in their opinion, HAS come out of nowhere)), but when he was offended by Schlanger and Gogulski acting in a way that, in his opinion, crossed the line on what's acceptable for a media presenter to do, he used CQ as a research tool. Because he felt he didn't know enough about Quintana, so he looked up his achievements. You know, the kind of thing Schlanger and Gogulski should perhaps have done before weighing in with accusations, which was kind of his point.

Of course, I think it's crazy to have forgotten that Vuelta, and I also think he oversells some of the achievements of Quintana for reasons you outline above (I agree with you on almost every point here). And of course, for both the reasons you note above (after all, Quintana was not riding that Vuelta for GC so had dropped beaucoup time before that, so somebody just checking CQ would miss it) and that I referenced when talking about Kiryienka yesterday, just using the results without context is a limited way of understanding a rider's capabilities, just as somebody who just looked at his palmarès would think that, for example, Sylwester Szmyd has always been a mediocre rider because he's only ever accumulated placements and has one win in his career, from a breakaway.

I also enjoyed the point about racism. Because Schlanger and Gogulski aren't being racist, and to accuse them of it would be lazy... but no more lazy than they themselves are in their dismissal of Nairo Quintana as somebody who came out of nowhere in April 2013. So why not hold them to the same low standard?

There are at least 50 posters on here who could probably name every u23 rider of the last 10 years just by looking at the back of their head.

How does someone who only knows 2 americans and doesn't even know the best gt rider to have come up through the ranks in years (not to mention a junior tour de france winner) get to write for cycling media?

 

[Escarabajo]

Quintana is claiming a 7 watt per kg output and 90 (can you say Indurain) vo2. Rofl...

7 watts/kg is ok depending on the time interval anyway. That number is worthless without the other details. The VO2 max of 90 is the one that caught my attention.

So you think is impossible for a Colombian rider to have a VO2 max of 90? can I ask why?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

There are at least 50 posters on here who could probably name every u23 rider of the last 10 years just by looking at the back of their head.

How does someone who only knows 2 americans and doesn't even know the best gt rider to have come up through the ranks in years (not to mention a junior tour de france winner) get to write for cycling media?

Well, that's another question of course. I find it difficult to comprehend how anybody who follows cycling closely in April 2013 wasn't already well aware of Nairo Quintana.

However, he's still right that Schlanger and Gogulski should have done their homework rather than throwing out speculative accusations that, like it or not, are going to have an impact on many viewers' opinions.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Eurosport Commentary

Magnus Backstedt also commented on Quintana on Sunday during the coverage on Eurosport of Amstel Gold.

Backstedt replied to Harmons question that he was extremely surprised at Quintana's TT result, saying that his TT ability was not what he was reknown for.

 

[masking_agent]

good for Gogulski ! He's seen the light. Call 'em out I say. Why not.. If it looks suspicious , why not. The sport is only a wee bit cleaner. Different programs, methods and dope. (gw1516 and Aicar instead of ePO)

 

[Boeing]

Slight irony that they're just voicing the suspicions that are voiced on a daily basis in this forum. May be unbalanced but if you're going to voice suspicions of riders based on performances on a public forum and yet take umbrage at commentators doing the same well, lets just say people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

First thing that came to mind here as well. Well said. Ok like we caught our doper leave our new heroes alone....or wait til we think of it first? mentality

Especially after ya'lll have been calling out Phil and Paul for not questing anything for 20 years

I ask So what is the problem with GOGO? "He's clueless"? hahahah right. He has an axe to grind? not Sour Grapes? nope. Un Informed? not.

 

[Escarabajo]

Magnus Backstedt also commented on Quintana on Sunday during the coverage on Eurosport of Amstel Gold.

Backstedt replied to Harmons question that he was extremely surprised at Quintana's TT result, saying that his TT ability was not what he was reknown for.

Next time please call out the other english speaking riders. Or why don't they pick someone of their own size punks!!

 

[roundabout]

David Lopez!!! what about Kiriyenka, Zandio, Uran who were all signed directly from Movistar as indeed was Nicolas Portal plus Flecha is of course alumni from a previous incarnation.

If Movistar are a noted doping team, SKY sure like hiring their riders.

Disagree about Portal. He was a quota Frenchman for the sponsors.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

First thing that came to mind here as well. Well said. Ok like we caught our doper leave our new heroes alone....or wait til we think of it first? mentality

Especially after ya'lll have been calling out Phil and Paul for not questing anything for 20 years

I ask So what is the problem with GOGO? "He's clueless"? hahahah right. He has an axe to grind? not Sour Grapes? nope. Un Informed? not.

The problem is not that they said that we should sometimes question whether substances might be at play.

The problem is that they sat idly picking their noses and scratching their butts while we watch several preposterous, ridiculous transformations from people in the mid or even late 20s, and they didn't say a word, but when we get a mildly surprising performance from a 22-year-old who has shown all the pedigree from an early age that you could ever want from somebody to say that they have what it takes (Avenir win, winning small stage races, Dauphiné stage, Vuelta superdomestiquing) and is in excellent form (top 5 of Catalunya a week earlier), that's when they call BS.

That's why Chris Fontecchio, in his article, put the comparison to Phinney there. If Taylor Phinney were to win a semi-Classic, or even a secondary Classic like, say, Paris-Tours, later this season, would Schlanger and Gogulski call BS? Assuredly not. Because Phinney has shown all the capabilities to be a performer at that level. But so has Quintana.

Or, on another level, a while ago when discussing the Volta a Portugal I was discussing various young talents with ACF. It boiled down to something quite simple: ACF knew more about the young talents on BMC than he did about some of the others that I was talking about, like Kump, and didn't know Kump's results, so figured he was a nobody. Now, some of the guys ACF was talking about have turned into much better cyclists (Kristoff, for example), but then Kump had the issues of the Geox collapse and returning to Slovenia, so I've not abandoned ship on him yet. But I do think we have something kind of similar here. You pay more attention to your home talents, and also performances in the races most familiar to you are always going to stick in your memory more. One wonders what the posters who defended Jonathan Tiernan-Locke's breakout performances last season as understandable after his impressive showing in the previous year's Tour of Britain would have thought had that been, say, Sérgio Sousa, a Portuguese breakaway specialist who was 3rd in the 2011 Vuelta a Asturias, a race they probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to see.

I don't mind them admitting that questions sometimes need to be asked. And I'm not saying that we can't ask those questions about Nairo Quintana either. But them happily ignoring the likes of Porte this season but pointing fingers at Quintana on performance alone stinks of bias, and them saying that Nairo Quintana has come out of nowhere stinks of them not being well-informed enough on the subject for them to pass judgment.

 

[Afrank]

First thing that came to mind here as well. Well said. Ok like we caught our doper leave our new heroes alone....or wait til we think of it first? mentality

Especially after ya'lll have been calling out Phil and Paul for not questing anything for 20 years

I ask So what is the problem with GOGO? "He's clueless"? hahahah right. He has an axe to grind? not Sour Grapes? nope. Un Informed? not.

You don't think saying "Quintana came out of nowhere" makes him clueless.

Edit: Also +100 to LS's post, agree completely.

 

[Angliru]

First thing that came to mind here as well. Well said. Ok like we caught our doper leave our new heroes alone....or wait til we think of it first? mentality

Especially after ya'lll have been calling out Phil and Paul for not questing anything for 20 years

I ask So what is the problem with GOGO? "He's clueless"? hahahah right. He has an axe to grind? not Sour Grapes? nope. Un Informed? not.

I've been watching Gogulski & Schlanger since they've been on Universal and I find it odd that all of a sudden they've decided that Quintana's performance is so overtly suspicious that he is the first one that they've immediately questioned their performance and linked it to being potentially aided by doping. If anyone else can find an earlier incident that disproves this I'd love to hear it. The most important point that you've seemed to ignore is that the basis for their suspicions are unfounded had they done their homework (minimal research at best was required).

 

[Escarabajo]

...

I don't mind them admitting that questions sometimes need to be asked. And I'm not saying that we can't ask those questions about Nairo Quintana either. But them happily ignoring the likes of Porte this season but pointing fingers at Quintana on performance alone stinks of bias, and them saying that Nairo Quintana has come out of nowhere stinks of them not being well-informed enough on the subject for them to pass judgment.

They were the commentators on La Vuelta!! They were the ones saying what a huuuuge talent Quintana was because he was hanging with the best three climbers of the world at 22. Now he is suspicious because he came out of nowhere. That is not being objective at all. The TT was actually very hilly and they almost ignored the fact that the other two Colombians did exceptionally good as well.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I don't mind them admitting that questions sometimes need to be asked. And I'm not saying that we can't ask those questions about Nairo Quintana either. But them happily ignoring the likes of Porte this season but pointing fingers at Quintana on performance alone stinks of bias, and them saying that Nairo Quintana has come out of nowhere stinks of them not being well-informed enough on the subject for them to pass judgment.

I agree with pretty much everything here, but I do think that these two commentators singling out Quintana has been twisted to them not singling out Porte or Sky as the major talking point.

In the context of this place what they have said is extremely mild, about any given rider producing an exceptional ride. I think we should look at the way this forum deals with that before castigating commentators doing the same, albeit not entirely in line with everyone's opinion.

In this situation frankly I agree with Bennotti. If you are going to give the benefit of the doubt selectively don't object when others do the same.

 

[Escarabajo]

I agree with pretty much everything here, but I do think that these two commentators singling out Quintana has been twisted to them not singling out Porte or Sky as the major talking point.

In the context of this place what they have said is extremely mild, about any given rider producing an exceptional ride. I think we should look at the way this forum deals with that before castigating commentators doing the same, albeit not entirely in line with everyone's opinion.

In this situation frankly I agree with Bennotti. If you are going to give the benefit of the doubt selectively don't object when others do the same.

I don't agree. They had more reasons to start with Porte than Quintana IMHO.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I agree with pretty much everything here, but I do think that these two commentators singling out Quintana has been twisted to them not singling out Porte or Sky as the major talking point.

In the context of this place what they have said is extremely mild, about any given rider producing an exceptional ride. I think we should look at the way this forum deals with that before castigating commentators doing the same, albeit not entirely in line with everyone's opinion.

In this situation frankly I agree with Bennotti. If you are going to give the benefit of the doubt selectively don't object when others do the same.

We're picking out them singling out Quintana because they said he came out of nowhere. Richie Porte has made huge improvements out of nowhere twice now (2010 and 2013), and they have been silent. Which, if the comment about them commentating on the 2012 Vuelta is true, means they're either very forgetful, or very disingenuous.

I do not object to them saying that perhaps questions should be asked about Quintana... as long as they are fair about their reasons. If their reason is that he has come out of nowhere, then I demand that they judge other riders on the same criteria and comment on them accordingly. It also displays a level of ignorance which is very worrying for front-line cycling commentators. Even Carlton Kirby knows who Nairo Quintana is, even if he probably thinks he's somebody completely different who looks totally different when he sees him attack on the helicam.

Also, those of us that post here are fans. It may not seem like it sometimes, but that's what we all are. Fans are biased, they have competitors they like and dislike, and they will throw out accusations and start arguments with rival fans just like fans of any other sport. When you are paid to report on the sport, it's different. Especially when you are a lead commentator and your words are beamed directly to the majority of cycling fans of your country. By being in the media, by being in that position, you are kind of bound to a level of objectivity being expected of you. I could never be a cycling commentator for that very reason. I may be well informed on whatever riders we see on the move, or the parcours, but I couldn't drop my "fan" guise and be fully objective. And in general, the commentators do allow a level of bias to shine through, but when they're making their favourites and least favourites known, or making clear they do not believe in a particular team or rider, they do so through a veil of subtle hints unless there is evidence to discuss.

Because I haven't heard enough of Schlanger and Gogulski, I can't judge from the one clip whether they've just blathered to fill time and have gone with something the voice in their headset is suggesting they say, or if they're on the way to selling out to the Phil Liggett 2010 Tour level. But I do know that, as professionals, they are kind of more beholden to behave, well, professionally, than the fans. The Richie Porte example is the one that is brought up because he was right there, in that very race. It does get played up a bit because he rides for the Clinic's favourite bogeymen, sure, but at another time it could have been Froome, or Kohl, Santi Pérez, Rujano (twice), Voeckler, Mosquera, Nozal or myriad others who've had journeys to the top more startling than Nairo Quintana's.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I do want to make 100% clear I am not agreeing with themor advocating them making such a public enquiry regarding Quintana's performance.

Because I am convinced using performance as evidence is full of massive holes. Quintana didn't deserve to be singled out by them. I have confidence in him, in his riding.

But equally so lets not reflect this back onto Porte. He didn't put them up to it, I lIke to think he's riding honestly too.

Glass is always half full for me

 

[Big Doopie]

And yet they question someone who has shown a logical progression with no huge leap in performance, rather than Porte or Froome who have improved beyond belief.

As I posted on the pro section, Quintana is an easy target because he's a non-English speaker and it's more difficult for him to defend himself against accusations in the anglo press. Quintana may or may not be clean. But the hypocrisy of giving Sky a free ride and laying into Quintana for climbing well is bizarre.

Um. Not arguing any of those points. Never even mentioned sky so I have no idea y u act as if I did.

My point is only that all cyclists have lost the benefit of the doubt. All because of the rampant doping that has been allowed to go on.

I agree that quintano shows natural progression. However so did ullrich and clentadope and look where that got us.

Cheers.

 

[Big Doopie]

But is he on a team of dopers? You do know that Rui Costa was cleared, which means the last time Abarcá Sports had a positive was 2007, right? Of Movistar's squad, 3 have had doping bans. They are:
- Alejandro Valverde, who was sanctioned based on Puerto. The blood bags that tied him to it allegedly dated back to 2004, when he was still with Kelme.
- Paco Ventoso, who was sanctioned when riding for Andalucía-CajaSur
- Rui Costa, who was cleared after providing a sample of the supplements accused of being tainted causing the positive, and finding that they actually were tainted.

Sure, Movistar don't come with the best reputation, but that's more to do with the hiring policy (guys like Plaza have never been banned but their reputation is a bit tainted) than any amount of positives coming out of the team. As a caveat, I don't think Movistar are one of the cleanest teams out there, and I'm well aware that a few of the guys who've never popped positive on the team are no angels. But they're not "a team of dopers" any more than most others. In fact, there are 6 people who've served doping suspensions on Garmin, one of the new-styled clean teams (and who are generally very popular on the Café). Even Lampre can only muster 3. Radioshack have 2, though they also have Popovych and also Klöden who's never been banned but has paid to make an investigation go away. There are 3 on Movistar, and one of them was proven innocent. And besides, if Movistar are a known doping team, what does that then make of a guy like David López who leaves the team to go to Sky and improves?

Um again I made absolutely no mention of sky.

U go a long way to showing that moviester is a dopers team. Thanks.

If u can't tell the difference btwn garmin and moviestar god help u. One has a leader who won't admit to doping while being one of the biggest out there. The other tells its riders to tell the truth about there past.

Again my point is that all cyclists- yes, even your favorites- have lost the benefit of the doubt. This is the legacy of the criminal uci. And the longer they stay the same every single performance will be doubted. Get used to it.

 

[victorschipolrijk]

And yet they question someone who has shown a logical progression with no huge leap in performance, rather than Porte or Froome who have improved beyond belief.

As I posted on the pro section, Quintana is an easy target because he's a non-English speaker and it's more difficult for him to defend himself against accusations in the anglo press. Quintana may or may not be clean. But the hypocrisy of giving Sky a free ride and laying into Quintana for climbing well is bizarre.

I take my hat off , right on the money .

Steve Schlanger and Todd Gogulski , both come across as country bumpkins with a KKK flavor .

If anyone wants to raise questions , one that comes to my mind is why Tony Martin was able to take a ITT that was not suited to him??????? It was hilly , full of corners , and to top it off , wet . Very technical , not for a power rider like Tony Martin .
It was more suited to the likes of Henao , Porte , Betancur , Quintana , Contador .
Nevertheless , Tony Martin took it .
What's up with that ???

Do you think doctor Ibarguren may have something to do with Tony Martin success ???????????????

 

[victorschipolrijk]

7 watts/kg is ok depending on the time interval anyway. That number is worthless without the other details. The VO2 max of 90 is the one that caught my attention.

So you think is impossible for a Colombian rider to have a VO2 max of 90? can I ask why?

Good question Escarabajo , why not ?????????

Nairo Quintana was born in Tunja 2,820 m (9,250 ft) high .
That fact right there gives Quintana a 3rd lung , just like Ethiopians or Kenyans . Being born at such altitude gives you a huge advantage .

LeMond or Armstrong , used to train in Denver 1,564 , (5,130 ft) .

Quintana was born and raised a lot higher than Denver , he is better equipped for endurance than most people .