Vincenzo Nibali discussion thread

Page 390 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re: Re:

The Principal Sheep said:
SeriousSam said:
I'm unsure what point, if any, you're even attempting to make here. It seems little other than pleading for people to stop caring about how results come to be. But curious people care not just about what is, but also about why it is. Exploring this is impossible without counterfactual thinking.

This comment for me or just self-internalization…

Yeah I know, Nibali won, the ‘what if’s’ are numerous and the curious people are free to discuss at their leisure, but a discussion about Landa is more fanciful than one surrounding Nibali, Kruisjwijk, Chaves or Valverde.
Both.

Yes, it's more fanciful. There was much more uncertainty about the outcome of the race when Landa left than when eg Sk crashed.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
From the Secret Pro:

"On to the race action. As we all know Vincenzo Nibali took home the leader’s jersey but in the eyes of many in the peloton, he’s not the true champion we’d want from a Grand Tour. I won’t go too deep on the details, but he’s one rider that needs to realise that to get respect, you have to give respect.

Unfortunately when you’re a winner and have as many UCI points as he does you can get away with being a *** — you don’t have to worry about teams not wanting you for being disrespectful and difficult. It doesn’t teach you to be respectful.

When Nibali took the leader’s jersey, I think the majority of the peloton was rooting for Esteban Chaves, or hoping for a miracle from the strongest man in the race, Steven Kruijswijk.

Nibali not stopping after Kruijswijk crashed was, in my eyes, out of order. I read somewhere that he was already planning to attack on the descent, but either way, you respect the race leader, and he didn’t. If it hadn’t been for Kruijswijk’s crash Nibali never would have won. It’s not just fair to say that, it’s downright true.

In an ideal world it would have been great for teams to have banded together and stopped Nibali from taking the win, but this isn’t an ideal world, and teams or even riders working together for the “greater good” doesn’t happen very often. And that’s not just in a race-winning situation, but with regards to how the whole infrastructure and safety of our sport is set up."

Man, what a moron. He calls Nibali a *** for not waiting after Kruijswijk crashed (because of his own mistake) and then praises Esteban Chaves and he hoped (together with the rest of the peloton, or so he claims) the latter would have won instead... So Nibali is a *** for not waiting, but Chaves isn't? If Nibali had waited Valverde would have caught up with him and he would have wasted a lot of energy on the Coll d'Agnello for nothing. This secret pro just sounds like a cowardice loser who hates Italian, French and Spanish cyclists. Or mainland Europeans in general. I hope they find out who he is some day, he'll end up in a ditch by the Shark. ;)
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
In an ideal world it would have been great for teams to have banded together and stopped Nibali from taking the win, but this isn’t an ideal world, and teams or even riders working together for the “greater good” doesn’t happen very often.
The reason for this might just be because, in the world we live in, it's illegal. One would rather hope that a professional cyclist would have a basic understanding of why teams working together blatantly is not allowed, but it appears not.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re: Nibali discussion thread

I wonder what the pro peloton really thinks about it. Sadly, we cannot lend too much credence to the words of the secret pro. He does not seem representative.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,093
1
0
Wasn't the so-called secret pro already outed? I know who he is, but I'll keep my mouth shut if it's still supposed to be secret.
 
Re:

El Pistolero said:
From the Secret Pro:

Nibali not stopping after Kruijswijk crashed was, in my eyes, out of order. I read somewhere that he was already planning to attack on the descent, but either way, you respect the race leader, and he didn’t.
:mad:

How wrote that pile of sh!t - Andy Schleck ?
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,093
1
0
Re: Re:

hfer07 said:
El Pistolero said:
From the Secret Pro:

Nibali not stopping after Kruijswijk crashed was, in my eyes, out of order. I read somewhere that he was already planning to attack on the descent, but either way, you respect the race leader, and he didn’t.
:mad:

How wrote that pile of **** - Andy Schleck ?
No. A much lesser rider.
 
Apr 2, 2013
769
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
The Principal Sheep said:
rhubroma said:
Well I didn't ask you anything, as your position has always been clear. I just stated it baldly. The 'best rider' over the entire course though isn't really what's being desputed, but how the win should be assessed and valued.

Given the rivalries, its quite odd that a win by default is valued the same as one on merit.
Of course it’s subjective, for instance you rated Nibali’s victory in this Giro as an 8 which is higher than what I would rate it yet Kruisjwijk’s crash seems an issue of contention for you as far as Nibali being the worthy champion whereas for myself it’s just another facet of racing.

Btw, minor point but the leader by default of this race after Kruisjwijk lost control was Chaves.
Au contraire, the Giro wasn't over and Chaves was dropped by Nibali.

I really couldn't give Nibali lower than an 8, because he won, though this is the lowest score I could give a winner. The point though is that crashing isn't 'just another facet of racing.' It can remove the ability of a rider to fight on, end his race. It is the exact opposite of racing itself.

For this reason beating someone who crashed, isn't the same as beating someone who didn't. It's really quite elementary my dear Watson.
Indeed Chaves inherited the lead after the crash and Nibali gained it on merit.

And all are aware (many painfully so) that crashing is part of cycling and racing as a whole, as are mechanicals, injuries, sickness etc. you know this of course, please continue
 
May 21, 2015
72
0
0
Re:

46&twoWheels said:
considering Kruijswijk superb climbing abilities, Landa's candidacy as the final winner doesn't appear now as clear as it was.

(Nibali is laughing at me right now..)
He will be rolling about reading this thread and "why not Landa" rage.

The Sky rider will have to wait a bit before adding to his sparkling palmares.
 
So the secret pro thinks collusion between teams to fix races is fine? I bet he also wonders why people think cyclists are still doping... He also thinks that Nibali, possibly the greatest descender in the pro peloton, should not use this ability because Kruiswijk couldn't match him and crashed? What next? Froome and Contador need to stop on the climbs to let others catch up? They should all get off their bikes and slowly walk across the cobbles on the way to Roubaix?

I know the Champs Elysees is wide but I'm not sure it's wide enough for the whole peloton to cross the line at the same time and all finish first...
 
Re: Re:

cineteq said:
You sound like the Secret Pro. Elementary nonsense.
rhubroma said:
For this reason beating someone who crashed, isn't the same as beating someone who didn't. It's really quite elementary my dear Watson.
Oh, come on. You folks agree that when the leader goes down its as if you beat him with your own legs. Utter tosh. Nibali is the luckiest GT winner out there. Period. He wouldn't have won the Giro without the crash and he would not have won the Tour without the crashes.

His actual palmares isn't a reflection of his real class. His head though is way bigger than his actual class. I was being kind before, but you have given me no choice. Cycling is about the big battles. Crashes negate them. Without the big battles, the race has been amputated, amputated underlined. So Nibali has basically won a butchered Tour and one butchered Giro.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
cineteq said:
You sound like the Secret Pro. Elementary nonsense.
rhubroma said:
For this reason beating someone who crashed, isn't the same as beating someone who didn't. It's really quite elementary my dear Watson.
Oh, come on. You folks agree that when the leader goes down its as if you beat him with your own legs. Utter tosh. Nibali is the luckiest GT winner out there. Period. He wouldn't have won the Giro without the crash and he would not have won the Tour without the crashes.

His actual palmares isn't a reflection of his real class. His head though is way bigger than his actual class. I was being kind before, but you have given me no choice. Cycling is about the big battles. Crashes negate them. Without the big battles, the race has been amputated, amputated underlined. So Nibali has basically won a butchered Tour and one butchered Giro.
You're not going to actually start crying are you? It's just a race.
 
I do not really believe that The Secret Pro is real pro cyclist, in my eyes it is some hired journalist from gossip media which did some conversations with real pro riders and read some tweets
 
Re:

bassano said:
I do not really believe that The Secret Pro is real pro cyclist, in my eyes it is some hired journalist from gossip media which did some conversations with real pro riders and read some tweets
Yeah. I doubt there's a single pro or ex-pro that would have expected Nibai and Chaves to stop, In fact that suggestion does more than anything to prove he's probably never raced before.
 
TSP has given away enough hints to his identity, and the whole concept of the secret pro is to stay anonymous. So why would this secret pro give away hints telling us which races he's gone to?
I think it's a fake concept.

happytramp said:
You're not going to actually start crying are you? It's just a race.
In case you didn't notice, the whole point of a forum is to share opinions and viewpoints on different events.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
cineteq said:
You sound like the Secret Pro. Elementary nonsense.
rhubroma said:
For this reason beating someone who crashed, isn't the same as beating someone who didn't. It's really quite elementary my dear Watson.
Oh, come on. You folks agree that when the leader goes down its as if you beat him with your own legs. Utter tosh. Nibali is the luckiest GT winner out there. Period. He wouldn't have won the Giro without the crash and he would not have won the Tour without the crashes.

His actual palmares isn't a reflection of his real class. His head though is way bigger than his actual class. I was being kind before, but you have given me no choice. Cycling is about the big battles. Crashes negate them. Without the big battles, the race has been amputated, amputated underlined. So Nibali has basically won a butchered Tour and one butchered Giro.
And Kruijswijk's lead owed a healthy amount to Nibali's mechanical, which he had no control over at all. That wouldn't have been an amputated win?
 
Re: Re:

Cannibal72 said:
rhubroma said:
cineteq said:
You sound like the Secret Pro. Elementary nonsense.
rhubroma said:
For this reason beating someone who crashed, isn't the same as beating someone who didn't. It's really quite elementary my dear Watson.
Oh, come on. You folks agree that when the leader goes down its as if you beat him with your own legs. Utter tosh. Nibali is the luckiest GT winner out there. Period. He wouldn't have won the Giro without the crash and he would not have won the Tour without the crashes.

His actual palmares isn't a reflection of his real class. His head though is way bigger than his actual class. I was being kind before, but you have given me no choice. Cycling is about the big battles. Crashes negate them. Without the big battles, the race has been amputated, amputated underlined. So Nibali has basically won a butchered Tour and one butchered Giro.
And Kruijswijk's lead owed a healthy amount to Nibali's mechanical, which he had no control over at all. That wouldn't have been an amputated win?
The mechanical cost him a maximum of 15 seconds.
 
Apr 2, 2013
769
0
0
Re: Re:

Cannibal72 said:
rhubroma said:
cineteq said:
You sound like the Secret Pro. Elementary nonsense.
rhubroma said:
For this reason beating someone who crashed, isn't the same as beating someone who didn't. It's really quite elementary my dear Watson.
Oh, come on. You folks agree that when the leader goes down its as if you beat him with your own legs. Utter tosh. Nibali is the luckiest GT winner out there. Period. He wouldn't have won the Giro without the crash and he would not have won the Tour without the crashes.

His actual palmares isn't a reflection of his real class. His head though is way bigger than his actual class. I was being kind before, but you have given me no choice. Cycling is about the big battles. Crashes negate them. Without the big battles, the race has been amputated, amputated underlined. So Nibali has basically won a butchered Tour and one butchered Giro.
And Kruijswijk's lead owed a healthy amount to Nibali's mechanical, which he had no control over at all. That wouldn't have been an amputated win?
People will go to ridiculous levels, riders crash, they have mechanicals, injuries, sickness etc. When does the crash need to occur to sully another riders win? stage 19 / 18 / 17 / 16 even before? does the downed rider need to be leading the race? some are even talking about a rider who didn't even get past stage 10 and was behind at the time. If a rider is at fault for his own crash but we make such allowances for the outcome do we do the same if the fault for lost time is a hunger knock? or if he has illness but can continue?

Nibali won a race without any outside interference effecting the outcome, sure people can discuss imaginary scenarios but these shouldn't be used to try and discredit the actual outcome and victory.
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,521
0
0
Re:

Climbing said:
The Secret Pro, really?
Anyway Chaves didn't wait for S.K. either, so why would he be a more likeable and deserving winner?
Utter nonsense.
This, pretty much.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts